Home Blog Page 53

Fleeing Abuse Victim Cleared of DUI

-
0
Fleeing Abuse Victim Cleared of DUI

San Francisco, CA — A bleeding and bruised woman who fled her attacker after a night of drinking was acquitted of dui penalties after a jury determined it was necessary for her to drive away in order to escape grave harm, San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi announced today.

After deliberating four hours, a jury on Wednesday afternoon found Oroville resident Marlise Paulo, 25, not guilty of driving under the influence and driving with a .08 blood alcohol level or above, both misdemeanors. If convicted, Paulo faced up to a year in jail, fines and revocation of her driver’s license, said her attorney, Deputy Public Defender Abe Abed.

Paulo, who was arrested Sept. 8, 2013, had been visiting San Francisco with her boyfriend to attend a 49ers game and celebrate the boyfriend’s birthday. The couple left their car in a lot near their hotel at 6th and Minna streets and went out for the evening, first having drinks at a pub and then the Crazy Horse Gentlemen’s Club on Market Street. The night began to sour at the strip club, where bouncers ejected Paulo’s boyfriend for becoming belligerent when asked to stop spitting chewing tobacco onto the floor.

Outside, he turned his aggression toward his girlfriend, grabbing Paulo and shouting while accusing her of taking the bouncers’ side. Paulo walked back to the hotel alone and fell asleep. She awoke to her boyfriend pounding on the door.. When she opened it, she testified, he grabbed her and threw her into the night stand, lacerating her scalp and blackening her eye.

Bleeding from the head, Paulo grabbed her car keys and ran from the room. Her boyfriend chased her down the hall, where she locked herself into the hotel’s shared bathroom. Paulo’s boyfriend began pounding on the door, she said. When the pounding subsided, Paulo peeked out to ensure her attacker had retreated, and then hurried to her car.

“It was after midnight. Ms. Paulo was three hours from home in an unsafe area of the city where she knew no one,” Abed said. “She ran to the only place she could think of for safety, her car.”

As she sat in her parked vehicle, her boyfriend approached and began pounding on the windows and threatening to beat and kill her, she testified.

“Fearing for her life, she had no other option but to drive off,” Abed said. Paulo drove slowly for four blocks before turning the wrong way onto Bryant, a one-way street. She was pulled over by California Highway Patrol officers, who immediately noticed her injuries and suspected domestic violence.

Fearful of retribution and in an effort to protect her boyfriend, who was on felony probation, Paulo told police she had accidentally hit her head against a wall.  Still suspicious, the CHP officers flagged down San Francisco police to conduct a domestic violence investigation. Paulo repeated to SFPD officers that she was not the victim of an attack. She was arrested after being treated by paramedics.

During the four day trial, Nancy Lemon, UC Berkeley Law lecturer and leading authority on domestic violence, testified that Paulo suffered from battered woman syndrome and had a clear history of being abused physically and emotionally by her boyfriend over several years.
Lemon testified that being the victim of sustained abuse results in behavior that may seem counter-intuitive, such as lying to protect one’s attacker rather than seeking help from authorities. From the couple’s history and the boyfriend’s violent criminal past, Lemon concluded that the threat to Paulo’s life was extremely high.

The front desk clerk from the couple’s hotel also took the stand, testifying that Paulo left the hotel visibly upset. A short time later, he testified, Paulo’s boyfriend asked the clerk if Paulo had left. San Francisco police also responded to the hotel, but left after learning Paulo’s boyfriend was not there. The clerk offered to show the officers surveillance footage from the hotel’s multiple cameras, but they declined, he testified.

“The law says if you act out of legal necessity, you cannot be convicted of a crime,” Abed said. “I cannot think of a clearer example of necessity than a battered woman fleeing from her abuser.  The jury was able to recognize what the district attorney would not, that Ms. Paulo was a victim that night, not a criminal.”

Adachi said justice was served by the jury.

“Ms. Paulo was a crime victim who was acting in an emergency,” Adachi said. “Fortunately, the law recognizes that sometimes you have to decide between two bad options in order to survive.”

Paulo has since left her boyfriend and is enjoying a fresh start.

“For the first time in my life, I fought back, and it feels great,” she said.

World Series Reveler Not Guilty of Arson

-
0
World Series Reveler Not Guilty of Arson

San Francisco, CA — A 22-year-old man arrested for setting a dumpster fire in the chaotic hours after the San Francisco Giants clinched the 2012 World Series has been acquitted of arson and battery on an officer, Deputy Public Defender Jeff Adachi announced today.

