JURY TRIALS - VOLUNTEER PROSECUTOR

On Thursday, July 13, 2023, I obtained verdict of Guilty for the People of the State of California (the "People") in criminal misdemeanor 4-day jury trial as a Pro Bono Prosecutor through the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office, Central Trials. The criminal jury trial took place in Department 53 at the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center located at 210 West Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012.

Defendant was charged with a single count of misdemeanor Vandalism under California Penal Code section 594(a). The crime occurred on September 1, 2022. This was a Domestic Violence (DV) case in that the Defendant brother physically smashed three windows of the victim brother's house, and damaged the video surveillance cameras that were behind each window.
The brothers are neighbors and live in the City of Los Angeles. The Defendant is represented by the Law Offices of the Los Angeles County Public Defender.

Since this was a DV case, under California Evidence Code section 1109, and subject to a hearing under Evidence Code section 352, the People were allowed to put on evidence that in 2015 the defendant brother committed a domestic violence that was not charged in this case: a prior 2015 assault and battery of the victim brother.

The jury trial took 4 days including jury selection.

JURY SELECTION (VOIR DIRE)
On Monday July 10 and Tuesday July 11, I completed Jury Selection for the People. A total of 76 prospective jurors were assigned to Dept. 53 for jury selection from the venire/jury pool. All 76 jurors were questioned at the same time during the two-day jury selection. Myself and Defense counsel were allowed to question potential jurors regarding both the crime of Vandalism and the prior 2015 assault and battery of the victim brother where charges were not filed.

There were approximately 4 "for cause" challenges granted for the People. The People and the defense stipulated to approximately 10 "for cause" challenges of prospective jurors. The Court granted 5 hardship requests. I used approximately 7 of the People's 10 peremptory challanges. In a criminal jury trial the People and the Defense each have 10 peremptory challanges.

OPENING STATEMENT
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023, I completed the People's Opening Statement and started the People's Case-in-Chief by starting examination of the first witness.

PEOPLE'S CASE-IN-CHEIF
On Wednesday, July 12, I completed the People's case-in-chief. The People called three witnesses in its case-in-chief. The People called the victim, age 58, the victim's adult son, and Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) Officer Pardo.

THE PEOPLE'S EXHIBITS
The People entered 10 Exhibits into evidence. The People's exhibits included the following: (1) Footage from 3 surveillance cameras that the Victim Brother installed in his home and his adult son's home; (2) The 911 Call made by the Victim to 911 on September 1, 2022; (3) Photographs of the broken windows taken by a LAPD Police Officer who responded to the 911 call; (4) Photographs the broken windows taken by Victim Brother of broken windows at the Victim's home.

DEFENSE'S CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 1118.1 MOTION TO DISMISS
At the end of the Peoples case, I advised the Court that the People rested its case. The Defendant then made a Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Evidence based upon California Penal Code section 1118.1 ("Motion to Dismiss"). The Court denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and as a result the case could go to the jury for a verdict.

DEFENSES CASE-IN-CHIEF AND MY CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT
The Defendant then completed his case-in-chief. The Defendant, age 60, took the witness stand and testified for his case-in-chief. I cross-examined the Defendant. The Defendant entered three (3) Exhibits into evidence. Prior to the Defendant testifying, the Court advised him of his right the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution not to testify at trial.

PEOPLE'S REBUTTAL
For the People's Rebuttal of the Defendant's case-in-chief, the People called the victim to testify again, and I questioned him for his Rebuttal to the Defendant's case-in-chief.

DEFENSE'S SUR REBUTAL
For the Defendant's Sur Rebuttal, the Defense called the Defendant a second time and the Defendant testified again for the Defendant's Sur Rebuttal. I cross-examined the defendant regarding new evidence that was introduced during his Sur Rebuttal, which included a 2019 altercation between Defendant and one of the victim's tenants.

PEOPLE AND DEFENSE REST THEIR CASES
Following the Peoples case-in-chief, Defendant's case-in-chief, the People's Rebuttal, and the Defendant's Sur Rebuttal, both the People and the Defendant rested their cases.

JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND VERDICT FORM
Also on July 12, 2023, the Court released the jury for the day and the Court, and the attorneys had a conference to determine what jury instructions and Verdict Form would be provided to the jury on July 13, 2023.

COURT READS THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY
On Thursday, July 13, 2023, the Court read the jury the jury instructions.

CLOSING ARGUMENT
I made the People's Closing Argument. Defense counsel made Defendant's Closing Argument. And then I made the People's Rebuttal Closing Argument.

CASE SENT TO THE JURY FOR DELIBERATIONS
The case then went to the jury for deliberations.

THE VERDICT
The jury returned a unanimous verdict of Guilty voting 12-0.

In a criminal jury trial the People must obtain a unanimous verdict of 12 to 0 in order for the defendant to be found guilty. Thus, all 12 jurors must vote guilty. The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a unanimous verdict in any criminal trial for a serious offense. In California, it has been held that the provisions of the California Constitution, Article I, § 16, for the right to a trial by jury also require a unanimous verdict. (The Rutter Group Practice Guide: California Criminal Procedure).

