The Blind Oppressing The Blind – When Justice Tries to Look Away

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.

Now why would I want to do that?

Do you have a Not Guilty story you'd like to share with ANG listeners? Visit our website to submit your info to be a guest.

Want to check out our updated new ANG merch?

Another great reason to check out our website.

Want access to the raw, uncut, unfiltered interviews and have a chance to play a role in the creative process?

Then visit our website and check out our Patreon link.

That's anothernotguiltypod.com.

Now, without further ado, here's this week's episode of Another Not Guilty.

The most important fact that I haven't mentioned yet is my client is 100% totally blind.

The prosecutor first played the bodywork video, which shows the client,

"Why are you arresting me? Why? Stop!"

And it shows really aggressive, violent police contact.

So then once I saw the jurors, you know, they kind of were taken aback, their shoulders went up to their ears, a couple of them, and they looked mad.

So then I played that video a couple more times in cross, in closing.

I love it when the prosecution's evidence turns into your evidence.

Welcome!

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 a deck stacked against us.

Welcome to Another Not Guilty.

All right, all right.

Welcome, everybody, to Another Not Guilty.

We have a pretty awesome show today.

I'm here with two dope-ass public defenders.

One of them is our co-host, Benny.

What's up, Benny?

Dave.

Glad to be back.

I'm really excited about today.

I am, too.

And, you know, we're giving the people what they want.

They want Dave and Benny.

They want Dave and Benny.

So let's give them Dave and Benny.

Yeah, it's a classic duo.

A classic duo.

I'm excited about today.

So, same here.

Yeah.

Why are you excited?

I'm excited because of the lawyer you have, the public defender, who I've known for a

while.

And, actually, I've been hearing her trial stories for a while.

And she does some fun stuff in trial.

And I'm excited.

The second you invited me for this one, I jumped on it.

Christine is our guest today.

Hi, Christine.

Hi, David.

Hi, Benny.

Good to be here with the amazing duo.

So, Christine, you're a public defender, right?

I am.

I'm a public defender about seven years in.

And thanks for being on the show.

I know I've come to you in the past to be on the show because I've seen you get other

not-guilties and you've turned me down.

Oh, I'm a little nervous.

But this one I come to, again, because I'm persistent.

And you said yes.

I did.

This case stuck out as really an injustice.

And so it was a great, ripe, not-guilty podcast story.

Okay.

And so tell us about it.

What were the facts?

Or what was the charges?

Ray was charged with seven felony counts.

Okay.

And he had no felony record.

But he was charged with three counts of assaulting a firefighter.

Okay.

Three different firefighters.

He was charged with one count of assaulting a female Los Angeles Police Department officer.

And then three counts of PC-69, which is felony resisting or delaying an arrest.

What does he have against government workers?

You know, a little-

First responders.

What does he have against first responders, you know?

Heroes.

Heroes.

Right.

Right.

We were aware of that in jury selection.

It was a choice that, you know, we had to tiptoe around to not be too hard on firefighters.

It's easy to say who's had problems with police.

It's a little harder to say who's had problems with firefighters rescuing cats from trees.

No one's upset when the firemen show up, so-

No, and we weren't either.

They testified very well for us.

Definitely LAPD and the district attorney that felt this was assault.

I don't think the firefighters felt it was assault.

So, go ahead.

What were the facts of the case, as a police report read?

Yeah.

So, the prosecution or the police officer side of the story was that late one evening there have been 911 calls that there was an assault happening at Ray's apartment.

And Ray, at the time, shared an apartment with a lady.

And the police officers come and they walk into this, they hear screaming, and they walk into the apartment, whether the door is open or the door is, they had to enter themselves in, that's unclear.

And when they walk in, they see Ray bleeding from the head and yelling and upset.

And they realize this other woman, who we assume to be the other individual involved in the assault, running around, walking in and out.

And they're like, hey, dude, we're here to help you.

Let us help you.

And per the police report, fuck you.

Get the fuck out of here.

I don't want your help.

You know, expletive, expletive, cussing them out.

All right, they try to help him.

They try to help him.

He doesn't want their help.

He doesn't want their help.

Police report reads that he then grabs a kitchen knife, six, eight-inch blade that was by his side, gets up off the couch and lunges towards the firefighters and then drops it.

And they, you know, run away.

Well, the most important fact that I haven't mentioned yet is my client is 100% totally blight.

In this case, the prosecution alleges that Ray committed assault upon a firefighter with a deadly weapon when he picked up the knife and swung it at the firefighters.

For Ray to be guilty of this crime, the people must prove, among other things, that when Ray swung the knife, he had the present ability to apply force with a deadly weapon.

Blind as a bat, he's missing an eye, and the other eye doesn't have an iris that moves.

It's up on the right-hand side of his eyeball, and it's clouded over.

This man couldn't see.

So, he's an individual who's bleeding from the head, involved in an assault, still in a verbal altercation in which the person assaulted him, and he doesn't want the firefighters' help.

And it's just firemen and paramedics are there?

So, the firefighters were the paramedics.

There were three firefighters there at the scene.

They are attempting to treat him.

Per the police report, once they see the knife, they're like, we're out, right?

And then they go, they call it into LAPD.

Hey, this guy came at us with a knife.

All right.

LAPD comes in, full cavalry.

Oh, my gosh.

Who's assaulting a firefighter with a knife?

This is terrible.

Well, they come in, however many, 6, 8, 10, and they're just with their, you know, I don't know what type of guns they call them, but they're like rubber bullet guns.

Right.

And they're huge, and they're scary, and they're taser, and they're lethal force, and they're non-lethal force.

And they formulate a tactical plan.

And what I should mention is, as they pulled up, you can see Ray standing over the balcony of his home.

It's a two-story apartment building.

And he is yelling, cussing, upset, very emotionally upset, throwing items of clothing and bedding over the railing while the police are outside.

And this is on the body-worn video.

This is on the body-worn video.

Yeah.

And what about, so now it's the police, and are the firemen still there?

They're there talking to the police about what happened.

And what about this female who's sort of running around the background?

She's not caught on the body-worn video, but the firefighter said that she was at the scene and left.

And the police either tried to talk to her, or she didn't want to talk to them.

So we attempted to get her information, could not get it from the prosecutor.

