Publications Written By Attorney Addison Steele in Santa Barbara, California
Addison Steele has had the following articles published:
- Talking to a Represented Witness, California Defender, Summer, 2013.
- California Defender is a quarterly publication by the California Public Defenders Association. It is distributed to all members to be used as a training tool for the member attorneys and keep them current on developments in the law.
- Integrating Neuropsychology into Your Defense 101, California Defender, Spring 2012.
- Capital Litigation in Riverside County, Riverside Lawyer Magazine, Volume 60 Number 8, September 2010.
- Riverside Lawyer is a monthly publication of the Riverside County Bar Association. It is distributed to all members of the organization.
- Commentary: The Truth About Why You Cannot Get Your Civil Case out to Trial and the Defense Bar's Responsibilities With Regard to the Situation, Riverside Lawyer Magazine, Volume 58 Number 10, November 2008.
- Molestation Cases Need to Have Limits, The Press-Enterprise, Perspective, April 2, 2006.
- The Press-Enterprise is an Inland Empire daily newspaper.
- Advice for Racists in Court [a satire], The Press-Enterprise, Perspective, February 13, 2005.
- The Politics of Hate, Santa Barbara News-Press, Perspective, February 14, 1999.
- The Santa Barbara News-Press is a Santa Barbara daily newspaper.
Legal Myth Busters
Myth: Only an acquittal on all counts or a dismissal is a victory.
Reality: Once a criminal case is filed an acquittal on counts or a dismissal is extremely rare. If a lawyer tells a potential client something like, "I can get you an acquittal on all counts or dismissal," that attorney is scamming the potential client into hiring him or her. A responsible attorney will say, "I cannot guarantee any outcome." The following is what most defense attorneys consider an absolute victory.
1) If a client is facing the death penalty, an outcome where the client does not end up on Death Row is considered an absolute victory. That means that if a client is facing the death penalty and gets life in prison without the possibility parole (LWOPP) it is an absolute victory.
Cases which went to trial in which Christine or Addison have saved a client from the Death Penalty:
People v. Haobsh 1494152;
People v. Holzer 1470650;
People v. Cebreros RIF120947;
People v. Martin RIF135704;
People v. Mendoza RIF125661.
2) If a client is facing life in prison, be it life with the possibility of parole (LWOPP) or a number of years to life, a determinate outcome is a huge victory and a determinate term in the mid-teens or less is an absolute victory. A life sentence means, depending on the charge, that the client has to serve either eighty-five percent of the sentence, or one hundred percent of the sentence, and then start having parole hearings to ask for release. It is very unusual for parole to be granted at the first parole hearing. Parole hearings are then scheduled every five years, but a life sentence prisoner can petition to have a parole hearing two years after the last hearing. A determinate term means that client has definitive release date. An example is someone charged with first degree murder. If the person is convicted of first degree murder, he or she will have a mandatory sentence of twenty-five years to life. Murder is a charge that requires the person to serve one hundred percent of the sentence before getting a parole hearing, that means that the person will serve twenty-five years in prison and then, best case scenario, get parole hearings every two years until he or she is paroled or dies in prison. If that same client is convicted of second degree murder it's the same outcome except it's fifteen years to life, so the person must serve one hundred percent of fifteen years and then, best case scenario, get a parole hearing every two hears until he or she is paroled or dies in prison. However, if the client is convicted of voluntary manslaughter, the maximum sentence is eleven years determinate. That means that the client must serve eighty-five percent of the sentence and is then released. That client will not have to go to a parole hearing and hope to be released. That's why it is considered an absolute victory to get a determinate term, especially when it's the mid-teens or less. A single digit determinate term is considered an overwhelming absolute victory.
The number of cases in which Christine or Addison has saved a client from a life in prison through a negotiated settlement are countless. There are so many that they didn't bother to track them. However, below is a list where the case could not be settled and went to trial with the client facing either life without the possibility of parole (LWOPP) or a number of years to life and was saved from a life sentence:
People v. Cruz Garcia 24CR08094, facing 23 years to life in prison and got eight years at 50%;
People v. Murphy 23F-04550-C, facing 17 yrs. four months to life in prison and got 14 yrs. four months at 50%;
People v. Richardson 19CR10513, facing 34 years four months to life in prison and got 18 years at 85%;
People v. Alvarez 1497388, facing 67 yrs. to life in prison and got one year jail credit for time already served;
People v. Gault 1502241 facing 40 yrs. four months to life in prison and got one year jail credit for time served:
People v. Taylor 1494332, facing LWOPP in prison and got eight years at 85%;
People v. Thomas 1407460, facing 25 years to life in prison and got 11 years at 85%;
People v. Solis 1434089, facing LWOPP in prison and got nine years at 85%;
People v. Godinez 1353576, facing 118 years eight months to life in prison and got 26 years at 85%;
People v. Ramos 1358729, facing 28 yrs. to life in prison, found not guilty on all charges and released from jail;
People v. Morris 1424960, facing 39 yrs. four months to life in prison and got seven yrs. eight months at 85%;
People v. Del Carmen 1411049, facing 45 yrs. to life in prison and got one year jail credit for time already served;
People v. Martin RIF135704, facing LWOPP and had a hung jury;
People v. Castro RIF126995, facing 80 years to life in prison, found not guilty of all charges;
People v. Christy RIF127509, facing 71 years to life in prison and got four years eight months at 85%;
People v. Salazar BAF003806, facing 58 yrs. eight months to life in prison and got 12 yrs. eight months at 50%;
People v. Hudson RIF130179, facing 30 yrs. to life in prison, found not guilty of all charges and released;
People v. Rosales RIF124536, facing 132 years to life in prison and got 17 years at 85%;
People v. Catchings RIF104021, facing 171 years to life in prison, found not guilty of all charges and released;
People v. Zavala RIF131949, facing 46 years to life in prison and got eight years at 85%;
People v. Robertson RIF115020, facing 52 years to life in prison, found not guilty of all charges and released;
People v. Cobb RIF129534, facing 10 years to life in prison, found not guilty of all charges and released from jail;
People v. Angulo RIF126653, facing 27 years eight month to life in prison and got seven years at 85%;
People v. Vasquez RIF131050, facing 50 years to life in prison and got 188 days county jail already served;
People v. Catchings RIF104021, facing 171 years to life in prison and had a hung jury;
People v. Aguilar SWF003559, facing 28 years to life in prison and got 14 years at 85%;
People v. Tinoco RIF105368, facing 50 years to life in prison and got two years eight months at 80%;
People v. Lopez SB225068, facing 50 years to life in prison and got 10 years at 85%;
People v. Hughes SB225632, facing 56 years to life in prison and got 16 years at 85%.