After deliberating four hours, a jury on Thursday afternoon found Oakland resident Brian Irwin not guilty of arson, a felony, and battery on an officer, a misdemeanor. If convicted, he faced four years in prison, a “strike,” and lifetime registration as an arsonist, said his attorney, Deputy Public Defender Peter Santina.  Irwin was convicted of misdemeanor resisting arrest for running from police.

Irwin, a college student on leave with no criminal record, was arrested in the early hours of Oct. 29, 2012 as police were attempting to clear thousands of rowdy fans from the streets surrounding the ballpark.

Prosecutors alleged Irwin yelled an expletive and extended his middle finger toward a police skirmish line at Third and Harrison streets before running northbound on Third Street toward downtown, stopping minutes later to set fire to the contents of a dumpster.  Police chased Irwin through Yerba Buena Gardens, tackling him in the bushes in the median of Mission Street and bloodying his face. Prosecutors alleged a handcuffed Irwin intentionally spit blood in an officer’s face.

Three police officers testified during the two week trial, offing wildly conflicting accounts of Irwin’s alleged conduct. The first officer testified that while he did not witness Irwin light the fire, he saw Irwin atop the dumpster, fanning the flames. The second officer testified that he witnessed Irwin bent down in the area where the fire erupted from the bin. The third officer testified he witnessed Irwin roll the dumpster into the street, overturn it, ignite the spilled garbage and fan the flames.

Six months after the incident, the same officer said he did not see Irwin lighting any fires and could not remember what Irwin was wearing.  At the trial, however, he changed his story, describing Irwin’s clothing in detail and stating that he did witness him lighting a fire. The officer explained that his memory “had grown stronger” over time.

Irwin was not in possession of a lighter or matches or cigarettes. His clothing did not smell like smoke, nor was it charred, Santina said.

Dr. Kathy Pezdek, a professor at Claremont Graduate University and an expert in eyewitness identification, testified about how the effects of time, perception and memory can produce unreliable identifications.

“To say it was a chaotic and confusing night for police would be an understatement,” Santina said. Before the night was over, several dozen people would be arrested, bonfires of trash would be lit in intersections around the city, cars would be overturned and a Muni bus would be torched.

Irwin’s friend also took the stand, testifying that Irwin jumped on the dumpster to dance and had nothing to do with setting fires. The friends were there to celebrate, not to cause destruction, she testified.
Jurors rejected the claim that Irwin purposefully spit on the officer after the officer described being splattered with blood after a handcuffed Irwin, in an apparent effort to breathe, forcefully inhaled and exhaled through his injured nose.
Irwin’s case highlights how easily mistakes can occur, Adachi said.

“There was zero physical evidence that Mr. Irwin lit anything on fire. The charges were based solely on the memories and perceptions of three police officers working under extremely confusing conditions. Fortunately, Mr. Irwin’s public defender was able to expose the shaky, conflicting accounts of the night,” Adachi said.

Anxious Dad Not Guilty of Ramming Cab

-
0
Anxious Dad Not Guilty of Ramming Cab

San Francisco, CA — An anxious young father who chased after a taxi while seeking information about his sick child has been cleared of a slew of felonies that threatened to send him to prison for more than 10 years, San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi announced today.

After deliberating less than two days, a jury on Wednesday afternoon acquitted Luis Gutierrez, 22, of four counts of assault with a deadly weapon (truck), each with a special allegation of use of a deadly weapon; four counts of felony false imprisonment and one count of felony vandalism.

The jury convicted Gutierrez of four counts of misdemeanor false imprisonment and one misdemeanor count of driving without a license. Gutierrez, who had been in jail since his Oct. 20, 2012 arrest, was released on his own recognizance Wednesday.

“The jury rejected every charge that had anything to do with violence,” said his attorney, Deputy Public Defender Steven Gayle.

Gutierrez, a South San Francisco construction worker with no criminal history, shared custody of his 4-year-old son with his former girlfriend. The day of the incident, Gutierrez’s former girlfriend was caring for the boy, who had been ill.

Gutierrez, who was concerned about his son’s health, tried to reach his former girlfriend numerous times Oct. 19 and 20 to check on the boy’s condition, but the young woman was clubbing and did not answer her phone.

