OAKLAND, CA – At a pretrial evidentiary hearing on June 10, Judge Deija Trevino denied multiple motions in limine filed by the defense to exclude evidence from the upcoming jury trial. Although the defense argued that admitting the contested evidence would unfairly prejudice the jury, Judge Trevino ruled that the material’s probative value outweighed any potential prejudice.
The trial is scheduled to begin next week. The accused faces charges of first-degree robbery, second-degree robbery, and sentence enhancements related to prior felony convictions.
At the hearing, the accused pleaded not guilty and remains out of custody pending trial.
The hearing opened with the prosecution’s motions in limine regarding the admissibility of evidence collected during the arrest and investigation. Among the first contested exhibits were three police body-worn camera clips from the arrest.
Deputy District Attorney Laura Anderson argued that each video was distinct and should be admitted. Deputy Public Defender Anna Kashtanova countered that the first two clips—labeled A and B—were cumulative and prejudicial, both showing Deputy Gurley pointing a firearm at the accused.
Kashtanova argued that the repeated display of the drawn weapon would unduly bias the jury, stating, “The jury may assume that the person should be restrained and feared.”
Judge Trevino rejected the defense’s argument and admitted all three video clips, finding that each was sufficiently distinct. She further noted that any potential prejudice was outweighed by their probative value, as the videos depict the accused’s physical appearance and the items found in his car at the time of the arrest.
The prosecution also sought to admit nine photographs showing injuries allegedly sustained by the primary witness during the incident. Judge Trevino excluded two of the images as cumulative. The defense asked the court to exclude an additional three images, arguing that the injuries could have resulted from the witness falling off a bicycle rather than from an assault by the accused. The judge denied that request and ruled that seven of the nine photos would be admitted.
Next, the court addressed whether the prosecution could reference the accused’s separate felony charge for illegal firearm possession. The guns were allegedly discovered in the trunk of the accused’s car during the same arrest. DDA Anderson argued that the charge was relevant impeachment material and reflected moral turpitude.
The defense objected, accusing the prosecution of attempting to introduce the firearm charge to discredit the accused and arguing that it would be “impossible” for jurors to separate the gun-related charge from the robbery charges.
To evaluate admissibility, Judge Trevino applied the People v. Beagle (1972) balancing test and ruled that the firearm charge could be introduced as impeachment evidence. However, she ordered that the parties not reference the date of the charge, since it occurred on the same day as the robbery, to avoid juror confusion.
The defense also requested that the firearm charge be “sanitized” and referred to only as a “felony in 2022,” omitting the nature of the offense. Judge Trevino denied that request.
The morning concluded with the defense presenting its own motions in limine, most of which Judge Trevino denied, noting that similar or opposing motions by the prosecution had already been granted.
Jury selection is set to begin Thursday, with witness testimony scheduled to start on Tuesday.