In a criminal jury trial the People prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof possible. Because a person's liberty is at stake, this high standard is required by the American judicial system.

SENTENCING HEARING
On Friday, July 21, 2023, I appeared on behalf of the People of the State of California, as a Volunteer Prosecutor for the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office, for the Sentencing Hearing for the case of the People v. T., case number 3CJ02977. The Sentencing Hearing took place in Department 53 of the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center. On Thursday, July 20, 2023, i filed the People of the State of California's Sentencing Brief. Victim Robert T. appeared at the July 21, 2023 Sentencing Hearing and provided his Impact Statement. After hearing from the Prosecution and the Defense, the Court sentenced the Defendant.

Case: The People of the State of California v. Tamayo
Case No.: 3CJ02977
Judge: Hon. Susan De Witt
Dept: 53
Court: Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center
210 West Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012.

On June 26, 2022 I completed the Los Angeles County Bar Association's (LACBA) Trial Advocacy Project's In-House Program. This is the In-House version of the LACBA's acclaimed Trial Advocacy Project (TAP) Traditional TAP Program. The TAP In-House program took place from May 4 , 2022 to June 26, 2022. The instructors are a retired Los Angeles City Attorney, and a Supervising Los Angeles City Attorney who have over 375 criminal jury trials to verdict combined, and who have also selected more than 400 juries combined. This was the In-House version of the LACBA Traditional TAP Program.

The TAP In-House Program involved completing three full-day mock criminal jury trials from jury selection through closing argument. The three full-day Mock Trials involved the following crimes: (1) Theft & Burglary: (2) Graffiti & Vandalism; and (3) Domestic Violence.

Topics covered in the jury trial training included: (1) prosecutorial ethics, (2) criminal discovery, (3) trial motions, (4) final pre-trial conference, (5) jury selection, (6) opening statements, (7) direct examination of witnesses, (8) location diagrams and other demonstrative exhibits, (9) laying evidentiary foundations, (10) cross-examination, (11) jury instructions, and (12) closing arguments.

I have completed additional criminal jury trial training in 2012 and 2016. From September 20, 2012 to November 1, 2012 I completed the LACBA's Traditional TAP Program in order to quality to try criminal jury trials as a Volunteer Prosecutor. From November 9, 2016 to December 15, 2016 I completed the LACBA's Traditional TAP Program a second time in order to try criminal jury trials as a Volunteer Prosecutor.

Completing the TAP Program is a requirement in order to be assigned to a prosecutorial agency as a Volunteer Prosecutor/Deputized City Attorney. Volunteer Prosecutors try criminal jury trials in criminal court through the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office and other prosecutorial agencies.

On Wednesday, June 29, 2022, I was assigned to the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office to complete my TAP Practicum as a pro publico (volunteer) prosecutor and try criminal jury trials. In addition to completing the Los Angeles County Bar Association's TAP Program, TAP attorneys must also complete background checks, including Live Scan Fingerprinting by the government before trying cases as Volunteer Prosecutors for prosecutorial agencies such as the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office.

On July 21, 2022, I completed my interview with the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office, Central Trials, to complete my Trial Advocacy Project ("TAP") Practicum as a pro publico (volunteer) prosecutor and try criminal jury trials as a Volunteer Prosecutor. I have one (1) year to complete my volunteer service as a Volunteer Prosecutor.

One (1) day Criminal Bench Trial completed to Decision. The Court found the Defendant Guilty of being in violation of California Penal Code Section 602(o), Trespassing . The Criminal Bench Trial took place in Department 70 of the Airport Courthouse (LAX), Los Angeles County. I tried the case as a Pro Bono Prosecutor/Deputized Los Angeles Deputy City Attorney through the Los Angeles County Bar Association's (LACBA) Trial Advocacy Project (TAP). Defendant was represented by the Los Angeles County Public Defender's Office.

DEFENDANT WAIVED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL
The case was originally set for Criminal Jury Trial and by way of an agreement between the parties a Bench Trial was held. A defendant has a constitutional right to a jury trial in criminal cases but the defendant can agree to waive it.

THE CHARGE OF TRESPASSING
The Defendant was charged with (1) One Count of Trespassing in violation of California Penal Code Sections 602 (o) which states in part it is trespassing by "Refusing or failing to leave land, real property, or structures belonging to or lawfully occupied by another and not open to the general public, upon being requested to leave by (1) a peace officer at the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, and upon being informed by the peace officer that he or she is acting at the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, or (2) the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession. The owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession shall make a separate request to the peace officer on each occasion when the peace officer's assistance in dealing with a trespass is requested." Cal. Penal Code § 602 (West).

OPENING STATEMENT
I completed the People's Opening Statement and the Public Defender made the Defendant's Opening Statement.

PEOPLE"S CASE-IN-CHIEF
As part of The People's Case-in-Chief The People called one of the business' owners to testify regarding the trespassing. The owner was an eye witness to the events. Both the business, The 50's Cafe, and its owner were victims of the crime of Trespassing. The 50's Cafe is located in Venice California, which is where the crime occurred.