I imagine like a rom-com, kind of.

You're saying somebody's on the balcony, throwing stuff over the balcony, yelling.

Yeah.

I mean, he wasn't holding a boombox over his head.

He was throwing sheets over his head.

But what was interesting to me is what's obvious from the tape is he's still engaging in a verbal altercation with the lady that he's kicked out of his house.

He has no idea the cops are there.

And he's like, fuck you, da-da.

And he's throwing her items.

And who called 911 in the first place?

Well, everybody did.

He did.

The other people in the apartment building did.

There were a number of calls.

Okay.

He called the fireman.

Well, he called the police.

The police.

Oh, okay.

He called the police.

Which he was very eager to tell the police.

I called the police.

I called the police.

Because he had been assaulted by this lady.

So, let me just make sure we get it all straight.

The fireman and the police are called because someone's injured or there's some type of disturbance.

The firemen show up.

Your client's on the couch bleeding from his head.

The lady's running around in the background.

The fireman want to help him out.

Fireman slash per medics.

He says, no, get the fuck out of here.

Leave me alone.

And then they claim at some point he grabs a knife and swings it or tries to jab him with it.

Yeah, that he gets a knife, gets up out of his seat, and lunges and moves maybe four or five steps towards him.

And then the police come.

Yes.

Were they already on the way or did the fireman call the police?

I don't know.

To me, it appeared that the fireman called the police, but there had already been 911 calls.

So, I don't know if the police would have been on their way anyway.

So, then the police form a tactical plan.

Tactical plan.

Ooh.

And tactical plan.

So, they say, okay, we're going to form a tactical plan.

We're going to arrest him.

He pulled a knife on firefighters.

Okay.

So, he can't see us.

So, let's go up this way through the stairs so he doesn't see us.

Well, for me, I'm like, goodness gracious.

One of the elements is they have to know your law enforcement.

Why are you sneaking up on that?

Sure, if you just want to arrest him, but then don't charge him with a PC-69.

For Ray to be guilty of PC-69 trying to prevent an officer from performing his or her duties,

people must prove, among other things, that what?

That Ray used violence or the threat of violence to prevent or deter an officer from performing his or her duties.

Two.

That when Ray acted, he was aware that the person was a peace officer.

Three.

That when Ray acted, he intended to prevent or deter the officer from performing his or her lawful duties.

Now, remember, a peace officer is not lawfully performing his or her duties if he or she is using unreasonable or excessive force.

And you're not putting words in their mouth.

This is, you heard the police officer say this on body-worn video?

Uh.

This tactical plan?

Tactical plan.

He can't see us.

Let's go up this way.

Um.

And this way meant through the stairs.

But how does the PC-69 happen?

So they go up the stairs and then what?

So they go up the stairs and they, they, um, flank him, basically, on both sides of the stairs.

And as they go up, per the police report, they announce themselves to him.

Well, in the body-worn video, you can hear the police officer, the lead officer, who is a female, say,

Uh.

Ray.

Ray.

We just want to talk to you.

Ray.

Ray.

We just want to talk to you.

Half dozen times.

Never.

Hey, Ray.

LAPD here.

Ray.

Police are here.

Can we talk to you?

In no way do they ever identify themselves as police.

Per the body-worn video I heard.

Um.

And then they, they go up to him and they're within a few feet.

And then they see a shiny metal object in his pocket.

Oh.

Believed to be cutlery.

Which, oh my gosh.

You know, he just pulled a knife on firefighters as they believed.

And now he has this cutlery in his pocket.

So, they clandestinely.

So, he would, they ask him to turn around.

He turns around and they say, while his arms are up, I was able to get the shiny cutlery object from his pocket.

And they're really, really violent with him.

And they're really, really forceful with him.

But where's the PC-69?

They approach him.

They tell him to put his hands in the air.

He puts his hands in the air.

They pull out the shiny object.

So, where does the resisting or threatening an officer and preventing him from doing his duties, where does that come in?

That comes in when they're trying to put handcuffs on him.

Okay.

And he seizes and he, you know, tightens up and moves his hands away, per the police report.

And is that what the police report says?

That's it?

That's it.

They charged that as a felony?

They did.

Or as a...

As a felony.

As a felony.

Just seizing up.

Well, so seizing up.

And when they attempted to move his hands, like, behind his back, he, like, moved him to the...

So, if they moved them to the back, he moved him to the front.

But there's...

And then there's one assault on the cop, which was count four.

And the assault on the cop was, they said, when they tried to restrain him, he intentionally head-butted the lead female officer, who was very short.

And they said that he head-butted her.

And had she not moved out of the way, he would have caused great bodily injury.

So, somebody from...

Well, that's a legal term.

Somebody behind him, the person behind the blind guy.

Per the police report, behind the blind guy, right.

That's who he assaulted.

Right.

Now...

Because even if you can see, you could still assault someone behind you.

Right.

I guess he's supposed to have known that she was there.

Oops.

Sorry.

I didn't see you.

You're right behind me.

Right.

This is a bit embarrassing for the police, too.

It's like during jury trials.

They didn't take it.

They didn't take it as so embarrassing.

I mean, during a jury trial, if you're...

You've got...

How many police officers did you say?

You have eight?

I think there were like eight or ten.

So, that's the conduct.

That's it.

He's moving his hands.

He's not quite submitting to the detention and an arrest.

Yeah.

And he says, you know, I'm not...

Per the police report, I'm not doing that.

Fuck you all.

I'm not going to do that.

And he began to walk away using the wall as a guide because he's blind.

What about a stick?

Did he threaten him with a stick that was long that he had on the ground?

This feels wrong.

No.

But in the body worn video, I didn't...

Did he have a vicious tack dog with him?

It was sad.

I looked at the case and I'm like, wait, are we really going to trial on this?

I want to hear about when you get the case.

Before he even goes to prelim, you know, like you get the case.

Okay.

You meet your client, right?

And what's he like?

The client was really upset, really devastated that he was in custody.

For many of our clients, when they're in custody, the collateral consequences of that are devastating.

Sometimes they lose their housing.

Luckily for this client, he thought he was going to lose his apartment.

He didn't.

They actually kept it for him because they like him so much in his little community.

But he was really upset and a little bit, he just could not believe.

