SAN FRANCISCO — During an ongoing jury trial Monday in San Francisco Superior Court, Deputy Public Defender John Paul Passaglia highlighted inconsistencies between evidence and police testimony, arguing that the investigation relied on speculation while exposing derogatory language used by a San Francisco police sergeant during the accused’s arrest.
The accused has been charged with possession of a firearm after a previous felony conviction and obstructing or resisting an executive officer.
As part of the prosecution’s case, Deputy District Attorney Elizabeth Jimenez called San Francisco Police Sgt. Brendan Caraway to the stand. On Monday morning, DPD Passaglia cross-examined Caraway about his involvement at the scene and the subsequent investigation.
According to Caraway’s testimony, on Aug. 17, 2025, the alleged victim threatened to stab the accused in the eye with a knife, telling the accused, “I’m a poke your fucking eyes out.” The accused responded, “Leave me alone, leave me alone,” allegedly brandishing what the alleged victim stated was a gun before retreating to his room.
Later that day, the alleged victim called police, claiming the accused was walking or running past the complaining witness’s room.
DPD Passaglia continued his questioning, moving into the investigation of the case.
Sgt. Caraway testified that he interviewed an employee at the housing complex where the alleged victim and the accused live. The employee told him that [the alleged victim’s room number] said they were going to “stab” [what is likely the accused’s room number].
DPD Passaglia asked Sgt. Caraway whether this information changed his view of the situation. Caraway maintained that it did not and said he believed the alleged firearm posed a greater danger.
Sgt. Caraway also interviewed the alleged victim. He asked the alleged victim why the accused did not like him. The alleged victim said it was “because I fight him.” Sgt. Caraway did not ask the alleged victim a “single question” about those alleged fights and did not search him.
Following the interview, Sgt. Caraway testified that he thought the alleged victim was “very believable” and did not think the alleged victim “was a threat.”
“Does credibility and bias play a factor in your analysis to arrest [the accused]?” DPD Passaglia asked, to which Sgt. Caraway replied that it did not.
DPD Passaglia asked Sgt. Caraway to confirm that the alleged victim said the accused needed to “get away from my door or [the accused] is gonna get hurt.” Sgt. Caraway said he did not remember.
DPD Passaglia then showed a video recording of the interaction captured on Sgt. Caraway’s body-worn camera. After watching the recording, Sgt. Caraway confirmed that was what the alleged victim said.
DPD Passaglia asked once more whether this altered Sgt. Caraway’s judgment of the situation and who posed a “threat.” Sgt. Caraway continued to maintain that the comment did not change his judgment that the accused was the sole threat to focus on in the case.
DPD Passaglia then moved to questions about a use-of-force interview conducted with Sgt. Caraway by internal investigators.
During the initial investigation, officers ran a records check on the accused, which came back without a “221-related charge.”
During the use-of-force interview, Caraway watched his body-worn camera footage. He said in the interview that he believed the accused had a prior 221 arrest. When asked about that statement in court, he testified that he thought so “for whatever reason.”
During the use-of-force interview with internal investigators, Sgt. Caraway did not acknowledge the alleged victim’s alleged harassment or threats toward the accused, including the alleged victim saying he would keep calling police until he “stuck a knife in [the accused’s] black ass.”
Through questioning about the interview, DPD Passaglia emphasized that Sgt. Caraway shifted details to fit a narrative portraying the accused as a threat. Sgt. Caraway denied doing so, claiming the information was not essential because the interview’s purpose was to assess his use of force during the incident.
DPD Passaglia then asked about the arrest.
Sgt. Caraway testified that after speaking with the alleged victim, he and two other police officers approached the accused’s room using a “ruse” to persuade the accused and the accused’s girlfriend to open the door.
DPD Passaglia began by introducing San Francisco Police Department General Order 5.01.02, the department’s “Use of Force Policy and Proper Control of a Person.” He explained that the policy emphasizes “safeguarding human life and dignity,” “establishing communication” and “de-escalation.”
Sgt. Caraway admitted that he “probably wasn’t the most professional person in front of [the accused’s room number].”
DPD Passaglia then presented a nine-minute clip from Sgt. Caraway’s body-worn camera to the court.
In the video, officers were kicking and banging on the accused’s door. Sgt. Caraway addressed the accused’s girlfriend, telling her that her father had sent him and that her father would stop paying rent if she did not open the door. When she tried to respond, Caraway said, “I can’t hear you through your door lady.”
Sgt. Caraway then threatened to knock the door down, yelling, “You understand nobody can do shit if I knock this door down.” He continued, “I know you have your giant-ass boyfriend in there.”
Sgt. Caraway continued, addressing the accused by saying, “You are too big to be hiding behind the door.”
Sgt. Caraway made additional comments to the accused, saying, “If I was a girl would you come out here and show your face?” The sergeant continued to mock the accused by saying the accused could not afford a meal and that he would buy the girlfriend one “because [the accused]’s broke.”
Sgt. Caraway testified that during the entire interaction, the officers never once identified themselves as police officers.
After showing the footage to the court, DPD Passaglia asked Sgt. Caraway whether the tactics he used complied with General Order 5.01.02. Sgt. Caraway said the policy did not apply in that situation and that he was “not a use of force expert.”
The trial is ongoing in Department 16 of the San Francisco Superior Court.
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.
