1DCA Division 2 Oral Argument - 2025/10/14 - Oct 14, 2025

argument

1DCA Division 2 Oral Argument - 2025/10/14

California First District Court of Appeal 1h 41m 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What cases are scheduled for oral argument on this morning?

Unknown 0:01

Morning everyone. Please seated. We have uh four cases on today's this morning's calendar and I'll call them in the order they'll be heard and please state your appearances when I call your case. The first case is people versus AS or NRAS.

Laura Vavakin 0:25

Good morning Laura Vavakin on behalf of Mr. uh on behalf of Appellant. Thank

Unknown 0:29

you. Uh Let's see the people versus uh Zapeta Onofre and uh the companion case um cruise. I can't remember the last name, but thank you.

Jeff Glid 0:44

Good morning, Your Honor. Uh Jeff Glid. I'm here on behalf of appellate uh Augustine Zucca Hilf.

Unknown 0:50

Thank you, Mr. Swicky.

Greg Zuwicki 0:55

Oh,

Unknown 0:55

that's right. I got it backwards. Okay. Thank you. Um, people versus Seigler or

Lindsay Thompson 1:01

Siegler. Good morning, Lindsay Thompson for the People and Respondent.

Sterling Tipson 1:07

Good morning, Your Honor. Sterling Tipson for defendant appellant, Anthony Siegler.

Unknown 1:13

And last case Morales versus Critchfield Mechanical.

Anthony Kalik 1:18

Your Honor Anthony Kalik is appearing on behalf of appellant Luis Morales.

Josh Up Siddhart 1:23

Good morning, Your Honor, Josh Up Siddhart on behalf of respondent Critchfield Mechanical.

Unknown 1:28

Um so before we get started, um, thank you, council. Um Th uh there will be one panel change and it oh, wait a minute. I thought that just Yes, it will be after the first case. Um Justice Des Hotels will leave the bench and we will be joined by Justice Richmond. Um And then Justice Miller and I will remain. So A S

Laura Vavakin 2:10

Hey, can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Um can I reserve two minutes for rebuttal? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Uh may it please the court law of advocacy on behalf of appellant. Uh while I have a presented our primary arguments in my written briefs, I would like to address a couple of critical points that require clarification. I do want to be clear that appellants' arguments are not merely that the evidence was weak. but that it failed to meet the constitutional standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The identification evidence relied on by the prosecution consisted primarily of three elements a vague physical description. imprecise cell phone tower data and appellance relationship to Mr. Whip. None of the el none of these elements, even when considered together, establish sufficient evidence of appellant as the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt.

Laura Vavakin 3:01

Turning first to the vague physical description of the female suspect, the Attorney General's reliance on the vague description is problematic. The description merely indicates a female voice and dark skinned individual. Which lacks the the specificity. It's a hard word for me to say specificity needed for reliable identification. The keyword there being reliable. No witness identified appellant's voice, no evidence connected appellant's physical characteristics to this vague description. Importantly Despite having videos from a pellant's phone that included a female voice and depicted a pellet's face. The record does not establish that these videos were shown to any of the witnesses, which would have allowed for identification based on her voice.

Unknown 3:46

And isn't it also, um, this is Justice Miller. Um Detective Haller made some Uh description or or described AS, but as I understand it, he looked at at video of her when she was in the police station. But he but he didn't Did he know? That too. That looks like a person in another video or that matches a description. Is that correct?

Laura Vavakin 4:19

That's correct. I believe you said it because she was a female body type, um or I'm sorry, a a witness had described a female body type. And then a palant has a female body type. Two females, you know, dark skinned. It seemed to be Um, there was a general description that the female was, I think, thin or skinny, but I think another witness had just said average to thin. He did seem to rely on that type of care um characterization. But again, um It there it there was no evidence that he actually took that video or showed a picture. of appellant to any of the witnesses to say, hey, is this the same body?

Unknown 5:03

That kind of goes to both issues uh that you're challenging, but it really to the identification in particular. It's kind of more of a totality of the evidence, and while it is to be sure, circumstantial.