A worried Gutierrez then drove to his former girlfriend’s residence in Visitacion Valley where she lived with her mother. The residence was empty and the lights were off.

Gutierrez, who had no knowledge that the boy’s grandmother had taken him to Manteca, began to panic. He waited on the sidewalk until 2 a.m., when his former girlfriend arrived with two friends and exited a cab. Upon seeing Gutierrez, she quickly got back into the taxi, which fled. Gutierrez then jumped into his truck and began to look for the vehicle, spotting it several blocks away. Gutierrez exited his truck and stood in front of the cab, which maneuvered around him as he pleaded to talk to his son’s mother.

Gutierrez then parked in the intersection the cab was about to enter at Sunnydale Avenue and Hahn Street, resulting in a fender-bender that damaged the taxi’s right rear quarter-panel.

While prosecutors argued that Gutierrez tried to hurt his former girlfriend and the other occupants by intentionally backing into the cab, that claim was disproved by surveillance footage showing the cab driver scraping Gutierrez’s truck with his front bumper while attempting to turn behind the vehicle.

Nobody was injured in the accident, and Gutierrez was arrested less than an hour later by South San Francisco police.

The taxi driver took the stand during the trial, describing Gutierrez’s expression as “peaceful but puzzled” when he saw his former girlfriend get back into the cab. The driver testified that Gutierrez did not look threatening or angry when standing in front of the cab and appeared to be trying to talk to the woman inside.

“From the video footage and testimony, it became clear to the jury that Mr. Gutierrez wasn’t trying to do anything besides find out information about his son,” Gayle said.

Adachi said the case was over-charged by prosecutors.

“Mr. Gutierrez was an anxious dad who didn’t hurt anyone,” Adachi said. “It is outrageous that this father with no criminal history has been in jail for the past three months on charges that could have sent him to state prison.”

A Setback for Fair Trials in Criminal Cases

-
0
A Setback for Fair Trials in Criminal Cases

(published Jan. 21 in the Daily Journal)

By Jeff Adachi

Last Tuesday, California lawmakers quietly moved a step closer to eroding one of our fundamental rights: a fair and impartial jury.

The Senate Public Safety Committee voted in favor of Senate Bill 794, which would radically change the jury selection process in misdemeanor cases. Introduced by Sen. Noreen Evans of Sonoma County, and sponsored by the California Judges Association, SB 794 would substantially reduce the number of peremptory challenges available to prosecutors and defense attorneys.

California Code of Civil Procedure §231, enacted in 1851 and codified in 1872, provides that an accused person in a criminal case where the punishment may exceed 90 days is afforded 10 peremptory challenges. Six peremptory challenges are allowed for those facing misdemeanors with a sentence of 90 days or less. SB 794 would reduce the existing legal allotment of peremptory challenges for misdemeanors to five in any case in which the offense charged is punishable with a maximum term of imprisonment for one year or less.

Peremptory challenges allow a party to remove a juror without stating a reason. While peremptory challenges cannot be used solely to eliminate jurors based on race or gender, they allow parties to remove a juror who they suspect is biased, but cannot prove to a judge’s satisfaction that the juror should be excused for cause.

The Supreme Court has often held that peremptory challenges are an essential means for ensuring fairness. The purpose of the peremptory challenge, the Court said, is “to assure the parties that the jurors before whom they try the case will decide on the basis of the evidence placed before them, and not otherwise.” In Holland v. Illinois, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that “peremptory challenges, by enabling each side to exclude those jurors it believes will be most partial toward the other side, are a means of eliminating extremes of partiality on both sides, thereby assuring the selection of a qualified and unbiased jury.”

The practice of allowing peremptory challenges dates back to Roman law, when both parties were allowed to propose 100 jurors, and each side was allowed 50 challenges, leaving 100 jurors to decide the case. English common law allowed the prosecution unlimited peremptory challenges but limited the defendant to 35 challenges. The right to use peremptory challenges in the United States is grounded in the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to a fair and impartial jury. This is a fundamental right not only for those facing serious charges, but those accused of misdemeanors as well.

The proponents of SB 794 argue that reducing the number of peremptory challenges will “save the courts money without reducing justice.” The California Judges Association (CJA), which is the main sponsor of the legislation, states that the bill will save money, allow the courts to reallocate staff since fewer people will appear for jury service, and result in shorter trials.  CJA also argues that the law will improve juror attitudes and satisfaction, stating that “judges report that potential jurors frequently express frustration when they watch otherwise eligible jurors be dismissed for no apparent reason” and that calling fewer jurors “means that more people will be working productively in their jobs.”

