Everything But The Kitchen Sink - When the case is so overstuffed, the public defender has to clear out all the noise.

Here at Another Not Guilty, we appreciate your support. Don't forget to subscribe or follow us. And please visit our website at AnotherNotGuiltyPod.com. Without further ado, here's this week's episode of Another Not Guilty.

Sometimes we don't care about the conclusions of the officer, right? The evidence is the evidence. But in this case, my defense was to make my client the victim, to show that these officers went forward with this arrest and allowed these charges to be filed,

based on no workup and no investigation. And so I wanted to show how conclusory his conclusion was. It's one of the most frightening things ever to put your client up. You know, it's like your kid on a little bicycle and you're like kind of running along with them as they're pedaling and then you let go and sometimes they keep going and it's great and sometimes they start to swerve and they just fall flat on their face.

Welcome to Another Not Guilty. I'm David. I'm Nikhil.

We're public defenders here to share 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.

Okay, stories from the American criminal system from the forbidden point of view.

The one that the man doesn't want you to know about. Also known as the point of view of the defense.

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

Well, lo and behold, we have another not guilty. Can you believe that, Michael?

I cannot believe it at all. No.

What are the odds, huh? Another not guilty in this country of America.

Speaking of which, we also have a special guest host today. He's Michael. He's been on the show before as a guest host.

Nikhil couldn't be here. He's also been a guest as well. Michael, right?

Yes, I have. The one trial I won, I came over here to gloat.

That's true. You know, we're waiting to have you back on the show again.

I cannot wait to come back.

You just let us know when you get another not guilty.

Right. I think 2019 is looking pretty good.

Okay. But it's 2018, and we have a pretty awesome guest. So I'm excited to be here today. His name's Omid. He's a public defender. Say hi and what's up, Omid?

Hello. Hello. Hello, everyone. Glad to be on the show. Very excited about this.

For sure. And I know you just got a not guilty in trial, correct?

Yes, I did. Yes, I did.

And why don't you go ahead and tell us what the charges were in this case? What were the charges?

My client was charged with felony vandalism with an allegation that the damages were over, I believe it was $120,000.

Because if it's over, what, $400,000, it's a felony, right?

Yes, I think, what is it, $450,000 or something?

And then if it's $120,000, what does that mean?

Well, okay, so it's a super felony.

And you get the death penalty.

No, it's basically, I want to say like a couple decades ago, the legislature decided that if the damages were over a certain amount, that they would enhance your penalty.

So if it's over, and don't quote me on the specific amounts because I don't remember, but if there's one for, if it's over $60,000, it's maybe like only a year extra.

And then for over $120,000, it's something like over two or three years extra.

I mean, don't quote me on the exact amounts, but that's the gist.

So you could, okay, so in California, if you commit felony vandalism, your max is three years in prison, just 16 to three, right?

Yes, the low term is 16, midterm two, and the high term three.

But if you have over $120,000, it can be increased up to three more years on top of that.

Yeah, two or three years.

You know, this is one of those things that I should have memorized before I came on your show.

But, you know, I'm a public defender.

I just kind of wing it, you know?

Did you know this during the trial?

That's the important part.

Well, I actually figured out what the charges were when they started reading the verdict for him.

I was surprised.

Right.

No, no, I did know.

I did know.

And actually, there was a big part of, for me, for the trial was arguing why that allegation should have been dismissed altogether.

Okay.

And what were the prosecution facts in this case?

Okay, so when I got the police report, I read that the prosecution had alleged that my client, who lived on the seventh floor of a seven-story, kind of high-end apartment complex,

had allegedly left the water running in his apartment such that it began flooding onto the floor and down seven floors, affecting 21 units of the apartment complex, causing the over $300,000 in damage.

And he left the sink, the bathtub?

The police report said that he left the sink on.

And the sink did all that?

That was their allegation.

They believed that it was left on for an undetermined matter.

Just a long-term burn.

He was just planning this out, knowing it would take days.

Well, now, you know, and there's always those facts that public defenders love to leave out, you know.

One of those was that the police report said that the management had dealt with him flooding the apartment before, about a couple days prior.

And further, that he was being evicted.

It was in the eviction process.

Okay, so that's his motive then, right?

He's being evicted from the apartment.

That is what the prosecution was alleging, yes.

Okay.

How did you handle the case when you got it then?

You meet the client?

Met the client.

I met the client on the day of the preliminary hearing.

Usually, I like to meet them before, but I had just started my felony rotation at the public defender's office.

And my first day was this prelim.

So, I met the client.

I went over the facts with him.

And I immediately saw that there was much more to this story.

And we went ahead and did the preliminary hearing.

Now, was he in custody at the time, out of custody?

Luckily, he's out of custody.

And, you know, I say luckily because, you know, anytime someone is out of custody, we have more of an opportunity to investigate a case and work a case up so that, you know, we can be better prepared for a trial.

Right.

As opposed to them being in custody and perhaps, you know, pleading out because they just want to take any offer that will get them out of jail.

Yeah.

They're too dangerous to be let out of jail unless they plead guilty.

Then they can get out of jail.

Yes.

And that's when they stop being dangerous all of a sudden.

Yes.

It's quite ironic.

It's quite ironic.

Yeah.

Okay.

And what was the, I guess, what was the client's version of what happened then?

Essentially, this is, you know, this is what came out of trial.

My client, he wasn't going through a normal time in his life.

He actually was, he's a veteran who has a number of physical and otherwise different ailments.

And he was dealing with a lot of those ailments and he had just been hospitalized the week prior due to some conditions that he talked about.

And he received, and we had proof of, all these medications from the doctor for his PTSD and a bunch of the medications relating to the physical ailment that he was dealing with.

Those medications had him super drowsy.

And he was just, after being hospitalized for a couple of days, he was at home pretty much a zombie, just eating and sleeping.

Okay.

Now, how does that factor?

And I know there's, there's general intent crimes, specific intent crimes, crimes where someone's mental state matters more than others.

Yes.

So how did that play a role in kind of how you were developing your, your theory of the case?

So, so general intent crime doesn't require specific intent, right?

And a specific intent crime does.

This is actually a kind of weird hybrid in that it is a general intent crime, but whatever act or mission to act that an individual does has to be done with malice.

So if you're going to vandalize something, you have to have a malicious heart in doing so.

Okay.

Um, you can't just break something.

You have to be a dick about it.

Yeah.

Yeah.

You have to do it.

I think that's in the jury instruction, right?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

It actually says, uh, was this person a total dick about it?

Um, they have to do it to annoy or injure someone else.

Right.

Okay.

Or, or injure someone else's item rather.

And so the reason you going back to your question, you said, why is that relevant?

Why does it matter that he was going through these, had these medications?

Well, you know, um, what my client testified about was that the first incident where he admittedly

week, a week prior did leave water running and the management got word of this.

Um, uh, the water had leaked to downstairs apartment and they called and management came

up.

And when the, when they walked in, um, my client had already begun cleaning it up.

And, um, but they said, look, like he left the water running, he's trying to injure the

apartment, but his point was like, look, man, I'm on medications.

I'm kind of walking around in a daze.

I turned on the water to clean the dishes.

Um, I had a bunch of dishes in my sink and I was just kind of filling up the sink so that

they could just kind of sit in the soap and create like a nice smell in the apartment.

Um, he said he turned it on, went to do other things in the apartment and completely forgot

like that he had left it on and that water started pouring over.

And as soon as he saw it, he said, Oh, I got to clean it up.

And so, so the, the, the place was flooding, but he didn't realize that at the time.

