SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. — A San Francisco County Superior Court jury found a Black man not guilty Thursday after a two-month trial stemming from a 2024 stabbing and robbery case, leading to his release after more than 18 months in county jail while exculpatory DNA evidence allegedly sat in the investigating officer’s inbox for much of that time.
On Thursday, April 9, 2026, jurors acquitted the man on all counts related to a stabbing and robbery that took place in September 2024. He was released after spending more than 18 months in San Francisco County Jail, though evidence presented at trial showed exculpatory DNA results had been in the investigating officer’s inbox for 16 of those months.
After weeks of pretrial litigation and jury selection, jurors heard opening statements March 23, 2026, from Deputy District Attorney Rachel Schneider and Deputy Public Defender Jared Rudolph.
Over the next two weeks, Schneider called five officers, one eyewitness, a DNA expert and the alleged victim. Rudolph called one witness, eyewitness identification expert Kathy Pezdek.
According to testimony from officers and the victim, as well as the sole video of the incident entered into evidence, a man was stabbed in the neck on a Tenderloin District sidewalk on Sept. 16, 2024, and had his phone stolen. The suspect was described by two eyewitnesses as “black, bald-headed, and on a bike.” Nine days later, San Francisco police arrested the accused because he was Black, bald and riding a bicycle.
Sgt. William Elieff, the lead investigator, testified that he created screenshots from surveillance footage provided by the Tenderloin Benefit District and distributed a “Be On the Lookout” email to officers. The suspect description in that bulletin was Black, bald, riding a black BMX bike, wearing a black sweatshirt and gray sweatpants.
Nine days later, officers detained the accused while he was riding a bicycle in the Tenderloin. He was Black and bald at the time.
The accused did not have a black BMX bike. His clothing was different. He did not have the knife.
At the preliminary hearing, Officer Jesse Montero testified he did not see the accused’s face before detaining him because the man was walking away when first encountered. Days before trial testimony, Montero emailed Schneider to say he newly remembered that he had seen the accused’s face before the detention.
Body camera footage introduced at trial showed officers saying the accused looked “close enough” for probable cause while waiting for Elieff to arrive. Once there, Elieff spent roughly four minutes looking at the accused, who was seated in a patrol vehicle.
Defense video evidence also showed Elieff asking officers to turn off their body-worn cameras before discussing the case. One officer asked whether he should also disable his camera, and Elieff replied, “Ya, you can turn it off.” No recording captured the ensuing conversation, and witnesses later gave differing accounts of what was discussed.
Montero testified that identification of the suspect was discussed, though he could not recall specifics. Officer Dumont similarly testified that identification and “other stuff about the case” were discussed while cameras were off. Both officers said that violated department body camera protocols.
Elieff denied that identification was discussed while cameras were off and said the conversation involved charges and other matters he could not fully recall.
When recording resumed, Montero asked Elieff, “Probable cause, how do you want me to write it?” Testimony indicated Elieff then told officers to include a bump on the accused’s head and a mark above his eyebrow. Rudolph argued that no original suspect description mentioned those features and described the comparison as an improvised effort to match the accused to the suspect.
The accused was charged with attempted murder, aggravated mayhem and second-degree robbery, along with enhancements for use of a deadly weapon and great bodily injury. He faced a potential life sentence.
Elieff testified it was standard practice to send designated officers to canvass for additional surveillance video, but that did not occur in this case.
The sergeant also testified he determined the accused’s registered address was 391 Ellis St., a mailing address used by unhoused residents in San Francisco. Under cross-examination, Elieff acknowledged no effort was made to determine where the accused actually slept in order to search for clothing, the bicycle or the knife.
Police later conducted a photo lineup. Elieff testified he searched a database of people previously arrested in San Francisco for Black men with brown eyes and black hair, then selected five fillers he believed resembled the accused.
Pezdek testified that under California Penal Code section 859.7, lineup participants should reflect the eyewitness’s description of the suspect, not simply resemble the person already in custody.
The lineup photos were entered into evidence. Only the accused was fully bald. Only the accused was clean-shaven. The victim identified him as the perpetrator.