While they are rarely on the same side of an issue, both the California District Attorneys Association and the California Public Defender’s Association oppose SB 794. The California District Attorneys Association argues that SB 794 “jeopardizes just outcomes” and will increase the difficulty of selecting a fair and unbiased jury that represents a broad cross-section of the community. The California Public Defender’s Association argues that since attorney-conducted voir dire has been limited by statute, “attorneys in criminal cases are left with little resource but to use peremptory challenges in doubtful situations where a fuller examination of a prospective juror might have … disqualified the juror for cause.”

I believe that SB 794 should be opposed because of the impact on both parties’ right to a fair trial and that reducing the number of challenges will result in less diverse and less informed juries.

First, judges, who are empowered to excuse jurors for cause are not in a position to know the nuances of a case. Many judges, in my experience, take very little time to know the facts of the case and often conduct a cursory voir dire, asking only basic questions about the jurors’ backgrounds, such as employment, education and family information. Typically, attorneys in misdemeanor cases are only given 15 to 30 minutes to question 24 jurors, which is about 1 minute and 20 seconds per juror.

Second, the grounds on which a juror may be excused for cause are very limited. Code of Civil Procedure 225 confines cause challenges to jurors who are incapacitated, incompetent, related to any party or witness, a participant in previous litigation or the existence of a state of mind evincing bias towards either party. Not only do peremptory challenges allow attorneys to use their training and experience to dismiss jurors who they suspect, but cannot prove, are harboring bias, it also allows them to dismiss those who simply do not want to serve and have failed in their attempts to be excused by the judge. Such jurors are less likely to pay close attention to the evidence and arguments. As a result, the verdicts they render are less well-considered. If attorneys are limited in their ability to remove such jurors, the integrity of the system will suffer.

Third, I do not believe that SB 794 will save time. It will increase the burden on the attorneys to show that a juror should be challenged for cause. This will take more time, rather than less, because with fewer peremptory challenges, both prosecutors and defenders more exhaustively question the jurors for actual bias.

Fourth, SB 794 puts the rights of the dismissed juror over the rights of the parties. The very reason citizens have been summoned is to choose a fair and impartial jury. CJA’s argument that SB 794 is needed because jurors become frustrated when they see other jurors being excused demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the process of jury selection. Being chosen for a jury is not a popularity contest, nor should the decision to select a juror be motivated by whether other jurors would be offended if a peremptory challenge was exercised. In fact, the peremptory challenge allows an attorney to search for biases during the selection process without fear of alienating a potential juror. Similarly, whether SB 794 would result in a more productive workforce should have no bearing on whether peremptory challenges are used against jurors. If that were the case, we would simply let judges decide verdicts so there would be no need for jurors at all.

Fifth, because peremptory challenges cannot be based on race, gender, and religious affiliation under Batson, reducing the number of peremptory challenges diminishes the likelihood of a racially diverse jury.

Finally, there is no showing that the proposed legislation would save money. CJA claims that the measure will result in “less paper, less postage, fewer jurors to pursue for not appearing, less physical infrastructure to hold potential jurors.” These so-called cost savings are questionable at best. Juror summons would still have to be issued for the same number of people, since there is no way of knowing how many trial jurors are needed in misdemeanor and felony cases before jurors are summoned. The postage to return the jury summons is usually paid by the potential juror, not the court, and it is unlikely that jury waiting rooms would not be rebuilt for a smaller number of jurors if SB 794 passes. Any cost savings recouped from paring down peremptory challenges would surely be lost through a more drawn out jury selection process.
SB 794 should be opposed because it threatens the fundamental right to a fair trial.  The right to an impartial jury is the heart of our legal system, not the fat to be trimmed.

Jeff Adachi has served as San Francisco’s elected Public Defender since 2003.

 

NO on SB 794 – Save The Right To An Impartial Jury

-
0
NO on SB 794 – Save The Right To An Impartial Jury

What is SB 794?

Update #2 -05/19/14: SB 794 has been assigned to the California Assembly’s Committee on Public Safety. Your help is critically needed—now more than ever. Tell state assembly members that our right to a fair trial is too important to lose!

