[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
Good morning, Your Honor, and thank you for that.

[00:00:07] Speaker 04:
We're ready.

[00:00:08] Speaker 03:
If it pleases the court, Brian McComas on behalf of Cesar Aguirre, who is actually present today for the argument.

[00:00:15] Speaker 04:
Oh, thank you for letting us know.

[00:00:17] Speaker 03:
And it is always an honor to be here, particularly in this case, some 12 years after the Occupy Oakland movements stopped.

[00:00:26] Speaker 03:
And the honor is not because we're presenting some grand political defense.

[00:00:30] Speaker 03:
The honor is because reasonable jurists could disagree over whether Mr. Aguirre was correctly denied state habeas corpus relief.

[00:00:39] Speaker 03:
And that is because this court has granted a certificate of appealability and kept the promise of habeas corpus alive.

[00:00:45] Speaker 03:
So we're going to just deal with the two issues granted in appealability, but I'm reversing the order today.

[00:00:50] Speaker 03:
And we will be addressing the Strickland issue before the Brady issue during argument.

[00:00:55] Speaker 03:
And as a kind of ground,

[00:00:57] Speaker 03:
Foundation.

[00:00:58] Speaker 03:
All of this deals with Penal Code Section 594.

[00:01:00] Speaker 03:
I'm aware that all of you have experience in the state court and probably have dealt with a trespass or a vandalism issue.

[00:01:07] Speaker 04:
You gave your research on us.

[00:01:09] Speaker 04:
Yes, we've all been there.

[00:01:10] Speaker 03:
Well, you're all esteemed, and we value that.

[00:01:13] Speaker 03:
But the elements we'll be looking at that matter in terms of our claims are about damage, the extent of damage, what was damaged, and when, and the value of that damage.

[00:01:24] Speaker 03:
And when we go about this, we recognize that an uninformed strategy for defense counsel is really no strategy at all.

[00:01:32] Speaker 03:
And it's really not good enough to say, hey, prosecutor, have you turned over everything?

[00:01:37] Speaker 03:
OK, I believe you, particularly when you can see inconsistencies in the evidence that has been turned over.

[00:01:43] Speaker 03:
And so for in this instance, Officer Tedesco discussed both making observations to a witness next to him, but also having things, calling out things on the radio.

[00:01:58] Speaker 04:
So what's your best argument against the California State Court's determination that the body cam video supported rather than undermined Officer Tedesco's testimony?

[00:02:09] Speaker 03:
I would ask the court to look at exhibit G, which is the final one of Zebar's videos from the parking lot up above.

[00:02:17] Speaker 03:
And what Tedesco says is he's at the door.

[00:02:20] Speaker 03:
He doesn't say the man is at each of the windows.

[00:02:22] Speaker 03:
He says the man is at the door.

[00:02:25] Speaker 03:
And that is different than his testimony at trial.

[00:02:29] Speaker 03:
He also says right after that that the man is leaving.

[00:02:32] Speaker 03:
That's also different than his testimony at trial, where he said the man never left, kept eyes on him the entire time.

[00:02:39] Speaker 03:
And so I would look at Exhibit G. But my point being is that counsel had a duty to find Exhibit G before trial.

[00:02:48] Speaker 03:
And he could have done that.

[00:02:48] Speaker 03:
He should have done that based on Tedesco's testimony.

[00:02:51] Speaker 03:
I was making calls out on the radio.

[00:02:53] Speaker 03:
Well, if so, a CAD log picks those up.

[00:02:55] Speaker 03:
And if you look at the CAD log, that pretty much alters all of Officer Tedesco's timeline.

[00:02:59] Speaker 02:
Was the CAD log available, not independently, through discovery?

[00:03:05] Speaker 03:
He could have independently subpoenaed the Cadlog or he could have filed the motion.

[00:03:11] Speaker 02:
Didn't he conclude not to do so for strategic reasons?

[00:03:14] Speaker 03:
His strategic reasons were to avoid a grand political defense, but Cadlogs are not.

[00:03:19] Speaker 03:
They're computer automated.

[00:03:22] Speaker 02:
Well, just how they might be used.

[00:03:23] Speaker 03:
But go ahead.

[00:03:25] Speaker 03:
And it would be used because he could both call out the timeline of Officer Tedesco and also learn of things he needed to follow up on, like

[00:03:34] Speaker 03:
investigating the other incidents where the windows were broken.