The People had one (1) exhibit admitted into evidence. The People's Exhibit No. 1 was a No Trespass Order entitled "Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 41.24 Trespass Arrest Authorization" ("No Trespass Order"). The victim testified that she signed the No Trespass Order on August 11, 2019 in response to the Defendant's activity and actions against her on The 50's Cafe's property. The No Trespass Order prohibited the Defendant from entering The 50's Cafe's property for one (1) year. The No Trespass Order was in effect when the the Defendant trespassed on The 50's Cafe's property on October 8 and 9, 2019. On October 8 and 9, 2019 four (4) Los Angeles Police Department Officers responded to the scene of the crime, The 50's Cafe, in response the victim's two 911 calls. The Defendant was arrested on October 9, 2019 for Trespassing in violation of California Penal Code Section 602.

CLOSING ARGUMENT
I made the People's Closing Argument and the Public Defendant made the Defendant's Closing Argument.

Case: The People of the State of California v. Moore
Case No.: LAX 9AR02053-01
Judge: Hon. Yvette Verastegui
Dept: W70
Court: Airport Courthouse (LAX)
11701 S. Cienga Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045

I completed a three (3) Day Criminal Jury Trial to Verdict at the Airport Courthouse (LAX). As a Volunteer Prosecutor/Deputized Los Angeles City Attorney and on behalf of The People of the State of California, I obtained the Verdict of Guilty as to Four (4) Separate Counts of Resisting a Police Officer, California Penal Code Section 148(a). The crime was committed against four different Los Angeles World Airports Police Officers. The Defendant was represented by the Law Offices of Los Angeles County Public Defender.

I tried the case as Volunteer Prosecutor (Pro Bono Publico Prosecutor)/Deputized Los Angeles City Attorney through the Los Angeles County Bar Association's (LACBA) Trial Advocacy Project (TAP).

Case Name: The People of the State of California v. Fisher.

Case No.: 9AR00556.

The crimes occurred at the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), which is part of the Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) system. Specifically, the crimes occurred at the Tom Bradley Terminal at LAX.

The Jury reached a verdict of Guilty against the Defendant on all four (4) counts of violation of Penal Code Section 148(a) of Resisting, Obstructing, or Delaying a Peace Officer in the performance or attempted performance of his duties as to four (4) different LAX Police Officers. The crime occurred when the four Officers were detaining and arresting the Defendant. The jury was required to find the Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard of proof in the American justice system, which it did, and all 12 jurors had to vote unanimously, as they did 12-0.

Thus, I obtained a verdict of Guilty as to four different counts Penal Code Section 148(a) of Resisting, Obstructing, or Delaying a Peace Officer, which were committed against four different Police Officers.

The jury reached a verdict of Not Guilty as to Battery on Police Officer No. 1 in violation of Penal Code Sections 242, 243(b).
Thank you for the service of the 12 jurors who were selected to make up the jury, including the two alternate jurors, the prospective jurors who participated in the trial jury panel, and the approximately 40 prospective jurors selected from the venire, the jury pool, and who were assigned to Dept. 90 on January 6, 2020 as part of their jury service.

JURY SELECTION (VOIR DIRE)
Jury selection, voir dire, took one day. I used almost all six (6) of The People's peremptory challenges. I also made numerous "for cause challenges" to the Court to have jurors excused for cause, such as the juror was biased and could not be fair. During jury selection I had a motion "for cause" to exclude a jury GRANTED by the Court outside the presence of the jury.

OPENING STATEMENT
On January 7 I made the Opening Statement on behalf of the People and the Defense Counsel made Defendant's Opening Statement.

On January 7 The People's Case-in-Chief, Defendant's Case-in-Chief, and the People's Rebuttal of Defendant's Case-in-Chief were completed.

THE PEOPLE'S CASE IN CHIEF
The People called two witnesses on its Case-in-Chief. The two witnesses were the Arresting Officer, Officer 1, and the Officer who had first contact with the Defendant when the incident began.. The People also put on evidence of a video/audio cell phone recording a paparazzi made with his cell phone during the incident. The People played approximately 10 minutes and 30 seconds of the video during its Case-in-Chief. There was testimony that the cellphone video was made by a paparazzi who frequents LAX.

DEFENDANT'S CASE-IN-CHIEF
Defendant took the witness stand and testified on the Defendant's Case-In-Chief. I cross-examined the Defendant.

PEOPLE'S REBUTTAL CASE-IN-CHIEF
I completed the People's Rebuttal Case-in-Chief.

CLOSING ARGUMENTS
I made the People's Closing Argument and Defense Counsel made the Defendant's Closing Argument.

JURY DELIBERATIONS
The jury deliberated for approximately one hour before reaching its verdict.

THE VERDICT
The Jury reached a verdict of Guilty against the Defendant on all four (4) counts of violation of Penal Code Section 148(a) of Resisting, Obstructing, or Delaying a Peace Officer in the performance or attempted performance of his duties as to four (4) different LAX Police Officers. The jury was required to find the Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard of proof in the American justice system, which it did, and all 12 jurors had to vote unanimously, as they did 12-0.