Yes.

Yes.

And then he's cleaning it up when management comes up the first time, was he already evicted

then or going through the eviction process?

So, you know, let's talk about the eviction process.

You know, that was one of the prosecutor's main reasons for, for basically saying there

was a motive to do this harm.

Okay.

He had an ax to grind.

He had an ax to grind.

But, but it really matters why you're being evicted.

Okay.

Let's think about the reasons why someone gets evicted.

Someone can get evicted because they're a nuisance, right?

Maybe they're smoking in an apartment.

Maybe they're causing a lot of noise.

Maybe their lifestyle is creating a problem.

And so the landlord's trying to get rid of you.

Okay.

That's one way, right?

Another way, which is the way in this case is that my client actually had recently become

unemployed because of these health issues.

And because he became unemployed, he was no longer able to make this.

What was at the time astronomical rent for his apartment.

Um, and so he fell behind on the rent.

He was unemployed for a period of time, but that's why they were evicting him.

And this was a big part of the trial for me, because if you're living your life and paying

rent and someone tries to kick you out, I can see how you would have an ax to grind with

the management, right?

You're screwing me for me trying to live my life.

But if you're not paying rent and they're like, Hey, you can't live here.

Is there really like any realistic motive for you to be like, Hey, screw you, man.

I want to be able to live here rent free.

And that was exactly what my client explained on the stand.

He said, he said, look, I, you know, I, I, I understand it's complete business.

They're saying I have to pay rent.

I was not paying rent.

That's why I was being evicted.

He's like, during that time I was trying to get the money together and I ended up getting

some money together.

And I asked if they would take a partial payment, but because of all this water stuff, they just

wanted me out and they wouldn't take it.

But he's like, I didn't hold anything against them.

It's business.

How, uh, how many water was it?

Just how many times did he flood the apartment?

Just twice?

It was just that two times.

Okay.

Now the plot got pot thickened.

Okay.

So now we're, let's talk about the second flooding because that's essentially, um, uh, you

know, for the prosecution, it happening twice is their way of saying it could not have been

an accident.

Right.

Now question is this, is this one charge for the second time?

Yes.

So the first time is just being used to show some kind of pattern or the way they, um,

the way they explained it was that it was to show lack of accident.

So, you know, there's, um, there's mimic, right?

Right.

Um, character or 1101 be your prior bad acts can be brought in.

Motive in 10.

Yeah.

You know, like you, you walk into the women's bathroom once, uh, okay, it's an accident.

You, uh, you hear they're saying, all right, you had an accident the first time you knew

better.

You shouldn't have had a second accident.

Yes, exactly.

Um, now the second time around it's, um, I, you know, I really want to get the, the bad

facts out for the case because I want to make it clear.

There was a lot of things that kind of made this case on its face.

Look bad for us.

Um, that, you know, when the police arrived the second time around, the flooding was going

through all of the apartments.

It had gone from down seven floors.

Okay.

Um, affecting 21 units.

Um, and it was only in the morning when the maintenance people came to work that they

realized, holy crap, there's, there's water everywhere.

Um, and so they went upstairs and we're, we're knocking on my client's door, trying to basically

get in.

And there was no response.

Um, and in fact, uh, in fact, what happened was, um, they were able to open the door slightly,

except for there was that door hinge that you sometimes put in front of the door.

So it kept the door from opening all the way, but they're able to open it slightly and they

could hear my client talking and kind of walking around in there.

Um, and they said that they knew he was talking to someone, but they didn't know who he's talking

to and they couldn't make out what he was saying.

Um, looks kind of bad, right?

There's water right in front of the door.

There's water all over the apartment complex underneath and no one's responding to the door

despite my, can they hear the water running also?

Uh, no.

Okay.

No, they say that they do not hear the water running, which is an important fact.

I'm glad you asked that question.

Um, they keep trying for about 20 minutes trying to get in.

Then they basically call the police and the police come and they are also trying.

Knock, knock, knock, trying to get in.

It gets to the point where they're the management's freaking out because there's all this damage

happening and they're worried about the extent of the damage.

And the police are like, if this guy pays, if this guy is not officially evicted, we can't

just force entry unless wink, wink, nod, nod.

You file, um, a, a private person's arrest, uh, and say you want to press charges.

And this point, the manager and the maintenance person,

they don't, they're not, they're like, wait, I don't know about charges.

I, I, I don't really, I just want them out.

I just want to fix the issue.

They want to fix the water.

They want to clean up the water.

They want to avoid further damage.

So the police keep kind of pushing this.

And the reason we know this is because we see their body cameras are all on and I could see

them talking about it.

And actually at one point, um, at one point they kind of go off to the side and they tell

each other to turn off their body camera audio.

And then they keep talking about something and then go back and talk to the maintenance

person and turn it on again.

And at that point they're like, so do you want to do a private person's arrest?

And they're like, okay, I'll sign a private person's arrest.

And what was the private person's arrest for?

Vandalism.

So wait, the cops said they could only break in if it's a private person's arrest.

They can knock down the door on a private person's arrest.

Yes.

And which is, which is accurate because unless they have any reason to believe that someone's

like in grave danger or there's an exigent circumstance, like evidence is being destroyed

or something like that, um, unless they have anything like that, they can't just force

entry into a private person's residence if they don't want to let them in.

But if someone wants to do a private person's arrest, then they can, they'd be like, Hey,

he's in that house right there.

And the cops can just bulb.

Now they have probable cause to arrest.

I didn't know that.

Yeah.

Didn't I thought you'd have to get an arrest warrant or something like that?

It's, it would seem like, but the, the private person's arrest affects as an arrest warrant

because, because while they can arrest for felonies committed in their presence, misdemeanors

that, you know, they have to, they need like the private person's arrest or some further

level, uh, and even though the damage was substantial here, that, that, that,

that wasn't enough for felony conduct for an officer to...

Because they don't know if it's an accident.

They don't know.

But neither did, neither did the, uh...

Exactly.

...the misdemeanor claim.

And, and, and it's, you know, and this is kind of one of the main things that I think

was really unfortunate about this case was that the moment that they said that they were going

to file private person's arrest, that's when it began the, the wheel of the criminal justice system,

which could not be stopped in this case until we went to trial.

When they, when the police entered, they had to arrest.

The paper was already signed.

And when they, when they arrested, they had to take him to jail.

And once he was released from jail, the prosecutor had to file the case.

And the amount, yeah, the amount of damage was too high.

The amount of damage was too high.

Even though they don't know exactly what happened, they had to file the case.

And of course, my client's not going to take a deal because he's proclaiming his innocence.

And he would have to pay $120,000 if he pleads to any charge, any charge, if the, if it gets

reduced or even if the prosecutor, which in some cases they've done says, Hey, you can

earn a dismissal of all charges.

If you pay the damages, he still has to pay an astronomical amount of damage.

He can't afford rent.

How can he afford all of that damage?

Exactly.

I don't know who can afford all that damage.

So essentially at no point did we even negotiate for an offer.

This thing had to go to a jury.

No renter's insurance?

Oddly, this building didn't require renter's insurance and therefore there was none.

Oh, yeah.

Okay.

So lesson learned.

Lesson learned.

Lesson learned.

I know where I live.

They required me to get renter's insurance.

All right.

So how do you go about working up this case?

Now, obviously you have medical records that you need to get, but what else are you looking

for in getting this case ready for trial?

Okay.

One of the things that I wanted to look into was upon my investigation, I learned that on

the first day that my client moved into the apartment complex, he ran the washing machine

and went to the store.

