[00:00:02] Speaker 04:
The next case is Christian Diaz, appellant versus Debbie Asuncion, who's the warden.

[00:00:19] Speaker 04:
And this case is set for 15 minutes per side.

[00:00:24] Speaker 04:
So the appellant can lead off here.

[00:00:31] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:00:33] Speaker 04:
I want to remind the parties and others that we will take a break at the close of this argument.

[00:00:46] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:00:47] Speaker 03:
Good morning and may it please the court Pablo Amazon for Christian Diaz and I'll aim to reserve three minutes for a bottle.

[00:00:55] Speaker 03:
I just like to note it looks like the clock is frozen right now on 145.

[00:00:59] Speaker 03:
So should I just wait for that to get reset?

[00:01:09] Speaker 01:
Apologies, judges.

[00:01:12] Speaker 01:
Ms.

[00:01:13] Speaker 01:
Gerold had dropped off the call because of a computer glitch.

[00:01:16] Speaker 01:
Let me restart the clock for you.

[00:01:20] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:01:32] Speaker 04:
I think your clock is now set.

[00:01:36] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:01:38] Speaker 04:
Use them wisely.

[00:01:39] Speaker 03:
I'll try my best, Your Honor.

[00:01:42] Speaker 03:
Diaz's trial boiled down to a credibility contest between the arresting officers and Diaz's sister as to whether he committed a gun assault that, per the officer's own concession, could have only been pulled off if Diaz had, quote, unheard of strength.

[00:01:58] Speaker 03:
In closing argument, the prosecution repeatedly told the jury that they should believe the officers over Diaz's sister because these officers had no motive to lie.

[00:02:09] Speaker 03:
But this wasn't true.

[00:02:11] Speaker 03:
The only reason the prosecution was able to argue that the officers lacked the motive to lie about the disputed gun assault was because the trial court did not allow the defense to bring evidence of that motive into trial.

[00:02:24] Speaker 03:
I'd like to focus today on two points.

[00:02:27] Speaker 03:
First, how the excluded use of force investigation did provide a motive for the officers to lie about the gun assault.

[00:02:34] Speaker 03:
And second, how exclusion of this investigation from trial prejudice Diaz.

[00:02:39] Speaker 03:
First, regarding the motive.

[00:02:41] Speaker 03:
If we assume that the disputed gun assault never happened and focus instead only on the undisputed events on the night in question, it becomes clear why the officers would have benefited from a lie about the gun assault.

[00:02:56] Speaker 03:
We know that in response to a welfare check, the officers entered Diaz's bedroom and then eventually tackled him to the floor.

[00:03:03] Speaker 03:
Once Diaz is on the floor, two officers with a combined weight of 400 pounds get on his back, while the third officer begins to repeatedly tase Diaz for a total of five times.

[00:03:16] Speaker 03:
There's also no dispute that when this happens, Diaz only weighed 130 pounds.

[00:03:22] Speaker 03:
that Diaz also had visible red marks on his face as a result of this altercation, and that one of the officers who was on top of Diaz has cuts to his knuckles that may be consistent with having punched someone.

[00:03:35] Speaker 03:
So in this situation, would the officers benefit from them saying that Diaz pulled a gun on them?

[00:03:44] Speaker 03:
Well, we know immediately after they arrest Diaz that an uninvolved sergeant arrives to begin a use of force investigation on the officers.

[00:03:53] Speaker 03:
If we look at the situation they're faced in now, they essentially now find themselves having to explain why all of these actions were reasonable.

[00:04:04] Speaker 03:
Why did they have to repeatedly tase Diaz five times when two officers who greatly outweighed him were already on top of him?

[00:04:12] Speaker 03:
and they also have to account for these injuries.

[00:04:16] Speaker 02:
To succeed on this claim, you would need to show that no reasonable jurist would have excluded the evidence, right?

[00:04:28] Speaker 02:
Correct.

[00:04:29] Speaker 02:
Okay, so the Court of Appeal in the first appeal said

[00:04:37] Speaker 02:
The trial court did not abuse its discretion.

[00:04:40] Speaker 02:
We agree with the trial court that the evidence of the internal investigation would have been more prejudicial than probative, in particular because defense counsel sought to introduce evidence that the officers were investigated for their use of force, but to exclude evidence of the results of the investigation.

