SAN FRANCISCO – Judge Teresa M. Caffese on Thursday denied a motion to compel filed by Deputy Public Defender Christopher Fox-Lent in San Francisco Superior Court, rejecting his request that the San Francisco Police Department provide information on replica firearm cases that could counter potential jury misconceptions. The accused, charged with criminal threats and crimes against public peace, was not present at the hearing.
A witness alleged that he saw the accused holstering a gun in his waistband after a road altercation. According to Fox-Lent, the witness could not distinguish the object from an airsoft gun but assumed it was a real firearm. “The witness’s description and inference are the only thing that leads to a firearm charge,” he said. Police did not locate a firearm when the accused was arrested.
Fox-Lent expressed concern that jurors “may assume if something looks like a firearm, it must be a firearm,” calling that assumption a misconception. He said he sought to demonstrate that arrests often involve imitation firearms.
Fox-Lent’s motion requested that police run a query showing how many cases in the past five years involved replica firearms admitted into evidence.
Deputy District Attorney Elizabeth Jimenez opposed the motion, arguing the request was based on “speculative argument” and fell outside the District Attorney’s discovery obligations. Judge Caffese agreed, saying, “I am not sure the DA is required to provide this query.”
Fox-Lent maintained that the information could be vital to preventing an unfair sentence for his client. He reiterated that jurors might not understand how common fake firearms are and could rely on false assumptions.
Jimenez countered that the five-year query was overly broad and could risk disclosing confidential or ongoing investigative information. Questioning its relevance, she quipped, “Why doesn’t [Fox-Lent] subpoena Toys‘R’Us to ask how many imitation guns they have sold?”
Jimenez added that the motion did not align with the Brady Doctrine, which requires prosecutors to disclose evidence favorable to the defense.
Fox-Lent clarified that his request only sought “a number of cases” and did not include private or identifying data.
Judge Caffese questioned whether the information could instead be obtained through “deputy testimony.” Fox-Lent insisted that hard data would strengthen expert testimony. “The fact there isn’t such a publication doesn’t mean it is not relevant. An expert would love to have that,” he said.
Caffese said she remained unconvinced that ordering the SFPD to conduct the query was appropriate, noting that the department operates under the prosecution. Fox-Lent replied that when he makes discovery requests, “the DA often says they don’t have it.” Judge Caffese responded, “What can I do about that?”
She ultimately denied the motion to compel and granted the prosecution’s motion to quash, describing Fox-Lent’s filing as “overwrought” and “over the line.” She said the issue might merit discussion outside the current case but not in her courtroom.
Pretrial deliberations will begin Oct. 31, with a jury trial scheduled for Nov. 14.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