When he came back, the washing machine had flooded the apartment.

That was in, it was in April of that year was when his first day was.

This entire incident occurred in August of that year.

Okay.

Between April and August, there was a new, a changing of the ownership of the building and

therefore a changing of the management company.

So there was a question as to what maintenance records were available from, from before the

chain.

Right.

And what they said was that the, while the old management company might have the old records

that could show that there was a, uh, that, that flood happened in that my client complained

about it, the new ones might not.

So I subpoenaed both.

I had to find the old management company.

It was based out of Arizona.

I subpoenaed them, dealt with their lawyer, tried to get stuff through there.

And I did, went through the new company.

Unfortunately, the old company, I went all the way up to the top, all the way to the owner.

And essentially I think what happened was they just threw away all the records.

They, they were supposed to give it to the new company, but the new company kind of like

didn't, discarded it as well.

So those records were lost.

What, what's the relevance of that?

Well, um, is, wait, is your defense is you're going to blame the apartment?

Yes.

I'm going to blame the victim.

Are you apartment shaming here?

You know, there's a little apartment shaming going on.

There was a little apartment shaming.

Look, my defense was, I don't know how the flood happened.

Right.

Okay.

I don't know how it happened, but it might've happened through this faulty washing machine.

Right.

My client testified that he remembered the night before putting his clothes in the washing machine,

turning it on, taking his medication and then going to sleep.

He testified that he woke up the next morning to four officers inside of his apartment while he was sleeping completely naked with guns drawn at his face, telling him to get up.

It was quite a traumatic experience for him, but also all he could remember were these two events.

So if the last thing he remembers is putting the washing, uh, closing the washing machine and turning it on, and we know there's a prior incident where the washing machine flooded.

And luckily I was able to find one maintenance record from the new management company that showed that he, um, was still dealing with issues from that initial flood when they arrived because there was a moldy carpet around where the washing machine was moldy because it would, it was wet and it never fully dried.

So he went and said, Hey, I still have a moldy carpet.

Can you please clean it?

Is there a leak around there?

Can you check that?

And that verbatim was on the maintenance request that I was able to get as evidence.

Oh, so this is a cause.

It's like a causation.

Well, you have two defenses.

You have causation, right?

It could have been the washing machine.

Cause there was, cause you said it was a key fact that they didn't hear water running or the sink running, right?

It was a key fact.

Yes.

Okay.

So then it wasn't cause of dishes then, right?

Well, so there, so let me tell you how that, again, I still to this day don't know what caused it.

Okay.

And I explained such to the jury, but I went with, along with the maintenance guy on the stand through every possible water orifice in that, in that apartment.

Okay.

There was a sink in the kitchen.

There's a sink in the bathroom and there's the bathtub and there's the washing machine.

Okay.

A bathtub and washing machine and sink in the bathroom are all in the same general area.

Now, the nature, I, I, I use the body worn videos to show where the water had pooled up the most in the apartment.

Right.

And I was able to show that there was actually no water directly in front of the sink, the kitchen sink area.

Though there was water in the area, it was mostly pooled near the washing machine and the bathroom and the bathroom.

Okay.

So, I, and, and, and this is important because the officer's opinion in the police report was that this water, he had put stuff in his sink and let the sink flood.

Okay.

And when I, and I, and I cross-examined the officer, he couldn't say what was in the sink.

He could, he said he took no pictures, he collected no evidence.

And this was a point of contention for the jurors because they're saying, look, you're going to say that this guy did this.

Bring some proof, bring some evidence.

Right.

To establish it.

Don't just make a conclusion and, and ruin this guy's life over it.

Now, did the body cameras help decide or determine what was actually in the sink or anything of that nature?

I, I went frame by frame through five different 45 minute body cameras, look, hoping for a good angle inside that sink.

And I never got one.

All I got was this, there was a brown paper bag right next to the kitchen sink.

That brown paper bag was just sitting there and it was completely dry.

And if it was the kitchen sink that flooded.

Right.

It would have wet that paper bag, even if it was dried later.

And I got the officer to admit that on the stand.

He admitted there was no water directly in front of the kitchen sink.

And he admitted that that brown paper bag was completely dry.

Did the officer testify as an expert then?

Like in some way or.

It was completely inappropriate, but the, but basically the officer kind of opined as to the, the, where the water came from.

And I was, I used that against him.

Right.

You know, usually we wouldn't allow that.

We wouldn't say you can, you know, if that's a, that's an opinion.

So you didn't object.

You wanted that to come out.

Because I, I needed, sometimes we don't care about the conclusions of the officer, right?

The evidence is the evidence.

But in this case, my defense was to, to make my client the victim.

And part of that was to show that these officers went forward with this, uh, arrest and, and, and this can, and, and, and allowed this, uh, these charges to be filed based on no workup and no investigation.

And so I wanted to show how conclusory his conclusion was.

Now you mentioned earlier that there was a maintenance man who testified.

Yes.

Now, was this a witness you called?

No, that was their witness.

That was their witness.

And, uh, the, uh, and had you spoken to them prior to the trial?

Um, he was, he was, uh, he was at the prelim.

Okay.

So you, you, you, you already had an opportunity to, to cross examine him.

Yes, I did.

I did.

And he's the maintenance man of the building.

He's the main, he's the maintenance man of the building.

Yes.

Okay.

So, you know, part of what he was there to do is talk about the damages and what they paid.

Uh, but also to talk about his observations of the apartment.

So, so this is a person that the prosecution thinks is a witness that helps their case.

Yes.

And you went, and you were going with the everything but the kitchen sink defense.

Bazinga.

Bazinga.

I've been waiting like 10 minutes to say that.

That is really good.

That is really good.

Really good.

But now you're also absolutely right.

You know, what happened was, you know, the guy himself, the maintenance guy himself admitted

there was no water in the sink, even though the officer said there was some water in

the sink when they, then they both arrived at the same time.

So now we have conflicting evidence.

And then when I asked the maintenance guy, was there water in the tub?

He said, well, there was stuff in the drain and yeah, there was a little water in the

tub.

That's when I was like, oh no, I'm sunk because now they're saying maybe the water came from

the tub.

But when I asked the officer, he said, there was nothing in the tub and there was absolutely

no water in the tub.

So now we have two guys who are trying to prosecute my client essentially with completely

conflicting stories.

And we have my theory, which is the washing machine.

And when did the maintenance man get up into the crimes, alleged crime scene?

Was he there when the cops were arresting the client or?

Yes.

They walked in at the same time.

They all walked in at the same time.

So the maintenance man burst into the.

Basically, the police officers burst in with their guns and tasers drawn.

It was.

Is that on the body worn video?

Yes.

It's all over the video.

And then you see the maintenance guy come in.

You hear the sloshing of the water as they're walking through the entryway where the where

the bathroom is and the washing machine is.

So you pre-trial work did.

You got the maintenance records for the washing machine.

And then what else was your your goals and investigation?

I got the maintenance records.

I got the mental health or not the mental health, the medical records and and the medical

records are somewhat voluminous.

And I wanted those because I knew that my client was going to testify and talk about the issues

that he was having that you have to back it up because sometimes D.A.'s will, you know,

try to call, you know, the client testifying a liar based on kind of ridiculous things, including

their, you know, their their medical ailments.

And so I wanted to be prepared if he was going to be questioning him on that, that we could

prove it.

Right.

You don't want the cop to all of a sudden become an expert in mental health and say he doesn't

have those conditions.

Yes, exactly.

Exactly.

One of the reasons I think attorneys are very scared of putting their clients up is because

we don't know how they will come off to the jury.