[00:04:58] Speaker 02:
So we would have to find that those jurists, for example, were unreasonable in making that determination, because if they're right, you lose, right?

[00:05:07] Speaker 02:
on this point.

[00:05:10] Speaker 03:
I mean, so the CCA opinion isn't the one we're looking at.

[00:05:13] Speaker 03:
No, I understand that.

[00:05:15] Speaker 02:
But it's certainly an example of jurists and certainly jurists on the Court of Appeal.

[00:05:22] Speaker 02:
And you're saying that that has to be unreasonable because if that was reasonable, then you would lose because they would be some reasonable jurists, right?

[00:05:36] Speaker 03:
Sure, so a couple points I want to make there is first, defense counsel at the pretrial hearing on whether or not this evidence should come in, they never said, we only want this evidence in trial if we could also avoid having the results come in.

[00:05:53] Speaker 03:
They do say that we don't, and I believe the words are, we don't necessarily want to talk about the results, but then they explain because those results

[00:06:01] Speaker 03:
were basically irrelevant as to whether the investigation itself.

[00:06:05] Speaker 02:
Right, they say our position would be that the investigation is relevant, but the results are not relevant.

[00:06:14] Speaker 03:
Correct, and I would agree with that assessment.

[00:06:19] Speaker 03:
The other thing I would like to point out is that the prosecution in responding at the pretrial argument, they do tell the court, the trial court, hey, if this investigation comes in, then we also want the results in.

[00:06:33] Speaker 03:
So basically the trial court was presented with that option.

[00:06:36] Speaker 03:
But what they did is they didn't decide, well, it's going to be too messy.

[00:06:40] Speaker 03:
They essentially decided, well, the probative value of the investigation itself is just not so high that it warrants coming into the trial.

[00:06:50] Speaker 03:
Sorry, I thought you were going to say something.

[00:06:51] Speaker 02:
No, no, I'm sorry.

[00:06:52] Speaker 02:
But the California evidentiary rule is very similar to rule 403, right?

[00:06:58] Speaker 02:
Correct, yes.

[00:07:00] Speaker 02:
All right, go ahead.

[00:07:01] Speaker 03:
Sure, sure.

[00:07:03] Speaker 03:
And I think to kind of get to this point,

[00:07:07] Speaker 03:
It's, we have to go back and see, did this investigation provide a motive for them to lie?

[00:07:13] Speaker 03:
And again, the officers, once that uninvolved sergeant arrives on the scene shortly after their arrest, they know at that point they're under investigation.

[00:07:22] Speaker 03:
Like they don't have to guess or wonder, you know, are our actions going to be under the mic?

[00:07:26] Speaker 02:
But I mean, what you have to show first,

[00:07:30] Speaker 02:
is that it was a clear violation of the Constitution for the Superior Court to balance the probative value against the prejudicial value and find

[00:07:48] Speaker 02:
that under the California evidence rule, that the finding that they made that the probative value was outweighed, that that was a violation of the Constitution that no reasonable jurist could disagree with.

[00:08:03] Speaker 02:
Not just that it was relevant, but that its exclusion violated the Sixth Amendment and that every reasonable jurist would have to agree.

[00:08:12] Speaker 02:
Not just that it was relevant.

[00:08:15] Speaker 02:
I'll give you that it was relevant.

[00:08:17] Speaker 02:
Sure.

[00:08:18] Speaker 03:
So in this case, it's one that did boil down to a credibility contest because there wasn't any undisputed evidence that showed that Diaz actually did this assault.

[00:08:30] Speaker 03:
So, you know, and we could see the fact that this was a credibility contest because the prosecution in closing repeatedly says, you know, these officers don't have a motive to lie.

[00:08:41] Speaker 03:
Where's the motive?

[00:08:41] Speaker 03:
They don't have a motive to lie.

[00:08:43] Speaker 03:
Diaz's sister is the only one with the motive because of the family connection.

[00:08:47] Speaker 03:
So when we have a case where it essentially boils down to credibility contest, whether a motive to lie exists is really what the whole case turns on.

[00:08:57] Speaker 03:
And if one side is able to argue that their witnesses have no motive to lie and that's why you should believe them, that's a pretty powerful argument, right?

