SAN FRANCISCO, CA – Deputy Public Defender Kelsey Ryburn accused the prosecution of failing to obtain key evidence and misquoting her client’s testimony during cross-examination. Despite the repeated objections, Judge Eric Fleming overruled most of them in the San Francisco County Superior Court jury trial.
The accused testified during DPD Ryburn’s questioning that he traveled to San Francisco in May 2024 for the first time in search of a new job. Without a car, the accused rode BART to Civic Center Station by directions from his friend.
Upon leaving the BART station, the accused testified a group of black-clad men in ski masks jumped him, demanding the accused give up his possessions. The accused noted that some were wearing a hoodie and in pants, rather than wearing the black characterizing the rest of the assaulters.
The accused said the men struck the accused over the head with a belt, punching him to the ground, where they continued throwing kicks at his back, head, and hands which covered his face. They stole the accused’s phone and wallet.
Finding himself in an unfamiliar city without his phone and wallet, the accused testified that he ran to a park across the street to clean himself up. He took his shirt off to wipe the blood from his laceration on his head. After throwing his bloody shirt in the trash can, the accused flipped his jacket inside-out and continued on his quest for a new job.
Making his way through this unfamiliar city, the accused stated he stumbled upon another park where he sat down and contemplated what to do, when he felt dizzy. Without his wallet, he waited in line for a meal. Sitting down at the park and eating his snacks, dizziness from his head wound washed over him again, and he lay down for a nap, and said he napped for approximately three hours.
Once he got to the BART station, the accused described a man approaching him. He shouted at him, asking the accused to give the man back his car keys. The accused said he informed the man that the accused did not possess his car keys.
The accused was then threatened with a knife if the accused failed to hand over the man’s car keys. Reaching into his bag, the man pulled out a knife and swung at the accused.
The accused testified that he was scared for his life, leaning back in his chair to mimic how he leaned back when the knife swung at him. The fear pushed him to punch the man in hopes that he would drop the knife. He did. The knife dropped, and the man sat on the sidewalk.
Before the aggression, the man corresponded with another individual, whom the accused described as white and tall. After the accused punched the man, an individual approached the accused and pushed him.
That individual spat racist profanity at the accused, calling him a “beater,” telling him to “go back to his country,” and threatening to call the police. The accused testified he encouraged the individual to call the police, claiming he had done nothing wrong.
When the police arrived on the scene, the individual pointed at the accused, telling the police that the accused punched the man unprovoked.
The police arrested the accused on the scene.
Throughout the accused’s testimony, as the DPD was questioning the accused, the DDA repeatedly objected, citing hearsay, asked-and-answered, and leading questions, and the judge sustained the objections.
DDA La Herran berated the accused about details of the men in ski masks, asking exactly how many there were, exactly how many were in black, and exactly how many stole the accused’s possessions.
As the accused answered, explaining that his position on the ground in the middle of the assault did not allow him to pay attention to specific details of the attack, the DDA asked every question many times over, speaking over the accused so much the judge could not hear the accused’s answers.
When DDA La Herran asked the accused why he was on the ground, the accused emphasized that the assaulters struck him in the head.
DPD Ryburn consistently objected to DDA La Herran’s berating, accusing him of misquoting the accused, and asking argumentative questions. However, the judge continuously overruled the DPD’s objections, even when the DDA misinterpreted the accused’s testimony.
On April 3, DPD Ryburn and DDA La Herran gave their closing arguments, where DPD Ryburn revealed the prosecution’s failure to collect all relevant evidence.
“The only consistent thing about the government’s argument is their failure to look critically at the evidence,” DPD Ryburn argued.
If any officers had inquired about the boxcutter allegedly held by the accused’s assaulter, DPD Ryburn emphasized, they would have found out that the accused did not provoke any violence, but that the man had swung a knife at the accused, forcing the accused to act in self-defense and punch the man .
Stereotypes for Latino men include aggression and being quick to anger, DPD Ryburn articulated in her closing arguments. DPD Ryburn asked the jury if the accused had been a white lady or an older Asian man, would the police have immediately arrested the accused without hesitation, as clearly depicted in the 15-second clip submitted as evidence?
The police officers made a snap judgment based on stereotypes—that the accused was a violent and dangerous Latino man who randomly punched people, and arresting officers assumed that the accused jumped his attacker, said the defense.
In the 15-second clip, the arresting officer cut the accused off as the accused tried to explain his predicament, telling the accused that he was lying. Yet, the police failed to ask the accused for his version of the story. When the accused explained that the man attacked him, the police said they “had a feeling about” the accused and “doubted” the accused “was jumped.”
Officers also alleged that the blood on the accused’s jacket was the attacker’s blood, neglecting to hear the accused’s explanation of his previous assault suffered earlier that day, charging the accused was lying.
If the officers had successfully collected all evidence of the case, DPD Ryburn argued, they would know from a simple DNA test that the blood on the accused’s jacket was in fact his own blood.
The prosecution said it brought the case based on the attack near the library, but the defense noted to the jury the alleged victim of a supposed “unprovoked attack” never showed up in court, even when subpoenaed.
But most of all, the officers, said the defense, failed to obtain security camera footage of the incident, the only footage available being the body camera footage of the arrest, said the DPD—noting in photos of the crime scene, it is clear the assault happened outside of San Francisco’s Main Library, directly under a security camera perfectly photographed in photos of the crime scene and seen in body camera footage.
If a juror is on the fence about the evidence and wishes for video evidence of the incident to help determine their verdict, they will not have it simply because the prosecution failed to obtain security footage of the incident, charged the defense.
DPD Ryburn concluded her argument by telling the jury that they would have “different evidence if the officers” sought alternative evidence that “did not just confirm their own biases.”
A verdict from the jury is expected this week.