Update–1/28/14: SB 794 is headed to the California Assembly after narrowly passing in the Senate .

Senate Bill 794, a so-called “cost-saving measure” proposed by State Sen. Noreen Evans and sponsored by the California Judges Association, would erode our constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury by cutting down the number of peremptory challenges available to both prosecutors and defense attorneys in misdemeanor criminal trials.

Current law allows each party either six or 10 peremptory challenges, depending on whether the maximum sentence for the charged offense exceeds or does not exceed 90 days in jail. Under SB 794, peremptory challenges would be cut to five per side in all misdemeanors. In addition, in multiple defendant cases, current law allows either five or four additional peremptories per defendant, while SB 794 would reduce the number to two.

Also be sure to read Jeff Adachi’s Op-Ed in the Daily Journal regarding SB 794.

What are peremptory challenges?

Peremptory challenges allow attorneys to remove jurors without stating a reason. They are a critical tool for both prosecutors and defense attorneys to build a jury that represents a diversity of viewpoints and is free of bias. These challenges are most often used to remove jurors who may say all the right things, but whom attorneys suspect are prejudiced. The Supreme Court has often held that peremptory challenges are an essential means for ensuring fairness.

But won’t the legislation save time and money?

Put simply: No. Any cost savings recouped from paring down peremptory challenges would be lost through a more drawn out jury selection process. To satisfy the more restrictive challenges for cause, attorneys would have to extend jury selection in order to gather more information about potential jurors. This would clog the courts with numerous trial delays.

What can I do?

Step 1: Read this letter:

RE: SB 794-OPPOSE

Dear California Assembly Committee on Public Safety,

I write to express my strong opposition to Senate Bill 794, which would reduce the number of peremptory challenges available in misdemeanor cases. This bill is opposed by the California District Attorneys Association (CDAA), the California Public Defenders Association (CPDA) and the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice (CACJ).

For one accused of a crime, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a fair and impartial jury. This is a fundamental right not only for those facing serious charges, but those accused of misdemeanors as well. Peremptory challenges are a critical tool used by prosecutors and defense attorneys an opportunity to weed out biased jurors and protect this constitutional guarantee.

The Supreme Court has often held that peremptory challenges are an essential means for ensuring fairness. The purpose of the peremptory challenge, the Court said, is “to assure the parties that the jurors before whom they try the case will decide on the basis of the evidence placed before them, and not otherwise.” In Holland v. Illinois, Justice Scalia wrote that “peremptory challenges, by enabling each side to exclude those jurors it believes will be most partial toward the other side, are a means of eliminating extremes of partiality on both sides, thereby assuring the selection of a qualified and unbiased jury.”

Peremptory challenges allow our attorneys to use their training and experience to dismiss jurors who they suspect, but cannot prove, are harboring bias. It also allows them to dismiss jurors who simply do not want to serve and have failed in their attempts to be excused by the judge. Such jurors are less likely to pay close attention to the evidence and arguments. As a result, the verdicts they render are less well-considered.

Reduction of peremptory challenges is a dangerous bargain, because it puts the rights of the dismissed juror over the rights of the defendant to challenge those who may harbor prejudice. Peremptory challenges help ensure a diversity of viewpoints on the jury, making it more likely that the jury will reflect the values of the community as a whole.

Finally, the proposed legislation does not make financial sense. Any cost savings recouped from reducing peremptory challenges would be lost through a more drawn out jury selection process. To satisfy the more restrictive challenges for cause, attorneys would have to spend more time voir dire in order to gather more information about potential jurors. This would result in more time spent selecting a jury, not less.
I urge you to vote no on SB 794. The right to an impartial jury is the heart of our legal system, not the fat to be trimmed. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]

Step 2: Fill out this form:

Step 3: Sit back and relax, we’ll handle the rest! SB 794 should be opposed because it threatens the fundamental right to a fair trial. The right to an impartial jury is the heart of our legal system, not the fat to be trimmed.

Man Who Falsely Admitted Shooting Cleared by Forensics

-
0
Man Who Falsely Admitted Shooting Cleared by Forensics

San Francisco, CA — A man accused of a fatal 2012 shooting was acquitted of all charges Monday after police used a controversial interrogation technique to elicit a false confession that was contradicted by physical evidence, San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi announced.

Jurors deliberated less than three days before finding San Pablo resident Sterling Samm, 21, not guilty of murder, robbery, attempted robbery and felony gun possession, said his attorney, Deputy Public Defender Christine Schenone. If convicted, Samm faced life in prison.

