6S SAG ao 6 10 il 12 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 could not have been cle! he forced his way ne : 0 the Pelosi home intending to take the person third in line to the presidency of the Uniteg States hostage and to seriously harm her. Thwarted by Speaker Pelosi’s absence, Defendant continued on his quest and would not be stopped, culminating in the near fatal attack on Mr. Pelosi, Defendant also described other persons who served as his targets. But Defendant repeated, nothing would stop him Defendant's self-proclaimed determination, execution, and other planned targets illustrates his danger to public safety. Therefore, clear and convincing evidence shows that there isa substantial likelihood that Defendant’s release will result in great bodily harm o others Third, less restrictive alternatives to detention are insufficient to protect public or victim safety. Defendant knew that the Ring cameras outside the house captured his entry and that the 911 phone call was being recorded. But Defendant remained undeterred. In fact, Defendant knew law enforcement officers were watching him when brutally attacked Mr. Pelosi with the hammer. All of this shows that nothing will prevent Defendant from engaging in the same dangerous activity. Thus, less restrictive alternatives like home detention, electronic monitoring, or a criminal protective order simply cannot protect public safety. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, this Court should detain Defendant pending tal. November 1, 2022 Respectfully submitted, BROOKE JENKINS District Att Allison Gavbutt iV Assistant District Attorney Attorneys for the People People v. DePape, Court No. 22012966, Notice of Motion and Motion to Detain, p. 10supra, 9 Cal sth at p. 469.) In exercising its discretion, ihe wal court must consider, “at & = previous minimum, ‘the protection of the public, the seriousness of the offense charged, the {the} teial or criminal record ofthe defendant, and the probability of his or her appearing at e'—and among those factors, «public safety shall be the primary Sode § 1275,subd at a hearing of the cas mnether any reasonable consideration.” (White, supra, 9 Cal.Sth. at p. 470, quoting Pen. (a)(1),) For the qualifying offense, the reviewing court considers wl ilty beyond a reasonable doubt, drawing all 464, trier of fact could find the defendant gt reasonable inferences in favor of the prosecution. (Hhize, sypra, 9 Cal-Sth at pp. 463 472.) “That the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with the defendant's janovence does not render inadequate the evidence pointing towards guilt.” (Id at p- 464.) ‘Atrial court must also address any less restrictive alternatives and articulate its analytical process as to why such alternatives are insufficient to protect the government's interest of protecting public safety. (In re Harris, supra, 71 Cal.App.sth at pp. 1096, 1105-1106.) II. Defendant’s Brutal, Early-Morning Attack of the 82-Year-Old Victim in His Own Home and in Front of Law Enforcement Justifies Detention Here. The violent nature of the attack in the victim’s own home in front of law enforcement justifies detention in this case. First, as set forth in White, sufficient evidence supports the qualifying offenses here. Not only did body worn camera footage capture Defendant's unprovoked and brutal attack on Mr. Pelosi, but Defendant himself admitted to committing the attack, Defendant planned this early-morning break in, bringing a hammer and zip- ties—with more to spare, And so determined was Defendant to enter the house, he slammed his body through the window to gain entry. Defendant also admitted that he intended to enter the house to take Speaker Pelosi hostage and cause great bodily harm to her, making her an example for all to see. More than sufficient evidence supports & hypothetical verdict of guilt. Second, clear and convincing evidence shows that if released, there is a substantial likelihood that Defendant would inflict great bodily injury to others. Defendant's intent People v. DePape, CO%tENo, 22012966, Notice of Motion and Motion to Detain, p, 9Defendant, not willing to surrender, yanked the hammer away and hit Mr. Pelosi with full force. When asked if he had any other plans, Defendant named several targets, including a 2 3 | local professor, several prominent state and federal politicians, and relatives of those state 4 | and federal politicians. 5 6 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 7 ‘The People request that this Court take judicial notice of the statutes listed in the g | charging document(s) and court records offered as exhibits. (Evid. Code §§ 451, subd. (a), 452, subd. (d).) The People notice their intent to request that this Court to take judicial % notice of the court records attached as exhibits to this motion. (Evid. Code § 453.) u ARGUMENT 12] 1, The California Constitution Authorizes Courts to Detain Persons Charged with 13 Violent Felony Offenses Pending Trial. 