He could not believe that he had called 911, that he was the victim, and that he was in custody from, you know, saying, he's like, I never assaulted firefighters.

You know, I didn't, you know, he was shocked.

Like after meeting your client, what was your game plan then?

So our game plan was to fingerprint the knife in question.

And Ray was positive.

Positive.

At no point, he had a knife.

Positive.

Because Ray also sounds like he's in the heat of the moment during all this.

Right.

And he's blind.

He doesn't know.

Well, I guess he knows what he feels.

I guess so.

But, you know, a fork and a knife can feel similar.

I know.

Like handles, right?

So the police took into evidence a knife.

They took into evidence a knife, yes.

Did they say where they collected it?

Yes.

They said they collected it right outside of our client's apartment.

Like right outside on the door jam.

Like as if laying up against the wall.

So there's a knife?

There's a knife on scene.

By the door.

Wow.

Okay.

There was a knife on scene.

We conceded the knife on scene.

So yeah, you had to fingerprint.

How would the knife get there if Rayden grab it and run after us with it and then drop it as he got to the door?

Well, you want to know how the lady who had just assaulted him who was walking in and out of the house with her belongings.

Could it be that simple?

She was moving her stuff out and she dropped the knife.

Did you ever speak to the lady?

I did.

And then did she say what happened?

Like what led up to the police being called or?

What I asked her about was the knife.

Okay.

And she had said that it was her knife and that she may have dropped it.

What else?

Anything else in terms of pre-trial investigation?

You got the body-worn video.

So you saw that was different from the police report.

I got the body-worn video, which was great for us.

I got the knife printed.

The client believed Ray thought that the minute the prosecution knew that his prints weren't on the knife,

they were going to dismiss the case.

Why would he think that?

When the laborers would think that?

Oh, Ray.

Oh, you know, you're charged with holding a knife and assaulting.

He's just not listening to this podcast.

And I had to keep trying to ground his expectations.

And he just couldn't get over it.

He was like, no, they're charging me with assault with a knife.

My fingerprints won't be on the knife.

The minute the district attorney sees that my prints weren't on the knife, of course they're going to dismiss Miss Christine.

And I'm like, well, I don't think that's going to happen.

I think they'll proceed anyway.

I had this pre-trial DA, who's a calendar DA, and his offer prior to trial was three years state prison, I think.

And to me, that was a lot.

That's a hole for a guy that's never been to prison.

And is blind.

And is blind.

He's extremely vulnerable.

Wow.

Was Ray willing to take anything to resolve the case?

No.

Ray would have taken misdemeanors.

I mean, they knew that Ray was blind, right?

That was obvious.

He's, not only was it in the police reports, but he also is needing to be led out by a bailiff.

He puts his hand on the bailiff's shoulder and is led in and out of court.

So what's the defense then in your case?

What's your defense?

So I kind of really had to be wary of how the firefighters were going to testify.

Okay.

My defense was either going to be he never had a knife, as supported by the circumstantial evidence, that his prints were not on it.

Now, the way that the print report came back was his prints aren't on the knife.

No prints are on the knife.

The knife is too dirty to pull anything off.

My second defense was, even if you believe he held the knife, he does not have the present ability to do great bodily injury.

He is blind.

He doesn't know where anybody is.

He doesn't know where they are.

Right.

And they're several feet away from him.

And they, like, didn't run away.

They simply walked back.

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.

So in preparing for a trial, getting all my things together, the things that I reviewed were the fingerprint analysis, the witness statements.

Some I didn't choose to call the witness that we had interviewed.

And then the body worn video, we had part of it transcribed.

And in reviewing it again, the thing that shocked me so much about this case that was already so sad and so disproportionate and so terrible and devastating, I was watching, continuing to watch the body worn video.

And my client was transported, Ray was transported to the hospital.

Because, again, remember, he's bleeding from the head.

He has these injuries.

And as he's being transported to the hospital, the cops, one of the officers had his body worn video still on.

And he's in the hospital at California Dignity Hospital, and he's handcuffed, both arms to the gurney, and in the hospital bed.

And there's all this medical staff around him, and he's two officers.

One officer was the officer that was alleged to, he was alleged to have resisted arrest.

And the other officer was his partner.

Well, his partner left his body worn video on.

The client's still very upset.

Ray's screaming, Ray's yelling, Ray's cussing, he's crying.

And they're like, put your head back, put your head back.

And Ray says, just treat me like a man.

Just treat me like a man.

I'll do it.

Just treat me like a man.

And the officer pulls back his head, real forceful, and then takes a towel, puts it over his face, puts it over his eyes, nose, and mouth, and holds it down so aggressively.

You can see his arms are tight.

He's pressing down so hard.

And you can see the towel move up and down.

And Ray's gasping for breath.

And Ray's screaming out, I can't breathe.

I can't breathe.

I can't breathe.

Take it off my face.

I can't breathe.

I can't breathe.

And it's horrifying and disturbing to watch.

So they just choked him for like a couple minutes.

Suffocated for a couple minutes.

And what was Ray saying?

Just treat me like a man.

I'll do it.

I'll do what?

Like, I'll put my head back.

I'll stop.

I'll be calm.

They were like, calm down, calm down.

Were they trying to interview him?

Why were they there?

Do you know?

I think it must be protocol that the police follow a suspect while they're getting treatment

from the hospital.

And there were no nurses around?

There were.

There were nurses there.

Yeah, there was medical staff there.

They saw this?

Treating him, yes.

And they didn't do anything about it.

And then what happened after he's yelling?

So two minutes, about two minutes, he's yelling and he's gasping for breath.

And you can see this towel just like go up and go down, go up and go down.

And then he just stops.

He's not saying anything.

The towel is limp for about two minutes.

And at some point, you can see that the towel falls off his face.

The officer's no longer pressing it down over his nose and mouth.

And when it falls off his face, you can see Ray's face there just without movement.

It appears he's completely unconscious.

And then about two minutes after that, you hear him whisper.

And I couldn't tell in the video because the officer moved if somebody had revived him

through like smelling salts or if he just simply came to.

But the bottom line is the officer, while the client was, while Ray was restrained to a hospital bed

in a hospital setting, took a towel, put it over his face, pressed it hard down over his nose,

over his mouth to the extent that he couldn't breathe despite multiple protests

and pleas to take it off his face and let him breathe.