3) If a client is facing a conviction for a strike, especially a violent strike, and gets a non-strike outcome that is considered an absolute victory. Having a strike prior is life altering. There are two times when strikes are important, first is when dealing with the original strike(s) case, and second is dealing with strike priors. The way that strikes impact the original case is huge, the difference between resolving a case, or having a trial outcome, with a violent strike, a serious strike, or a non-strike outcome is not just the difference in that case, it's a significant difference for the rest of the person's life. If a person is convicted of a violent strike, on that conviction he or she must serve eighty-five percent of the sentence. However, if the conviction is for a less serious type of strike, a serious strike, the person only serves fifty percent of the sentence. For a non-strike the person still serves fifty percent of the sentence, but a non-strike does not have nearly the same impact on the rest of the person's life that a strike does. A strike prior, having a strike on the person's rap sheet (criminal history) is horrible. A strike prior causes any new felony case to be probation ineligible, which means that if a person has a strike prior, for the rest of his or her life, that person cannot get probation and must go to prison. The only way to get probation is if the either the judge or the DDA strikes the strike prior, or a jury finds that the person does not in fact have a strike prior. Also, if a person goes to prison with a strike prior, that person must serve eighty percent of his or her sentence (unless the charge that sent the person to prison in the new case is a violent strike, in that situation the person must serve eighty-five percent of the sentence). A strike prior also causes a "double up," which means that the new term is doubled. An example is if a person has a non-strike charge such as auto theft. Without a strike prior the person can likely get probation with some time in county jail. However, if the person has a strike prior, that person cannot get probation and must go to prison (unless the judge or the DDA strikes the strikes prior, or a jury finds that there is in fact no strike prior), and must serve double the sentence, and must serve that sentence at eighty percent. So an outcome where a person is charged with a violent strike and gets only a serious strike is a victory, however when a person is charged with any type of strike and gets an outcome that does not include a strike it's an overwhelming victory.
The number of cases in which Christine or Addison has saved a client from a strike conviction through a negotiated settlement are countless. The number must be in the thousands. They are so many that they didn't bother to track them. However, below is a list where the case could not be settled and went to trial with the client facing a conviction for a strike and was saved from having a strike on his or her record, or at least saved from having a violent strike:
People
v.
Murphy
23F-04550-C, facing a strike for human trafficking with force or fear, not convicted of any strikes;
People
v.
Alvarez
1407388, facing strikes for two counts of attempted murder with gang allegations, only convicted of a misdemeanor;
People v. Williams 20CR08197, facing a strike for dissuading a witness, only convicted of a misdemeanor;
People v. Sosa Lopez 19CR10247, facing a violent strike for residential burglary with a person present, only convicted of a serious strike;
People v. Reyes 1482260, facing a violent strike for assault with a knife with great bodily injury, only convicted of a serious strike;
People v. Lopez Padilla 1501535, facing strikes for rape and assault to commit rape, found not guilty of all charges;
People v. Ibanez Herrera 1461668, facing strikes for multiple child molestation with force charges, only convicted of a misdemeanor;
People v. Ramos 1358729, facing a strike for gang murder, found not guilty of all charges;
People v. Dixon 1443629, facing a strike for assault with a weapon, only convicted of a non-strike assault;
People v. Alvarez Leon 1427175, facing a strike for manslaughter, acquitted on all charges;
People v. Del Carmen 1411049, facing strikes for child rape and child molestation, only convicted of misdemeanor simple battery;
People v. Escarzega 1411901, facing strikes for assault with a weapon and great bodily injury, only convicted of misdemeanor assault;
People v. Castro RIF126995, facing strikes for rape, found not guilty of all charges;
People v. Johnson RIF131284, facing a strike for attempted child molestation, only convicted of a misdemeanor;
People v. Catchings RIF104021, facing strikes for murder and attempted murder, found not guilty of all charges;
People v. Robertson RIF115020, facing a strike for robbery, found not guilty of all charges;
People v. Cobb RIF129534, facing strikes for attempted murder and criminal threats, found not guilty of all charges;
People v. Vasquez RIF131050, facing a strike for assault with weapon, only convicted of a misdemeanor driving under the influence;
People v. Meadows RIF128452, facing a strike for possessing drugs to sell for a gang, only convicted of non-strike simple possession;
People v. Thompson RIF126216, facing a strike for robbery, found not guilty of all charges;
People v. Parker RIF112764, facing strikes for criminal threats and assault with serious injury, acquitted of all charges;
People v. Pereira RIF113339, facing strikes for attempted robbery and residential burglary, only convicted of misdemeanors;
People v. Popoca RIF108057, facing strikes for multiple counts of child molestation, found not guilty of all charges;
People v. Thomas SB224840, facing a strike for residential burglary, found not guilty of all charges.