We don't know if they'll be sympathetic or we don't know because if they're less educated

or less articulate, if they'll be able to explain their positions or respond.

Well, to cross-examination, I was very fortunate because my client was educated.

He's very intelligent and he was able to respond to cross-examination appropriately.

And so he was able to explain his medications, all they all they were, how they affected him.

And he was also able to talk about, you know, his sleepwalking that he had been living with

since childhood.

And so you knew during the entirety of this case that your client was going to testify.

Yes.

So did you, how did, knowing this, you know, a lot of times we don't have the luxury of

really knowing that until during the trial, depending on how the trial goes.

Does that, do you have more time to prepare him for testimony during that time since you

know this information?

I, um, I always, I think from day one, I'm preparing clients for potential testimony from

the very moment they tell me the story for the first time.

I, you know, I asked questions, I probe, I cross-examine kind of in a little way to, for

myself to see if there's holes to their explanation, but also, so they're prepared and their memory

and understanding of their, the incident is more robust.

Um, and I do that almost every time I see them from then on.

And I'll ask them about certain aspects of the case every time.

And, you know, clients, including this one, will get frustrated with me sometimes saying,

why don't you believe me?

And it's not because I don't believe them.

It's because I want them to be ready for the main event.

You know, I want them, you know, anytime, if you kind of question someone in an aggressive

way and they have to think about it for a long time or they get frustrated or they

want to put it into words to it, to you, it's okay.

I need to collect myself and, and, and respond appropriately.

But to a jury, it could be, Hey, he must be lying because he stopped talking for a second

or now he's like introspecting and thinking.

So I want to make sure I iron those kinks out.

It was a really, it was really hard because there was a point in the case where I was like,

wow, we're doing really well.

I mean, we have all this conflicting testimony.

The officer is looking pretty bad and I was able to bring in the evidence of the washing

machine leak.

And so do we even need my client?

But you still have the issue of why is he walking around in the apartment complex?

Why, why is he not responding to a loud banging?

Um, when I say apartment complex, I meant his apartment.

Why is he, why is he not responding to loud banging?

We still have to explain this stuff.

And as you guys know, it's one of the most frightening things ever to put your client up.

It's, it's like, you know, it's like your kid on, on a little bicycle and you're like kind

of running along with them as they're pedaling.

And then you let go and sometimes they keep going and it's great.

And sometimes they start to swerve and they just fall flat on their face.

So, so it was really scary, but I, I was really proud of him.

At one point he got super heated and he started yelling.

Um, he was super angry because he was very, once they had the, like during his testimony,

he was yelling.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Once the DA had questioned him about, um, how he felt or what was going on when the police

came in with their guns drawn, I mean, this poor guy, he, he had PTSD already and that was

a very traumatic event and having him relive that it was very emotional for him.

And so he was like saying like, he was just kind of really basically, um, very emotional

about the, how that felt and what that meant to him and how frustrated he was that the way

they were talking to him, they had paraded him downstairs through seven floors and out

onto the street with his t-shirt put on sideways and no pants on.

It was, it was one of the most humiliating things that had ever happened to him.

And he felt very dehumanized.

And so despite the fact that he reacted really aggressively, not aggressively, I should say

just, he would, he would be on yelling and getting emotional on the stand.

Passionate is a good way to put out, put it.

Despite the fact that that happened, I thought that it was appropriate.

And I thought for him, it was a very cathartic moment for him to

finally speak his voice.

Well, it's real.

It's a real emotion.

Exactly.

Exactly.

What, uh, okay.

So the defenses are, we don't know what caused the water damage or number two, if he did cause

the water damage, it wasn't done maliciously.

Right.

Those are the two, your two separate defenses.

Yes.

Cause you know, you know, we said that there was a possibility he might've been sleepwalking,

turned on the water, forgot something.

Okay.

Right.

Which is tough because if he's sleepwalking, he's not really conscious of it.

So how can he say I was sleepwalking?

That, that presents a problem in and of itself.

Absolutely.

And, and you know, when we, when he was asked point blank, he says, I don't know.

He's like, I don't know.

He admitted, he's like, look, when I, on the stand, he said, when I sleepwalk, when I was

a kid, I would run away out, run out of the house.

As I grew older, my sleepwalking manifested itself by me going, getting something to eat.

So he's like, truth be told, I don't usually turn on water as part of my sleepwalking.

And I can't tell you what happened.

All right.

So let's talk about the trial then.

Uh, you know, your client, you know, you're going to go to trial.

So you don't have to, I mean, what's nice about knowing your client is going to go

to trial is you don't have to worry about negotiations, right?

We're always putting these stressful moments where we got to find an offer.

That's going to work for both sides.

And you're pleading with your client, you're pleading with the DA, trying to figure something

out.

It's just, it's just a lot of stress.

Yeah.

Um, so you get sent out to trial, the judge wants the case to settle or are you cool about

going to trial?

Basically, she is on a floor in the courthouse that handles the, only the most serious types

of cases.

These include, including capital cases where people are facing the death penalty, very serious

murder cases, sex cases, high profile.

This floor has the extra security, right?

You get security, get into the building and then you go up to the elevator and you get

security into that particular place.

Yes.

Yes.

So, so you can just imagine the type of case that that judge usually gets.

And then she was sent this vandalism case and you could tell she just looked at it and

she's like, what is this?

What is this?

And you know, but it's got to favor you, right?

The defense.

Potentially, potentially, you know, it's going, it can cut both ways.

Because if my client was to get convicted, on the one hand, you could say, hey, she wouldn't

think this is that serious.

And so she may give him probation.

On the other hand, you could say, hey, she's sentenced people to 50 years, 150 years to life.

What is three years?

You know?

So I didn't know how that would turn out.

But I, you know, when we went into chambers, she, she said point blank, is there anything

that your client would consider taking?

And as soon as I said, you know, my client's proclaiming his innocence, she's like, we'll

stop there.

We'll do the trial.

It's fine.

And I really appreciated that because I've had judges say, well, you know, there's the

difference between thinking you're innocent and being innocent and saying, we all know,

you know, this is not about what is true and it's about what you can prove.

And it's like, it's kind of like, come on, dude, you're like supposed to be doing justice

and that's, you like really want me to tell my client who's saying he's innocent or he

or she's innocent to take a deal.

Like I find it so inappropriate for a judge to, to kind of, or when they want to like, they

want to like take your client out and just start hammering them on what the max is.

And if they lose that trial, this is what they're going to be looking at and just try to scare

them into, uh, into pleading.

Exactly.

Exactly.

And she did do that.

She did hammer him on the max.

She, she, she asked me if she could.

And I said, I said, your honor, it's not going to make a difference.

And she said, okay, I'm going to do it.

And then she did it.

And my client in all his convictions said, thank you, your honor.

I'm aware of that.

You know?

Um, so yeah.

So what, what kind of jury are you looking for when you, when you do this type of case?

I'm looking for people who, uh, have had bad experiences with law enforcement.

Always.

Always.

Well, you know, not always necessarily.

Right.

Um, uh, so because not the victim isn't like the victim.

There's a separate victim, right?

This is really between the building management and my client.

The police officers trying to kind of just kind of push this case forward.

Turn it into a crime.

Turn it into a crime.

So, so I wanted them to see the police.

I wanted them to be understanding that police can and do do that.

So how do you, how do you go about accomplishing that during jury selection?

Frankly, um, you know, I, I, I, I'd like to pretend like, you know, I'm a colorblind person,

but race is a big part of it.

