By Patrick Aguilar, Janelle Gonzalez, Chaz Keith, Jade Leonard, Natalie Liang, Sarah Naser, Zachariah Perry, and Juwairia Shoaib
SAN FRANCISCO — During closing arguments Wednesday in San Francisco Superior Court, Deputy Public Defender Jess McPeake argued that their client did not intentionally violate a criminal protective order. According to McPeake, the accused was in the area to receive services and charge their ankle monitor when the protected party voluntarily approached them.
Deputy District Attorney Gwendolyn West countered that the accused willfully violated the protective order, stating that the individual knew about the order and had the ability to leave but chose not to.
McPeake told the jury that the accused was inside a Starbucks charging their ankle monitor when the protected party approached from behind. The accused had gone to the Starbucks as part of a routine to receive nearby services and had no prior knowledge the other person would be there, McPeake said.
On Sept. 16, 2024, the accused was charged with willfully violating a criminal protective order in violation of California Penal Code section 166(c)(1), which required them to remain at least 150 yards from the protected party.
West reiterated that the accused knowingly violated the order. She pointed to the defendant’s testimony in which they admitted wanting to leave but did not, arguing this showed full awareness of the order and the ability to comply.
McPeake began their closing by stating, “We’re here because the prosecution is seeking charges, a criminal conviction.”
They argued the incident began when police saw a Black man charging an ankle monitor and used that as a basis for suspicion. When McPeake referred to officers seeing a “young, Black man with an ankle monitor,” West objected.
McPeake referenced the common phrase, “One hour a day keeps the po-po away,” explaining that people wearing ankle monitors, including the accused, must charge them for one hour each day or risk a warrant being issued.
McPeake said the accused had slept in their car in the Tenderloin the night before and chose to charge the monitor at a Starbucks they regularly used. It was the safest place to do so, McPeake told the court, and the accused was also receiving services nearby.
McPeake said the accused was trying to comply with monitoring rules and avoid any issues with law enforcement. During testimony, the accused stated they had nowhere else to go and needed to charge the device.
While being approached by officers, McPeake said, the accused received a phone call from their attorney and was simultaneously approached by the protected party. The accused, upon seeing the person, reminded them of the protective order and testified, “I can’t be here… we can’t be here,” and “I would have left if she continued to stay [after the phone call].”
While West claimed the accused had attempted to contact the protected party to arrange a meeting at the Starbucks, McPeake pointed to missed phone calls and texts suggesting otherwise. They argued this raised questions about whether the protected party understood they were being protected under the order.
Under California Penal Code section 166(c)(1), violating a criminal protective order is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in county jail, a $1,000 fine, or both.
The jury is currently in deliberation.
