SAN FRANCISCO — A motion hearing Monday in San Francisco County Superior Court on whether to release the accused on their own recognizance was delayed by both the prosecution and defense.
The accused was not present in court, and the prosecution relied on the testimony of one of the two arresting officers, who is currently on family medical leave.
According to the report from the previous week, the court had “suggested out-patient” treatment for the accused, but, hoping for something more “hands-on,” the parties attempted to secure in-patient treatment.
However, because nothing was readily available — which is what the court preferred — the plan was for the accused to participate in out-patient treatment until a bed became available, at which point they would report to that facility.
Defense attorney Jennie Stepanian said, “[They] had issues showing up for court when [they were] always quite nearby, and when [they] would come to and realize that [they] had court, [they] would call [her] and [she] would jump on Zoom.”
According to Stepanian, the accused would “be here presently, and recall the bench warrant literally within a few hours of having morning court issue the bench warrant.”
She estimated this occurred about three times, and said that each time the accused quickly corrected the mistake once they realized it had been made.
Stepanian added that through this case, the accused has come to recognize the role substances have played in their everyday life, and that “[they] at [their] age is now realizing [they] need some help.”
She said this was not the case in the past, when help was suggested and the accused declined it.
Now, she said, the accused is taking “major steps” to address their struggle with substances, including attending two classes per week.
The court noted its concern for the accused, stating that they have “a lot of baggage” associated with drug addiction.
Setting the next court date depended on the availability of one of the arresting officers, whose testimony was sought by the prosecution.
Deputy District Attorney Kirk Earl said the officer deemed “necessary for this case” had just gone on family medical leave after his wife gave birth earlier that day.
Because of the timing, the prosecution requested that the next court date be scheduled three weeks out.
The defense objected, noting that two officers were involved in the arrest and arguing that the second officer, who authored a report, could provide testimony instead.
Earl said he could not speak on behalf of the attorney responsible for the case, but added that the prosecution agreed to “reach out and see” whether the second officer could testify as a substitute.
The court said it would schedule the matter over the next week for a release determination.
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.