Samm was charged in the Oct. 30, 2012 attempted robbery and killing of 28-year-old Jose Matias-Aguilon on 20th Street and South Van Ness Avenue in the Mission District, as well as a robbery 20 minutes earlier in the neighborhood at 17th and Capp streets.

Samm was arrested in both crimes, along with two other men and a 14-year-old boy in the area, shortly after the shooting. Around the corner, police found a semi-automatic weapon and a revolver stashed in a compost bin. Down the street, they recovered two hoodies, a ski mask and a black glove. The boy’s case is currently in juvenile court. The other two suspects were released after questioning.

Witnesses immediately ruled out Samm as a participant in the crimes. In a cold show at the scene, the earlier robbery victim positively identified the juvenile as his assailant and specifically said “not him” about Samm. Two people who witnessed the fatal shooting described the killers in their 911 calls as three to four short Latino men. Samm is 6-feet tall and African American.

At the end of an interrogation, however, investigators extracted a vague confession from Samm, who suffers from severe attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

The confession was the result of an interrogation technique that has been widely discredited for its record of producing false confessions from innocent people, particularly the young.

In recordings presented at trial, police investigators can be heard telling Samm he will receive the death penalty unless he confesses to the killing and urging him to agree with a false narrative that the victim grabbed his gun during the robbery. Investigators also lied to Samm about the evidence, saying he was caught on video, that witnesses picked him out of a line-up, and that the 14-year-old implicated him in the crime.

In fact, none of the other suspects implicated Samm or even knew his name.

On the stand, an investigator admitted to constructing the narrative about the victim grabbing the gun and lying to Samm about the evidence as a “technique” to obtain a confession.

Forensic evidence presented at trial also supported Samm’s innocence. While prosecutors argued that Samm used the revolver to shoot Matias-Aguilon at close range, the victim had no gunshot residue or soot on his body and there was no stippling on the wound—all indicating he was shot at a distant range. Additionally, Samm’s hands were free of gunshot residue and ballistics experts determined there was no evidence the revolver had been fired recently.

Adachi said the case demonstrates how easily psychological manipulation can create false confessions.

“Mr. Samm’s ordeal shows how people in vulnerable situations can be tricked or intimidated into confessing to crimes they did not commit. It is unfortunate Mr. Samm was prosecuted on the confession alone, despite the mountain of evidence supporting his innocence.”

Samm, who had been in custody since his arrest, has been released from jail.

 

###

Public Defenders Won 62% of Felony Trials in 2013

-
0

San Francisco, CA — Poor people facing high-stakes criminal charges in San Francisco received extraordinary legal representation in 2013, with public defenders prevailing in nearly two-thirds of felony trials, San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi announced today.

The numbers*, released this week as part of the San Francisco Public Defender’s 2013 Annual Report and 2014 Calendar, show that of the 64 felony trials handled by public defenders last year, 62 percent resulted in an acquittal, hung jury, dismissal, or settlement at trial. Another 12 percent of felony trials resulted in a split decision, meaning a client facing multiple charges was convicted on some counts and found not guilty on others.

Public defenders also secured an acquittal, hung jury or dismissal in 40 percent of the office’s 148 misdemeanor jury trials. Another 30 percent of misdemeanor trials resulted in a split decision.

The annual report and calendar includes full color photographs of real public defender clients and employees, taken by photographer Richard Bui, the office’s web architect. The publication was not printed at public expense and is available, free, to the public at the San Francisco Public Defender’s office, 555 Seventh Street.

Titled “Symbols of Justice,” the report features images of art and artifacts from throughout history and across the world.

“We chose this theme because although the work we do takes place in San Francisco, the concept of justice is universal, part of our shared human heritage,” Adachi said.

In 2014, the San Francisco Public Defender’s office served more than 20,000 clients who could not afford private attorneys.

Other year-end accomplishments detailed in the report:

  • Public Defender staff and programs receiving a record number of honors and awards, including:  providing access to justice, community activism, advancing and supporting communities of color, working to end criminalization of people with mental illness; commitment to indigent defense; and promoting self-determination and social justice among youth.
  • Providing legal consultation and services to 6,387 people through the Clean Slate program and linking hundreds of clients to treatment and services through the office’s social workers and collaborative courts.
  • Bringing famed death penalty abolitionist Sister Helen Prejean to San Francisco for a free talk and book signing, attended by more than 1,000 people and broadcast on SFGovTV.
  • Receiving a $400,000 Department of Justice grant to create the first locally and nationally applicable checklist system to guide attorneys through critical moments in cases and prevent wrongful convictions.
  • Distributing more than 4,000 backpacks and school supplies to children and providing literacy and agency support through our community-based MAGIC programs.

