by Elizabeth Griffiths
The trial of People v Sok Cheat Pin resumed today, and one witness was called to stand which was followed by closing statements. Mr. Pin is being charged with possession of a firearm and shooting a firearm with gross negligence.
The Prosecution, Mr. Schaub, called detective Robert Brazer, who was one of the investigators of the Mr. Pin case, to the stand. He currently works for the West Sacramento Police Department in the investigation department as a detective. Detective Brazer interviewed Mr. Pin’s girlfriend after receiving information that the call she had with Mr. Pin at the jail may contain information relevant to his case.
When detective Brazer interviewed Mr. Pin’s girlfriend, she said that she found the firearm in the apartment and hid it. She never stated that Mr. Pin told her about the firearm, but she knew there was a firearm in her home and it needed to be moved. She claims that she hid the firearm because there are children in her house and she did not want them to find it.
She eventually claims that gave the firearm to someone else; however, the detective never tried to contact the person she said she gave the firearm to. The firearm still has not been located.
The Prosecution began their closing statements by asking the jury to think about the questions “Is it him?” and “Is it a real gun?”. Mr. Schaub states that the statements and actions of Mr. Pin and his girlfriend show they are aware of their crime and aware of their guilt.
Mr. Schaud says the first statement Mr. Pin gave to the police was that he was in his car smoking marijuana when the shots were fired; however, in the jail call between him and his girlfriend, the 
narrative changed to him saying he was shooting a toy gun.
The Prosecution then points out discrepancies between the English conversation on the jail call and the conversation going on in Cambodian. In English, the conversation was about Mr. Pin not having the gun, and in Cambodian, the conversation was about hiding the gun. Mr. Schaud says they switched to speaking in Cambodian during this call in hopes that no one else knew Cambodian.
Mr. Schaud then brings up the belief that the gun is not a toy gun because of how it fires like a real gun. The prosecution also claims the way the shooter is shooting the gun suggests gross negligence due to how the shooter is positioned and firing the gun as well as the fact that they are in a residential area.
The Defense, Ms. Sequeira, begins her closing statements by saying that it is not the defense’s job to bring in evidence because the burden of proof is placed on the government. She then poses the question: What could have the government brought in that would have been objective evidence?
She begins by referring back to testimonies that stated all guns leave behind gun residue when shot, and this residue usually stays around for about a week. She points out that the government never got the lab tests back that would have shown if Mr. Pin had gun residue on his hands, even though those tests only take about a couple weeks and the incident took place in November.
She also points out how it was interesting that no footage was ever provided as evidence. The body cameras of two of the officers were said to have died before entering and searching Mr. Pin’s apartment; however, no footage of the other two body cameras were shown.
In addition, she states that the footage from these cameras could have shown where the officers searched when they said they could not find the gun. The footage also could have confirmed what Mr.Pin was wearing that night to connect him to the crime. However, none of the footage from these cameras were used in the trial.
Ms. Sequeira also points out that no one ever asked the 16 and 17-year-old boys who were there that night what happened in the apartment. She also says that the claim that they could not have fired the guns because of their age is unreasonable because the court consistently sees people of this age commit crime involving the shooting guns.
The Defense also says that the police officers were given consent by Mr. Pin and his girlfriend to search the apartment; thus the police officers had no limits to what they could search. However, all the officers still could not find the gun even though it was only an 800 sq ft apartment.
She concludes by discussing how there is no evidence that the gun was a real gun since no testimony was given about how light from a real gun would look in a black and white video. In regards to the charge of shooting a firearm with gross negligence, Ms. Sequeira points out that the closest building is far away and the height that the gun was shot at would have made the bullet go above any of the other buildings. She also states that there was no evidence given that would prove the bullet would have traveled the distance the prosecution claims it did, thus the shooting of the firearm could not have caused any injury or death.
The jury will continue their deliberation on Friday.
The post Real Gun or Toy Gun? appeared first on Davis Vanguard.
