THE PROSECUTION’S CASE: DAY 3
The proceedings on May 26th began with the testimony of Captain Carlton, the commanding officer from the California Highway Patrol. He spoke to his extensive training rising the ranks of officer, lieutenant, and captain over 17 years, including training on dealing with acts of civil disobedience. Captain Carlton was driven to the Golden Gate Bridge on the day of the action by Captain Egide. By the time of his arrival the decision had been made to block Northbound traffic to allow for emergency vehicles and personnel to set up stations. The jury saw on Carlton’s car’s dashboard camera video people walking around the lanes of traffic and standing/sitting on the barrier between the northbound and southbound lanes. Carlton, in his esteemed position, was prepared to brief the CHP personnel on the bridge once he arrived at the site of the protest. We also learnt of the extent of Captain Carlton’s due diligence in this case - a 1 page supplemental report submitted to the DA’s office.
Captain Carlton attributed the large volume of law enforcement officers from multiple Bay Area agencies to the fact that the Golden Gate Bridge was a ‘critical piece of transportation infrastructure’ and there were ‘safety concerns’ for everyone involved. Captain Carlton shared that he hadn’t given serious consideration to moving the median zipper barrier to open up a 4th lane of traffic given his ‘safety concerns’ and the underlying ‘logistics’. When informed that previously vetted testimony confirmed that the barrier could be safely moved, Carlton shared that he simply didn’t have enough officers on hand to support directing traffic through a fourth lane. In additional video evidence the jury saw law enforcement officers standing around off the north-bound lanes. When prompted by ADA Roze, Carlton added that his safety concerns were compounded by the fact that they were ‘suspended over a body of water’ and what would happen if a fight broke out? Captain Carlton also confirmed that he did not hear any statements of violence against the officers or motorists.
During cross-examination it was revealed that Captain Carlton was in fact the spokesperson in the CHP - Marin video posted on social media on April 17th, 2024 soliciting people delayed on the bridge to come forward as ‘victims’ of the GG26 demonstration. On the same day SF DA Jenkins had also posted a similar solicitation directing ‘victims’ to lodge their complaints with CHP. Captain Carlton had to refresh his memory on a few occasions to recall the concurrency of the two events, despite having thanked the DA’s office in his video. The defense attorneys tried to understand if soliciting victims on social media was the norm for CHP investigations to which Captain Carlton answered that it happened on occasion without offering specific examples.
Captain Carlton further testified on the law enforcement response to the lockboxes used by six defendants on that day. The lockboxes had printed on them ‘Free Palestine’ and ‘Stop the Genocide’. He shared that the lockboxes were proving too difficult to cut through so the only reasonable option was to cut through the protestors’ vehicles. Video evidence shared with the jury showed defendant Cantor calmly speaking to each of the defendants in the vehicles and conveying to them the options of either voluntarily submitting to an arrest or risking their vehicles being cut through. The brave defendants agreed to exit voluntarily - while staying connected - with three protestors lifted out through their car windows.
The jury had a range of questions for Captain Carlton. How long would it take to cut through a pipe? It depends, said Carlton. Has Captain Carlton cut through similar lock-box mechanisms? He wasn’t ‘disentanglement trained’. How many lock-boxes and how many cars could be cut through at a time? Carlton didn’t know. Why weren’t there more steps taken to take motorists off the Alexander Avenue exit? It was a difficult ‘hair pin’ corner, Carlton responded.
The list of jury questions continued. Does the CHP solicit the public for other cases? It depends, Carlton responded. Did he inform the protestors the median barrier wouldn’t be moved? Carlton didn’t recall. How many cars were backed up? Carlton didn’t know. Did the CHP have the authority to open up the 4th lane? Yes they did, responded Carlton. Were non-law-enforcement or fire-fighters requested by his team? They were not.
In the afternoon of May 26th, CHP Officer Villasenor briefly testified, identifying one of the defendants in front of the jury. Another CHP Officer Darrel Horn also testified, identifying another defendant in front of the jury, and offering that the defendant was very polite.
Next, the prosecution brought Ms. Schneider to the stand to testify, a commuter who responded to the SF DA’s and CHP’s call to serve as a victim in this ongoing prosecution of the GG26 felony defendants. She said that looking back, she felt ‘irritated’ by the action, and at the time of the action felt ‘anxious’ as she attempted to cross into San Francisco for a medical appointment. She had heard about the protest prior to leaving her home but expected it to be resolved quickly by the CHP. She was able to complete her appointment over the phone and make her cat’s vet appointment in Marin scheduled for later that afternoon. A juror further inquired if Schneider’s first opportunity to avoid bridge traffic was the Alexander Avenue ramp. It wasn’t, she responded, but it was the first time she became aware she won’t be able to make her appointment in-person by way of the Golden Gate Bridge.
The final testimony of the day was delivered by Wilson Hong, a digital crimes investigator with the CHP. He described the process of data extraction from the defendant’s phones - turning them on, finding them password locked, then using either graykey or cellbrite to extract the data. No user content was found on most all devices and no communication between the defendants was found. Hong described the basic functioning of the widely used end-to-end encrypted messaging applications, Signal and WhatsApp, implying encrypted apps being a potential way in which protestors might have planned their action. Neither of these applications were found on the defendant’s phones. As during motions in limine, the defense attorneys objected to any further evidence related to Hong’s testimony as the absence of data should not be argued as a basis for criminal intent. Judge Caffese remarked that this was ultimately in the defense’s favor and as Gertrude Stein put it, “there was no there there.”