Part one of a three-part series
SAN FRANCISCO — During a jury trial July 9 in Department 21 of the San Francisco Superior Court, Deputy Public Defender Deborah Awolope challenged the credibility of the prosecution’s case by highlighting inconsistencies in police witness testimony during cross-examination.
The accused is charged with one count of hit-and-run causing injury and four counts of possession of narcotics for sale. The alleged incident occurred June 11, 2025, at the corner of Mason and Eddy streets in San Francisco’s Tenderloin neighborhood.
According to the testimony of San Francisco Police Department Sgt. Roger Moore, the accused was parked in his vehicle across the street from the grocery store where he worked as a security guard and began driving forward out of the parking space. As he did so, an unknown individual standing on the curb gestured to the accused while the vehicle was driving over a mattress in the street. Upon further gesturing from the individual on the curb, the accused drove off the mattress and left the scene. Sgt. Moore testified that he concluded the driver had struck a homeless individual who was lying on the mattress.
Upon arriving at the scene, Sgt. Moore said he saw “a person yelling in pain [and] numerous people standing around.” Sgt. Moore further testified that the alleged victim seemed “excited, but not in a good way” and was complaining that “his hip and leg hurt.”
Deputy District Attorney Andre Guiulfo asked whether the alleged victim received medical attention at the scene, and Sgt. Moore responded that he did.
During cross-examination of the prosecution’s previous witness, Emergency Medical Technician Sean Delise testified that upon arriving at the scene and treating the alleged victim, he did not observe “external bleeding, signs of internal bleeding, deep scrapes, [or] broken bones.” He stated that the only visible injury at the time was a “scrape that has redness.”
DDA Guiulfo then asked how Sgt. Moore continued his investigation, and Sgt. Moore responded that he “asked questions, [conducted] interviews, and looked for cameras.” As part of his investigation, Sgt. Moore testified that he gathered surveillance footage of the incident.
Sgt. Moore testified that the surveillance footage, the alleged victim’s statement and eyewitness testimony allowed him to conclude that the driver of a “Chevy Tahoe-like vehicle” had struck a homeless individual lying on the mattress and that the incident was a hit-and-run case.
Later that day, at about 2 p.m., Sgt. Moore testified that he responded to another call reporting that a Chevy Tahoe had been spotted near the location of the original alleged hit-and-run. Sgt. Moore said he “identified [the accused]” upon arriving at the scene.
DDA Guiulfo then presented Judge Teresa Caffese and the jury with body-worn camera footage of the Mirandized interview Sgt. Moore conducted with the accused at the scene.
In the recording, Sgt. Moore asked the accused whether he was the “only one who has driven this vehicle all day.” The accused responded, “Yes.”
Sgt. Moore then informed the accused that he was “under arrest for a hit and run.” The accused immediately replied, “Oh my god, Lord have mercy,” and, “I didn’t hit him.” Sgt. Moore testified that he then placed the accused under arrest and conducted an inventory search of the accused’s vehicle.
DDA Guiulfo asked Sgt. Moore why the search was necessary, and Sgt. Moore responded that he was attempting to “preserve the investigation and find items of value” before the vehicle was towed because it was parked illegally.
DDA Guiulfo then asked Sgt. Moore whether, during the inventory search, there was any indication that the accused was “smoking methamphetamine.” DPD Awolope objected for lack of foundation, arguing that the prosecution had not established Sgt. Moore’s qualifications to testify about narcotics. Judge Caffese sustained the objection and instructed DDA Guiulfo to “lay some foundation” before pursuing narcotics-related questioning.
During follow-up questioning by the prosecution, Sgt. Moore testified that he had completed the “40 hour narcotics training course” at the police academy and had participated in “more than 50 arrests involving methamphetamine.”
DDA Guiulfo then presented body-worn camera footage showing Sgt. Moore and Officer Alvarez, an officer in training, conducting the inventory search of the accused’s vehicle. The officers were seen searching the vehicle with flashlights while locating belongings and trash bags.
After showing the video, DDA Guiulfo again asked Sgt. Moore whether he had observed any narcotics paraphernalia in the footage. Sgt. Moore responded, “No, I did not see any in the video.”
On cross-examination, DPD Awolope asked whether Sgt. Moore had reviewed his body-worn camera footage before writing his collision report. Sgt. Moore responded that he had not. DPD Awolope also asked whether Sgt. Moore had reviewed footage of the alleged hit-and-run between the first and second calls to the scene. Sgt. Moore responded that he “can’t remember if it was a photo or video” that he had reviewed.
DPD Awolope asked whether Sgt. Moore obtained contact information from eyewitnesses at the scene. Sgt. Moore responded that many individuals had “declined to give their name and contact information.”
DPD Awolope then presented Sgt. Moore with body-worn camera footage from the initial incident. She pointed to a Black individual heard saying “the driver must not have seen him,” referring to the homeless individual on the mattress.
DPD Awolope asked whether Sgt. Moore had included that statement in his collision report.
“That statement is not in my report. We try to put in what we deem relevant,” Sgt. Moore said.
Sgt. Moore further explained that he was focused on the “make and model of the vehicle” and that the statement regarding the driver, or the accused, was “not what was relevant.”
DPD Awolope pointed out that Sgt. Moore had included “the part about how the mattress was situated” in his report, arguing that it went beyond simply documenting the make and model of the vehicle.
“Is what you deem to be relevant only what supports a hit and run?” DPD Awolope asked.
DPD Awolope then questioned Sgt. Moore about the woman who was found near the vehicle, clarifying that she was actually found “in the passenger seat.” Sgt. Moore agreed that she was.
DPD Awolope asked, “You didn’t search her purse, is that correct?” Sgt. Moore responded, “Yes.” DPD Awolope then asked, “You didn’t interview her, is that correct?” Sgt. Moore again responded, “Yes.”
DPD Awolope asked, “You didn’t ask her what she was doing in the vehicle, is that correct?” Sgt. Moore responded, “No, why would I?” He further explained that he had already arrested the accused and did not see a need to interview the woman further.
Finally, DPD Awolope questioned Sgt. Moore about the inventory search.
“You didn’t fill out an inventory form for the search, did you?” DPD Awolope asked.
Sgt. Moore responded that he had not seized anything during the search and therefore was not required to complete the form.
DPD Awolope replied that “seizing something isn’t the requirement for filling out an inventory form,” citing the SFPD’s general order governing vehicle tows, which states, “For all tows, property should be inventoried using the ‘Inventory of Towed Vehicles’ form (Tow Slip).”
Sgt. Moore responded that he had “never done that in my entire career.”
The trial was scheduled to reconvene during the week of July 13, 2026, with additional prosecution witnesses expected to testify July 13 and defense witnesses scheduled to begin testifying July 14.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to 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.