[00:03:39] Speaker 02:
With respect to what you said earlier concerning the error, the Superior Court conducted a substantial hearing, correct?

[00:03:49] Speaker 03:
The Superior Court, yes.

[00:03:50] Speaker 02:
For four days?

[00:03:51] Speaker 02:
Yes, I was part of that.

[00:03:52] Speaker 02:
Many witnesses.

[00:03:54] Speaker 02:
Under the standards of review, in terms of evidence and balancing, isn't there substantial deference to what the Superior Court concluded, including, for example, what you described earlier about the claimed inconsistencies between testimony and videos?

[00:04:09] Speaker 03:
Typically there would be, Your Honor, but if the Superior Court misstates the law under Brady, then this Court doesn't have to defer.

[00:04:16] Speaker 03:
I refer the Court to the Superior Court's statements about the materiality standard under Brady that I'm required to prove

[00:04:23] Speaker 03:
that a different verdict would have resulted.

[00:04:25] Speaker 03:
And we know that's not true.

[00:04:26] Speaker 03:
We know that former Chief Justice Kaczynski used to say, evidence could be sufficient, but Brady could still be violated.

[00:04:33] Speaker 03:
And the standard is a reasonable probability of undermining confidence in the verdict, not that I've proven he's actually innocent by any measure.

[00:04:41] Speaker 03:
And that's really where we're talking about the elements of the offense, why this matters, because this evidence, the evidence that a reasonable attorney would have obtained, goes to the damages

[00:04:51] Speaker 03:
when they were damaged, who damaged them, but it also calls into question the amount of damages.

[00:04:56] Speaker 03:
And if we were just dealing with one door instead of six windows, I think that's important because that narrows the defense and it calls into question pretty much the entirety of the prosecution's case, that one man can run along over 40 feet and break everything and have nothing happen because it's so perfectly clear

[00:05:17] Speaker 03:
and this officer can see everything, when all those videos show it's the exact opposite.

[00:05:21] Speaker 03:
It's chaos.

[00:05:22] Speaker 04:
So what is the standard of review when reviewing the California State Court's determination that there was no Brady violation?

[00:05:29] Speaker 04:
What's the standard of review?

[00:05:31] Speaker 03:
Well, yours, I mean, it's the EDPO standards.

[00:05:34] Speaker 03:
Was it in a reasonable application of the law and in a reasonable indication?

[00:05:37] Speaker 00:
No, I was going to say, under that EDPO standard, when you take a step back and the state court decided, even if more evidence had been uncovered, you now have a second officer, Officer Zebrath, that is also saying that he was a witness to Mr. Aguirre breaking the windows.

[00:05:57] Speaker 00:
And I understand you have some differences of opinion about the timeline of it.

[00:06:01] Speaker 00:
At the end of the day, isn't that supportive of the conviction?

[00:06:07] Speaker 03:
It very well might be.

[00:06:08] Speaker 03:
There's a reasonable probability of undermining the confidence in the verdict.

[00:06:11] Speaker 03:
It doesn't require us to rule out all possibilities of guilt.

[00:06:15] Speaker 03:
But what I would ask is, is there still a reasonable possibility that he wasn't guilty?

[00:06:20] Speaker 04:
And if you look at Officer Ziebar's testimony, you can get there because not only does he say- Well, okay, but we have to look at it through what the state court had a hearing and all of that.

[00:06:29] Speaker 04:
And if the state court didn't feel that there was a reasonable possibility of what ... I find it hard to believe that the state court would have denied relief if the state court would have thought that your client was actually innocent or that it was undermined.

[00:06:43] Speaker 04:
Kent, if the state court looked at it differently than you're advocating, that doesn't necessarily mean that

[00:06:50] Speaker 04:
The state court was wrong, right?

[00:06:52] Speaker 03:
It doesn't necessarily, but of course we're advocating that.

[00:06:55] Speaker 03:
And the reason why we're here is we've exhausted to this point where we are now arguing that the state court both unreasonably applied federal law and adjudicated these facts.

[00:07:05] Speaker 04:
So you also argue IAC, correct?

[00:07:08] Speaker 03:
Correct.

[00:07:09] Speaker 04:
And what's your best argument that trial counsel's choice to focus on Officer Tedesco's credibility was unreasonable?

[00:07:16] Speaker 04:
Of course.

[00:07:17] Speaker 04:
As we know, we have 20-20 hindsight.