Now, again, to remind you again, this man's blind.

This man's been through a traumatic experience.

He was the one that was injured.

He was bleeding.

He was injured, bleeding from the head.

How terrifying must those two minutes have been for this man before he passed out?

He didn't even know this had happened to him, mind you.

Again, because he had passed out.

He's in his 60s, too.

Yeah, he wasn't a spring young man.

So it was just really inhumane how they treated him.

Did you take this to the DA before the trial started?

Did you say, like, look what your cops did to my client?

I did, and I really naively thought.

Oh, so you thought, too, right?

Well, hey, that's even, I mean, it's separate and apart from the incident.

But, I mean, a lot of these cases with police abuse or they charge our clients with police abuse,

they're worried about a lawsuit.

They're worried about a civil lawsuit and they want to get a conviction on something.

That's why they'll even be like, oh, how about a misdemeanor?

How about an infraction?

Anything.

They get a conviction on something and it somehow, I don't know, I'm not a civil attorney.

It somehow justifies.

It somehow insulates them.

Yeah, from any civil liability.

So you go to the DA with this, right?

I go to the DA and I say, oh, my gosh.

Is this the calendar DA?

No, the trial DA.

I go to the trial DA and I say, did you watch this part of the body wearing video?

And she goes, no, no, I didn't.

And I go, okay, well, I think that you need to watch it.

Let me show it to you.

And we watch it together and I'm still horrified from seeing it.

Like, I have probably watched it 20, 30 times.

The first five times I watched it, it still made my skin crawl.

It made me feel terrible.

It would come back to me later in the night or later in the day.

And I just remember how terrified his voice sounded.

And so I show it to her and I really expect her to say, oh, my gosh, this is so terrible.

I'm so sorry.

Let's make this right.

Or something.

She watches it and she says, so what do you want?

And I say, okay.

Now, we as defense lawyers always need to play our cards right of not asking for too much.

With every bit of my bone, I believed a dismissal was 100% appropriate and the true just only thing.

But Ray's sitting in jail facing felonies.

Yeah.

So I asked for misdemeanors, which I thought was so reasonable.

That's very reasonable.

He's been in custody for like 90 days.

It's extremely reasonable.

I thought I was giving him a gift by asking for misdemeanors.

And you also, you haven't heard the fireman at this point.

Like, you know, you have a police report that says firemen claim he came at them with a knife.

That's what you're expecting at trial.

Right.

Right.

So.

And they're all strikes too.

What's Ray's max because of all these?

15 years.

15 years.

And there's like.

And there's more than two strikes.

The three strikes charge.

Four.

I'm sorry.

Four strikes and 15 errors.

Okay.

So you offer misdemeanors.

I offer misdemeanors because that was my client's end game originally.

And I talked to him before about it.

Hey, there's this video.

And it was really sad for me.

I had to tell him what the video showed.

But anyways, our misdemeanor offer is completely rejected.

They make no counteroffer.

And then she says, well, I'm going to move to exclude this.

Well, during the trial.

During the trial.

And I go, well, why?

On what grounds?

And she goes, well, it's not relevant.

It's not relevant.

It's the officer.

He's charged with resisting arrest in count four.

She goes, it's after the fact.

I go, it's like 20 minutes after the fact.

15.

Top's 30.

How much more relevant could it be whether this officer, let's call him Officer C, whether

Officer C used excessive force.

Whether Officer C, I mean, I mean, tell me if this is an exaggeration.

I mean, it's like, it's like an attempted murder.

Like, what is this?

I mean, he's suffocating this blind guy that's handcuffed to a gurney for minutes and he stops

breathing.

And I mean, he's saying, I can't breathe.

And then he continues to asphyxiate him.

Yeah.

So I felt at a minimum, I felt, I felt it was, if it was anybody else not in blue, it would

have been an attempted murder.

Yeah.

Our clients would have been attempted murder.

And so while we're on the topic, I know I wanted to talk about juries and everything,

but you go in front of the judge to talk about this evidence.

I did.

So we went, we did a 402, which is a motion in Lemon A. We did a couple of 402s and that

one was the most significant.

And that's a motion to see if evidence is going to be admitted or not admitted or excluded.

So the DA moved to exclude it and the judge was like, okay, well, let me watch the video.

And so I burned it for him and he watched it in chambers.

He watches it in chambers and he comes back out and we make our arguments and the DA says

it's not relevant.

It's after the fact.

Officers see, you know, it's totally separate from the arrest of Ray.

And I said, well, look, it's relevant for a couple of reasons.

Number one, officer C is going to testify that he did not use excessive force in arresting

my client.

His character as a police officer is always at issue.

Whether he used excessive force 15, 20, 30 minutes later is relevant to whether he used

excessive force in arresting Mr. Ray.

Something for the jury to decide, let them decide it, let them hear it, let them weigh it.

Secondly, this is an officer under a color of law.

He needs to conduct himself in a certain amount of way.

And if he is asphyxiating and suffocating people, that is not right.

And his credibility as a testifying witness, again, is that issue.

Then I was also like, look, we have, the judge was like, well, it's at, what do you think

about it being after the fact?

And I was like, well, how is this not analogous to a pitcher's witness?

A pitcher's witness, for those of you that don't know, is a witness on usually a prior case

that will say, this officer lied when they arrested me.

Or this officer used excessive force in arresting me.

And you can introduce, at a jury trial, that witness's testimony to prove that the officer

either lied in this case or was excessive.

Just basically to prove conformity within that conduct.

That's not legally what it is.

And so I said, hey, how is this not any different than a pitcher's witness?

And third, look, if this officer, I did not say, committed a temp murder.

Yeah, that would be going too far.

I mean, that's what's in my head.

But yeah, you bring that up.

I didn't.

But I said assault, or I said battery with serious bodily injury.

It's a crime.

It's a crime.

It's a crime.

But when I said battery with serious bodily injury, the judge's eyebrows went up and I

knew that that was a bad move, and I said a crime or misconduct, then he has a motive to

write the police report a certain way, a motive to fabricate or exaggerate the arrest, the

conduct of my client in the arrest.

And at a minimum, that's bias and that's motive, and the jury should be able to hear that.

Yeah, bottom line, you articulated a lot of ways why it's relevant.