[00:09:07] Speaker 03:
But we know that had the investigation come in,

[00:09:11] Speaker 02:
They can't make that argument and then their sell to the jury becomes much tougher because now they have to go out of their way to explain why these officers are- But trial judges make these kinds of determinations all the time that, I mean, you don't even get to what we would call the 403 balancing unless the evidence is relevant.

[00:09:34] Speaker 02:
Because if it's not relevant, there's nothing to balance.

[00:09:37] Speaker 02:
So in 403 decisions all the time, you're balancing the probative value against the danger of unfair prejudice.

[00:09:48] Speaker 02:
And at least one of the things that the state has identified, and I think the superior court judge did too, is it's unfair.

[00:09:59] Speaker 02:
because the jury hearing this might well assume that they were found guilty in this internal affairs investigation, and that's unfair.

[00:10:10] Speaker 02:
So, I mean, isn't that a legitimate consideration by the district court?

[00:10:16] Speaker 02:
Would it be unfair if the jury could think these crucial witnesses were found guilty by their own organization of significant misconduct?

[00:10:27] Speaker 03:
So if that is the concern, then you let in the results as well.

[00:10:35] Speaker 02:
But for example, the Court of Appeal found that that's not what they wanted.

[00:10:40] Speaker 02:
They didn't want both.

[00:10:43] Speaker 02:
And I mean, I think that's a fair reading of the transcript.

[00:10:48] Speaker 03:
Again, I would push back there because again, they say, we don't want to necessarily talk about the results.

[00:10:54] Speaker 03:
And then they go on to explain how they're irrelevant.

[00:10:57] Speaker 03:
And again, the trial court was given the option when the prosecution says, well, if the investigation comes in, we want the results to come in too.

[00:11:05] Speaker 02:
Is there anything in the record in which counsel said, Judge, we'd take both.

[00:11:10] Speaker 02:
If the only way we can get the investigation in is to find out that they were exonerated, we'll take both.

[00:11:18] Speaker 03:
not from counsel's words directly, but again, fire to that the prosecution did present that option to the court.

[00:11:27] Speaker 03:
It was the court who basically said because the results turned out favorably for the officers, I just don't see the probative value, and that's why it's not coming in.

[00:11:36] Speaker 03:
And obviously, I believe that decision itself was wrong because that would assume essentially that the way the investigation was that it essentially was so foolproof.

[00:11:47] Speaker 03:
that it exonerates the officers of any wrongdoing.

[00:11:52] Speaker 03:
You know, obviously, if we had known more about the policy and how it works, we would know that the police report that the officers draft is what kind of serves as the benchmark for that investigation, and that all the evidence is then compared to that narrative.

[00:12:06] Speaker 03:
And essentially, if it's consistent, then, you know, most likely it's going to come out in favor of the officers.

[00:12:13] Speaker 03:
So to me, it's, again,

[00:12:16] Speaker 03:
what what i think is important to realize is this case did come down to credibility and essentially the defense is then not allowed to argue or attack the credibility of the officers and the prosecution repeatedly takes advantage of that enclosing by arguing the officers have no motive to lie and saying you know where's the evidence of this conspiracy that they made up this lie so again it's

[00:12:42] Speaker 03:
I guess one more point I also want to make is that, you know, courts, Ben Arzell, Ortiz V8, Hawley v. Youngborough, they repeatedly have held that when courts completely exclude motive evidence, that is a constitutional violation.

[00:12:56] Speaker 02:
Do you have any case that you can cite?

[00:13:01] Speaker 02:
Because I don't see that in the Supreme Court case where the court has said,

[00:13:05] Speaker 02:
Excluding it completely after balancing is a Sixth Amendment violation as opposed to it completely excluding relevant important evidence is a violation of the Sixth Amendment.

[00:13:21] Speaker 02:
Is there any case you can point to where they make that same supposed unconditional statement when they're looking at a determination by the trial court of balancing relevance, probative value against prejudice?

[00:13:35] Speaker 03:
So I can't think of a case off the top of my head.

[00:13:38] Speaker 03:
But again, I would say the trial court just got the prejudice ruling wrong here.

[00:13:44] Speaker 03:
Again, to them, the whole probative value of the investigation goes out the window just because they believe that the results were in favor of the officers.