[00:07:20] Speaker 04:
It failed, as Mr. Aguirre was convicted.

[00:07:23] Speaker 04:
But how do we evaluate whether it was nonetheless a reasonable choice at that time?

[00:07:29] Speaker 03:
Well, a reasonable choice between just saying something and actually doing it.

[00:07:32] Speaker 03:
Did he do any investigation to impeach Officer Tedesco besides take pictures at night on a different day from a different vantage point to try and show that there is foliage in the trees?

[00:07:42] Speaker 03:
That is not a reasonable effort of impeachment.

[00:07:44] Speaker 03:
A more reasonable effort of impeachment is subpoena and catalogs.

[00:07:48] Speaker 03:
making an informal discovery request.

[00:07:50] Speaker 03:
And I'd ask, Your Honor, if you really wanted to see what the strategy appeared to be, EOR 488 and 489 are Mr. Kamen's motions in limine for discovery.

[00:08:01] Speaker 03:
This was the catch.

[00:08:02] Speaker 03:
This was the play.

[00:08:03] Speaker 03:
He's going to not ask for discovery and then file a motion that says, I want everything excluded that's material.

[00:08:09] Speaker 03:
Well, that's not doing your job as defense counsel.

[00:08:11] Speaker 03:
And that's not bringing the truth to ascertainment for the jury.

[00:08:17] Speaker 03:
So that's where I'd say it.

[00:08:20] Speaker 03:
If that was his strategy, it's not enough to say it.

[00:08:22] Speaker 03:
You must do it.

[00:08:23] Speaker 03:
You must actually file a 1054 request for discovery.

[00:08:27] Speaker 03:
You must actually investigate witnesses.

[00:08:29] Speaker 04:
Do you want to save any time for rebuttal?

[00:08:31] Speaker 03:
I do.

[00:08:31] Speaker 03:
I want to save two minutes, and so I'll just close.

[00:08:33] Speaker 04:
You're at two minutes, yeah.

[00:08:34] Speaker 03:
Well, then I will save a minute and a half, and I'll close with this.

[00:08:37] Speaker 03:
We are looking at the aggregate effect.

[00:08:40] Speaker 03:
And I'd ask for the court to look at Danny Garza's declaration for corroborating evidence, that there is a question as to

[00:08:46] Speaker 03:
when and the extent of damages of the windows.

[00:08:49] Speaker 03:
And the ultimate issue here is that the jury needed the truth to be brought to light by either the prosecution or the defense.

[00:08:56] Speaker 03:
And they were the ones who were robbed.

[00:08:58] Speaker 03:
And that's the reason we are here seeking habeas relief, saying the state court's decision has been unreasonable.

[00:09:03] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:09:04] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:09:12] Speaker 01:
Good morning.

[00:09:13] Speaker 04:
Good morning.

[00:09:13] Speaker 01:
May it please the court, Gregory Opp, for respondent appellee.

[00:09:18] Speaker 01:
One point on the standard of review that was stated by the trial court at the hearing.

[00:09:26] Speaker 01:
The trial court did make a reference to basically the usual prejudice standard, which is more likely than not that you might get a different result.

[00:09:34] Speaker 01:
But then right after that, the court says, and it's also been stated,

[00:09:37] Speaker 01:
So alternatively stated that it undermines confidence in the verdict.

[00:09:41] Speaker 01:
And that's the Brady standard.

[00:09:43] Speaker 01:
So the habeas court did understand the standard that was applicable here.

[00:09:49] Speaker 00:
So can I ask about this timeline question?

[00:09:53] Speaker 00:
I think the state court did seem to allude to the fact that there may have been some inconsistencies in the timeline.

[00:09:59] Speaker 00:
in Officer Tesesco's testimony.

[00:10:03] Speaker 00:
But the court ultimately concluded that they were inconsequential.

[00:10:09] Speaker 00:
Explain to me why you think that that inconsistency would not have affected the outcome of the trial or caused it to have doubt.

[00:10:18] Speaker 01:
Well, I think the chief reason was the timeline was... Inconsistencies in the timeline is relevant, but it's definitely collateral.

[00:10:29] Speaker 01:
Uh, the, and officer Tedesco's testimony at trial was never very exact.

[00:10:35] Speaker 01:
He said he didn't wear a watch.

[00:10:36] Speaker 01:
He said when he wrote his report that he didn't reference the cad logs, look at that for timing.