You just need one reason why it's relevant.

The standard is not high.

And the judge, I think the writing's on the wall here.

The judge said, you know what?

He said, I reviewed the video.

So the DA jumped out of her seat when I said assault with battery of serious bodily injury.

Only I can determine that, your honor.

You know, and her point was, her point was, you know, we don't know if he passed out because

the medical personnel also gave him a sedative at the same time.

That's what they argued?

Do they have any?

She, she, she argued that.

And she said, based on, based on nothing.

Yeah, she said, also, Christine, you know, it can't be, it can't be out of policy or it

can't be that dangerous because all the medical staff is sitting there doing nothing.

And I felt like saying, because this officer just suffocated this guy, what are they going

to do?

What are they going to do?

That's still for the jury to decide, you know?

At a minimum, it's for the jury to decide the way, not the immiscibility.

So that's excluded.

So it's excluded, but the judge said, you know what?

And, and with a way, the district attorney was really kind of flippant in her description

of the conduct.

And while the judge raises eyebrows at me for this serious bodily injury, he, the DA got

him a little more upset because he did not like her description of her underplay of

it because he said, he goes, this video was a very, watching this video was very disturbing

because it's horrifying.

Yeah.

He said, it's very disturbing and it's not relevant here, but it may be relevant at another

stage.

And I was like, stage, what does that mean?

I'm like, does that mean a 17B?

Does that mean after trial, he's going to reduce it to a misdemeanor?

Does that mean a civil proceeding where the client's going to sue police officers?

So, all right, let's talk about the trial then.

You got some of your judge, the video's coming in.

Yeah.

Now it's time to select the jury or what?

The video's not coming in.

Oh, the video's not coming in.

Not that video.

The other body was coming in.

The body was coming in.

But the suffocating's not coming in.

It's time to select the jury.

Which really hurt my client's feelings.

My client was really felt, again, so disheartened by the process.

Because he's listening to a judge say this about him.

Yeah.

And he just felt, how can the police do that to me?

He's taking all these hits.

Like, you know, how are you keeping this guy in custody in the first place throughout all this?

You hear a prelim.

You see this man.

He's just sitting in jail.

He doesn't have much of a record.

Yeah.

And then now he has to hear a judge saying, we're going to exclude this.

Yeah.

And it felt to him like, they don't care.

They don't care about him.

They don't care about how law enforcement treated him and how they hurt him and how they almost killed him.

What was your questioning of the jurors like?

What were you kind of like hitting them on?

Like, officer credibility or fireman credit?

I've never done a fireman credibility.

I did not touch fireman credibility in jury selection because I knew.

Nobody's had a bad experience with firemen.

Like, what were the topics?

So I focused a lot on officer credibility and I focused on, you know, what?

Law enforcement does so many great things, but they're like any person.

And, you know, have you had bad experiences or positive experience?

And then I tried to empower the jury.

And I said, juror number so-and-so, do you feel comfortable judging a police officer?

You know, they're in that uniform.

They have this position of power.

Do you feel comfortable judging whether they acted outside of their scope, whether they went too far?

That's a really good question.

Whether they used excessive force.

Do you feel that you can do that?

And that was important because I needed people that would be comfortable doing that.

As opposed to just saying, oh, I think some officers can tell the truth and some officers can lie because that's the answer we get a lot.

And that's fine.

I needed them to feel like they could judge a police officer's credibility and testimony like they would any other witness.

This isn't the time to stand aside and say, let's not, you know, second guess a police officer.

This is not one of those moments.

What I was also asking is, hey, do you think people with physical or mental disabilities should be treated different by police?

Oh, OK.

And what kind of responses were you getting?

Yeah.

Yeah, of course.

Oh, like what?

Because you do not handle a man that can't see you the same way you would handle me or the two people sitting here because they're more vulnerable.

So I really wanted to empower my jury to feel that they were not only adequate, but that it was their job, their role to judge whether this was excessive or not.

So then the evidence rolls out, right?

And who testifies first for the people?

The firefighters?

Firefighters testify first.

So were the firefighters consistent in their test?

How many firefighters testified?

Three firefighters testified.

And what is it like?

Should we go through what each of them said?

Yes.

But first, let me tell you that firefighter number three had to be flown out from another state.

And to me, as a taxpayer, I got a little upset.

I was like, come on.

Like, this isn't worth it.

You know what?

These firefighters are divas.

The firefighters were actually pretty pleasant.

Oh, were they, Christine?

They were.

No, no.

Did you go like that with the firefighters?

No.

When you're cross-examining them?

Oh, fire them.

I didn't.

Stop.

No.

So what does the first one testify to?

First one goes, this was the one testified at Prelim.

First one goes, hey, I'm the paramedic.

And I was actually the one closest to him.

And he was really upset.

He was bleeding from the head.

He was cussing us out.

But I actually couldn't tell if he was cussing us out.

Or this lady that was obviously getting him upset.

Every time she walked by him, he would erupt into anger and cussing her out.

And she was walking in and out of the house or in and out of the apartment.

In and out of the apartment holding things, moving things.

And he's like, at the beginning, I couldn't tell if she was just upset.

He was yelling because he was upset at her or whether he was yelling at us.

But then it became clear that he was yelling at us and telling us, fuck you, get out of my house, leave.

And he goes, and so then, you know what?

It was like, this is a non-emergency situation.

His injuries aren't that bad.

We're going to leave.

And then as I walked out, as I backed out of the apartment, I saw a knife propped up against his door.

And I was like, and when you saw that knife, he was inside the house, inside the apartment.

He's like, yes.

Okay.

That, for us, that was a pivotal fact.

Yeah.

And then he says, and I was like, when you saw the knife, what'd you do?

He's like, I picked it up and I brought it downstairs.

Picked up the knife and brought it downstairs?

Brought it, yeah.

Is that where the police found it?

Well, the firefighter gave it to police.

Oh, okay.

So far, so good with first number of witness number one.

Okay.

How did that feel when you heard that?

Was it like, yeah.

You're waiting for that, oh, shit, moment to come.

And I couldn't celebrate yet because there were two more firefighters to go.

Yeah.

All right.

So witness number two.

And that firefighter was so credible and was just a sweetheart and was just like, just saying

whatever he remembered.