The entire 2013 Annual Report and 2014 Calendar can be accessed at http://bit.ly/1aBs3bM

###

*Numbers that appear in the annual report are based on year-end projections in order to adhere to the publication’s printing deadline. Numbers in the press release, which differ slightly, are based on final year-end outcomes.

Man Acquitted of Murder in Fatal Stabbing

-
0
Man Acquitted of Murder in Fatal Stabbing

San Francisco, CA — A man charged with murder in a 2012 stabbing in the Bayview District was acquitted of all charges today after a jury determined he acted in self-defense against an attacker who had previously bullied and threatened him, San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi announced.

Jurors deliberated more than three days before finding San Francisco resident Howard Frazier, 47, not guilty of murder, said his attorney, Deputy Public Defender Kleigh Hathaway. Frazier was charged in the Feb. 15, 2012 stabbing of 54-year-old Luther Robinson III at Third Street and Palou Avenue.

Six weeks before the fatal confrontation, Robinson had chased and assaulted Frazier with a club, threatening to kill him. Frazier testified that following the first attack, he learned of Robinson’s string of convictions for violence and became fearful for his life. Frazier testified that he tried to diffuse the conflict by talking to Robinson’s brother, but when the two men ran into each other again, Robinson pursued Frazier.

Frazier, who was considerably smaller than Robinson and was disabled due to back surgery, warned Robinson that he had a knife. When Robinson grabbed Frazier by the vest, Frazier stabbed him once with a pocket knife. Robinson died a short time later at the hospital.

“Mr. Frazier did even more than the law requires in a case of self-defense,” Hathaway said. “When he was assaulted six weeks earlier, he ran. Then, fearing retribution, he requested help from Mr. Robinson’s brother and, finally, he warned Mr. Robinson that he had a knife and only used it as a last resort to protect himself.”

While the conflict between the men ended in tragedy, Mr. Frazier did not commit a crime, Adachi said.

“Mr. Frazier did everything he could to avoid a fight. The evidence presented by Mr. Frazier’s public defender showed he was genuinely afraid he was going to be killed and acted to preserve his own life,” Adachi said.

Frazier, a father of four, is expected to be released Christmas Eve.

The two week trial was heard in front of Judge Harold Kahn. Assistant District Attorney Todd Barrett was the prosecutor in the case.

Veteran Acquitted of Arson After Botched Aromatherapy

-
0

San Francisco, CA — A Vietnam War veteran whose attempt to de-stress with an aromatherapy candle resulted in a fire was acquitted of arson after spending 10 months in jail, San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi announced today.

Jurors on Thursday afternoon found Jeffrey Triano, 59, not guilty of arson of an inhabited structure and arson of property. If convicted of both felonies, he faced eight years in prison, two “strikes,” and lifetime registration as an arsonist, said Triano’s attorney, Deputy Public Defender Aleem Raja.

Triano, disabled due to war-related post traumatic stress disorder, had been an active participant of counseling and support groups through the Veterans Administration, even holding a work-therapy position as a janitor at the VA. On Feb. 9, in an effort to relax after dealing with bills, Triano decided to employ aromatherapy, a stress reduction technique he had learned from a therapist.

Triano lit a vanilla tea light and placed it on the seat of a vinyl chair in his bedroom while he did housework. Soon, he smelled something burning and realized that the metal candle holder had heated up as the wax melted, scorching the chair. Triano, panicked, blew several times on the flame, which flared up as wax splattered onto the smoking chair.  Triano then knocked the candle into a plastic trash can and attempted to take it into his bathroom. Instead, he tripped; dropping the trash can onto the bed before running outside his Sutter Street apartment to get help. Witnesses described him as panicked, disoriented and incoherent.

“The smell of the burning plastic trash can triggered his PTSD,” Raja said. “He was not in San Francisco at that moment. He was in Vietnam, on a search and rescue mission to a crashed and burning helicopter.”

Responding officers arrested Triano.