4) If a client is facing a facing a felony, a misdemeanor outcome is a tremendous victory. A felony conviction will impact a person for the rest of the person's life. It means impacting employment. It means not getting jobs and not getting promotions at jobs that don't hire felons. It also means potentially losing a professional license. The number of cases that Christine and Addison negotiated a misdemeanor outcome when the client was charged with a felony is likely in the thousands. It was so many that they didn't bother to track them. However, below is are the cases that went to trial where the outcome was either a conviction for a misdemeanor or a full acquittal:
People v. Alvarez 1407388, facing strikes for two counts of attempted murder with gang allegations, only convicted of a misdemeanor;
People v. Williams 20CR08197, facing a strike for dissuading a witness, only convicted of a misdemeanor;
People v. Lopez Padilla 1501535, facing strikes for rape and assault to commit rape, found not guilty of all charges;
People v. Ibanez Herrera 1461668, facing strikes for multiple child molestation with force charges, only convicted of a misdemeanor;
People v. Ramos 1358729, facing a strike for gang murder, found not guilty of all charges;
People v. Alvarez Leon 1427175, facing a strike for manslaughter, acquitted on all charges;
People v. Del Carmen 1411049, facing strikes for child rape and child molestation, only convicted of misdemeanor simple battery;
People v. Escarzega 1411901, facing strikes for assault with a weapon and great bodily injury, only convicted of misdemeanor assault;
People v. Castro RIF126995, facing strikes for rape, found not guilty of all charges;
People v. Hudson RIF130179, facing felony domestic violence, found not guilty of all charges;
People v. Johnson RIF131284, facing a strike for attempted child molestation, only convicted of a misdemeanor;
People v. Catchings RIF104021, facing strikes for murder and attempted murder, found not guilty of all charges;
People v. Robertson RIF115020, facing a strike for robbery, found not guilty of all charges;
People v. Cobb RIF129534, facing strikes for attempted murder and criminal threats, found not guilty of all charges;
People v. Vasquez RIF131050, facing a strike for assault with weapon, only convicted of a misdemeanor driving under the influence;
People v. Thompson RIF126216, facing a strike for robbery, found not guilty of all charges;
People v. Parker RIF112764, facing strikes for criminal threats and assault with serious injury, acquitted of all charges;
People v. Pereira RIF113339, facing strikes for attempted robbery and residential burglary, only convicted of misdemeanors;
People v. Bennett RIF113393, facing felony domestic violence, found not guilty of all charges;
People v. Popoca RIF108057, facing strikes for multiple counts of child molestation, found not guilty of all charges;
People v. Secretan 1071841, facing felony domestic violence and resisting arrest, only convicted of misdemeanors;
People v. Holbert 1073166, facing felony resisting arrest, only convicted of misdemeanors;
People v. Kaleimamahu 1015758, facing felony resisting arrest, only convicted of misdemeanors;
People v. Thomas SB224840, facing a strike for residential burglary, found not guilty of all charges.
People v. Bastian SB215844, facing felony child stealing, hung jury and then dismissed.
5) If a client is facing lifetime Penal Code section 290 registration as a sex offender and is saved from lifetime registration. Registering as a sex offender is horrific for the person that has to register. The registration is posted on the internet with the person's address. A registrant cannot go to schools or public parks, so that means a registrant parent cannot go to his or her child's school events, such as athletic events, performances, or even graduation. In some counties the police augment how horrible it is by going and talking to registrants neighbors to make sure they know the person living near them is a registrant. Christine and Addison have negotiated countless cases to avoid lifetime registration, but there were so many they didn't track them. These are cases that went to trial where Christine or Addison saved the client from lifetime Penal Code section 290 registration:
People v. Morris 25M-04632, facing ten-year registration for sexual battery, not guilty of all charges;
People v. Lopez Padilla 1501535, facing lifetime registration for rape and assault to commit rape, not guilty of all charges;
People v. Ibanez Herrera 1461668, facing lifetime registration for multiple counts of child molestation with force, only convicted of one count of non-registration misdemeanor assault;
People v. Smith 1477699, facing lifetime registration for child molestation and assault to commit rape, got non-registration residential burglary and misdemeanor soliciting that only registered while he was on probation;
People v. Thomas 1407460, facing lifetime registration for penetration with a foreign object, got non-registration robbery charges;
People v. Del Carmen 1411049, facing lifetime registration for child rape and child molestation, only convicted of non-registration misdemeanor simple battery;
People v. Castro RIF126995, facing lifetime registration for rape, not guilty on all charges;
People v. Johnson RIF131284, facing lifetime registration for attempted child molestation, got a misdemeanor charge that registered for ten years;
People v. Popoca RIF108057, facing lifetime registration for child molestation, not guilty of all charges.
6) Another outcome that is considered an absolute victory is a domestic violence case where the client is not subjected the "domestic violence terms." Everyone that is convicted of a domestic violence charge and gets probation is ordered complete terms per Penal Code section 1203.097 (097 terms). Those terms include attending a Batterer's Intervention Program (BIP), which is a one-year program that requires the person to attend a class once a week for a year and pay for them himself or herself. The classes are run by private contractors that profit from them by charging anywhere from $1,000.00 to $1,500.00 for them. The 097 terms also include regular court review dates to assure that the person is attending the BIP classes and paying for them, as well as a mandatory twenty hours of community work service at a non-profit organization, a minimum $500.00 fine, and a minimum $200.00 "donation" to a domestic violence victims advocacy organization. The 097 terms are so overwhelming that it is not uncommon for people to not be able to complete them and end up in jail. Even when a person is sent to prison for domestic violence he or she has to complete BIP as a term of parole. Avoiding 097 terms, which means avoiding a domestic violence conviction, is critical. Christine and Addison have negotiated so many domestic violence cases, including avoiding 097 terms, that they did not track them. However in cases that were forced to go to trial because the district attorney would not negotiate away the 097 terms they have have been quite successful. These are those victories:
People v. Zamudio 18CR07142, domestic violence case dismissed during trial;
People v. Vargas 18CR03764, found not guilty of domestic violence and all other charges;
People v. Walsh 19CR00491, domestic violence case dismissed during trial;
People v. Sackett 18CR01797, found not guilty of all domestic violence charges;
People v. Hudson RIF130179, domestic violence case and found not guilty of all charges;
People v. Vasquez RIF131050, found not guilty of all domestic violence charges;
People v. Bennett RIF113393, domestic violence case and found not guilty of all charges;
People v. Diaz RIF108018, found not guilty of all domestic violence charges;
People v. Jones RIF108591, found not guilty of domestic violence charge;
People v. Secretan 1071841, found not guilty of all domestic violence charges;
People v. Vendeland 463426, hung jury followed by dismissal on domestic violence charge.
Myth: The word of someone making an accusation is not enough for charges because the accusation is just hearsay.
Reality: An accusation is NOT hearsay. Hearsay is an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Now if that's not legalese, what is? It means that something that was said out of court, for example, "I robbed that guy at gunpoint," if said out of court by Zeke, let's say at a pub where five people hear it. If one of those five people, let's call him Yelp, goes to court and is called as a witness by the district attorney to say what he heard in the pub, then the district attorney would be offering an out of court, actually an in a pub statement, for the truth of what was said. That means they're offering Zeke's statement, "I robbed that guy at gunpoint" to prove that he in fact "robbed that guy at gunpoint." That's hearsay. Although there are many exceptions to the hearsay rule, and this one statement happens to fall into one of those exceptions. Here's an example of what's NOT hearsay: Donald Trump was impeached for a phone call to Vladimir Zelensky. Republican members of congress, who were lawyers, said the case was nothing but hearsay. That was incorrect. Trump conditioned military aid, that congress had already authorized, on Zelensky conducting an investigation into the Biden family. The crime was actually extortion and Trumps words were the crime, they were not hearsay. Had he been charged with extortion, his words, "I need you to do me a favor," would not be offered the truth of the matter asserted, that it is in fact true that Trump needed Zelensky to do him a favor, but instead to show that Trump was strong arming Zelensky to open an investigation for the benefit of Trump's campaign. So an accusation such as that guy robbed me, when made on the witness stand, is NOT hearsay because it's not an out of court statement and it's not going through another person. The position that one person's accusation alone is not sufficient evidence for a district attorney to file charges and secure a conviction, is incorrect. An accusation is evidence and it can be enough for a conviction. A vigorous defense is needed to counter an accusation.
