SAN FRANCISCO — On Monday, Sept. 15, 2025, the San Francisco Superior Court began hearing arguments in a case involving a 70-year-old African American woman accused of battery on a person on school property and unlawful use of tear gas.
The defense maintained the incident was solely an act of self-defense and argued the elderly woman should not be held criminally liable, while the prosecution urged conviction on both counts.
The incident occurred March 17, 2025, during a classroom discussion on race at City College of San Francisco. The accused expressed an opinion that a 20-year-old student strongly disagreed with, leading to a verbal confrontation. The younger woman allegedly began yelling insults and making violent threats toward the older woman as the professor made minimal attempts to de-escalate.
The accused then gathered her belongings and tried to leave the classroom. As she exited, the younger woman followed her, continuing to intimidate her. Moments later, the younger woman allegedly struck the accused, knocking her hat and glasses to the floor. In response, the older woman sprayed her with pepper spray for about five seconds.
Deputy Public Defender Charlotte Miller argued her client acted out of immediate fear for her safety, citing her age, physical vulnerability, and impaired vision.
Deputy District Attorney Owen Nelson disputed the self-defense claim, telling the jury, “Violence is never the answer to a classroom verbal argument. The defendant chose violence.”
To meet his burden of proof, Nelson called the younger woman as his first witness. During her testimony, she admitted to threatening and verbally accosting the accused. Initially, she denied striking the older woman, but her account changed as testimony continued. She later claimed she was pepper-sprayed twice and only struck the woman after the first spray—an account that contradicted two other prosecution witnesses.
Both the professor and the responding police officer testified the accused used pepper spray only once, for about five seconds. Neither the prosecution nor its witnesses explained how the accused’s hat and glasses ended up on the ground.
During cross-examination, Miller focused on inconsistencies in the younger woman’s testimony. “Why are we prosecuting this case when the complaining witness admitted to swinging at the defendant?” she asked the jury.
Miller emphasized that according to the responding officer, pepper spray is designed to temporarily disable a threat and causes no lasting harm. In her closing argument, she told the jury, “Pepper spray temporarily disables a threat to give a victim a chance to leave. That is why so many people carry it for self-defense purposes.”
On Wednesday, Sept. 17, 2025, after hearing the evidence, the jury deliberated and returned a verdict of not guilty on both counts.
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.