I want, I wanted minorities, uh, African Americans, Hispanics.

Um, I wanted people who may, uh, be part of a contingent that may be unfairly targeted

by police officers in the past.

Um, and so was your client Hispanic or black or Hispanic?

Okay.

Yeah.

He was Hispanic.

Um, so, you know, I wanted that.

I also wanted, um, smart people.

So, so yeah, so I was looking for that kind of jury.

I was also looking for people who had landlord tenant issues.

Um, I feel that people who can see the inequities of the landlord tenant relationship might side

more with the tenant and even, but even contrary to what you would think, I had a person whose

family was the landlord and whose tenant flooded the apartment and I kept that person on because

I thought based on the way that they explained their story, that they knew what an intentional

flooding looked like and that they would see that these.

So you could get that specific in the facts during your voir dire?

Like what were you, how did you, how did you, I could not, how did you do this?

How do you know this?

Like, I'm amazing.

You really should see me in trial.

It's pretty incredible.

Um, you previewed the case.

No, what was beautiful was that this, you know, the question was about landlord tenant issues

and this person shared that story and so I took his story and I blew it up, talked to him about

it, asked other people about it.

So I was able to work around previewing the case by making a big deal of this guy's individual

experience and seeing how people feel.

And this one, you actually aren't concerned about displaying to, to everyone this prior

experience because seemingly this would be someone the prosecutor would want.

Someone who, you know, is for the company, the, the, the, the landlord and not the tenant.

Yes.

So that's, so you could basically advertise their entire story without fear of having the

prosecutor kick this person.

Yes.

Can I, can I ask you about it?

So then that was, you brought up landlord tenant issues in your voir dire, right?

Yes.

And then this person says, Hey, I'm a landlord and let me tell you something.

We had an issue one time, the tenant flooded the place and they, and they're like, and they

did it intentionally and all these things.

Right.

It caused a lot of damage.

It was a huge problem.

Did they say it was intentional too or whatever?

Or, and then you're like, well, if it was an accident, you know, or whatever, then that

wouldn't be, it'd be okay.

Or kind of, well, the, what I said was like, how did you know it was intentional?

Did you go look at the, did you go over there to look at the evidence?

What did you look at?

Did you do any investigation?

Oh, great.

And you thought that was enough to make you think that it was intentional.

What about you?

Journal?

Did you think that that was intentional?

Oh yeah.

You're basically trying your trial during jury selection.

Exactly.

Exactly.

And getting people to think about the issues, right?

You can't write that by the way.

It was very lucky.

It was very lucky.

It was very lucky.

Okay.

And then anything else in voir dire or who you're looking for, or?

Um, yeah, no, no, I would say it was the, it was people with landlord tenant issues as

people who are, um, have been unfairly targeted by the police.

And it was people, um, who I felt, um, there was one person in particular who I really liked

who was a claims adjuster.

Um, and, uh, she, I knew based on the nature of claims adjust, adjust her work that she

would be looking for, she would be looking for a proper investigation.

She wanted the, you know, what does the claims adjuster do?

They look at the, you know, the circumstances of a car accident to determine who's liable

and to what percentage they're liable.

You know, they take into account multiple pieces of evidence that are, um, you know,

looked at by the police officers and if there's a police report or other circumstances.

They're not, they're not dishing out money unless there's a doctor's note or, uh, x-rays

or exactly, exactly.

A flood expert who's not an officer.

Exactly.

Exactly.

So I, you know, that was the kind of person, someone who kind of would think at that level

that I was looking for.

What about just the general, I think sometimes with jury selection, I kind of, I go with like

a high school method, like who's going to hang out with me in high school and who's

going to hang out with the prosecutor.

Yeah.

That's like, no, that's a good way to, that's a really good way to do it.

I think like, um, I think, yeah, I think I, I don't know if I was thinking about

that or if I ever like, just kind of like, that's more of a subconscious thing, but you

know, if someone's folding their arms as they're talking to me or if someone's like fighting

me on every question that I ask instead of saying, yeah, okay, yeah, yeah, no, no, that

makes sense.

Um, definitely I don't want that person because if you're not going to like want to, if you

want to argue with everything I have to say in front of me, then when I'm talking during

closing argument, you're definitely in your mind going to be arguing with everything that

I say.

Right.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Uh, what about the DA?

What was her, her, his, it was him.

Oh, this is what you're like.

Very, very basic and vanilla.

Um, I think he's a good DA.

I think that he probably hadn't done a trial in a while.

And I think that he just wanted to get like a general fair jury.

I, I don't think that he, I think when a juror said something, he examined it properly

and, and brought out cause if there was cause and he did a good job at that, but there was

not, there was nothing that I looked at and said, Whoa, what a crazy strategy.

I think he did a good job, but I wouldn't say there's anything.

Basically the missing cookie from the cookie jar with the kid with the crumbs on the face.

Yeah.

That kind of a generic.

Exactly.

Exactly.

Exactly.

Um, can you, can you tell our audience what the missing cookie crumb thing is?

Essentially it's, it's talking about circumstantial evidence and the DAs always do this and they

say, Hey, you know, let's say there's, you know, you, you don't know who took the cookie.

You weren't there, but you know, something's missing, you know, but then you see, you know,

your little kid and he has crumbs all around his, his, his mouth.

Is that enough?

Is that circumstantial evidence for you to believe that he's the one that took the cookie?

And of course the answer is yes.

And then that's how, that's how the evidence in this trial is going to be is, is you're

not going to be able to know exactly what happened, but you can probably guess.

Yeah.

Is essentially their, their spiel.

It's their way of saying, Hey, I don't have enough evidence, but please find this person

guilty.

If I don't present evidence to you, could you still find it?

Yeah.

That's okay.

Are you the kind of person that just jumps to conclusions?

Um, yeah.

Yeah.

Uh, all right.

So then how's the trial unfolds?

I know we've talked about, you know, a lot of the, what happened with the,

the testimony, but who did the prosecution put up first in their case?

The prosecution first put up the, um, maintenance person.

Okay.

Then they put up the, and the maintenance guy testifies to what?

The bunch of water coming down or he gets to work.

There's a bunch of water.

He talks about the first incident first, a week prior.

Okay.

Uh, with the water.

Uh, he talks about that interaction.

Then he talks about the, the week later, uh, when he comes to work, he finds out there's

flooding at every, you know, level goes to the top, tries to knock for a while.

Um, and then he talks about the circumstances of the apartment when he walked in, then, um,

And this guy had no familiarity with that, that prior flood, the dishwashing flood.

He did.

So he, and he testified to that because he was the one who went into the room in that

prior flood the week prior.

He said the week prior, but not the, not the original, not the first one.

I'm sorry.

Yes, exactly.

The, the clothes, the washing machine.

Yes.

Washing machine.

There I go.

We're not very domestic over here.

Yeah.

Hey, look, what was that women's cleaning device?

Yeah.

What is, what is that machine that does all my laundry?

I don't know.

It makes my clothes feel good.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

The, the washy rolly thing.

Um, so no, neither him nor the, um, nor the, the, the apartment manager.

Okay.

Yeah.

So he came on with the new ownership and I made a big deal of that, you know, because

anytime you can draw, look, you know, it's very important, you know, for the jury to realize

off the bat that it's any lack of evidence is a failure of the prosecution.

And so I made a big deal of like, Hey, you guys can't explain, you got, you can't explain

anything that happened to that apartment before you came on.

Um, and so, yeah, so after that they put on the, uh, the, the apartment manager, uh, she

basically talked about the eviction process, what, why he was being evicted.

