LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Calif. — On Tuesday afternoon, Judge Christopher W. Dybwad presided over the trial of a man charged with felony possession of a firearm by a former felon. The accused had recently been released from prison for a separate conviction and was reportedly wearing black clothing—a T-shirt and shorts—at the time of his arrest, which authorities said matched the description of another suspect they were seeking.
Before opening arguments, Deputy Public Defender Margaret Lewis Gaffney and Deputy District Attorney Shane L. Michael disputed the prosecution’s use of an old photo of the accused from an unrelated case. The image showed the accused in a white T-shirt, different from the clothing worn at the time of apprehension.
Judge Dybwad overruled Gaffney’s objection but barred the prosecution from stating that the image was from a prior incident.
The incident in question took place Dec. 8, 2023. A detective on patrol in El Segundo described the area as a common location for firearms and drug possession. He spotted a man near the railroads wearing jeans, a white T-shirt and a hat. When the two made eye contact, the man allegedly threw a firearm into an alley and fled on foot.
As the detective retrieved the firearm, he called for backup, prompting a multi-agency search. Officers established a perimeter and began looking for the suspect.
DNA from the firearm matched the accused, though Gaffney argued other unidentified prints were also present and the accused was only one of several contributors.
The first witness was a 911 caller who lived in the area. During her call, she said she saw a shadow outside her window and checked her home security cameras. The footage showed someone on the side of her house jumping a fence into the neighbor’s property. She described the individual as wearing white and a backwards white hat.
Under cross-examination, the witness was unable to recall key details, including the clothing, time of the call, whether law enforcement retrieved the footage, direct contact with police, or the suspect’s direction of flight.
Gaffney suggested that the apparent color of the clothing in the video could have been distorted due to the camera’s infrared and night vision features.
The second witness, a Hawthorne Police Department officer, testified that he and his partner responded to the foot pursuit. They spotted the accused near a McDonald’s. After a chase, the accused reportedly lay on the ground and surrendered.
Gaffney challenged the testimony, noting that all information the officer had came from radio dispatches. The officer described the suspect as wearing white and jeans and claimed he had not seen the accused prior to the perimeter being set.
Bodycam footage played in court captured officers calling out the accused’s last name without identifying him, and one officer saying, “You just got out, now you’re going right back.” The officer claimed his partner recognized the accused from a prior encounter.
During a search, the only item found on the accused was a baggie of cocaine. Gaffney argued that was the reason the accused fled and not because of any firearm possession.
The footage also showed officers fist-bumping after the arrest, the accused being placed in a patrol car, and one officer turning off his bodycam and never turning it back on.
When asked if he and his partner transported the accused, the officer confirmed they did. Gaffney then stated the officers neither offered nor asked if the accused needed medical care, despite his complaints of pain. The officer said he did not review his bodycam footage before testifying.
Gaffney argued the accused never possessed a firearm and was only apprehended because he “fit the mold of a usual suspect.” She noted the detective didn’t name the accused until 40 minutes after the initial incident and only when surrounded by fellow officers. In her closing, she stated the accused was not wearing a black hoodie, hat, jeans, or carrying a firearm.
No other evidence was collected from the scene besides the firearm initially recovered.
With no further arguments, Judge Dybwad called for a recess. The court and jury are scheduled to reconvene Wednesday for continued witness testimony. The accused remains free on his own recognizance.
This case raises some serious questions about how quickly assumptions can shape an investigation. The inconsistencies in clothing descriptions, bodycam handling, and witness memory make it clear why due process matters so much. It’ll be important to see what comes out in the next round of testimony, especially regarding how the firearm was linked and whether the officers followed proper procedure. I appreciate coverage like this because it highlights issues the public often never hears about.