[00:10:42] Speaker 01:
And if you look at his testimony at trial, he's led off with, uh,

[00:10:46] Speaker 01:
essentially, what were you on duty at 1 a.m.?

[00:10:48] Speaker 01:
And that's where it starts.

[00:10:50] Speaker 01:
So the focus of trial really wasn't on the timeline.

[00:10:53] Speaker 01:
It's a collateral issue.

[00:10:55] Speaker 01:
And yes, it's relevant to his perceptions, but that's overwhelmed by all the other things that come into play with this evidence.

[00:11:06] Speaker 01:
The biggest one is the second witness, Officer Zebarth, who testifies basically to the very same thing.

[00:11:13] Speaker 01:
He sees Aguirre

[00:11:15] Speaker 01:
Tedesco Cisigiri, they discussed it at the time.

[00:11:18] Speaker 01:
They discussed him, you see this guy, and they're both pointing, so they're discussing that they're pointing to the same person.

[00:11:28] Speaker 01:
And then you'll hear at least twice descriptions over the radio where, if we're going to consider that, by the way, and I'll get to admissibility, that the guy who's sitting there at the fountain, I think it was third from the left or third from the right wearing this and that,

[00:11:45] Speaker 01:
He's arrestable.

[00:11:46] Speaker 01:
He's the one who broke the windows.

[00:11:49] Speaker 01:
And there was some argument in the reply brief that, well, Officer Zebarth or Tedesco was shown the video and couldn't point him out there.

[00:12:00] Speaker 01:
But it's undisputed he's there.

[00:12:03] Speaker 01:
He was arrested sitting there, and that's not disputed.

[00:12:05] Speaker 01:
He was arrested sitting there right at the fountain where he'd been for some time.

[00:12:08] Speaker 01:
But I'm digressing a little bit.

[00:12:11] Speaker 04:
But why wasn't it a Brady violation for the state not to produce the body cam videos prior to trial?

[00:12:17] Speaker 04:
Although the state court subsequently held otherwise, but could the jury have found the videos undermined officers Tedesco's testimony?

[00:12:28] Speaker 01:
Our position is no.

[00:12:30] Speaker 01:
In fact, if anything, the opposite.

[00:12:32] Speaker 01:
It gave some context to the situation.

[00:12:35] Speaker 01:
They can see what these officers are dealing with.

[00:12:40] Speaker 01:
It showed things that, for example, weren't testified to at trial.

[00:12:44] Speaker 01:
For example, that the alcove was lit, so the alcove had a light right above the windows that were broken out.

[00:12:51] Speaker 04:
So what was your reason for not discovering them?

[00:12:57] Speaker 01:
If I recall correctly, the assistant district attorney at the hearing said, I wish we had turned these over.

[00:13:02] Speaker 01:
Her argument, of course, was that they didn't have to be because they weren't material.

[00:13:06] Speaker 01:
But she didn't know either, if I recall correctly, why they weren't.

[00:13:10] Speaker 01:
She was not the trial attorney.

[00:13:13] Speaker 00:
I mean, right off the bat, I think the trial, correct me if I'm wrong, but the trial suggested that Officer Tedesco was the only witness to the breaking of the windows by Aguirre.

[00:13:24] Speaker 00:
But the body cam videos would have revealed that there was, in fact, a second witness, a second officer as well.

[00:13:30] Speaker 00:
So it's putting out something that is actually not true.

[00:13:34] Speaker 00:
Why isn't that helpful to the defense in some way?

[00:13:39] Speaker 01:
I'm not sure I understand the question.

[00:13:40] Speaker 01:
I think it's actually helpful to the prosecution.

[00:13:43] Speaker 01:
I think they could have, if they had put those out, maybe, I don't know if they weren't aware that there was a second witness or if they thought one witness was enough.

[00:13:53] Speaker 01:
when you turn this over and you reveal this, you see there's a, we've got another witness, they're cross corroborating, he's testifying to basically the same thing, and if you look at the whole picture, all of the- Well, I know it was a really long time ago, so is this when body camps were starting and not everyone knew that the officers had body camps?

[00:14:16] Speaker 04:
I'm sort of surprised that it seems like in this day and age, everyone would be,

[00:14:23] Speaker 04:
clamoring about where the body camps, right?

[00:14:26] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:14:27] Speaker 04:
This is the dark ages or I was alive in the dark ages, but.