After you hear that, you're like, let's turn on this firefighter charm.

Let's make you a real firefighter.

This is why I didn't ask any questions about how much we trust firefighters.

Yeah.

We can't impugn his credibility.

Firefighter number two testifies and he's the captain.

Ooh.

And the captain testifies that he didn't see a knife.

Captain, before he testifies, he goes, so you never saw Ray hold a knife.

Captain goes, I never saw him hold a knife.

I'm like, okay, cool.

This is outside of the courtroom.

Correct.

Correct.

Is the prosecutor there when you have this quick conversation?

She is.

She's either there or within an earshot or yes.

Okay.

And did she seem phased by this?

Of course not.

A little alarmed?

No.

So he says outside, he says no, no knife, no knife.

Never saw a knife.

Okay.

So then he gets on the stand and he says, you know, he was upset.

He was yelling at us.

He didn't want our help.

And we left.

And when we left, I walked out.

I was behind officer number one, firefighter number one.

And when we walked out, then Ray got up and charged at us and ran and chased us all the

way down, like to the edge of Beast of the Out on the balcony.

And I was like, run.

And firefighter number one had testified that he did get up out of his seat and he did walk

towards the police officers.

Get out of my house.

Get out of my house.

And he had his hands out when he was saying that.

And I said to firefighter number one, so he had his hands out as if he was attempting

to balance on the balcony beam.

And he's like, yes.

As opposed to like chasing them.

And meanwhile, my client's not chasing anybody.

The jury had seen my client was so blind because my client had a water bottle and I had to like

put it in front of his, I had to like tap it so he would know where it was.

I had to put his hands on it and I wasn't overdoing it at all because it was just so obvious that

there was like no need and it would have been overkill.

But then I had to tell the client to get up whenever the jurors would walk in.

And then when the jurors sat down, I had to tell him to sit down and the jurors could see

and the jurors would look at him as they walked past him and they could see he's missing an eye.

And they could see his other eye is obviously not in working order.

So to say that this man chased these big burrowly firefighters like 30 feet.

And all the firefighters were running away.

Good luck.

So then I found it incredible.

That's what came out on the on direct.

What did you do on cross-examination then?

On cross, I tried to, I was like, so you never saw him hold a knife.

Let's emphasize, let's emphasize some key points in our cross-examination.

The whole point is he didn't have a knife.

He didn't hold a knife and let alone he didn't assault you with a knife.

And I tried to get like, wasn't he holding his hands out to balance himself?

And he was like, I'm like, wasn't he stumbling when he walked four or five steps forward?

And he was like, no, he was chasing us.

He was running.

And I was like, okay, let's go for it.

He's running.

He's chasing you.

Because that was just inconsistent.

And that just seemed farfetched.

So I was like, go for it.

Let's exaggerate.

So what does the third office, uh, firefighter or paramedic say?

Third firefighter who was flown in courtesy of your tax dollars.

Um, I talked to him at a head of time and he was nothing but nice.

And he says, I really can't remember.

Well, that's bad for me.

Because if he can't remember, what happens is the prosecutor gets to introduce the police officer's statement.

Hold on.

They flew in the guy.

Well, I guess they have to have him say.

I can't remember.

So what, they have to?

In the grand scheme of things?

I mean, if they want to get this police officer to say his statements.

Because they really want to get this blind guy for assault.

I mean, clearly they do at this point.

Clearly we know they want to.

They got to win at this point.

I feel like if you can't remember, then it didn't happen.

Because you would remember someone trying to stab you with a knife.

So one cop, uh, firefighter says the, he walked out the door and the knife was there.

Another guy says he chased him.

The other one doesn't remember anything.

So now they can bring in the prior statements.

Is that correct?

That's pretty much it for the firefighters then, right?

Yes.

And then, so who does the prosecutor bring up next?

So police officer that allegedly got headbutt did not testify.

She was gone, um, she was out, maybe, I don't know why.

Firefighter can get flown in.

But the LAPD officer that gets headbutted, can't make it, can't make it.

You know, in the direct, would have gotten headbutted in the direction of.

But what we haven't mentioned is, per the body worn video, he didn't thrust his head in her direction at all.

She was to his side, and he thrusted it back.

Like, it wasn't in her direction at all.

Unless you can say there are weird angles or whatever.

Um, but no, it was complete bullshit.

He didn't thrust his head at her.

And what was interesting was, the prosecutor first played the body worn video, which shows the client,

Why are you arresting me?

Why?

Stop!

Stop!

Highly emotional.

And it shows really aggressive, violent police contact.

Now, in our criminal practice, we see arrests like this kind of frequently.

And so, we're a little jaded.

And it didn't shock my conscience, that part of it.

Certainly the hospital did.

Hospital video.

But then I had to remember what it's like to be a juror.

And I thought they would be shocked by it.

Because they're pushing him against the wall.

They end up hog-tying him and escorting him down by hog-tying me and say, um, and they

said that was objection argumentative.

What would you call it?

And it had a specific name.

And this is your jury question that you had earlier when you were picking a jury.

Do you think that people with disabilities should be treated differently?

And, you know, now, here they get to see how they're treating this guy.

And so I think that's like a really great way.

Yeah.

You know, that jury question.

So then once I saw the jurors' reaction of their, you know, they kind of were taken

aback.

Their shoulders went up to their ears, a couple of them.

And they looked mad.

So then I played that video a couple more times.

And cross, in closing, I was like, let's go.

I love it when the prosecution's evidence turns into your evidence.

Because they misjudged it.

She misjudged it.

And this is a great way about how you lawyer.

Because when you have trials, you really, you know, there's a moment of theatrics, I feel

like, in all of your cases.

Were you questioning the officers with the video on certain moments?

Yes.

Like, which moments of the video were you questioning the officers about?

Like, so watching the video.

And you would be playing it.

Yeah.

So did you push him up against the wall?

Yeah.

And you pushed him using your full body weight.

And you're using these pain compliance techniques.

When you're pulling his arm behind his back.

What's it?

And I don't know if they use the term pain compliance technique or I did.

And I go, that means twisting somebody's arm so that you can gain compliance over them.

So they'll move their arm.

You're intentionally putting them in discomfort or pain.

Well, no, no, no.

Okay.

It's called a pain compliance technique.