Myth: It easy to win a jury trial, especial if it's one person's word against another.
Reality: The statistic that most people hear (although not backed up by any statistical study) is that the district attorney "wins" nine out of ten jury trials, and anecdotally that appears to be more or less accurate. Most defense attorneys are pretty happy to "win" one out ten jury trials. The question is why do district attorneys "win" so many cases that go to jury trial. There's two reasons, one is how they define a "win" and the other is that they decide which cases go to trial. The first is the definition of win. Most district attorneys consider a conviction on any count or any lesser included a "win." That's a flawed statistic. If a person facing a murder charge and looking at twenty-five years to life in prison and is only convicted of a misdemeanor simple battery and given credit for time served in jail and goes home, that's clearly a huge defense win, but most district attorney offices will record that as a prosecution win. Having said that, district attorneys genuinely do win the vast majority of jury trials. The other factor is that they decide which cases go to trial. Their ethical obligation is to only charge cases that they believe they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The district attorney can always make a case that has proof problems go away by either offering a settlement that is so good that the person charged cannot take the risk of going to trial, or just dismissing the case.
An example of the advantage that the district attorney has selecting which cases go to trial is this: Let's say that the NFL changed the rules just for the Las Vegas Raiders. The new rule is that the Raiders get to watch all of the other teams practices, get to listen in on all of their strategy sessions, get to see and study their playbooks, get up to the minute injury reports on all the other teams, and then each Sunday get to decide if they're one hundred percent positive they're going to win (or at least positive beyond a reasonable doubt), and if they believe that they're going to win this Sunday's game, go ahead and play the game, but if they think that there's even a slight chance that they'll lose, they get to just pass (either dismiss the game, or come to a resolution with the other team so they don't have to play the game, maybe give them a draft pick or something like that) and that pass is NOT counted as a forfeit, it's just as if the game was never on their schedule. The expectation in that situation, with that advantage, is that the Raiders would go undefeated, maybe they might lose one in ten games, but they certainly shouldn't do any worse than that. That's the advantage that the district has. If they think they cannot win, they are ethically obligated to dismiss the case, so every case that goes to trial is going to trial because the prosecution is positive they can prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The next issue is the belief that a case where it's one person's word against another's either cannot be filed, must be dismissed, or is easy to win at trial. That belief is even more prevalent now than ever because of modern technology, for example, it seems like everything is now on video and it's easy to collect and analyze DNA. So if there's not a video and there's not DNA, it's believed that the district attorney cannot secure a conviction. That belief is absolutely incorrect. Before there was video and DNA, for hundreds of years, witnesses came to court and testified as to what they saw and heard, jury would listen to that evidence and decide if they believed it and render a verdict of guilty or not guilty.
Another example, and this is a made up example, is Adam is walking down the street and there's no one around and there are no cameras. He is approached by Bob and Bob points a gun at him and says, "Give me your wallet." Adam says, "Hey Bob, I know you from high school, why are you robbing me?" Then Bob says, "Yeah, I know we know each other from high school, but I'm robbing you anyway, give me your wallet." So, Adam thinking that the better part of valor is discretion, gives Bob his wallet. Adam then calls the police and tells them what happened. The police then go to Bob's house and talk to him. He says he's been home the entire time. First question: Will the police arrest Bob just because of what Adam said? The answer is absolutely yes. Will the police search both Bob and his home looking for the gun and wallet just based on what Adam said? The answer is absolutely yes. If the police don't find the gun or the wallet will Bob be arrested anyway? The answer is absolutely yes. The police will assume that Bob had time to hide the gun and get rid of the wallet, there is no question that Bob will be arrested just based on what Adam reported, even if the gun and the wallet are not found. Will the district attorney charge Bob with armed robbery? The answer is absolutely yes. The district attorney will assume that Adam had no reason to lie and falsely accuse Bob and file charges. Will the district attorney dismiss the case against Bob because there's no physical evidence, just Adams words? The answer to that is absolutely no. The district attorney will pursue the case. Will Bob be convicted of the crime with just Adam's testimony and no physical evidence whatsoever? Well, that depends. Is Adam believable? Is Bob's denial believable? Can the defense present a realistic reason for Adam to have lied about happened? One thing is certain the case will not just go away because the only evidence is the accusation of one person.
A note about the chance of winning a trial: Steele & Voss Attorneys win rate is much better than one in ten, it's more along the lines of one of three, the experience and hard work matter.
Myth: If the police don't read me my rights the case has to be dismissed.
Reality: A Miranda warning is an important part of the law on television. In real life it very rarely has any importance. It is EXTREMELY rare for a person's statement or confession to be suppressed because they weren't given a Miranda warning. Even on those VERY rare occasions, it's not necessarily helpful, because the suppression of the statement is undone if the person chooses to testify.
So here's the history, a guy named Ernesto Miranda took his case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. That led to a U.S. Supreme Court decision Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436. The ruling is about "custodial interrogations." That means that it established a rule for when the police interrogate someone. That rule is that if someone is in custody before they can be interrogated the police must inform the person of his or her right to remain silent and to have a lawyer. What it has turned into, probably because it's what police, and the people that train them, have seen on television, is a meaningless ritual when someone is being arrested. If a person is interrogated without a Miranda warning, and if that person confesses to a crime or makes statements harmful to his or her defense, there's a very small chance that the prosecution will not be able to use that confession or those harmful statements in their "case in chief" against the person. That means that statements being suppressed because of a Miranda violation only helps if the person does not testify in his or her own defense. The statements are only suppressed "for all purposes," meaning they cannot be used at all in the person's trial, if the Miranda violation was done in bad faith by the police.