[00:14:33] Speaker 01:
So was I. I don't recall if, so at the hearing, at the evidentiary hearing, IAC was not fully explored.

[00:14:43] Speaker 01:
There was a question about his tactics on the CAD logs, but it wasn't fully explored.

[00:14:48] Speaker 01:
And so I don't recall if he was asked, why didn't you ask for the body cam or if he said, I just didn't know they existed.

[00:14:56] Speaker 01:
Our position on the catalogs is that those were available.

[00:15:02] Speaker 01:
We don't take that same position with the body cam because those weren't posted.

[00:15:06] Speaker 01:
But the catalogs were available, and he was familiar with them.

[00:15:10] Speaker 00:
And I... Well, I mean, it seems as if he didn't ask for much of anything, any kind of discovery.

[00:15:16] Speaker 00:
And so I was going to ask you, how is that a trial strategy?

[00:15:22] Speaker 00:
Doesn't it seem as if he was just taking the prosecution's word that Tedesco was the only witness?

[00:15:28] Speaker 00:
And I'm not going to ask any... I'm having a little bit of a hard time understanding

[00:15:33] Speaker 00:
I mean, I get the argument that we didn't want to make this some political theater, but what does that have to do with asking for government's evidence in discovery?

[00:15:44] Speaker 01:
I recognize that, Your Honor.

[00:15:45] Speaker 01:
His answer to the question about the catalogs, for example, doesn't quite make sense, as the district court acknowledged, but found that, hey, you think it could still be reasonable under the circumstances.

[00:15:58] Speaker 01:
As to the catalogs, he was familiar with them and had used them before.

[00:16:02] Speaker 01:
And it may well be that he knew the catalogs were virtually useless.

[00:16:08] Speaker 01:
There are multiple layers of hearsay, as they were in this case, and they might establish a timeline.

[00:16:16] Speaker 01:
I don't know because that wasn't fully explored.

[00:16:19] Speaker 01:
Our position is the stronger argument and the easier route is just to look at prejudice on the IAC issue.

[00:16:26] Speaker 01:
And on that, we've got, looking at the new evidence, of course, as I said, we've got Zebarth, who testifies to the same thing.

[00:16:35] Speaker 01:
We've got, excuse me a second, the glass shards on his clothing when he's arrested.

[00:16:44] Speaker 01:
the detail about how they identified him and how they were able to separate him.

[00:16:50] Speaker 01:
He separated himself by walking over the fountain and sitting there, but how they both

[00:16:55] Speaker 01:
were able to to try well let me back up to desko said he was able to track him as he walked down the stairs and keep an eye on him he didn't he didn't arrest him personally because he had a weapon and uh... my understanding is you don't approach people with a weapon you have somebody else who doesn't have a weapon arrest and that's what he said at the hearing so but nevertheless he identified him and tracked him the whole time as did Zebarth I think Zebarth walking down the stairs didn't maybe lost sight of him a couple of points but

[00:17:26] Speaker 01:
And also the very limited admissibility.

[00:17:31] Speaker 01:
That can't be ignored.

[00:17:33] Speaker 01:
The limited admissibility of these videos, the video audio, rather, and the CAD logs.

[00:17:42] Speaker 01:
The CAD logs were admissible only that certain things were said at certain times, but not even for the substance of those things.

[00:17:50] Speaker 01:
Just the utterance, the fact that you have an utterance, they really

[00:17:54] Speaker 01:
didn't establish much.

[00:17:55] Speaker 01:
They didn't really strongly establish a timeline because you still can't take the substance of those statements as to what's going on.

[00:18:03] Speaker 01:
And there are also a lot of them are vague.

[00:18:04] Speaker 01:
They're breaking the windows.

[00:18:07] Speaker 01:
A lot of windows were broken through these riots in different places.

[00:18:11] Speaker 01:
Bottles were thrown and so forth.

[00:18:13] Speaker 01:
But it

[00:18:20] Speaker 04:
Well, I guess it was, I think counsel, we discussed a little bit when counsel for petitioner was up there.

[00:18:28] Speaker 04:
If the state court, I mean, obviously it was a four day hearing and listen to everyone.

[00:18:33] Speaker 04:
If this, even though it wasn't an actual innocence claim, if the state court thought that he was actually innocent, wouldn't that be incorporated in that you lost confidence in the verdict?

[00:18:50] Speaker 01:
Exactly.