Yeah.

And questions like that.

And then, and during this time, he's saying, why are you arresting me?

Why are you arresting me?

And you didn't answer him, right?

Because there is a part of the jury instruction in the Calcrum that says, if the person asks

you, why are you arresting them?

Then you need to tell them.

Otherwise, you're not acting in the lawful performance of their duty.

And there are exceptions like, oh, they're a danger.

They're going to flee or whatever.

But so I asked those types of questions.

But the cop that was the officer that suffocated my client testified that he actually, prior

to the headbutt or the alleged headbutt, he put his hands in interlock, fingers in interlock

position, pulled my client's head down towards his waist.

And I, first of all, I was like, none of this is in the police report.

And this seems really weird.

This seems not.

I didn't know if it was policy.

When and where did he do this?

While they were arresting him initially.

Okay.

And then so to me, it was the reaction of this guy pulling his head down that my client thrusted

back in reaction.

And that was better for me because it wasn't an intentional headbutt.

Number one, it was never in her direction.

Number two, it was a reaction to this guy pulling his head forward.

Why are you pulling his head forward?

That's not going to help arrest him.

You pull his hands behind his back.

Why are you doing all of this?

He's got all these pain compliance techniques.

Yeah.

And he can't see.

And he doesn't know what's going on.

And they're not identifying themselves the way they should be.

And it was just so much.

It was just so overly aggressive.

I mean, it's the conduct of bullies really is what it seems like.

You know, like if you see a guy that's blind and, you know, disabled, you don't have to go through

all that to disarm them.

You really don't.

Christine, is there any other moments of the trial you want to talk about?

The jury trial.

So we're watching this video, right?

And the jury was locked in on my client.

They wanted to see how he reacted to testimony.

They wanted to see his feelings and his reaction to this.

So it was really difficult for my client to hear and be present for all this happening.

And so when we, when the videos would be getting played, he would ask me, what's happening?

And I would have to narrate to him, oh, okay, this is the officer coming up.

This is so-and-so.

This is them putting you behind your back.

Okay, now they're putting you in a hog tie.

And I'm saying it quietly, but the jury knows I'm saying something.

And they're looking at my client.

They're looking at me.

They can tell he has no idea what's going on.

And it was just really sad.

And then it was really hard for me.

Each time a police officer got on the stand, my client would ask me, is this the officer

that suffocated me?

And then when the officer, officer C, that did go up on the stand and testify, and so we

got called and the client again goes, is this the officer that suffocated me?

And I said, yes.

And then he just started to, like, quietly cry to himself.

It was so emotional.

It was so hard for him because he really was hurt.

And it was so dehumanizing.

And so just even having this officer in his presence, like, hurt his soul.

And it hurt my soul, too, to see him tortured like that.

He was tortured.

Well, I just, you know, I appreciate you.

Clearly, this was a vulnerable person that needed to be protected by, you know, public

servants.

And I'm not saying that all these officers weren't.

You know, some of these officers thought this is a guy that went after a fireman with a knife.

Yeah.

So they thought they were doing their job.

Some did, you know, clearly the fuck him and escalating it.

That's not appropriate.

But this officer that, you know, in the hospital, like, it's just crazy to hear that.

And then it gets excluded.

We're going to talk about this another time.

You know, like.

It felt unfair.

It feels it just feels wrong.

And nothing is going to come of it.

There's going to be no internal investigations.

He's not going to lose his job.

He's not going to be disciplined.

You know, what's what's stopping a judge or a D.A. at that point from being objective

and saying, OK, hey, this case aside, that conduct right there is a problem.

Right.

I thought that was the D.A. responsibility.

Like this case is really small potatoes compared to what he could be somebody shooting an unarmed

person.

What if what if Ray went in the cardiac arrest and died in that moment because he wasn't

getting oxygen and breathing in his heart?

Because he's in his 60s, you know, like.

Right.

And this officer is on the street right now.

Like right now as we're speaking, he's on the street.

And before the officer testified, I asked the prosecutor, I'm like, so does he know about

the video?

I just kind of wanted to know for his demeanor.

And she's like, yeah, he does.

And I was like, did he apologize to you?

And she said, no.

Well, she probably didn't ask for an apology.

She probably didn't.

She probably said, she probably said, don't open the door for this.

Probably.

Yeah.

Don't say things because if the officer would have said stuff like, I would never do that.

I never used excessive force.

I'm always blah, blah, blah.

I'm by the book.

Then you could have possibly brought in the video.

So she probably told him.

She primed him maybe.

Maybe that's why she told him.

That would have been smart for her.

After the trial.

I mean, the show's called Another Not Guilty.

But I'm saying after the trial, you get your not guilty.

Was it ever discussed again with the judge?

Did the judge ever say, hey, let's talk about this?

Or the DA say, hey, let's talk about this part?

No, no one was really offended.

The judge said, you know, when he originally watched the video, he made his comment about it.

But no, I thought if I were a DA, I would say, look, judge, I've reported this to my supervisor, to the appropriate authorities.

They're going to do an internal investigation because it's their interest to have law enforcement doing their job properly on the street.

And this was outside of that, I think.

Can we report it?

Can we just throw this video on YouTube or something?

I don't know.

They make you sign a protective order?

I don't think we can throw the video up, but we have made a complaint through the appropriate channels.

Okay.

With the client's consent.

So.

Ray asked us to do so.

So I want to hear about your closing argument because you have a lot of shit to stand on and fight for.

You have a big soapbox on this case, I feel like.

So tell me about your closing argument.

So the closing argument was the first time I used PowerPoint.

Ooh.

I know.

Risky.

So risky.

So risky.

And so let me guess.

You probably put up a lot of pictures of the firemen.

Giggled a bit.

Giggled a bit.

That's what kept for personal use.

The reason I did was because I wanted to play the video again.

And so the easiest way to do that was through splicing it into a PowerPoint.

So I had a very basic, like maybe only eight slides.

Originally I had like 13 and I was putting all the elements and all the evidence and I was like, this is crazy.

And so I started off in my closing argument playing the video again so they could hear my clients' screams and terror.

And I focused on you and you alone determine what excessive force was.

And if they were excessive, they were not in lawful performance of their duties and there's no PC-69.