[00:13:55] Speaker 03:
So if you have that kind of

[00:13:58] Speaker 03:
you know, I think wrong decision, then you can't really rely on that balancing analysis that they did because at that point it's flawed.

[00:14:07] Speaker 03:
And so then we do look as to what the proper analysis should have been.

[00:14:10] Speaker 03:
And I do see that I'm running low on time.

[00:14:13] Speaker 03:
So unless the court has any other questions, I would like to reserve the remaining for rebuttal.

[00:14:19] Speaker 04:
That's fine.

[00:14:22] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:14:23] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honor.

[00:14:24] Speaker 00:
May it please the court, Deputy Attorney General Lindsay Boyd on behalf of the warden.

[00:14:28] Speaker 00:
Established federal law is clear that the right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment does not mean the right to bring in irrelevant misleading.

[00:14:37] Speaker 04:
Council, hold on.

[00:14:38] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:14:41] Speaker 04:
I think we need to have the clerk set the clock for you.

[00:14:47] Speaker 04:
My apologies, Your Honor.

[00:14:48] Speaker 04:
It's okay.

[00:14:57] Speaker 04:
Yeah, thank the clerk.

[00:14:59] Speaker 04:
There you go.

[00:15:00] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:15:02] Speaker 00:
Established federal law is clear that the Sixth Amendment does not mean a defendant can bring in misleading, irrelevant, or unduly prejudicial evidence.

[00:15:10] Speaker 00:
The trial court in this case properly excluded any reference to the internal affairs investigation just for that reason, that it was irrelevant, misleading, confusing, and unduly prejudicial.

[00:15:22] Speaker 00:
And the California Supreme Court

[00:15:25] Speaker 00:
did not unreasonably apply binding federal precedent when affirming the trial court's ruling.

[00:15:32] Speaker 00:
I take issue with opposing counsel's representation that the defense was not able to argue that the officers had motive to lie.

[00:15:42] Speaker 00:
And I'll just read from the defense's closing argument at the second trial, which begins at 5 ER 1071.

[00:15:50] Speaker 00:
where the defense counsel says they didn't want to lose their jobs.

[00:15:53] Speaker 00:
They did not want to lose their jobs.

[00:15:54] Speaker 00:
They didn't want to sit in the hot seat.

[00:15:56] Speaker 00:
They didn't want to sit in Mr. Diaz's seat.

[00:15:58] Speaker 00:
So there was a concern about how can we justify this beating.

[00:16:02] Speaker 00:
Essentially, the defense's entire argument was that the police officers came up with a story to justify an unjustified beating.

[00:16:12] Speaker 00:
Having an internal investigations report come in

[00:16:16] Speaker 00:
which in fact said to the contrary that the police officers were justified, if anything undermined the defense's argument.

[00:16:25] Speaker 02:
It was not.

[00:16:26] Speaker 02:
Isn't part of their argument that at the interval between the original report and the supplemental report, this investigation had begun?

[00:16:44] Speaker 00:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:16:46] Speaker 02:
And so if their argument is the supplemental report is a lie, the fact that in the interim an internal affairs investigation had begun, and therefore they knew that they needed to clean up what they wrote to put this finger on the trigger stuff in the supplemental report,

[00:17:13] Speaker 02:
I mean, it seems to me that the fact that during that interim they were being investigated is certainly relevant.

[00:17:22] Speaker 02:
I mean, that doesn't go to the question of balancing, but you're arguing it's not relevant, and I don't see that.

[00:17:27] Speaker 00:
Well, I think it's not relevant in the sense that the tasing, which essentially the petitioner is arguing that the

[00:17:37] Speaker 00:
they had to come up with a story of producing the gun to justify the tasing.

[00:17:41] Speaker 00:
The story was, he was tased four or five times before the gun was even produced.

[00:17:48] Speaker 00:
So the nexus between what the officer said happened doesn't even really meet what petitioner is trying to portray the argument as.

[00:17:57] Speaker 00:
I think the second point is that it does go to the balancing, that whether or not the fact that this

[00:18:06] Speaker 00:
investigation was taking place has anything to do with a motive to lie because a jury could also look at this and say that officers had motive to be even more truthful because they knew that their police reports are going to be read by people outside of their normal channels and that they had to, you know, amend the police report to

[00:18:24] Speaker 00:
to make sure that all of the details were accurate because it was undergoing this level of review.