[00:18:51] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:18:52] Speaker 01:
I think that's very arguably part of that element, the way it's stated.

[00:18:57] Speaker 01:
Not necessarily that you would have gotten a different verdict, but that you got a fair trial.

[00:19:05] Speaker 01:
And the last thing I wanted to point out was, as to the Garza Declaration, that was put in in the district court in support of an actual innocence claim.

[00:19:17] Speaker 01:
Now, that was a not cognizable claim, but that was the only thing it was relevant to.

[00:19:21] Speaker 01:
It makes no sense to take a declaration from somebody long after the fact, something that wasn't withheld and point to evidence and retroactively say it's material.

[00:19:33] Speaker 01:
It can't, it doesn't make sense for the declaration to go to materiality.

[00:19:37] Speaker 01:
It wasn't something that was withheld and it wasn't something in the trial record.

[00:19:41] Speaker 01:
Same with IAC.

[00:19:42] Speaker 01:
There's no argument that trial counsel failed to find Mr. Garza and put on his testimony.

[00:19:49] Speaker 01:
So it really isn't relevant to anything before this court.

[00:19:53] Speaker 04:
So your position is that Mr. Garza's declaration is not relevant for our review of the state court's denial of relief?

[00:20:01] Speaker 04:
Is that what you're saying?

[00:20:02] Speaker 01:
That's correct as to either issue.

[00:20:05] Speaker 04:
Okay, your time's up, unless my colleagues have questions.

[00:20:09] Speaker 02:
No, thank you.

[00:20:10] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:20:10] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:20:11] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:20:19] Speaker 04:
You maybe want to respond to, I was going to ask you, Mr. Garza indicates that Mr. Aguirre was not aware of his presence at the demonstration on November 11th, 2011, prior to March

[00:20:31] Speaker 04:
What relevance does Mr. Garza's declaration have to our review of the state court's denial of relief?

[00:20:39] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:20:39] Speaker 03:
I would ask that it just be relevant to the idea that if there is Brady Air or Strickland Air that's considered as part of prejudice because it corroborates

[00:20:47] Speaker 03:
other evidence that was not discovered or was suppressed.

[00:20:52] Speaker 03:
I want to answer your question though, Your Honor.

[00:20:55] Speaker 03:
Mr. Kamen testified that it was his understanding they were beginning the practice of wearing body cameras.

[00:21:01] Speaker 03:
That's EOR0918.

[00:21:03] Speaker 03:
But more importantly, he testified that he should have got additional evidence because he would have been for the purpose of trying to convince the jury that Officer Tedesco couldn't or didn't see what he claimed to.

[00:21:17] Speaker 03:
So you can see here that he's claimed a strategy but did nothing to add to that or to substantiate his own strategy.

[00:21:24] Speaker 03:
And that's where the ineffectiveness comes into play.

[00:21:28] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, timing does matter, not only for perception, but because they claimed to have kept eyes on him the whole time, him being my client.

[00:21:37] Speaker 03:
And that was the, quote, evidence box during closing argument by the prosecutor.

[00:21:42] Speaker 03:
The evidence box included photographs of trees by the defense and a direct eyewitness statement that I kept eyes on him the whole time.

[00:21:52] Speaker 03:
And this is why those videos matter, because there is a video of the chief ordering Tedesco and a tango team to do a tactical arrest of a person sitting at the fountain.

[00:22:03] Speaker 03:
That person is not Mr. Aguirre.

[00:22:06] Speaker 03:
It makes no sense why you would do that, why you would bypass the chance to arrest this man if he's causing so much damage.

[00:22:13] Speaker 03:
And his weapon's supposedly a chair.

[00:22:15] Speaker 03:
He's not holding a chair while he's sitting on the ground.

[00:22:18] Speaker 03:
And at the end of the day, those glass shards are on him because he chose to stay when they told him to leave.

[00:22:24] Speaker 03:
And he did that as a conscientious objector.

[00:22:27] Speaker 03:
He decided to be arrested.

[00:22:29] Speaker 03:
And he doesn't deserve the extra felony conviction for doing so.

[00:22:33] Speaker 03:
So I ask that you reverse the state court's decision and address my case.

[00:22:36] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:22:39] Speaker 04:
Thank you both for your argument.

[00:22:40] Speaker 04:
In this matter, it will stand submitted.

[00:22:42] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Mr. Adler, Mr. McConaughey.