And for the assault on the firefighters, for the assault on the cop with the headbutt, I was like, here's the video.

Let's play it again.

Let's play it again.

And then so for the firefighter, the three counts of assault with a knife, likely to produce great bodily entry, I was like, look, we printed the knife.

His knife, his fingerprints aren't on the knife.

Firefighter number one, who was in front, said, I didn't see a knife.

Firefighter number two, who was behind him, said, I didn't see a knife.

Firefighter number three said, I don't remember.

And then so you have a cop saying that the firefighter said that he had a knife and that he lunged and you have one firefighter saying that he walked towards him with his arms out of to balance.

And then you have a second firefighter saying he chased him.

I'm like, no, it's inconsistent.

Things get caught up in the moment.

It's like Goldilocks and the Three Bears.

Yeah, it was.

The first mouse in the porch was.

Yeah, but I did concede.

Goldilocks and the knife.

Something.

Well, I'm glad the jury got to hear all this.

After it's done, it's easy to say that.

The jury felt good about what they had done.

And the jury, after they acquitted, so there were so many not-guilties.

My client was so overwhelmed with emotion.

I'm like, holding him.

He's crying.

He's saying, thank you so much.

He got released that night.

He came to the office the next day because I had, he was, if you don't know, our clients are in custody.

A lot of times they can't afford clothes that are appropriate for trial.

So we have a custody closet.

And our office had been flooded and there was asbestos and the custody closet had been closed.

I mean, you couldn't get access to it.

And I didn't realize this till the morning of the trial.

And I'm like, crap.

I have to be in this trial court at like 830 sharp.

I don't have clothes for this client.

I can't get into the custody room.

So I like run to Target.

Okay.

You can't really get that nice of clothes at Target.

Well, you can't get suit clothes, I should say.

Right.

You get like dress clothes.

You can get fine normal clothes.

So I did.

I got him khaki dockers, a white long sleeve polo shirt.

And then I had just finished a trial where I'd had a couple blue jackets, navy blue jackets for my client.

So I still had those in my office.

Unfortunately, I didn't clean them because I had no time.

Polo and a sports coat sounds pretty fashionable, actually.

I know.

I really, you know, we're going for the conservative country club look.

So he really liked these clothes.

And I switched out the shirt.

I had to like go around also running to my colleagues.

Do you have a clean shirt?

Medium, large size.

Because he can't wear the same shirt every day.

So I had to get some variety.

And luckily, some of our colleagues have a couple clothes waiting in their office at all times.

Because, again, we didn't have access to the custody closet.

So the client liked these clothes.

And I say to him, oh, by the way, these are new clothes for you.

Because I thought that would be nice to tell him.

And he goes, oh, I can tell.

And I'm like, oh, okay, that's nice.

So then when the case was submitted to the jury, the client goes, Ray goes, Miss Christine, would it be okay?

I really like these clothes.

Would it be okay with you if I kept these clothes?

Nice.

And I'm like, oh.

He goes, they're really nice.

I'd like to have them.

This is before your verdict, right?

Before the verdict.

So we lose, of course.

Ray.

We should get some Target advertising.

You can't jinx stuff like.

Right?

Target, save Mr. Ray.

Clothes so comfortable, a blind man.

I mean, those are comfortable clothes if a blind person wants them, right?

I know.

He really thought they were really great.

He could really tell the quality was there.

And I was like, sure, sure.

Okay.

So and then when he got acquitted, he's like, okay.

He was so happy.

He's crying.

He's, you're my angel.

You're wonderful.

We had had a personal exchange of stories prior to that.

And he was like, can I come back?

Can I come back to your office and get some items related to the case from you?

And would it be okay if I got the clothes?

And I'm like, of course.

So packed up his clothes, put his other materials from his trial in it.

And he came back and he picked them up.

And he had a security guard from downstairs escorting him because, again, people escort him everywhere because he can't get anywhere.

Yeah, he's blind.

And he was just the sweetest man, sweetest old man.

He's just such a great, wonderful client, such a nice man.

And what was really sweet is he made friends with everybody in his pod while he was in custody, still keeps in contact with them, puts money on their books.

Because he's so nice.

He's a good guy.

Good guy.

Good guy.

Works in his community, helping people, disadvantaged.

And he got a lawyer that he, you know, clearly deserved.

You really stepped up.

That was an amazing job.

He was grateful for it, too.

Amazing job.

He was very grateful for it.

That was great.

One of my favorites, all-time favorites, Christine.

Good job, Christine.

Thanks, Benny.

Thanks, Dave.

So, all right.

You've been a public defender for seven years now?

Yeah, just about.

Almost seven.

And why did you want to become a public defender?

That's our last question.

You knew it was coming.

So, I volunteered as a law student during the summer.

And I came from a very sheltered background.

And I just wanted trial experience, whatever.

I didn't know.

I thought I wanted to be an AUSA or something like that.

I come.

I do a summer with the PD's office in East LA and downtown.

And I was shocked at how people were treated and how the justice system did not apply equally to people of different socioeconomic classes and different colors.

And it just hurt my soul to a way that I was like, this is just so terrible.

And I want to.

That's what got me.

That's the hook that got me.

Righting that wrong or being on the side of justice and the pursuit of justice and the pursuit of equal treatment.

Or what about the fact that, like, you got to think all the information that was pumped to you in your sheltered life was that they're there to protect you because these people are bad.

Yeah.

Or just cops are good and cops never make mistakes.

And cops are great.

And district attorneys are great.

And, you know, if someone's in jail, it's because they made a mistake or they're a bad, you know, whatever.

But I don't think it was so much they're bad people and they're dangerous.

It was the system works because it's the right way.

Right.

And then it being exposed to the system.

Ooh.

Yeah.

Sometimes people, you know, somebody needs to do quality control.

Yeah.

It's quality control.

It's making sure or not even making sure because we fall short every day because of the pressures of the system, because of what we're working against with judges, with prosecutors, with probation officers, with unfair sentencing structures, with, you know, strike priors or our client's own history, the lack of programs to put our clients into so they can actually get rehabilitative services.

But thanks for being a badass public defender, Christine.

I think we appreciate it.

We appreciate it.

We appreciate it.

Yeah.

On behalf of everybody in the justice system.

Thank you.

Well, not everybody.

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

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

And guess what?

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