The statute also regulates blind or blinded administration of lineups, designed to prevent subtle cues from influencing a witness. Trial testimony conflicted about where Elieff stood during the procedure. Although officers initially said they were unaware of the victim looking at Elieff during the lineup, defense counsel later presented a still image showing the victim looking directly at him.
When the victim testified, prosecutors introduced the full body camera video of the lineup, which showed the victim looking at Elieff multiple times before identifying the accused.
The victim told jurors he remembered the attacker’s face, saying, “I remember his face … a face doesn’t change.”
During cross-examination, the victim testified he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and PTSD and may have been experiencing auditory hallucinations on the day of the incident. He described portions of that day as “cloudy” and gave testimony that differed from statements at the preliminary hearing.
The victim also testified he drank alcohol that morning but could not recall whether he had used methamphetamine or other drugs. Schneider later clarified through questioning that he consumed about two shots of alcohol.
Earlier, the trauma surgeon who treated the victim testified. Under cross-examination, the surgeon said medical records showed the victim tested positive for methamphetamine that day and that the hospital had not administered it.
The only forensic investigation involved DNA testing. In surveillance footage, the suspect was seen picking up the victim’s cellphone with an ungloved hand and riding away while holding it. The phone was later recovered by the victim’s wife and turned over to police.
Police collected DNA from the victim and the accused and compared those samples with DNA found on the cellphone and case. The victim’s DNA matched. The accused’s did not. On the cellphone, analysts found odds of 1 in 44.5 quadrillion against the accused being a contributor. On the phone case, he was excluded entirely.
Prosecutors called a crime lab expert who testified that some people leave more DNA than others and that some forms of DNA are stronger than others. Under cross-examination, the expert agreed that even a quick touch would ordinarily leave some amount of DNA.
Defense counsel introduced evidence showing the testing was completed Nov. 5, 2024, less than two months after the arrest while the accused remained in custody.
Elieff testified he did not communicate with the crime lab about the testing until January 2026 and had not reviewed the results. Rudolph then presented a crime lab chronology stating the results were “sent again” Nov. 14, 2024, along with an email sent directly to Elieff on Nov. 5, 2024.
Elieff testified that if he received the communications, he must have missed them because he was out of the office for roughly six months beginning in October 2024. He acknowledged no one else monitored his email and no automatic reply informed senders their messages might go unread for months.
He further testified that when he returned and checked his email, he still “must have missed” the DNA results.
Judge Thompson ruled the correspondence itself was hearsay if offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but allowed the evidence to support the defense argument that the case reflected a “shoddy investigation.”
Elieff maintained throughout his testimony that the accused was the perpetrator, despite acknowledging he still had not reviewed the DNA results he had requested. When pressed about investigative shortcomings, he described the case as “sweet and simple.”
Prosecutors also called another eyewitness seen in the surveillance footage. When first asked who he recognized in the video, the man identified only the suspect and did not recognize himself, even after Schneider pointed at the screen. Only after later seeing body camera footage of himself was he able to identify his own presence in the incident video.
That witness identified the accused in court. No photo lineup had been conducted beforehand. Elieff testified he called the witness twice in an effort to arrange one.
In closing arguments, Schneider contended the neck wound supported attempted murder and that the victim’s 10-inch scar supported aggravated mayhem. She argued the eyewitness accounts, subsequent identifications and jurors’ own comparison of the accused to surveillance screenshots established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Rudolph focused on the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the lack of investigation and the prosecution’s failure to explain why the accused’s DNA was absent from the cellphone. He also cited documented wrongful convictions later overturned through DNA evidence in cases initially built on eyewitness identification.
Near the end of closing, Rudolph told jurors the case left San Francisco “to wonder how many other people are sitting in jail with exonerating evidence sitting in Sergeant Elieff’s inbox.”
In rebuttal, Schneider argued the defense was trying “to get [the jury] to be afraid to do [their] job,” and said jurors could not decide the case based on public opinion about whether police had done their jobs well enough.
After deliberating for an afternoon and the following, the jury found the accused not guilty on all counts.
After 562 days in San Francisco County Jail, Mr. Constant was released.
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.