And she talked about, I think the damages that were assessed, the amount, um, by the company

that came in to fix, they had, basically what happened, had to happen is they had to go

into every floor of 20 different units, 21 different units, basically tear open the drywall and

put these machines next to it and like, uh, that sucked or that kind of like just basically

blew air into them to dry up the inside of these walls.

Because the problem is when water is leaking behind your drywall and it's wet and it's

not treated, it can get moldy and now you have a serious mold problem all over your apartment

complex.

So that's why they had to, that's why I ended up costing over $300,000 is because they had

to do this for 21 years.

So, um, what, and what points did you make with the manager then?

The points that I made with the manager was that I brought out basically that, you know,

um, the manager I had is the one who I emailed with when I got the maintenance request that

showed that there was a leak from before.

So I was able to bring that piece of evidence in through the manager as the custodian of records.

So I used their witness to lay a foundation for my piece of evidence, um, for the washing

machine, for the, the maintenance requests for the washing machine leak.

Okay.

Nice.

So I, I did that.

And it's a business record, right?

And it's a business record.

Usually a writing is inadmissible because it is considered hearsay.

However, if the writing is a business record, then it becomes admissible under the business

records exception to the hearsay rule under evidence code section 1271.

Exactly.

And she talked about the program and how she's used, she uses it and in a regular course of

business.

Okay.

And so, yeah, so I, I, I got that piece of evidence in through her.

Um, you know, I talked about, um, I talked about basically how he tried to pay and how he

offered to pay partial payment and all that stuff.

And, um, I mean, I didn't really go further with her on that.

And I just talked about how she didn't have any access to any of the old records.

So I could explain why we didn't have the initial record.

Okay.

Okay.

So I built, so I established all that.

Okay.

Um, and then, and then the police officer came and testified and just one, yeah, just

one.

And he was like, came off very bad, very like unprepared, very like, look, man, I don't

really know what happened.

I, you know what I mean?

But he didn't say it.

He still made the conclusions as if he did, but couldn't back them up on cross-examination.

And did he testify at the preliminary hearing earlier?

No, no.

So I had never, I don't, I, I think they wanted him just to establish certain aspects of my

client's behavior.

Yeah.

So then that's good for you though.

Right.

Cause that plays in your hands.

It was great.

It was great.

I saw jurors like shaking their heads in anger when he talked about his conclusion that

the water, um, that the water came from the sink, but still held that opinion despite the

fact that there was no water in front of the sink on the photo still that I had of, from

one of the officer's body worn videos, there was no, the paper bag was brown or I mean,

it was brown.

It was, it was brown.

It was dry and despite that he still felt that the water came from the sink and the sink

looked empty in the picture.

And despite that he still felt, so I, you know, I kept introducing facts to him that he admitted

that were completely contrary to his conclusion.

Yet he stuck to his conclusion, which at the end of it became an absurd conclusion, which

again is the reason everyone's here, right?

This officer's conclusion.

Um, so yeah, so that was really helpful.

I thought that was a really strong part of the case.

Did you bring up the, the fact that the officer initiated the arrest or the citizen's arrest?

Yes.

I brought that up.

I brought that up and he tried to downplay it.

What he did was he walked it back and said, I didn't need a private person's arrest because

of the amount of the damages.

It was a felony and I was able to arrest based on my observation.

I could just break down the door.

No problem.

Exactly.

Which was great by the way, because again, now I'm able to frame this before I thought

I was going to have to frame it as you pushed them to do an arrest.

Now I'm able to say, we're here because of you and you can't even explain your position.

You can't even, you didn't even take a picture of these things you say you saw.

And then at one point he said he had a camera and he said his partner took pictures.

And then once I showed him the police report, he said, oh, I guess, I guess he didn't take

pictures.

And I said, did you give, well, before that I said, did you give the pictures to the DA?

And he's like, oh, I don't know.

I was like, don't you think those are important pieces of evidence?

And I made it seem like he was hiding pictures.

And then the DA fixed it by saying, well, in fact, no one took pictures, which now he even

looks worse because he talked about how his partner took pictures.

Right.

So it was all this like, you know, what about, what about the guns blazing, you know, bursting

with the guns drawn?

Did that come into evidence?

Yeah, absolutely.

Did you play the video of that?

The video was played.

The video was played.

How did he, would he justify that?

Or did he need to justify it?

Or was that just standard policy?

He said, we didn't know what we were going to come into.

And it was officer safety.

He kept using words like officer safety, officer safety, which is what they trained them to

do.

When you don't know what to say and you don't know how to explain why you end up shooting

an unarmed teenager or you don't know how to explain why you had to tackle this poor kid

or person, you just throw the words out officer safety and the law will take care of you.

You know, the law will let you justify what you did.

Now, you said that not today, not today, not in my court.

You had said that that the officer contradicted a lot of what the maintenance worker had to

say in terms of the source of the water.

Right now, given the fact that so much time had passed from, you know, the first witness,

the maintenance worker versus now that the officer is the last witness.

Do you think the jury picked up on these discrepancies?

Yes, because first of all, I didn't mention this.

It was a three day trial.

One day was jury selection.

OK.

One day was almost all the witnesses.

And then one day was like my client in closing.

OK.

So so so it was close in time.

So it was memorable enough.

And the middle witness, the intervening witness, the property manager was very short.

OK.

And yeah.

And I also do this thing when like when whenever I see like a big contradiction that like on

a point that another witness made a big deal about, I always kind of like look at the jury

like, can you believe that?

You know, I kind of give them a little eye side eye like, can you believe what he just

said?

And sometimes jurors are like, oh, don't look at me.

But sometimes they're like, yeah, I can't believe that.

Yeah, that's crazy.

And so I was I highlighted it in that way.

Actually, I want to go a little bit back.

Opening statements.

What what do you do there?

Do you highlight what your case is going to be about?

Do you give kind of more of a generic, you know, keep your you know, keep your eyes open,

you know, don't make any judgments, listen to the evidence.

What what's your strategy for opening statement?

Yeah, man, I don't know if I do a good opening statement.

I mean, look, this is my thing.

I was going to an opening statement telling myself, don't promise too much and just deliver

more than they expect during the trial.

But then you hear the prosecutor and he gets up there and he says all these like really bad

things for your case.

And you're like, oh, I got to like explain.

You got to rebut it a little bit.

Yeah, I want to take the sting out.

You know, exactly.

A lot of people are making their conclusions.

I think I think a lot of jurors during opening will hear what the D.A.

has to say and say, why are we here?

This sounds like a pretty open and shut case.

And so my so what I like to do and I try to do is try to explain why we're here and kind

of explain all the holes in the case and what they need to look for.

So I actually did divulge a lot of stuff that I knew I would bring in.

I knew I was going to bring in the issue with the washing machine.

So I talked about that.

I knew there was going to be a question as to the source of the water.

So I asked them to ask those questions and listen to see if the people can prove this,

you know.

And I knew a lot of parts of my client's story that he was going to testify to.

And so even though I didn't announce that he was going to testify, I still talked about

those.

And do you think that the prosecutor knew that your client was going to testify as well?

I think that, you know, what they what he did and what a lot of them do is do this thing

with the judge and say, your honor, I'd like to hear an offer of proof for some of this,

because if, you know, his client's not going to testify, I don't know how he's going to

get that evidence in.

And the judge, of course, says we're going to have a big problem if your client doesn't

testify because you promised a lot.

Right.

And I always have to look down and say, oh, you're right, your honor.

Oh, I'm going to be in big trouble.

