1DCA Division 2 Oral Argument - 2026/5/14 - May 14, 2026

argument

1DCA Division 2 Oral Argument - 2026/5/14

California First District Court of Appeal 3h 9m 8 chapters transcribed 1 month ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the opening procedure and case lineup for the oral argument?

Unknown 0:12

Good morning, everyone. You may be seated.

Unknown 0:23

Um we have five cases on the calendar this morning and I'll call them in the order in which they will be heard um But I have a confusion, uh, Jose. Is is this case off calendar? Okay, okay. I'm sorry, we have four cases on the calendar and I'll call them in the order they'll be heard. The first case and and if you would state your appearances when I call your case, um, that would be great. First case is the people versus Martin.

Unknown 1:14

Thank you. Um the second case is Davy versus Sepway Inc.

Unknown 1:27

Thank you. Um the Third case is Amate versus Jews for Jesus.

Arian Pozeshkin 1:46

Good morning, your honor. Ari in possession for respondent Ary Alamite.

Unknown 1:50

Thank you. And the last case is People versus Johnson.

Unknown 2:02

Before we get started with the first case, although counsel can come up to the podium. Um I wanna just note there will be a panel change after the second case. Um Right now the panel for the first two cases will be myself, Justice Richmond, who is appearing remotely. And Justice Miller. Um after the Davy versus Safeway case, I will leave the panel. Um Justice Richmond will preside and um Justice Des Hotels will join the panel. So you'll have Richmond, Miller and Des Hotels. So um with that, why don't we hear from uh Mr Miller?

Mr. Miller 2:53

Good morning, your honors. May it please the court. There are four issues in this case. We have the three trial issues, the two jury instruction issues, and the uh judicial misconduct issue, and then there's the probation condition issue. Um my hope is to focus on the three trial issues and in particular on something that I think is significant to each of those three issues, which is that the evidence at trial here in large part boiled down to a credibility contest between Jane Doe and Martin. Um Jane Doe took the stand. She gave her version of events under which Martin uh pushed her and hit her and otherwise directly applied physical force against her. Martin then took the stand and gave his version of events, under which his only

Mr. Miller 3:48

use of physical force against Jane Doe was to merely grab the phone, at which point she, of her own accord, um threw herself to the ground to cover the phone like a fumble, uh, he said in a prior statement that was introduced at trial. So we've got competing versions of events. Under one of them, Martin did directly apply force against Jane Doe. Under the other, Martin did not directly apply physical force against And

Unknown 4:17

we have the photographs of of her bruising.

Mr. Miller 4:20

There is the photographs of the bruising as well. And that is one of the things that respondent relies on in an attempt to make it seem as if there was so much corroborating evidence of Jane Doe's testimony that there was no credibility dispute. But those photographs were not particularly compelling. There was no evidence that they were taken at the time of the incident. Well are you making

Unknown 4:46

a no substantial I didn't think that was your argument. I didn't think you were making an insufficiency of the evidence argument.

Mr. Miller 4:53

No. Okay. And this issue the issue of there being a credibility dispute at the heart of the case goes to prejudice for each of the three trial issues. Um it goes to prejudice for the failure to adequately instruct on the direct application of force requirement, the failure to instruct an unless you're included offense, and of course the judicial misconduct as well. And

Unknown 5:16

well let's start with the lesser included. Your client argued that there was no violence at all. So where's the s you know, where's the argument that it was a misdemeanor but not a felony?

Mr. Miller 5:29

Well, he both stated and there was this prior statement introduced that during the incident he grabbed the phone from Jane Doe, at which point she threw herself to the ground to cover it. He stated that possibly that's where the injuries on her knees came from. That grabbing of the phone, that's a misdemeanor battery. That's a harmful or offensive touching. Case law is also clear that even a grabbing of an individual's clothing or an object from them.

Unknown 6:01

Right, all true, but he you have a few things that kind of are running against you in the record.