2023-07-11
1 小时 9 分钟Chris recaps Paul Flores’ sentencing with help from the prosecution team
This episode contains subject matter that may be disturbing to some listeners.
Listener discretion is advised.
Following his first degree murder conviction, Paul Flores's sentencing was delayed from December to March to give defense attorney Robert Sanger extra time to file a motion for a new trial.
But by the February 9 status hearing, more than three and a half months after the guilty verdict, Sanger still hadnt filed his motion.
When the hearing began at 01:30 p.m.
sanger was not present.
Instead, an attorney named Frank Ochoa explained to the court that he was sitting in for Sanger, who was working on another trial in Los Angeles and unable to make it even by Zoom.
Ochoa indicated that Sanger still intended to file a motion for a new trial, but even with the extra 60 days, he'd been unable to secure funds for the trial transcripts.
Pavrel argued that Sanger had known about this hearing for two months and should have scheduled his new trial dates accordingly.
Judge O'Keefe reaffirmed her earlier decision to not delay the sentencing any further than March 10.
On Friday, February 24, at 04:54 p.m.
six minutes before the end of the work week, defense attorney Robert Sanger finally filed his motion for a new trial, as well as another motion for acquittal, arguing that the jury's verdict should be overturned and Paul Flores should get a new trial or be fully acquitted.
Remember in December when the court reporter said it would take her longer to finish the trial transcript?
If Sanger also needed transcripts of the jury selection process, Sanger said he did with regard to a couple of particular individuals.
But in his 55 pages of motions, Sanger made no claims of misconduct against any juror.
Instead, the motions were mostly a rehashing of his previous nine attempts for mistrial.
He argued that Deputy District Attorney Christopher Pavrell misled the jury during his closing rebuttal by suggesting that the jurors had only two to believe that the entire case was a conspiracy against Paul or to believe that Paul was guilty.
Sanger also said that the defense never suggested there was an actual conspiracy against Paul, only that the prosecution's argument was equivalent to a conspiracy theory.
But in his closing argument on October 3, he told the jury after hearing, Mister Pavrel, I have to respond to what he said.
Basically a bunch of conspiracy theories.