“People without much training in mental health interpreted his behavior as a sign he was an arsonist instead of recognizing it for what it was—a manifestation of his past trauma,” Raja said.

The small fire in Triano’s unit destroyed his mattress, bedding and chair before it was extinguished.

Triano’s case was then rejected from San Francisco’s Veterans Court due to objections by the District Attorney’s Office, Raja said, causing Triano to languish behind bars for 10 months.

During the five day trial, Raja exposed the inexperience of the San Francisco Fire Department arson investigator who concluded that Triano set his mattress on fire with a lighter. Jurors examined the fire investigator’s own photographs, in which evidence of an accidental fire could be seen but was never documented in the report.

“He missed key pieces of evidence that would have exonerated Mr. Triano immediately,” Raja said. “He missed the fact that there was evidence of a candle and he missed the melted trash can on the bed.”

Raja also questioned the fire investigator regarding a 2012 botched arson probe. In that case, the investigator drew his conclusion after gathering evidence on the wrong floor of a building. Prosecutors, who discovered the error earlier this year, decided they could no longer rely on his conclusion.

“Ten months of Mr. Triano’s life were taken away because people jumped to conclusions,” Raja said. “It was the 12 citizens willing to look at the evidence and listen to Mr. Triano who made sure justice was done.”

Adachi said the case demonstrates how easily mistakes can happen in the criminal justice system.

“Mr. Triano came terribly close to spending eight years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit, based on a faulty investigation. Fortunately, his public defender was able to show that he was innocent,” Adachi said.

Man Acquitted of Attack, Robbery

-
0
Man Acquitted of Attack, Robbery

San Francisco, CA — A man whose fistfight with a gambling buddy was mistaken for a violent mugging has been acquitted of a slew of felonies, San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi announced today.

Jurors deliberated just over two hours Tuesday before acquitting San Francisco resident Dontae Taylor, 26, of robbery, assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury, battery causing great bodily injury, and receiving stolen property. If convicted, Taylor faced nine years in state prison, said his attorney, Deputy Public Defender Carmen Aguirre.

Taylor and the complaining witness, a 49-year-old South San Francisco man, were both regulars at an outer Mission establishment that allows patrons to play internet slot machines. On Aug. 18, after running into each other at the gaming hall, the pair left to shop for clothes together. When they returned to gamble, things took an ugly turn, Aguirre said.

The gaming establishment gives each gambler a pin code to access their funds. Taylor claimed he put down $100 to play the slot machines. But while he chatted with the clerk during the transaction, the complaining witness punched his own code, effectively stealing Taylor’s gambling money, Aguirre said.

While the older man played slots on Taylor’s dime, Taylor realized what had happened. He confronted the man and took him to the counter to right the wrong. An argument ensued, and both men were asked to leave.

Outside, Taylor demanded his money back. In response, his friend claimed to be penniless, offering his empty wallet as proof. Taylor then pocketed the wallet as collateral, telling his friend he would return it when he told the gambling hall staff what he did.

The older man, who feared being permanently banned from his favorite hangout, refused. He then sucker punched Taylor in the face. Both men removed their jackets and a fight ensued.

Taylor, despite suffering a split lip, emerged as the winner of the fistfight, which ended when he knocked his friend to the ground.

A passing Muni driver witnessed the altercation, and believed she saw Taylor rifling through the other man’s pockets as he lay on the ground. She called police and reported a mugging. The complaining witness was treated for facial contusions at the hospital and released. Taylor was arrested 12 blocks away with his friend’s wallet and identification in his pocket.

The complaining witness, meanwhile, told police he was hit from behind, had no idea who hit him, and had never seen Taylor before. He repeated his story during Taylor’s three-day trial.

His testimony was proven false after Aguirre produced surveillance video that not only established that the two men were together at the gaming house and the clothing store, but showed the complaining witness gaining access to Taylor’s gambling money by surreptitiously entering his own code.

“The complaining witness didn’t want to get in trouble for stealing or picking a fight. He fabricated a story about being the victim of random violence in order to protect himself, his friend, and the gaming hall,” Aguirre said.

Adachi said the case illustrates how video evidence often makes the best witness.

“This case involved two different people who claimed to be telling the truth. Thankfully for Mr. Taylor, his public defender was able to produce concrete evidence that supported his version of events,” Adachi said.

1...525354...86Page 53 of 86
© Newspaper WordPress Theme by TagDiv