14 Under the California Constitution, a court may detain a person pending trial for 15 | flony offenses involving violence “when the facts are evident or the presumption great and the court finds based on clear and convincing evidence that there is a substantial likelihood the person’s release would result in great bodily harm to others{.J” (Cal. Const, art. I, § 12 subd. (b).) A pretrial detention order under Article I, section 12 requires the trial court make three specific factual findings. (Jn re White (2020) 9 Cal.Sth 455, 471; In re Harris (2021) 71 Cal.App.Sth 1085, 1105-1106, review granted, Mar. 9, 2022, $272632.) First, the record must contain evidence of a qualifying offense sufficient to sustain a hypothetical verdict of guilt on appeal. (In re White, supra, 9 Cal.Sth at p. 471.) Second, a trial court must find by clear and convincing evidence of a substantial likelihood that the defendant's release would result in great bodily harm to others. (/bid.) Third, a trial court must find by clear and convincing evidence that no less restrictive alternative will ensure the compelling government interest. (Jn re Harris, supra, 71 Cal.App.Sth at pp. 1105-1106.) These findings may be satisfied by a proffer of evidence. (In re Harris, supra, 71 CalApp.sth at p. 1101.) A trial court’s decision to deny bail is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (White, People v. DePape, Court No. 22012966, Notice of Motion and Motion to Detain, p. 8hat is going on here?” But Mr. Pelosi could not ” The officer asked agair hey, hey! in his grip on the hammer. A secor maintain his grip ‘cond later, Defendant wrenched the hammer away Pelosi, striking Mr. Pelosi in mediately stepped back, and Junged at Mr from Mr. Pelosi, the head at full force with the hammer, which knocked Mr. Pelosi unconscious. The officers rushed into the house, tackled Defendant, and disarmed him. Mr. Pelosi remained unresponsive for about three minutes, waking up in a pool of his own blood. While on scene, Off. Wilmes asked Defendant if there were any more suspects. Defendant said that he acted alone; Defendant then looked at the glass door and said that ‘vas where he broke into the house. Officers later recovered Defendant’s bag outside the damaged glass doors. Inside, there was another hammer, a laptop, and more bags of zip ties. Without any questioning, Defendant told officers and medics at the scene, “I’m sick of the insane fucking level of lies coming out of Weshington, D.C. I came here to have a little jded: “I didn’t really want to hurt him, but you know this was a suicide mission. I’m not going to stand here a! nothing even if it cost me my life.” “Hurting him was not my goal. I told him before I attacked him, that he’s escalating things, and I will go through him if have to.” ‘San Francisco Fire Department Medics resporided immediately, rendered aid to Mr Pelosi, and transported him to San Francisco General Hospital. At SFGH, Mr. Pelosi underwent emergency surgery to repair a skull fracture and serious injuries tohis right arm and hands. Mr. Pelosi remains hospitalized. Upon arrest, Defendant admitted that he intended to enter the home to take Speaker Naney Pelosi hostage and, if Speaker Pelosi lied to him, he intended to break her kneecaps, Seeing Ring security cameras everywhere, Defendant knew he would be caught on camera. Defendant was surprised when he found Mr. Pelosi still asleep after making some so much noise to gain entry. When Mr. Pelosi attempted to enter the elevator near the bedroom, Defendant held the elevator door, thinking it would lead to a saferoom. When Mr. Pelosi called 911, Defendant knew the call was being recorded, But by calling 911, Defendant believed that Mr. Pelosi pushed him into a corner. Back in the bedroom, Defendant told Mr Pelosi that he cannot be stopped; he has other targets. And later when police arrived, People v. DePape, Court No. 22012966, Notice of Motion and Motion to Detain, pCOU KH RUD Rab. & Saceceee: = RAS Oo eo Boe e Gila Riles tal 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The dispateher then asked for the man’s nameancl the man ynat he says. elosi said, down and just dow! responded, “My name is David. » put David said, “I'm a friend of theirs. “He's telling me [ am being very lazy, so I've When the dispatcher asked who David is, Mr.P Mr. Pelosi then confirmed with the “T don’t knows that he did not know the ay?” When the dispatcher offered to stay on theline with Mr. dispatche' a to stop talking to you ok: thing is okay, Mr. Pelosi said, “No, he wants me to get the hell off .d, Based on her training and what she heard, dispatcher Heather got Pelosi to make sure every the phone.” The call ende Bs ca peaund an A” buco) well-being check, dant said that he was tired and needed to sleep; he also told Mr. ack downstairs with a whole bunch of stuff inside. They Defendant walking behind Mr. Pelosi still holding the large ring on the lights, Mr. Pelosi could see where Defendant ommented that he had to bash the window s dant also said that the police would be there any minut saying that they would not. But Defendant responded, “I After the call, Defen: Pelosi that he had a backp: proceeded downstairs with hammer and the zip ties. Tu entered the house; Defendant c¢ everal times to break through and enter. Defent fe; Mr. Pelosi tried to calm Defendant by can take you out.” Defendant came upright in his hand. ‘Afraid that Defendant would strike him with that hammer, Mr. Pelosi reached out and put his hand on the handle of the hammer. Shortly after the intial call, Officers Kolby Wilmes and Kyle Cagney responded to the around to Mr. Pelosi’s right with the large hammer residence. When Off, Wilmes rang the doorbell, Defendant directed Mr. Pelosi not to open the door. But Mr. Pelosi opened the door with his left hand: As the door opened, the two men stood in the dimly lit foyer facing the officers. Mr. Pelosi nervously but calmly greeted. them. When the officer asked what was going on, Defendant smiled and said, “everything's turned on his flashlight, good” and pulled his hands toward his body. When an office! Defendant could be seen holding the bottom handle of the hammer with one hand and Mr r, Pelosi had his hand on the top of the handle near the Pelosi’s right arm with the other. Mi hammer itself, One officer ordered, “Drop the hammer ry raised the hammer and said, “um, nope.” Defendant tried to pull the hammer away from Mr. Pelosi, which twisted Mr, Pelosi’s arm back. Simultaneously, Mr. Pelosi pleaded, “hey At the same time, Defendant People v. DePape, Court No. 22012966, Notice of Motion and Motion to Detain, p,7 | sae pts stood up and ied to Leave by the cleao® te tei ce {ea te dor, preventing Mr: Pelos from escaping: ME Pelosi then cu toNaney, AN edroom, saton the bed, andl asked Defendant why he apni 10300 0 //, || Swett sne’s number to in ine forthe presidency. right?” When Mr a out.” When / * J) Srendane responded that they are all corupt and “we've B00 take toe spon \ ‘Mb. Pelosi asked if he could call anyone for Defendant, Defendant ominous y \_(/] ante it was the end of the road for Mr. Pelosi, Docs: \7 | > Sait ying to eseape from Defendant, Mr. Pelosi asked to use the bat ete Defendant allowed him todo so. Mr. Pelosi stood up and pesicod to et turned it on, phone was charging. Standing in the bathroom, Me, Polo grabbed his ees ae 10 | cgtled 911, and put the phone on speaker. Watching M& Petos, Defendatt © 11 call itself, three feet away, still holding the large hammer and the zip tes. During the 2 ne 12 | Mr. Pelosi said that there was @ gentleman there waiting for his wife—Nancy Pelosit 13 | come back. But Mr, Pelosi said they would have to wait because his wife would not Pe 14 | coming back for about a day. Mr. Pelosi could see Defendant gesturing and heard 15 | Defendant tll him to get off the phone. To diffuse the situation, Mi. Pelosi told the 16 | dispatcher that he did not need police, fire, or medical assistance. Trying to be calm and 17 | discreet while also trying to help dispatch to understand the situation, Mr Pelosi then asked i: 1g | forthe Capitol Police because they are usualy atthe house protecting his wife. The 3 19 | dispatcher clarified that Mr. Pelosi was calling San Francisco police, Mr. Pelosi said that he e +99 | understood and then asked someone, “I don’t know, what do you think?” Another man 5 41 | responded, “Everything's good.” Mr. Pelosi then stated, “Uh, het ks everything's good. ' ap | Ube Five gota problem, but he thinks everything's good.” x When the dispatcher told Mr, Pelosi to call back ifhe changed his mind, Mr. Pelosi 44 | stKiy eesponded, “No, no, no, this gentleman just uh came into the house uh and he wants (oe for my wife to come homef,]” ‘The dispatcher then asked Mr. Pelosi if he knew the pa |becson and Mr. Pelosi said that he did not. Mr. Pelosi then said that the man was telling hi ‘ not to do anything, The dispatcher then asked Mr. Pelosi for his name and address ae 7 | Pelosi gave the dispatcher both. Mr. Pelosi then said that the man told hij ae 28 'm to put the phone People v. DePape, Court No. 22012966, Notice of M * lotion and Motio N to Detain, BS12022, subd: (b)(1)), and threatening the tite of or threatening serious bodily ham t0 elected public official or their immediate family (Pen. Code, § 76, Count 6) with allegations that Defendant inflicted great bodily injury (Pen, Code, § 12022.7, subd. (c)) nd that Personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon (Pen, Code, § 12022, subd. (6)! Among the circumstances in aggravation alleged in the Complaint are the crime involved great violence, great bodily harm, threat of great bodily harm or otheracts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness: the defendant was armed with or used a weapon at the time of the commission of the crime; the victim was ‘out indicates planning, particularly vulnerable; the manner in which the crime was carried oe 7 ‘ is t that sophistication, or professionalism; and the defendant has engaged in violent conduc ie a A it i fendant indicates a serious danger to society. Based on the charges in the ‘Complaint, Defer faces between 13 years, 8 months and life in prison. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS! In the middle of the night, Defendant smashed through a window in a back door of the Pelosi home in search of the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi. But Speaker Pelosi was not home, only her 82-year-old husband, Paul, who slept upstairs in his pajama top and boxer shorts. Standing over Mr. Pelosi’s bedside just after 2:00 a.m., Defendant startled Mr. Pelosi awake by asking “Are you Paul Pelosi?” Defendant carried a large hammer in his right hand and several white, plastic zip ties in his left hand. Defendant then repeated, ““Where’s Naney? Where’s Nancy?” Still groggy from being suddenly awoken, Mr. Pelosi responded, “She’s not here.” Defendant then demanded, “Well, when is she going to be back?” “She's in Washington, she’s not going to be back for a couple of days.” Defendant responded, “Okay, well, I’m going to tie you up. The following Statement of Facts is based on San Francisco Police Department Incident Report number 220 741 717, the Chronological of Investigation, body worn camera footage, the 911 call, and law enforcement interviews, exhibits to this motion, to be filed under seal. rs a 2 In total, Defendant threatened to tie up Mr. Pelosi about 10 times People v. DePape, Court No, 22012966, Notiee OF Motion and Maton to Detain, ped ETEMEMORANDUM OF poiNTs AND AUTHORITIES INTRODUCTION Defendant forcefully broke into the Pelosi home intending to take the Speaker of the United Sates House of Representative, Nancy Pelosi as his hostage. But when Defendant reared that he could not execute his plan, he proceeded instead fo attack the 82-year-old man that stood in his way, ‘There is clear and convincing, the charges here; clear and convincing evidence shows that there is a substantial likelihood that Defendant, if released, would cause great convincing evidence demonstrates that no less restrictive alterns victim and public safety. This case demands detention. Nothing less. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Speaker Pelosi’s husband, Paul Pelosi. evidence to support a hypothetical verdict of guilty for bodily injury to others; and clear and ative is sufficient to protect CEG OA Bn, 10 ‘The Felony Complaint charges Defendant with attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, Count 1) with allegations that the attempted murder was willful, deliberate, and that Defendant personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon (Pen. Code, § )), and that Defendant inflicted great bodily injury on a person 70 years of fe, § 1202.7, subd. (c)). The Complaint also charges Defendant with ial burglary (Pen. Code, § 459, Count 2) with an allegation that another atl tok: the residence during the commission of the burglary (Pen. Code, § ‘assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd (1), Count 3) Defendant inflicted great bodily on a person 70 years of age or older |, (c)), inflicting unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering Count 4) with allegations that Defendant (Pen, Code, §§ 368, sub (0}(2X8)) and that Defendant diy or dangerous weapon (Pen. Cove, § 12022, subd. (b))) false srby violence or menace (Pet. Code, § 368, subd. (0), Count 5) with bis iflicted great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. ‘onally used @ deadly or dangerous weapon (Pen. Code, § e, § 368, subd, (b)(1), out No. 22012966, Notice of Motion and Motion to Detain, p. 3OSA ao we 5.8 2 2 ‘suppl orstated orally at the conclusi on al the papers and reco ‘evidence as may be November 1, 2022 femental memoranda of points and authorities as may hereafter be filed ion of the hearing on the motion, on the following declaration, with the Court ds on file in this action, and on such oral and documentary presented at the hearing, of the motion. BROOKE JENKINS District Attorney By: Allison Gai Assistant Dit Attorneys for the People Court No, 22012966, Notice of Motion and Motion to Detain, p,JENKINS (SBN 276290) et ee 1] Broo! istrict Attorney 2 | Rise Garburt Macbeth (SBN 203547) “, L.ED 3 | Assistant District Attorney i Frenctaco Cony Sifericr Count Phoebe H. Maffei (SBN 271346) TPA 4 | Aseistant District Attorney Peet ore ton, : 350 Rhode Island Street North Building, Suite 400N LIES ‘San Francisco, California 94103 aS Telephone: 628-652-4316 Facsimile: 628-652-4001 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for the People SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Case No. 22012966 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DETAIN; REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE November 1, 2022 ® 130pm. Plaintiff, TO DEFEND, r A ANT BY AND THROUGH HIS ATTORNEY AND TO THE HONORABLE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on November |, 2022 at 1:30 pam., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard before the court in Department 9 of the above-titled ss focated at the Hall of Justice, 850 Bryant Street, San Francisco, California, the People State of California will move to detain under the Calif , This motion will be based on the following memorandum of points and authorities, and on : any subsequent exhibits hereinafter lodged oF filed with the Court, on uh ia Constitution. fo.22012 People v, DePape, Court NO: 22012966, Notice of Motion and Motion to Deta ain, p. |