San Francisco – On July 23, 2025, in Department 17 of the San Francisco Hall of Justice, Deputy Public Defender Maria Avalo Cruz argued that her client’s intellectual disabilities rendered him incapable of navigating the digital world, and thus he lacked the intent to possess child pornography—grounds, she said, for dismissing the charges.
Cruz asked Judge Brian J. Stretch to grant a motion to dismiss the case, contending that her client’s cognitive limitations made it impossible for him to intentionally obtain or store illicit content.
Deputy District Attorney Tanisha Gooch strongly opposed the motion, emphasizing the severity of child pornography possession and the need to hold individuals who obtain this content accountable. Gooch also attempted to invoke doubt in the factual basis of the accused’s intellectual disabilities, stating that there is no evidence or medical history submitted by the public defender to prove the claims.
Furthermore, Gooch reasoned that because the accused was found with child pornography in his WhatsApp, Messages and file folder, he’s intellectually capable of navigating and operating technology, so he should be held to the same standard as anyone else found with this content and face the charges against him without claiming to have an impaired mental state.
Gooch finished her argument by stating that even if the intellectual disability exists, it’s irrelevant to the trial until the exact nature of the disability is known, as there are a wide array of identified mental disorders which all uniquely affect how an individual interacts with the outside world.
DPD Cruz first responded by acknowledging the severity of the accusations against her client, emphasizing that he and his family are taking the charges very seriously. Avalo Cruz made the court aware that, while there was child pornography found in multiple places on the accused’s computer, there was significant repetition within the content, and the method by which it came to be on the device is unknown. It’s possible the accused was sent the content from a group chat, or he clicked on a link with a virus.
Avalo Cruz explained that in these cases, it’s not the possession of child pornography that determines the conviction, but the intent to possess child pornography, and there is evidence to support that the accused did not know the content would be on his computer, with or without documented evidence of mental incapacitation.
Avalo Cruz further stated that the accused does not belong on the sex offender list, as this case has been ongoing for seven years, and there’s been no further criminal or sex-related accusations. The accused has also been supported by his immediate and extended family throughout the process of navigating criminal accusations and mental health challenges.
After hearing both the public defender and the district attorney, Judge Stretch stated that although there’s a low risk of reoffense, the motion to dismiss would not be granted because of lingering questions about intent and the mental state of the accused. The case will be continued to a pretrial conference on Sept. 10, 2025.