After the Miranda ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court set out on a course to water it down. That started with Harris v. New York (1971) 401 U.S. 222. That decision made a new rule that a confession extracted in violation of Miranda could still be used to impeach a person. That meant that if the person won the Miranda motion, an EXTREMELY occurrence, if the person takes the witness stand in his or her defense the confession will still come in as evidence against him or her. That's okay in some cases where the person doesn't need to take the witness stand, but there are a lot of cases where the person has to take the stand and testify. For example, in a self defense case it often difficult to even get a self defense jury instruction if the accused person doesn't take the witness stand. In cases where the only people present are the accused and the accuser, the accused is at a huge disadvantage if he or she does not testify and the jury only hears the accuser's testimony. In these cases winning a Miranda motion is useless because the statements or confession will still be used as evidence even though the Miranda motion was won.
So what if the police didn't give a Miranda warning in bad faith. Getting this kind of ruling is so rare it's virtually unheard of. The most famous example is a case that was also heard by the U.S. Supreme Court Missouri v. Seibert (2004) 542 U.S. 600. In that case officers had been trained to not give Miranda warning, get a confession, then give a Miranda warning and try to get the person to repeat the confession after the Miranda warnings were given. The police strategy was that if the confession was repeated everything was fine, and if it wasn't repeated, at least the person wouldn't be able defend themselves on the witness stand because the confession could be used for impeachment per the Harris v. New York case. That kind of planning is bad faith. Police departments, at least publicly, stopped using that technique after the Missouri v. Seibert case.
What's worse is that Miranda keeps getting watered down. The U.S. Supreme Court keeps coming up with new exceptions to the need to give Miranda warnings. For example, Rhode Island v. Innis (1980) 446 U.S. 291 made a new rule that an in custody "spontaneous" statement didn't need a Miranda warning if the statement wasn't in response to a direct question. So the police could then get incriminating statements by making vague comments like, "Your parents aren't going to be happy about your situation," or anything else like that which isn't a direct question, but is likely to get the accused person to say something. Another example is the "public safety" exception created by New York v. Quarles (1984) 467 U.S. 649, because of Quarles the police don't have to give a Miranda warning if the questioning is needed for public safety. One example of this is the interrogation of Richard Allen Davis in a homicide case. In that case the "public safety" exception was used despite the person that Davis was being questioned about having been missing for more than two months. One more example is Colorado v. Connelly (1986) 479 U.S. 157 in which the U.S. Supreme Court decided that it didn't matter if the person confessing was developmentally disabled, only if a reasonable person would think the person was not developmentally disabled. This established a rule that the police could get a "knowing, intelligent and voluntary" Miranda waiver from a developmentally disabled person as long as the person didn't look or sound developmentally disabled.
When a client says, "The police didn't read me my rights when they arrested me, that means they have to dismiss the case, right." The first question is, "Were you interrogated and did you give them an incriminating statement?" If the answer to the question is, "No, they didn't ask me any questions," or, "I didn't say anything to them," then the response is, "Well, then whether or not you were given a Miranda warning just doesn't matter, and no your case is not going to be dismissed." If the answer is, "Yeah, they asked me questions and I confessed to the crime." Then the next question is going to be, were you detained or under arrest when you confessed to the crime?" If the answer to that question is, "Ugh no, we were just talking on the sidewalk, they never said that I couldn't leave, it was clear to me if I wanted to leave I could." Then the answer is going to be, "It doesn't matter if you weren't read your rights, they're going to be able to use that confession against you, and no your case is not going to be dismissed." If the answer is, "They did not read me my rights and I was in handcuffs in an interrogation room in the police station," then the next question is, "Was your confession the only evidence against you?" If the answer to that question is, "Oh no, they have my fingerprints, my DNA, and there's a video, there's plenty of other evidence," then the answer is going to be, "No, your case is not going to be dismissed because even if we win a Miranda motion and your confession is suppressed, they have plenty of other evidence against you, so they're not going to dismiss your case."
Over the past few years the police have added a tactic where they bring the person into the station for an interrogation, tell the person that they can leave any time, don't put them in handcuffs, tell them they are not under arrest and are not being detained, leave the door to the room open, NOT read them their Miranda rights, and using psychologically manipulative methods, get the person to confess. They then let the person leave and go get a judge to sign an arrest warrant based on the confession. This is allowed by California v. Beheler (1983) 463 U.S. 1121.
Myth: Security at store is not allowed to touch you if they suspect you of shoplifting.
Reality: Some stores, particularly large chains, have a policy of not allowing their employees or loss prevention people to touch someone that is suspected of stealing from them. The want to avoid liability if the person that is stealing fights and someone gets injured. However, must business don't have such a policy, and it appears that more and more business have just the opposite policy. They want their employees or loss prevention people to grab someone that is stealing from them so they can turn a misdemeanor shoplifting into a felony violent strike robbery.
A shoplifting can turn into a felony violent strike because of a California Supreme Court case People v. Estes (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 24. The Estes case established a rule that merchant or loss prevention officer can be the victim of a robbery of a store's property even though the merchant or loss prevention officer is not the owner of the property that's being stolen. Robbery is the taking of the property of another by means of force or fear. So if the store employee or loss prevention person grabs a shoplifter, and the shoplifter uses any force at all to resist being grabbed, the shoplifting becomes a felony violent strike.
So not only is there not a law that a merchant, store employee or loss prevention person cannot touch a person that is stealing, the law actually encourages them grabbing someone so they can turn a shoplifting into a robbery, which is commonly referred to in court as an Estes robbery.
Myth: The "victim" has to "press charges" for me to be charged with a crime.
Reality: This is one of the most prevalent legal myths out there. There is only one place in California where "pressing charges" exists, that is Hollywood in the movies and on television. The way the system works is that someone calls the police, they give the police a statement. The police then write a report, that report is sent to the district attorney. A filing deputy reads the report and make a filing decision. There are several things that cause confusion with this: One is that often the police will ask the "victim" if they want to "press charges." What they should be asking, and often accurately do ask is, "Are you willing to cooperate with prosecution?" Another thing that causes confusion is that for a misdemeanor that is not seen by a law enforcement officer requires the "victim" to sign onto or agree to a "citizen's arrest," the citizen doesn't actually arrest anyone, nor does the citizen have the authority to arrest anyone, that's just what it's called, and it's not a steadfast rule, it's typically used in petty theft or shoplifting cases, but for cases such as simple battery the "victim's" statement is sufficient and a signed form isn't used. However, once the person has given the statement or signed off on the "citizens arrest" it's done, if the person changes their mind, it will not unwind the district attorney's case.