The jury reached a verdict of Not Guilty as to Battery on Police Officer No. 1 in violation of Penal Code Sections 242, 243(b).

SENTENCING HEARING
After the jury was released the Defendant was sentenced, The People and the Defense provided proposed sentences to the Court and then the Court ordered the Defendant's sentence.

Case: The People of the State of California v. Fisher
Case No.: LAX 9AR00556-01
Judge: Hon. Christopher W. Dybwad
Dept: W90
Court: Airport Courthouse (LAX)
11701 S. Cienga Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045

I completed a Seven (7) Day Criminal Jury Trial to Verdict at the El Monte Courthouse in Los Angeles County, California. I tried the case as Volunteer Prosecutor (Pro Bono Publico Prosecutor) /Deputized Los Angeles Deputy City Attorney through the Los Angeles County Bar Association's (LACBA) Trial Advocacy Project (TAP). As a Pro Bono Prosecutor/Volunteer Los Angeles Deputy City Attorney I represented The People of the State of California in this criminal jury trial.

On December 20, 2019, completed to jury verdict a seven (7) day Criminal Jury Trial at the El Monte Courthouse in Los Angeles County. The Jury Trial took place on December 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. The jury's verdicts were not guilty for Sexual Battery and the lesser included offense of Battery under California Penal Code Section 242. The Defendant was charged with the crime of Sexual Battery, a violation of California Penal Code Section 243.4(e)(1). The jury was required to find the Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard of proof in the American justice system.

Thank you for the service of the 12 jurors who were selected to make up the jury, including the two alternate jurors, the prospective jurors who participated in the trial jury panel, and the approximately 42 prospective jurors selected from the venire, the jury pool, and who were assigned to Dept. 4 on December 12,13 and 16 as part of their jury service.

On December 11 The People's and the Defendant's California Evidence Code Section 402 motions, motions in limine to exclude or admit evidence outside of the jury's presence, were heard at the El Monte Courthouse following the case being sent out for jury trial from the Airport Courthouse (LAX). I argued for the Prosecution's motions and Defense Counsel Fay Arfa argued for the Defendant.

Voir Dire, jury selection, took place on December 12, 13, and 16 with the jury being empaneled and sworn in on December 16. Two panels of totaling approximately 50 potential jurors were sent to the courtroom. There were numberous "for cause" challenges by both myself on behalf of The People, and defense counsel based upon potential jurors making statements during voir dire that indicated they were biased, especially on the issue of sexual battery. One of the main issues was whether potential jurors wold beleive a female vicitim who clamed she had been a victim of sexual battery. All of the for cause chanllenges were heard in the Judge's chambers and three potential jurors were brought into chambers for furhter questioning by the attorneys. I had one "for cause" challenge granted because I juror stated she wold not believe a woman who claimed she had been sexually battered. Defense counsel had at least two if not three "for cause" challenges granted. There was also a significant amount of voir dire regarding whether the "Me Too" movement had gone too far.

On December 16, I made The People's Opening Statement, and Defense Counsel made the defendant's Opening statement.

On December 17, 18, and 19 The People's Case-in-Chief, Defendant's Case-in-Chief, and the People's Rebuttal of Defendant's Case-in-Chief were completed.

The People called two witnesses on its Case-in-Chief, the Witness and a Los Angeles Police Department Detective. The People also put on evidence of a video/audio cell phone recording the Witness made with her cell phone during the incident without the Defendant's. knowledge

The Witness's cell phone video/audio recording was admissible evidence because the Court GRANTED The People's Evidence Code Section 402 Motion to admit the recording. California Penal Code Section 632(a) is a statutory prohibition against the recording of a confidential communication without the consent of all parties. Per the statute, evidence obtained in violation of Section 632 is inadmissible in any proceeding. Penal Code 632(d). However, because the recording was (1) made by a crime witness serendipitously while the crime was being committed, and (2) the witness was not acting as a government agent or officer when the recording was made, the recording was admissible evidence. See People v. Algire (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 219 and the Truth-in-Evidence provision of Article I, Section 28, subdivision (f)(2) of the California Constitution.

After the close of the Prosecution's Case-in-Chief the Defendant made a Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Evidence based upon California Penal Code Section 1118.1 ("Motion to Dismiss"). Defense counsel made and argued the Motion for the Defendant. Mr. Aune argued against the Motion for the Prosecution/The People on the grounds that The People's Case-in-Chief introduced sufficient evidence to prove a prima facie case of Sexual Battery. The Court denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and as a result the case could go to the jury for a verdict. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and the attorneys' oral arguments were made outside the presence of the jury.

The Defendant then presented his Case-in-Chief. The Defendant called four witnesses in his Case-in-Chief including a Character Witness under California Evidence Code Section 1102. I cross-examined the Character Witness subject to rules governing cross-examination a defendant's character witness in a criminal action.

Approximately 28 exhibits were entered into evidence during the trial, including (1) a cell phone audio/video recording taken by the witness at the crime scene, and (2) surveillance footage taken at the crime scene at a commercial building on Olympic Boulevard in Los Angeles.