Who knows what's going to happen, though?

Let's just ride this train to see what goes on.

Judge, don't let me remind you.

It's what I say is not evidence.

What the attorneys say is not evidence.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So they did that.

They did that.

But, you know, you know, you know.

Right.

All right.

Any other questions, Mike?

Not for now.

So.

All right.

So then that was the people's case and the cop was the last witness.

Right.

Yes.

So the people rest.

Uh, motion to dismiss what we always do after the people's case.

Yes.

In every trial at the end of the people's case, the defense will move the court to dismiss

the charges under Penal Code Section 1118.1 if the prosecution has failed to present evidence

to substantiate any element of the charge.

By the way, judges rarely grant this motion.

Actually, I got the allegation dismissed.

The, the, the, the, the enhancement.

And explain what the enhancement was for the, the amount of damage.

The amount of damage.

Um, check this out.

Um, so, so basically, um, this is what happened.

Those enhancements, the 60,000, 120, again, please don't quote me on this.

I, I, I'm sure you'll maybe look into this later and have a little blurb where you explain

the real accurate thing and talk about how I'm an incompetent lawyer.

And I completely welcome that because I don't remember, but these enhancements, um, have

existed for a long time in California law.

And when they were originally made, they were made to, um, uh, apply to quote unquote, a

lot of money.

Okay.

Now let's just talk about the $60,000 enhancement.

Just for example, even though he was charged with a higher enhancement for a lot more money,

that $60,000 was a lot more money in 1960 than it was in the 2017.

Right.

And so those laws need to be periodically updated to reflect inflation.

Right.

And so what happened was, it was, I think in like early two thousands or yeah, I think it

was in early 2000, about 10 years ago, mid two thousands, a new law was passed to reflect

inflation on those enhancements.

But it, there was also a caveat that there would be a sunset provision in 10 years.

If the, uh, if the legislature did not act to adjust these enhancements for inflation.

So sunset provision, meaning if it's not readdressed later on that, that law dies.

Yeah, exactly.

Legislature, if you don't come back in 10 years and address this, this law disappears.

Now in 2017, when my client was charged, the law was still on the books.

But in 2018, when we went to trial, it had sunset.

In fact, it sunsetted on January 1st, 2018.

So when we went to trial, I made the argument that this is no longer a law and it's a retroactive

to the, the time of when a potential conviction would be and not to when the case was charged.

The DA's were saying this crime happened in 2017, law was in the books then, it still applies.

Yeah.

And I found a case directly on point with these exact enhancements from like 15 years ago.

And the case is directly on point and the judge dismissed the enhancements.

It was really cool.

I'm very lucky that we have a department in the public defender's office that I work at

that is called the appellate department.

And you can call them with questions about law or issues with the law.

And I was able to talk with someone in that department and he was very helpful.

And he provided me that case that ended up getting the dismissal on that charge or count or enhancement.

Sorry.

The enhancement wasn't dismissed because of lack of evidence.

You just argued it, it just no longer exists.

It no longer applied to my client's case.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

No, definitely not lack of evidence.

Did, did the judge go back and research it for a second?

I provided the case law and the explanation and the judge took like a, a, a kind of a little

bit to read it.

And then she did one of those, she said something that I think I've only heard in like, uh, two

or three times in my career.

Um, you know, counselor, I think Ms.

Or Omid's right.

It never happens.

Right.

So, so yeah.

So that's what happened.

Yeah.

Sweet.

So you just cut your client's, uh, potential exposure in half, right?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

All right.

And then, uh, so like you, your case is your client, you put your client up, put the client

up.

Yeah.

You have him tell his story, I guess.

Yeah.

And tell his story.

And, um, and, and really look, I, I want to talk about it.

I want to make it very clear.

Some, some cases, you know, um, I can say that, you know, I was such a good lawyer in

this case that I was able to pull out a win.

Some cases has nothing to do with me, I think, and I think has everything to do with my client,

how they come off and the jurors connection with my client.

And I think this was one of those cases.

And I feel, you know, I feel that, that he got to get his voice out there.

He got to tell his story.

And I think that because it was the truth and it was his truth, they were, they, they connected

with him and they ultimately found in favor of him, you know, and what were you trying to

highlight with your client then?

Well, I wanted to, you know, I wanted him to just tell his story.

Um, I wanted him to talk about chronologically how everything happened, but also talk about

the medical issues that he was going with, going through the medications that he take took

and the amount of medications, how those affected him.

Um, I wanted him to spend a lot of time talking about the, the, um, what's the word?

The eviction, because I wanted them to see that he didn't actually harbor anger about the

eviction, right?

Cause that's their, that's their argument.

His guy's angry about his eviction.

So he must be trying to ruin this apartment building.

Well, I wanted to show that this was absurd, that this guy was actually a professional.

Um, uh, he was out of work at the time, but he was a professional and he's, you know,

this kind of behavior of just destroying a place, uh, knowing that he'll get in trouble

for it and ultimately have to pay for it.

It's not logical for someone like him.

It definitely won't help in the eviction proceedings.

Yes.

It will not help in the eviction proceedings.

So, um, I wanted him to do that.

And I also, you know, I want to talk to him to talk about his sleepwalking.

We needed to explain why, you know, you know, and he, he was very upfront on the stand.

He said, look, I don't, I don't remember walking around.

Um, maybe I was, but I know that I sleepwalk and that's something that might have happened.

I don't know.

Is there a point during his testimony where you, you felt he struggled?

Um, just that part that I was talking about earlier when he was like really angry and he

was getting emotional and red faced.

And he was like, um, you know, he talked about the American flag and how he, and, and, and

how, you know, you know, that was like the thing that was driving him, um, during the,

the testimony of, of the officer where he was talking about how he went into the apartment

with guns drawn.

He said that the American flag was the only thing that grounded him, um, because he believes

in like the justice system and truth and, and the, and the, the constitution.

And it's not like saying it right now, it almost sounds cheesy, but it was like really very

touching when he was talking about it.

Oh, it actually sounded pretty touching there.

He said it during uncross.

He said all that.

Yeah.

So can you tell us about how the prosecutor tried to attack your client then?

Yeah.

So the prosecutor was not aggressive.

Um, he was, he's a very kind of laid back guy, but he also, um, he also tried to do a

lot of things where he made it seem like doubtful that, you know, um, that the client was doubtful

that the washing machine could have caused it.

And, you know, one thing that he tried to do is he tried to have the client talk about

his profession and what he does.

And he says, well, why didn't you go fix the washing machine yourself?

I mean, you are very smart with this.

You're, you're an engineer.

Why didn't you, uh, um, fix the washing machine yourself?

He's like, I'm not a washing machine engineer.

He's like, I'm an aerospace engineer.

Why, why are you, you know, like, and so he responded really well to these, like these

attempts by the, by the, uh, DA.

It was only when he talked about the police officer and what happened was that he got, how

did the DA open the door to the American for your client to stand on the American

or to wrap himself around the American flag?

How did he open the door?

Like, um, to be honest, I think he just, um, I think when the off, when the DA kind of

questioned him about his veracity on something, um, or the way he responded, I think he just

kind of started ranting about it.

And the word rant has like a negative connotation.

It sounds like someone's all over the place, but he wasn't, he was just emotionally talk

passionately and emotionally talking.

And, and that's when he just kind of went like, he was, he was an out of control witness

in the sense that the DA didn't have control of the witness.

You know, the, he was kind of running the show and the DA was trying to like, uh, you know,

get it under control, but the client was just telling his story, telling his story.