This myth most often comes up in domestic violence cases. The person charged has several thoughts because of the myth. "My significant other doesn't want to press charges, so they have to dismiss it." That is one hundred percent incorrect. Especially with domestic violence cases, the district attorney is geared up for and even expects the "victim" to "go sideways." Another one is, "My significant other is just going to call up the district attorney and explain that nothing happened [they were the aggressor, not me, it was all just a big misunderstanding, it was just an argument, etc.] and the case has to be dismissed." Not only will that not result in the case being dismissed, it will actually make things worse because the district attorney will decide, in his or her own mind, that the reason the "victim" is "going sideways" is that the "victim" is being manipulated or controlled by the person that's accused of the crime.
The district attorney will take the stance that the person not wanting to "press charges" is because that person is being further victimized.
The Unwritten Rules in Court
Unwritten Rule: If you are saved from a life sentence by a jury, you must then pay the Victory Tax.
What is the Victory Tax? The Victory Tax is the penalty that must be paid for winning the most serious charge or charges in a jury trial, and that tax is the judge will sentence to the maximum for whatever is left. For example if a person is found not guilty of first degree murder, which has a mandatory sentence of twenty-five years to life, and second degree murder, which has a mandatory sentence of fifteen years to life, and is only convicted of voluntary manslaughter, which has a maximum sentence of eleven years, the unwritten rule is that he must be sentenced to the maximum and all enhancements that are left as a punishment for having the unmitigated audacity to be acquitted by a jury of all the charges that carry a life sentence.
An example is Addison's client Edward A. Eddie was found not guilty of first degree murder, found not guilty of second degree murder and only found guilty of voluntary manslaughter. The judge could have sentenced Eddie to the low term of three years prison, the middle term of six years prison, or the upper term of eleven years prison. Eddie also had a one year enhancement for the use of a knife and two one year enhancements for having been to prison twice before. Instead of sentencing to the presumed term which is the middle term of six years, the judge imposed the Victory Tax. Eddie had the audacity to win the life sentence counts, that meant the judge would impose the Victory Tax and sentence him to all the time he could for what was left. He got fourteen years prison: The upper term of eleven years, one year for use of a knife and two years for having been to prison twice before for a total of fourteen. A fair sentence would have been the middle term of six years, one year for the knife and one year for one of the prison priors, for a total of eight years, but no he had beaten the life in prison charges with a jury trial, so he had to pay the Victory Tax and be sentenced to every minute of everything that was left.
Another example is Addison's client Jaray C. Jaray was found not guilty first degree murder, found not guilty of second degree murder, and for each of those counts gang allegations were not reached because he was found not guilty, and personal use of a gun allegations, which also carried mandatory twenty-five years to life sentences, were not reached because of the not guilty verdicts. He was also found not guilty of five additional robberies, one was an acquittal by the judge pursuant to Penal Code section 1118.1, and gang allegations and personal use of gun allegations were not reached on those as well because of the not guilty verdicts. He was found guilty of of two conceded counts of attempted robbery, but the gang allegations and personal use of a gun allegations were found not true by the jury, a conceded count of commercial burglary, but the gang allegations and personal use of a gun allegations were found not true by the jury, and conceded count of gun use by a co-defendant. Instead of sentencing to the presumed term of the middle term or even granting probation, which would have been fair considering that Jaray had no criminal history, the imposed the Victory Tax. Jaray had the audacity to win the life sentence counts and five other alleged robberies and be convicted of the conceded counts that were on video, that meant the judge would impose the Victory Tax and sentence him to all the time he could for what was left. He got four years, eight months prison: The upper term of three years for attempted robbery, the maximum eight months consecutive for the other count of attempted robbery and the maximum one year for a co-defendant using a gun. A fair sentence would have been the middle term, which would have meant three years, eight month, or even the low term which would have meant three years, or even probation would have been reasonable, but no he had beaten the life in prison charges with a jury trial, so he had to pay the Victory Tax and be sentenced to every minute of everything that was left.
It seems like the only exceptions, sometimes, are people with no record at all.
For example Addison's client Enrique A. was charged with attempted murder with a gun and criminal threats. He had no criminal history at all. The jury acquitted him of attempted murder which in his case carried a mandatory sentence of seven years to life, that also meant that he couldn't be given a twenty year gun enhancement. He was also acquitted of the criminal threats charge. He was only convicted of an assault with a firearm. The full Victory Tax would have been fourteen years, the upper term of four years for assault with a firearm and the upper term of ten years for the gun enhancement that applied to that charge. A fair sentence, because he had no criminal history at all, would have been the low term of two years for the assault with a firearm and low term of three years for the gun enhancement, for a total of five years. He didn't get the full Victory Tax, but he did get a victory assessment of the middle term of three years for the assault with a firearm and the middle term of four years for the gun enhancement for a total sentence of seven years.
Tomas Z., also Addison's client with no record at all, was acquitted by a jury of three counts of attempted murder that carried a mandatory sentence of twenty-one years to life, and because of the not guilty verdicts he could not be sentenced to an additional thirty-three years, four months for the gun enhancements. He was convicted of three counts of assault with a firearm, with three gun enhancements and a charge of possession of drugs while armed. A fair sentence, because he had no criminal history, would have been low term for the assaults with a firearm and the two other counts concurrent for two years, low term for the gun enhancement of three years and one third the middle of three years, which is one year consecutive for the possession of drugs while armed for a total sentence of six years. He didn't get the full Victory Tax, but he did get a victory assessment of the middle term of three years for the assaults with a firearm, the middle term of four years for the gun enhancements, and one third the middle term of three years, which is one year, for the possession of drugs while armed for a total sentence of eight years.
Martin L., Christine's client, with no record at all, was found not guilty by a jury of first degree murder and found not guilty of second degree murder. A gun enhancement that alone carried twenty-five years to life was not reached because of the not guilty verdicts. He was only convicted of manslaughter with a gun enhancement. The full Victory Tax would have been twenty-one years, the upper term of eleven years for manslaughter and the upper term of ten years for the gun enhancement that applied to that charge. A fair sentence, because he had no criminal history at all and was just twenty-one years old, would have been the low term of three years for manslaughter and low term of three years for the gun enhancement, for a total of six years. He didn't get the full Victory Tax, but he did get a victory assessment of the middle term of six years for manslaughter and the middle term of four years for the gun enhancement for a total sentence of ten years.