Closing Arguments were made by me and Defense Counsel on December 19 and 20.

The Jury Trial took place at the El Monte Courthouse in Los Angeles County after being sent out from the Airport Courthouse (LAX), Superior Court of California - Los Angeles County, which is where the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office originally filed the Criminal Complaint.

I prosecuted the case as a Pro Bono Prosecutor (pro bono publico prosecutor)/Volunteer Los Angeles Deputy City Attorney through the Los Angeles County Bar Association's (LACBA) Trial Advocacy Project (TAP). As a Pro Bono Prosecutor/Volunteer Los Angeles Deputy City Attorney I represented The People of the State of California in this criminal jury trial.

Case: The People of the State of California v. Njokom
Judge: Hon. Ruben N. Garcia
Dept: 4
Court: El Monte Courthouse
11234 East Valley Blvd., El Monte, CA 91731
Judge: Hon. Christopher W. Dybwad
Dept: W90
Court: Airport Courthouse (LAX)

11701 S. Cienga Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045
A criminal complaint is merely an allegation and all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that standard of proof in a criminal case in a California, in a court of law.

I Completed a Three (3) Day Criminal Jury Trial to Verdict at the Airport Courthouse in Los Angeles, California. I tried the case as a Pro Bono Prosecutor/Volunteer Los Angeles Deputy City Attorney through the Los Angeles County Bar Association's (LACBA) Trial Advocacy Project (TAP). As a Pro Bono Prosecutor/Volunteer Los Angeles Deputy City Attorney I represented The People of the State of California in this criminal jury trial.

The Defendant was charged with Two Counts for his alleged assault and battery of his co-worker, the victim in this case. The charges were (I) Assault by any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (PC Section 245(a)(4); and (II) Battery (PC Section 242).

Jury selection, voir dire, took one day. I used almost all of The People's peremptory challenges. I also made numerous "for cause challenges" to the Court to have jurors excused for cause, such as the juror was biased and could not be fair.

I made the Opening Statement for The People, and Defense Counsel made the Opening Statement for the Defendant.

I called 5 witnesses in The People's case-in-chief. The People called the victim and his two-coworkers, and also two City of Los Angeles Police Officers.

The People entered 16 exhibits into evidence. Exhibits included photographs of the victim's injuries and the location of the crime. The photographs were authenticated by the victim.

In the Defendant's case-in-chief the defendant took the witness stand and testified. I cross-examined the criminal defendant.

After I completed The People's case-in-chief the Defendant made a Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Evidence based upon California Penal Code section 1118.1 ("Motion to Dismiss"). The Court denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and as a result the case could go to the jury for a verdict.

The case went to the jury with the Defendant being charged with Two Counts for his alleged assault and battery of his co-worker, the victim in this case. The charges were (I) Assault by any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (PC Section 245(a)(4); and (II) Battery (PC Section 242).

In order to find the defendant guilty, the jury was required to find the Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard of proof in the American justice system,. and there had to be a unanimous verdict of 12-0.

The jury deliberated on September 12 and September 16 before reaching a verdict of not guilty.

Court: Airport Courthouse
11701 S. Cienga Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045
Los Angeles City Attorney's Office:
Pacific Branch
11701 S. Cienga Blvd., Room 430, Los Angeles, CA 90045
Case: People of the State of California v. McCullum, Case No. 9AR00692
Judge: Honorable William L. Sadler.
Dept: 71

Successfully opposed Defense's Motion to Suppress Evidence of narcotics, crystal methamphetamine, that a Los Angeles Airport Police (LA Airport PD) Officer discovered in Defendant's possession after stopping the Defendant for trespassing on Los Angeles World Airports (LAX) Property.

Issues involved (1) the initial stop of the Defendant, (2) the police officer's pat-down search of the Defendant based upon the officer's reasonable belief that the Defendant was armed and dangerous, and (3) the warrantless search of the Defendant's pant's pocket where the crystal methamphetamine was located.

I appeared as a pro bono prosecutor representing the People of the State of California (the "People") through the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office's Pacific Branch and the Los Angeles County Bar Association's (LACBA) Trial Advocacy Project (TAP). The People successfully opposed the Los Angeles Public Defender's Office California Penal Code Section 1583.5 Motion to Suppress Evidence.

Court: Airport Courthhouse
11701 S. Cienga Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045
Los Angeles City Attorney's Office:
Pacific Branch
11701 S. Cienga Blvd., Room 430, Los Angeles, CA 90045
Case: People of the State of California v. White, Case No. 7AR0105
Judge: Honorable Mark T. Zuckman
Dept: 93

Defense moved to suppress evidence regarding the LA Airport PD stopping and searching a suspect in the area of 9714 Glasgow Place, Los Angeles, California. The suspect was stopped by the police for trespassing on private property. The stop, search, and arrest were made on Los Angeles Airport property without a warrant. During a cursory pat-down search of the Defendant the arresting officer discovered crystal methamphetamine on the Defendant's person.

