SAN FRANCISCO — Tensions rose during a jury trial Tuesday at the San Francisco Hall of Justice when the prosecution continued to challenge the judge’s rulings on multiple overruled objections during the defense’s closing argument.
The accused faces charges for attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon that is not a firearm, and elder abuse stemming from an incident that occurred a little over two years ago.
On Tuesday morning, jurors heard Deputy District Attorney Jordyn Sequeira’s closing statement, followed later in the afternoon by the first portion of closing arguments from Deputy Public Defender Aaron Pressman.
Sequeira began her closing by displaying the two knives used during the incident to the jury.
“It only took seconds to change this family forever,” Sequeira said. It is alleged that the accused stabbed his father seven times, with wounds less than one-half millimeter deep noted in medical records presented to the court.
Sequeira described the accused as a “son suffering from serious mental illness,” later stating he was schizophrenic and experiencing “auditory delusions” on the day of the incident. At the time, he “believed his dad was an actor,” not his actual father.
Sequeira argued that the accused’s acute psychosis at the time of the incident, which led him to describe the victim to officers as “just a f**king actor… not my real father,” did not negate intent.
“The defense wants you to accept a shortcut,” Sequeira said.
Pressman opened his closing by emphasizing reasonable doubt, arguing that the prosecution’s burden, if met, must leave jurors with an “abiding conviction” that the charges and all of their elements are true. He provided examples to illustrate the concept, including asking jurors whether they would still want to see new evidence years later.
Sequeira objected on the grounds that this misstated the law, but Judge Teresa Caffese overruled the objection. “It’s closing,” she said.
As the defense continued, Pressman argued that the accused’s family had “largely ignored what their son needed” while he suffered from schizophrenia and periods of psychosis.
He asserted that the family chose criminal prosecution instead of proper treatment, prompting an objection that was sustained as improper argument. Pressman later reminded the jury that the accused’s mother said she wanted to see her son criminally convicted, and his father stated that “having him is like having no son at all.”
Pressman also argued that, regarding intent for attempted murder under jury instruction CALCRIM 600, the accused never intended to kill his father. The accused believed the person he stabbed was a “bad actor.”
Sequeira objected again, and Judge Caffese overruled the objection, stating, “This is argument.” Pressman immediately reminded the jury that he was simply reading the law.
“They meant well but handled it poorly,” Pressman said, referring to how the accused’s parents responded to his mental illness. According to the defense, the parents believed their son had depression and were unaware of appropriate medications or treatment.
Pressman also addressed the “great bodily injury” enhancement, despite Sequeira’s earlier assertion that the charge was “undisputed” and did not require discussion. One aspect of Pressman’s argument involved comparing the injuries in this case to more severe examples.
Sequeira objected and requested a sidebar, arguing it was improper to provide such examples.
Judge Caffese overruled the objection. Sequeira then said, “I’m sorry, can we approach to talk for a few minutes?” Counsel approached, and Sequeira began making arguments at the bench that could be heard from the gallery. The sidebar lasted more than five minutes.
After returning from the bench, Pressman continued his argument, asserting there was insufficient evidence to prove great bodily injury beyond a reasonable doubt, citing the moderate level of injury reflected in medical records. He also corrected what he described as Sequeira’s inaccurate claim that the victim had undergone surgery.
Pressman further challenged the reliability of the parents’ testimony, citing their admitted memory lapses, contradictory statements, and stated desire to see their son prosecuted. He also argued that the accused was unconscious during the incident and therefore unaware of the potential consequences of his actions.
After the jury was dismissed for the day but before proceedings went off the record, Sequeira raised an additional objection to an earlier exercise used by Pressman, in which he asked jurors to close their eyes and imagine experiencing the accused’s mental delusions.
Before Judge Caffese could rule or address the timeliness of the objection, Pressman stated he had no intention of repeating the exercise.
Closing arguments were set to reconvene Wednesday, April 29, followed by the prosecution’s rebuttal before the jury begins deliberations.
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.