Trial and Court Stories
The Tyler M. Trial
Tyler was serving a sentence at the San Luis Obispo County Jail. He was housed in an eight man pod, also referred to as a tank, that at the time had five men in it. Tyler testified that in early June the tank boss, the inmate that was in charge of the tank, was released to attend a funeral. When he returned he smuggled in a large amount of methamphetamine and fentanyl. Tyler found himself in a difficult situation because he had been clean and sober since December and knew that if he didn't use drugs with the other men in the tank that he would be suspected of being a snitch. Over the next few days the other men became more and more suspicious of him. The tank boss demanded that he give up the password to his tablet so they could see if he was communicating with law enforcement on it. Even though they didn't find anything on his tablet, they weren't satisfied and continued to suspect him because he wasn't getting high with them.
The tension grew and grew in the tank until Tyler felt that he had no choice but to ask the correctional deputies (C.D.s) to "roll him up," which means to move him out of the tank and re-house him. The C.D.s weren't taking any action to move him, then late on June 14, 2025 during "pill call," a time when the inmates can leave their pods and go to the C.D.'s station to get their meds, Tyler went to the C.D.'s station and told them that he needed to get out of the pod immediately and told them why. However, one of the other men from his pod was in earshot and heard what he said to the C.D.s. Tyler told the C.D.s that it wouldn't be safe even for him to go back to the pod to roll up his property there. By the time the C.D.s got to the pod the tank boss had heard that Tyler had spilled the beans about the drug use in the pod. The men left in the pod had to flush their drugs and come up with a plan to counter what Tyler had told the C.D.s.
That plan was to levy false accusations and make a Prison Rape Elimination Act, or PREA, complaint. If they could distract the C.D.s with a PREA complaint, perhaps they wouldn't focus on the drug use in the tank. However, they didn't have enough time to really think their accusations through to make sure that they made sense. Letzer Salguero Paiz accused Tyler of grabbing his penis when he was in the shower, but the story told didn't make any sense. He said that Tyler grabbed his penis while he, Tyler, was sitting on the toilet. Mr. Salguero Paiz didn't count on the Steele & Voss team getting a court order to photograph and measure the tank, which proved that there was absolutely no way that someone sitting on the toilet could reach someone in the shower. Mr. Salguero Paiz, then changed his story from he was in the shower to he was getting out of the shower reaching for a towel. However he didn't realize that with the new story he was still too far away for a person on the toilet to reach him. Finally, he changed his story again to say that Tyler wasn't on the toilet, but had been on the toilet and had stood up and walked toward him. When asked on cross-examination about the third story, he couldn't answer if Tyler was clothed hanging out on the toilet or bottomless as if using the toilet.
Mr. Salguero Paiz spun an additional story that Tyler was constantly exposing himself in the tank. When he was asked on cross-examination about Tyler's pubic grooming, which he would clearly be able to answer if Tyler was bottomless in front of the other men in the tank, Mr. Salguero Paiz said he couldn't answer the question. Another man that was in the tank, Robert Forsman, said that Tyler had gone into the shower and grabbed his buttocks. However again, the details were not well thought out. He said that Tyler was clothed when he went into the shower and grabbed him, but couldn't say whether or not Tyler's clothes got soaked in the very small jail shower. Both men admitted that allowing that allowing another person in jail to sexually batter them without immediately beating that person up would cause them to have a, "bitch jacket," which is a reputation in the jail, which would follow them to prison and back onto the streets, for being a coward, and that having a "bitch jacket" is very dangerous. Neither man could explain why they did not take action in order to not have a "bitch jacket."
The jury came back with NOT guilty verdicts for both counts of sexual battery and for both lesser included offenses of simple battery. Had Tyler been convicted of either sexual battery he would have had to register as a sex offender for at least ten year.
The Robert M. Trial
At the beginning of the case nineteen year-old Robert Martin was charged with the murder of a white supremacist, with a gang special circumstance, the gang special circumstance made the case a life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOPP) case. He also had a gang enhancement, which added ten years to his exposure, an assault on the white supremacist's buddy and a substantive gang charge (a gang activity charge). The defense started with a presentation at the D.A. staffing, the people who would decide if they were going to seek the death penalty, to convince the D.A.'s office not to seek death in the case. That resulted in the D.A. filing a notice that they would NOT be seeking death.
The incident occurred in a crowded upscale sushi bar in Corona, California that would convert into a nightclub late at night. There were numerous witnesses that testified. The case was complex in that there was faulty handling of the DNA evidence, the gang expert made up his testimony, there was an intoxication defense and a forensic pathology expert was called to counter the coroner's inaccurate testimony. The defense was that a "friend" of Robert's, Richard Casiano, was in fact the stabber, not Robert, that the stabbing weapon was in fact a broken beer bottle, not Robert's pocket knife that did not have any of the decedent's blood or DNA on it, and that Robert had done nothing more than get beat up by the decedent.
Addison's forensic evidence expert, Blaine Kern, caught the lab worker lying about the handling of the evidence. The order in which the evidence was processed was very important because everything was tested for touch DNA. The order of the handling had implications for cross contamination. The lab worker testified that he handled each item and then immediately thereafter took a photo. During aggressive cross-examination he stuck with his story about the order of the handling of the evidence. He said he was positive about it. At the time no one really thought about metadata on photographs. However Blaine did, he checked the metadata on the photos and was able to figure out the order in which they were taken, which did not at all match the testimony of the lab worker. His confident testimony about the order of the handling of the evidence was false testimony.
There was also, well maybe not false, but certainly incompetent, testimony from the Deputy County Coroner. When asked over and over again about the decedent's wounds, despite the often jagged nature of the wounds, he insisted that the wounds were from a knife and if they were from a broken bottle it would have to be a shard that was shaped like a knife. However, it turned out that he had no idea whatsoever what he was talking about. He couldn't read an x-ray and misidentified where the decedent's heart was on the x-ray. Addison's expert pathologist was able to point out that the Deputy County Coroner had no clue what he was talking about.