The People had the arresting office testify at the hearing. The People and the Defense entered exhibits into evidence. Following the hearing he Court held that the police officer's search was proper because (1) There was reasonable cause to detain the Defendant and (2) the Terry pat-down of the Defendant was justified. Defendant has been charged with Possession of Controlled Substance (Methamphetamine), California Health and Safety Code Section 11377.

Completed four day criminal jury trial as a volunteer prosecutor through the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office and the Los Angeles County Bar Association's (LACBA) Trial Advocacy Project (TAP). The Defendant was charged with Battery (California Penal Code Section 242) .The Defendant was represented by the Los Angeles County Public Defender.

Case Name: The People of the State of California v. Gilmore
Case No: 7CJ09141
Court: Michael Antonovich Antelope Valley Courthouse
Los Angeles Superior Court - North District
On November 14, 2017 the case was sent out for
jury trial from the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal
Justice Center - Central District.
Los Angeles Superior Court
Judge: Hon. Shannon Knight

The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty on the single count of Battery. The jury deliberated for approximately 3 hours. Deliberations were stopped at one point to address a hung jury issue. Both the People and the Public Defender requested that the Court order the jury to continue deliberating.

Defendant was charged with beating an elderly male victim at a bus stop in the Chinatown area of Los Angeles while the victim and his wife were waiting for their bus to arrive on a Sunday afternoon. The People called three witnesses, the victim, his wife and a Los Angeles Police Department Officer who made the arrest. The Defendant took the stand for his defense.

During jury selection the Court denied the Defense's race based Batson-Wheeler motion after the People used a peremptory challenge to exclude a juror who was African-American, the same race as the Defendant. The Court denied the Batson-Wheeler motion because there was another potential juror who was African American, the juror stated during jury selection that he felt the system treated his daughter unfairly when she was convicted of a DUI, and that the People argued the same in their challenge for cause regarding the same juror.

For the People's case-in-chief I called 3 witnesses against the defendant. The People called the victim, the victim's wife, and one of the arresting officers from the City of Los Angeles Police Department. Evidence included bodycam footage from the arresting officer that was played for the jury. Exhibits included photographs that were taken at the scene. The victim identified the defendant in Court during my direct examination of the victim.

A language interpreter was needed for both the victim and his wife to translate from Spanish to English and from English to Spanish. Thank you very much to the Los Angeles Superior Court for providing a language interpreter.

The defendant took the stand and testified in the Defendant's case-in-chief. I cross-examined the criminal defendant during the Defendant's case-in-chief.

I completed the Plaintiff's Closing Argument on the final day of trial. The Public Defender's Office completed Closing Argument for the Defense.

During the trial the Court granted the People's California Evidence Code Section 402 Motion to Preclude the Defense's Expert for Testifying at Trial.

Obtained Jury Verdict of Guilty As A Volunteer Prosecutor For The Los Angeles City Attorney's Office

Obtained a jury verdict of Guilty for the crime of Violation of Court Order - Protective Order or Stay Away Order (Penal Code Section 166(c)(1)) as a volunteer prosecutor for the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office through the Los Angeles County Bar Association Trial Advocacy Project. The jury trial took place at Central Trials in Downtown Los Angeles at the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center.

Case Name: The People of the State of California v. Pazos.
Case No: 7CJ01746
Court: Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center
Los Angeles Superior Court
Judge: Hon. Deborah S. Brazil

I Completed three (3) day Criminal Jury Trial as a Pro Bono Prosecutor for the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office through the Los Angeles County Bar Association's (LACBA) Trial Advocacy Project (TAP). The Defendant was represented by the Los Angeles County Public Defender.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty for the charge of Violation of Court Order - Protective Order or Stay Away Order (California Penal Code Section 166(c)(1)) .

Defendant and Victim have one child together. A Criminal Protective Order-Domestic Violence was issued on March 29, 2016 as a result of Defendant's 2016 conviction in a domestic violence case. On January 11, 2017, Defendant went to the Victim's home and violated the Criminal Protective Order-Domestic Violence by coming within one-hundred (100) yards of the Victim.

Jury selection, voir dire, took one day. I used almost all of The People's peremptory challenges. I also made numerous "for cause challenges" to the Court to have jurors excused for cause, such as the juror was biased and could not be fair.

I made the Opening Statement on behalf of the People. The Deputy Public Defendant made the Opening Statement for the defendant.

I called one witness on The People's case-in-chief. The witness was one of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers who responded to the 911 call, and who also made the arrest. The People could not call the victim to testify because she refused to testify. The victim appeared at the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center in response to The People's subpoena. However, the victim left the building and refused to testify.

The LAPD Police Cruiser's dashcam video was the main piece of evidence in The People's case-in-chief. I played the dashcam video to the jury and the arresting officer explained to the jury what was happening on the dashcam footage. The LAPD officer's testimony authenticated the dashcam footage which allowed it to be entered into evidence. The dashcam video indicated that when the officers arrived on the scene the defendant was within 100 yards of the victim. The arresting officer also testified that he witnessed the defendant being within in 100 yards of the victim. By being within 100 yards of the victim the defendant was in violation of the "Criminal Protective Order - Domestic Violence" which was filed on March 29, 2016.