And, and truth be told, I, you know, I told the client to do that now, of course, during

this time, he's during this time, you're, you're obviously looking at the jury during

this time.

You're looking at the jury, right?

He's, he's, he's getting passionate.

He's getting loud.

How's the jury responding to that?

I was really nervous.

Um, I, you know, I didn't want him to, you know, I don't, I don't want them to, you never

want someone to seem angry in a case where the prosecutor is saying that you reacted out

of anger.

Right.

So I was very worried.

Um, they were, they were, they were drawn in, they were watching very closely.

I don't know how they, I don't, I don't know what they were thinking, but they were

all paying attention very closely.

They didn't look turned off.

They looked riveted, but I couldn't get a sense, you know, you know, this is one of

those cases that, uh, you know, I don't want to spoil what happens at the end, but you

know, after the verdict, um, you're on the not guilty podcast.

Oh, I forgot where I was because after this, I have another meeting with the guilty podcast.

Yeah.

I'm going to tell a couple of trials stories on the repeat guest over there.

Yeah, exactly.

Exactly.

Um, no, no, that the jury did not want to talk to anyone.

So we weren't able to get a sense of the jury at all.

Okay.

Yeah.

So, um, and then some closing arguments.

Yeah.

Closing argument.

You know, I, I went up there and you've pretty much heard everything I have to say about the

case.

I, I, you know, I delivered that.

I, I, um, I find that, you know, in any case you have to, in any case for the jury to

find in favor of your client, you have to make your client sympathetic and some of what you

have to show the way they've been victimized in the process.

So that was my tilt.

I, you know, I, I, I, I talked about a system that, that started and that couldn't end until

we got to this point until they made the decision and that, you know, I thank them for being

there.

And I said that, you know, unfortunately this officer who didn't do the proper investigation,

um, you know, as part of the reason that we're here, you know, I even called out the claims

adjuster.

I said, could you imagine, you know, in a car accident where you had no evidence and you

had to make a decision like this, the, the amount of evidence that the police officer brought in

this case, if they were to bring that in your case, you would never be able to, you know,

prove liability, let alone the highest standard in the nation, which is reasonable doubt.

Yeah.

How long did you close for it?

It's a short trial.

Yeah.

I think it was like 30, 40 minutes, which is some people will say it's too long.

Yeah.

It's long.

I mean, look, I, you can probably tell I love to talk and you know, at home when I talk,

I get shut up real quick.

So by my fiance, so when I get an opportunity to talk, I take it.

Okay.

Um, um, no, I don't know.

Like, you know, there's this like anxiety where you want to highlight every point in your favor

and you feel like if you leave something out, you don't trust the jury that they're going

to, they're going to pick up on the fact that you leave out.

Exactly.

Exactly.

And you don't want, you don't want to talk to them afterwards.

They're like, you know, you never really explained this.

And it's like, ah, I forgot to, you just want to make sure like, cause even like if

there's, you want to give, you're not guilty jurors ammo for when they go into the jury room

and if they're going up against guilty jurors, you want to give them as much arguments that

you, that they can take back there to deflate the other people's arguments.

Yes, exactly.

Exactly.

Yeah.

And you hope that they'll remember it.

And yeah, you know, you also hope that they see your conviction about the case.

They see you up there kind of not into it.

I think that, you know, they may not believe in it, you know?

And, and so you, you know, you want to make sure you can communicate that visible, physically

and verbally.

You know, you say that like some cases you do, you do the job and you win the trial and

other cases your client wins the trial.

I think you won the trial in this case.

You still got to, you still have to be the conductor and the orchestra or the, the orchestra

conductor.

You got to set up all the pieces just right.

So it all is in harmony harmony and maybe your client's testimony is a big, dramatic piece

of evidence, but you still have to set it up.

Right.

Yeah.

So I still think it sounds like you did an excellent job in this case.

And even the, the fact that going and just getting the records or tracking down and doing

the legwork to go to what Arizona, that company was in, you know, and then you had the wherewithal

to know that your client was the star here that you got to take a backseat.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Right.

Yeah.

You had to watch five hours of body worn video, right?

At the end of the day, you got to know your case.

I think like we went a lot by knowing our cases backwards and forwards because oftentimes

the DA doesn't, or they get the case last second or whatnot.

So yeah, knowing the details definitely helps.

Why didn't you just, why didn't you just tell the prosecutor that your client has a job

on the line over this case?

Cause then they would have dismissed it.

Right?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I should have, man, I really, you know, I should have done that.

All that work and the hours.

I should have just like put my, the prosecutor in with a, in a room with my client.

They could have just talked it through and they were like, this guy is innocent.

Jeez.

Yeah.

No, no, no.

I, you know, I messed up.

That's where I went wrong, I guess.

Right.

Now sometimes, you know, you just want that trial glory.

So I, I was about me, the whole thing, to be honest with you.

Hey man, you got to work smarter, not harder.

But then I wouldn't be on this podcast.

It's true.

It's true.

I just needed to get on this podcast.

That was really my motivation.

Uh, all right.

Last question.

Uh, I mean, why did you become a public defender or why'd you want to be a public defender?

Um, yeah, to be honest, I, I never wanted to be a public defender.

Um, I, uh, got a clerk ship in this office because no one else wanted to hire me and I had nothing

else to do for my 2L summer and I started working at the office and, um, um, I just immediately fell in love with it.

I fell in love with, uh, the work I found, you know, I felt like, I saw the vulnerability of the clients, the humanity, you know, you, you know, you see these people that are accused of these heinous things and you know, you know, they're all like vulnerable human beings that like, that they need you.

They need your help and you know, the ability to kind of navigate a system and, and try to help them.

I felt that that was like meaningful.

I, I, I liked it.

I like helping people and that was a way that I thought I could help people and also, um, do it in a way I might be good at.

Well, right.

I mean, what about a DA?

Doesn't a DA help people?

People are, you know, uh, they, people are victimized.

These criminals are bad people on the streets, victimizing crime and you get them on the street.

That's kind of helping people too, right?

True.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I guess so.

I guess the DAs, DAs do help people and they do, you know, and, and a reasonable DA just as necessary to the justice system as, you know, reasonable judge and, and a defense attorney.

But, you know, um, DA doesn't have the relationship with the client, right?

With the client.

They don't have any specific client.

Um, and everyone, and, and, you know, the DA is kind of starting from a point of everyone agrees with your position.

You know, crime is bad and anyone who's looks like they did a crime should be thrown in jail.

So they kind of like, you know, they get up there, they ask what happened next, what happened next, what happened next?

And, and, you know, they get people tossed in jail, but it really takes, I think, a level of, um, compassion, creativity, and kind of legwork to kind of either show weaknesses in case show mitigation as to why someone may have committed a crime.

Or bring out the truth.

Or bring out the truth.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So, all right.

Yeah.

Uh, get that renter's insurance.

Yes.

Yes.

Allstate renter's insurance.

This is actually a big advertisement for Allstate renter's insurance.

I don't know why I say Allstate.

My dad runs for Allstate.

You never know.

Right.

It's true.

It's true.

Maybe sleepwalking and bump into a sink and next thing you know.

Next thing you know.

Allstate.

You're in the hole.

300K.

All right.

Well, thanks for coming on the show.

Yeah.

I'm glad to be here.

Thank you, guys.

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

Shout out to Daniel Mark, creator of A&G's original theme music, and our audio engineer, Chris Adams.

And guess what?

We have another Not Guilty story coming your way next week, because we public defenders fight injustice every single day in the American criminal system.

Thank you.

Thank you.