A Penal Code section 1118.1 motion to dismiss the assault charge was granted. After a four month trial, Robert was acquitted of first degree murder. The jury hung on second degree murder and the substantive gang charge (ten to two for not guilty on both charges). Robert went from facing the death penalty to beating LWOPP with an acquittal and beating 25 years to life in prison with the acquittal. There were 200 people in the sushi restaurant at the time of the incident and Addison's investigator found a good portion of them and got them interviewed, subpoenaed, and to court. Addison also hired and presented a pathology expert, DNA expert, gang expert and intoxication expert. What was left was second degree murder and a ten year gang enhancement.
Addison was moved into a different assignment, exclusively defense of capital murders, so the case was reassigned. Because they couldn't have Addison do the retrial, his family hired a different lawyer. Where Addison had fought for four months battling every aspect of the case, the hired lawyer put on a two week trial and went from Addison's ten to two for not guilty to a conviction for second degree murder and a true finding on the gang allegation. The judge struck the ten extra years for the gang enhancement and Robert was sentenced to fifteen years to life in prison.
The Dennis C. Jury Trial
This was a cold case DNA hit case. It was reported as a break-in stranger rape. What came out at trial was completely different from that. It turned out that Dennis was a neighbor in the condo complex in which the complaining witness (who the prosecution referred to as "the victim") lived. He was a young skateboarder and she was an older woman with a child and a husband that wasn't home much. There were two witnesses that mattered in the trial, the complaining witness and Dennis Once the trial started, the complaining witness' story began to unravel.
She said that she didn't know Dennis and had never seen him before. There was evidence that he was always on his skateboard all over the complex, and Dennis said that he stopped and chatted with her many times while she was on her front porch and he was skating through the complex. He described many long conversations with her at her front porch and that it was clear that liked him despite their age difference.
She said that he broke into her home through the garage at the back of the condo right after her husband left for work at 5:30 a.m., and then entered through an unlocked door from the condo to the garage, but his fingerprints weren't on either the garage door or the door from the garage to the house. Dennis said they had arranged for an early morning rendezvous, and that the plan was for him to go to the front door at 5:30 a.m. as soon as her husband had left for work. He said that he showed up as planned and she let him in. The police didn't dust for prints at the front door because she told him that he entered and left through the back door.
The condo had no signs of forced entry and there was no sign of a struggle in the condo, nothing was out of place.
She said that he raped her at knifepoint with a twelve inch fixedblade knife and that he was holding it the entire time. He said there was never a knife, and no knife was ever found.
She said denied that there was consensual sex and said that there was never any kissing of any sort, just a rape at knife at knifepoint, but she didn't have an explanation for a hickey on her neck, both her husband and she said that her husband, an older man, didn't give hickies. She also had no explanation whatsoever for the hickey on her vagina, and again both she and her husband said that wasn't something he would do.
The forensic exam that was done after she reported being raped showed no signs of forced sexual intercourse.
When the police asked for her bedsheet so they could examine it for any fluids, hair samples, or any other forensic evidence, she said that he took the bedsheet with him. When it was pointed out that it didn't make sense that he wasn't seen by anyone fleeing the condo with a knife in one hand and a bedsheet in the other, she said that he rolled up, while still holding the knife in one hand. The police didn't check the washer for the bedsheet, they just took her at her word that he took the bedsheet with him. They did check the dumpster right outside the back of the condo, there was neither a bedsheet, nor a knife in it.
Dennis said that their rendezvous started with heavy kissing and led to him giving her oral sex. He said that hickies were his thing when he was young, and that he enjoyed giving hickies all over a woman's body but that he only had a chance to give her hickies on her neck and vagina. He said that their rendezvous was going just fine until her baby that was in a crib in the room with them began to cry. He said that she then said that she wanted to stop having sex. He said that he then quickly ejaculated inside of her vagina. When asked why he did that he said he was being irresponsible ejaculating inside the vagina of his married neighbor with whom he had just started a sexual relationship. He said that when she told him to stop when the baby started crying that he didn't think she meant stop because she was no longer consenting to having sex, but just that she wanted to stop for a minute to attend to the baby, so he just thought it was best to just finish.
He said that she became upset with him for ejaculating inside of her and expressed worry about what she would do if he got her pregnant. She was upset that she had engaged in their brief affair, he said that it was clear that she felt guilty about cheating on her husband in their bed with her baby in the room. She told him to leave and that their affair that had just started was now over. He did just as she said and walked out her front door and walked back through the complex to his condo and respected her wishes and never went back to her condo. Years later he was arrested because of the DNA hit. When the police interviewed him he told them that he didn't know what they were talking about because they described a breakin rape, he didn't even make the connection with brief rendezvous he had with his neighbor.
In order to overcome the weaknesses in her case, the DDA came at Dennis with his, "Kidnapping for rape" prior. What in fact happened is that Dennis had been burned on a drug deal. He went to what he thought was the dealer's house, grabbed who he thought was the dealer's petite girlfriend with a plan to hold her until the drug dealer paid him back what he had ripped off from him. He put her in his car, drove about a block and figured out that not only did he have the wrong person, but he in fact had a kid. He immediately pulled over and got her out of the car. When he was letting her out of the car he dropped his wallet right there with his identification in it. It took the police about a minute to figure out who he was and where he lived and were able to easily go pick him up. Then he was faced with life in prison for kidnapping for rape if he fought the case or taking a deal to avoid the risk. He took a deal.
At one point it looked like the DDA had Dennis on cross examination. She asked him if he disrespected the complaining witness and he answered, "Yes," and then she asked if he had raped her, and he said, "Yes." When asked what he meant by that he said that at the time he didn't think she meant, "Stop," as in, "I am no longer consenting to having sex," but meant, "Stop, I need a minute to calm down the baby and we'll get right back to this." And that now, the time he was testifying at trial, he realized that what she meant was that the baby crying triggered her feeling guilty about cheating on her husband and the now, in hindsight, he realized that she meant, "Stop, I no longer consent," and that his understanding of the law is that's rape. It seemed like a subtlety that was going to be difficult to explain to the jury.
Then came the closing argument and the jury instruction that the whole case would turn on, this is copied directly from Addison's closing argument slide:
"Dennis in NOT GUILTY of rape if he actually and reasonably believed that Ms. Doe consented to the intercourse. The plaintiff has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Dennis did not actually and reasonably believe that Ms. Doe consented. If the plaintiff has not met this burden, you must find Dennis NOT GUILTY."
It turned out that the jury did understand the instruction and Dennis was found NOT guilty of all charges and all lesser included offenses.