The Public Defender's Office called the defendant as witness in the Defendant's case-in-chief. The defendant took the witness stand and testified. I cross-examined the defendant.

I made The People's Closing Argument on the final day of trial. The Deputy Public Defender made the Closing Argument for the Defense.

The People's Complaint also contained the charge of Trespass:Entry Into Dwelling (California Penal Code Section 602.5). However, the Victim did not appear at the trial to testify and The People had to dismiss the charge as a result.

The University of Southern California (USC) Sol Price School of Public Policy published the results of this TAP trial in its April 2017 edition of "Alumni in Action." Please see the hyperlink below. Mr. Aune received his Master of Health Administration (MHA) degree from the USC Price School of Public Policy in December 1999.

USC Sol Price School Of Public Policy

Jan T. Aune, MHA `99, completed a three day Criminal Jury Trial as a Pro Bono Prosecutor for the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office through the Los Angeles County Bar Association (LACBA) Trial Advocacy Project (TAP). The Defendant was represented by the Los Angeles County Public Defender and Jan obtained a jury verdict of "Guilty" for the crime of Violation of Court Order.

Assigned to serve as a volunteer prosecutor through the Los Angeles Office of the City Attorney to conduct jury trials at the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center located at 210 West Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012.

On December 15, 2016, I completed the Los Angeles County Bar Association's (LACBA) Trial Advocacy Project's (TAP) Traditional Program. I was assigned to serve as a volunteer prosecutor through the Los Angeles Office of the City Attorney to conduct jury trials at the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center located at 210 West Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012.

The Traditional TAP Program involved completing three Mock Criminal Jury Trials from jury selection through closing argument. The three Mock Criminal Jury Trials involved the following crimes: (1) Theft & Burglary: (2) Graffiti & Vandalism; and (3) Domestic Violence.

Topics covered in the jury trial training included: (1) prosecutorial ethics, (2) criminal discovery, (3) trial motions, (4) final pre-trial conference, (5) jury selection, (6) opening statements, (7) direct examination of witnesses, (8) location diagrams and other demonstrative exhibits, (9) laying evidentiary foundations, (10) cross-examination, (11) jury instructions, and (12) closing arguments.

Completed Four (4) Criminal Jury Trial As A Volunteer Prosecutor For the Burbank City Attorney's Office

LACBA Trial Advocacy Project Four (4) Day Criminal Trial
The People of the State of California v. Fherman
Location: Alhambra Courthouse, Los Angeles Superior Court
Judge: Hon. Rupa S. Goswami

Completed four (4) day Criminal Jury Trial as a Pro Bono Prosecutor for the Burbank City Attorney's Office through the Los Angeles County Bar Association's (LACBA) Trial Advocacy Project (TAP).

Father was charged with committing the following crimes against his 17 year-old daughter: (1) Inflicting Physical Punishment on a Child (Pen. Code Section 273d(a), (2) Child Abuse (Pen. Code Section 273a(b) and (3) Simple Battery (Pen. Code Section 242). Defendant was represented by the Los Angeles County Public Defender's Office.

This criminal jury trial involved the issue of a recanting witness. In this case the victim was a recanting witness because the victim's trial testimony conflicted with the testimony she provided to the arresting police officers.

Jury selection, voir dire, took one day. I ussed almost all of The People's peremptory challenges. I also made numerous "for cause challenges" to the Court to have jurors excused for cause, such as the juror was biased and could not be fair.

I made the Opening Statement on behalf of the People. The Deputy Public Defender made the Opening Statement for the defendant.

I called three witnesses on The People's case-in-chief. The witnesses were the victim; one of was one of the Burbank Police Department (BPD) officers who responded to the 911 call, and who also made the arrest; and an BPD officer who responded to a previous incident involving the victim and defendant.

Exhibits that were entered into evidence during The People's case-in-chief were photographs of the victim's injuries, and text messages between the victim and defendant. .

The defendant did not take the witness stand during the trial.

I completed The People's Closing Argument on the final day of trial. The Public Defender's Office completed Closing Argument for the Defense.

In order to find the defendant guilty, the jury was required to find the Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard of proof in the American justice system,. and there had to be a unanimous verdict of 12-0.

The jury deliberate for approximately 1/2 day before reaching a verdict of Not Guilty

Thank you very much to the Deputy Public Defender who allowed me to use the Los Angeles Public Defender's Office's facilities at the Alhambra Courthouse during the 90 minute lunch breaks each day so I would work on The People's case.

Trial Advocacy Project (TAP) - Los Angeles County Bar Association (LACBA)

Completed four (4) day criminal jury trial as a pro bono publico (volunteer) prosecutor for the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office Pacific Branch through the Los Angeles County Bar Association's (LACBA) Trial Advocacy Project (TAP). The Defendant was represented by the Los Angeles County Public Defendant's Office.