[00:18:29] Speaker 02:
I mean, I think, I mean, respectfully, Council, I think that argument kind of cuts against you because if you can make that argument, that reduces the danger of unfair prejudice.

[00:18:39] Speaker 00:
Well, so first, I think, importantly, the defense was able to cross examine the officers about any discrepancies in the police report.

[00:18:51] Speaker 00:
So, you know, applying Van Arsdale under the EDPA lens,

[00:18:54] Speaker 00:
whether or not the jury would have gotten a significantly more different view of the officer's credibility.

[00:18:59] Speaker 00:
The defense was able to cross-examine the officers about any discrepancies in the police report.

[00:19:06] Speaker 00:
Secondly, whether or not this investigation really gave the officers a motive to lie would necessarily require evidence presented about whether their use of force was justified.

[00:19:19] Speaker 00:
Because if the officers tased a petitioner

[00:19:24] Speaker 00:
it was apparent to everybody who was present there, and there were many officers present there, that no one did anything wrong, then they wouldn't have a strong motive to lie.

[00:19:34] Speaker 00:
On the other hand, as the trial court said, it would have created a trial within a trial because the jury would have had to have heard all this evidence about use of force and the police conduct, which wasn't relevant to what the jury was actually tasked with deciding.

[00:19:53] Speaker 00:
The only way that petitioner's argument makes sense is if the jury started from the presumption that the officers necessarily were going to lie.

[00:20:02] Speaker 00:
Again, they could have also concluded to the contrary.

[00:20:06] Speaker 00:
And also, the jury would have only had to have heard the part that there was an argument, the fact of the investigation, but would have had to not heard the results of the investigation, which in fact undercut the defense's argument.

[00:20:20] Speaker 00:
The defense's argument

[00:20:22] Speaker 00:
was essentially that these officers had an unjustified beating and had to make up a story to justify it.

[00:20:30] Speaker 00:
And if a police report is introduced, which comes to the opposite conclusion, it doesn't help the defense's argument in that case.

[00:20:39] Speaker 00:
It undermines it.

[00:20:40] Speaker 00:
So applying, again, the very differential standard of EDPA, the question is,

[00:20:47] Speaker 00:
not only whether or not the trial court was reasonable in excluding the evidence, but whether or not any reasonable jurist could have found that the trial court was reasonable.

[00:20:56] Speaker 00:
I think under that lens, especially, it's clear that the petitioners' confrontation clause rights were not violated by excluding the internal affairs investigation.

[00:21:09] Speaker 00:
However, I want to address the second prong of

[00:21:12] Speaker 00:
Petitioner's argument, which is the prejudice requirement, which is the BRAC standard.

[00:21:19] Speaker 00:
Again, we analyzed in our briefing the applying the Van Arsdale standards as well as the BRAC standard.

[00:21:27] Speaker 00:
I think it's a little unclear from the case law how those two standards meld together.

[00:21:33] Speaker 00:
But essentially, the question is whether or not there was a substantial or injurious influence on the verdict.

[00:21:40] Speaker 00:
In this case,

[00:21:41] Speaker 00:
the internal affairs investigation was not relevant, even if they were going to argue that the finger on the trigger evidence was somehow, that somehow brought in because of the internal affairs investigation.

[00:21:54] Speaker 00:
Again, none of this evidence was relevant to the questions that the jury was tasked with determining.

[00:22:01] Speaker 00:
And the jury also heard from Dr. Gelman, who was corroborating testimony about the petitioner's behavior that evening.

[00:22:10] Speaker 00:
The defense was

[00:22:12] Speaker 00:
permitted to cross examine the police officers.

[00:22:15] Speaker 00:
They called Officer King as their own witness and was able to examine them about any discrepancies in their police reports.

[00:22:23] Speaker 00:
And the prosecution's case was very strong.

[00:22:25] Speaker 00:
Even petitioner's own sister heard the police officers say gun, gun, gun.

[00:22:30] Speaker 00:
So the defense's argument that the gun was never produced was simply not credible.

[00:22:39] Speaker 00:
And

[00:22:40] Speaker 00:
Unless Your Honors have any additional questions, I'm happy to submit early.