Defendant was charged with Grand Theft and Petty Theft. Incident occurred at a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Passenger Screening area at the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). The arrest was made by the LAX Police.
Jury selection, voir dire, took two days. Approximately 45 jurors were brought to the courtroom for the panel. All 45 potential jurors were questioned at one time. I used almost all of The People's peremptory challenges. I also made numerous "for cause challenges" to the Court to have jurors excused for cause, such as the juror was biased and could not be fair.

I made the Opening Statement for the People. The Deputy Public Defender made the Opening Statement for the Defendant.

I called two witnesses on The People's case-in-chief. The witnesses were LAX Police Officer L. and LAX Police Officer G.Z. The victim was a resident of Maryland and she did not appear at the trial.

Officer L. testified that he was working in Terminal 1 of the LAX when he received a call from the LAX Police Dispatcher that there was an incident at the TSA Metal Detector area in Terminal 1. Officer L. further testified that he proceeded to the TSA Passenger Screening Area where the victim advised her laptop had been stolen. Office L. contacted Officer G.Z., who was working in the LAX Police Video Room, and advised Officer G.Z. of the alleged theft.

Officer G.Z testified over the course of two (2) days regarding how the video system used by the LAX Police works, and how he reviewed the video footage to identify the victim's laptop being taken by the defendant at the TSA Passenger Screening Area. The video footage was played to the jury and Officer G.Z. explained to the jury how he reviewed the video footage taken in the Video Review Room of the LAX Police Division. Officer G.Z. pointed out in the video footage when and where the laptop was taken from a bin on the metal detector belt. Officer G.Z. further testified that he then sent a photo of the defendant to Officer L.

Officer L. testified that after he received the photo from Officer G.Z. he and a second LAX Police Officer searched Terminal 1 and located the defendant at Gate 18. The defendant was in possession of the victim's laptop. Office L. then testified that that the defendant was walked back to the TSA Screening Area where he was placed under arrest.

After the People completed their case-in-chief the Deputy Public Defender made Defendant's California Penal Code section 1118.1 motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence. The Court granted the motion based upon the Deputy Public Defender's arguments that the Defendant mistakenly took the victim's laptop out of a bin on the metal detector belt and put it in his bag after he had already taken his own laptop out of a different bin on the metal detector belt and put it in his bag. The People vehemently opposed the motion. The Court held that there was not sufficient evidence to show that the defendant had the specific intent to commit theft.

Court: Los Angeles Superior Court
Airport Courthouse
11701 S. La Cienega Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Judge: Hon. Yvette Verastegui presiding.
Dates: June 21, 22, 23 and 24, 2016

Completed The Los Angeles County Bar Association (LACBA) and Trial Advocacy Project's (TAP) three week Introductory Trial Advocacy Program (i-TAP). Completed a mock criminal driving under the influence trial as the prosecution representing the People of the State of California.

Completed two-day criminal jury trial as a volunteer prosecutor for the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office, Pacific Branch. Trial was conducted at the Airport Courthouse-West District, Los Angeles County.

Court: Los Angeles Superior Court
Airport Courthouse
11701 S. La Cienega Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Judge: Hon. Deborah S. Brazil
Dates: March 23-24, 2016

Defendant was charged with Intentional Interference with Business Operations under the California Penal Code. The incident occurred inside of a Starbucks in the City of Los Angeles. The arrest was made by the Starbucks nightshift manager by way of a Private Person's Arrest.

Jury selection, voir dire, took 1/2 day. I almost all of The People's peremptory challenges.

I made The People's Opening Statement.

I called three witnesses in The People's case-in-chief. I called two Los Angeles Police Department officers and the Starbuck's Nightshirt Manager. The People admitted three exhibits into evidence during the jury trial which included the Private Person's Arrest Form. Starbucks was the victim of the crime of Intentional Interference with Business Operations.

In November 2012 I completed the Los Angeles County Bar Association's (LACBA) Traditional Trial Advocacy Project ("Traditional TAP") and qualified as volunteer prosecutor for the LACBA TAP. The Traditional TAP session began on September 20, 2012 and ended on November 1, 2012.

The Traditional TAP Program involved completing three Mock Criminal Jury Trials from jury selection through closing argument. The three Mock Criminal Jury Trials involved the following crimes: (1) Theft & Burglary: (2) Graffiti & Vandalism; and (3) Domestic Violence.

Topics covered in the jury trial training included: (1) prosecutorial ethics, (2) criminal discovery, (3) trial motions, (4) final pre-trial conference, (5) jury selection, (6) opening statements, (7) direct examination of witnesses, (8) location diagrams and other demonstrative exhibits, (9) laying evidentiary foundations, (10) cross-examination, (11) jury instructions, and (12) closing arguments.

Following the completion of the Traditional TAP Program I was assigned to complete his TAP Practicum and serve as a volunteer prosecutor through the Burbank City Attorney's Office. I continue to volunteer for jury trials as a TAP Attorney for the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office.

The Traditional TAP program is a unique, two-part course where attorneys receive comprehensive, in-depth trial advocacy training an actual trial experience. Upon completion of Traditional TAP, attorneys have the opportunity to try criminal misdemeanor jury trials as volunteer prosecutors for prosecutorial agencies statewide.