[00:22:44] Speaker 00:
I think I addressed most of what Council raised.

[00:22:53] Speaker 00:
We would ask that this Court affirm the order of the District Court.

[00:22:56] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:22:58] Speaker 04:
Okay, thank you.

[00:23:01] Speaker 03:
Just a few points I'd like to make on rebuttal.

[00:23:04] Speaker 03:
Council mentioned that, you know, the defense was able to argue, you know, that the officers were motivated by this concern that they would lose their jobs.

[00:23:13] Speaker 03:
But without the investigation at trial, essentially what the officers had to rely on for their theory of the case was that the beating had been so bad on Diaz that any person looking at those injuries would automatically assume, okay, yeah, you know, we're going to get investigated for this.

[00:23:31] Speaker 03:
There's a potential that we're going to get reprimanded.

[00:23:33] Speaker 03:
And what the prosecution said in closing is, where's the evidence of this massive beating?

[00:23:38] Speaker 03:
Although he did have red marks on his face.

[00:23:40] Speaker 03:
You know, where are the cuts?

[00:23:41] Speaker 03:
Where are the bruises?

[00:23:42] Speaker 03:
Where are the broken bones?

[00:23:44] Speaker 03:
So it shows you

[00:23:46] Speaker 03:
the harder, you know, so that case was for the defense without the investigation.

[00:23:52] Speaker 03:
As to the discrepancies that were kind of teased out on cross examination for the officers, those were mainly that the officers testified inconsistently about whether the teases affected Diaz and whether Diaz's sister was in the bedroom.

[00:24:07] Speaker 03:
But in closing, again, the prosecution offered innocent explanations for these inconsistencies.

[00:24:13] Speaker 03:
She said that these officers had different vantage point.

[00:24:16] Speaker 03:
you know, somewhere on the floor, somewhere standing up, somewhere in the hallway.

[00:24:20] Speaker 03:
She says it's a fast-acting situation.

[00:24:22] Speaker 03:
And as for the officer who actually tased Diaz, she essentially calls him a novice and says that he didn't know what he was doing and couldn't essentially tell whether or not someone was being affected by a tase.

[00:24:34] Speaker 03:
So again, without the motive to lie investigation in, these cells become much easier for the prosecution to make.

[00:24:41] Speaker 03:
As to whether or not this was a closed case, I mean we have a data point here and that's the first trial that resulted in a hung jury.

[00:24:48] Speaker 03:
And really the only primary difference between the first trial and the second trial was that at the second trial the ER doctor testified for the prosecution.

[00:24:57] Speaker 03:
But that testimony didn't move the needle as to whether or not he has actually committed the disputed gun assault.

[00:25:04] Speaker 03:
All she testified was that he was difficult to control in a hospital setting where they're essentially trying to place an IV in him and a catheter.

[00:25:13] Speaker 03:
And just lastly, you know, the gun and the fact that the sister corroborated that the officers yelled gun.

[00:25:20] Speaker 03:
Well, that's entirely consistent with the story where the officers are on top of Diaz as they're struggling with him.

[00:25:26] Speaker 03:
They notice a gun in his bedroom because there was four total guns recovered and he's yelling out gun, gun, gun to notify the officers, hey, there's a gun over there.

[00:25:35] Speaker 03:
Someone go get it.

[00:25:36] Speaker 03:
And again, why would Diaz assist her if she's being motivated to lie about this?

[00:25:41] Speaker 03:
Like, why would she tell this?

[00:25:43] Speaker 03:
It has no kind of benefit to Diaz.

[00:25:46] Speaker 03:
And my last point is, again, this case did boil down to a credibility contest, but one where the defense was not allowed to attack the credibility of the officers.

[00:25:57] Speaker 03:
And I don't see how anyone can believe that that's an impregnable Diaz or violated his confrontation rights.

[00:26:03] Speaker 03:
And unless the court has any other questions, I would submit

[00:26:09] Speaker 04:
Though I have no questions, I've been hearing none from the other judges.

[00:26:16] Speaker 04:
This case shall now be submitted and the parties will hear from us in due course.

[00:26:32] Speaker 04:
We'll now be on, take a short break.

[00:26:39] Speaker 00:
The court stands in recess.