180

THE COURT:

Yes.

MR. CASSMAN:

Your Honor, I'm going to be playing the video

a lot because I think it's very important for the Court.

going to be asking the Court to make findings.

unusual but I think it's more than merited in this case given

the nature of the evidence that was presented from the

prosecution's expert.

8
9

I'm

I know it's

And I'm hopeful that the Court's going to be able to see it

but if not, I'm going to ask two things.

Could we take a few

10

minutes to move our table -- few seconds hopefully a little

11

closer so that the image will be sharper?

12

THE COURT:

Well, I don't have a problem with your using the

13

video to illustrate your argument.

14

findings, I'm not sure that's appropriate.

15

here, but if it will assist your argument, go ahead and play it.

16

If I have difficulty seeing what you're mentioning, then I'll

17

let you know.

18
19

MR. CASSMAN:

Okay.

In terms of making factual

It's a limited task

I'm just going to move the table over a

little bit to try to make the image sharper.

20

THE COURT:

That's fine.

21

MR. CASSMAN:

Judge Cheng, I've been doing this for 30 years

22

now.

And in that experience, vehicular manslaughter cases are

23

well among the very saddest that I see come into the criminal

24

justice system.

25

too.

26

deceased obviously, for those who care and loved him.

27

consequences are the same as murder, the same as murder and we

28

understand that.

And I'm sure you've had experience with them,

They have horrendous consequences for the family, for the

The

And our hearts go out to the family of Mr. Woo

181

1
2

and I know that Chris' heart goes out to the family.

But, on the other hand, the conduct that is in question is

very dissimilar from that involved in a murder case.

The

conduct is so much less severe.

committing that conduct is just frankly a very good man with no

prior contacts with the criminal justice system of any kind, and

certainly that's true here.

is presented in a case like this and nevertheless, it requires a

legal examination with a certain amount of detachment and that's

And the man who's accused of

That's the emotional dichotomy that

10

what we're requesting of the Court today to examine the facts

11

closely, to consider the evidence, and to make a ruling that

12

serves justice.

13

Has the prosecution presented sufficient evidence for a

14

finding of probable cause that Mr. Bucchere was grossly

15

negligent?

16

The answer is no.

And I want to start by addressing the questions that the

17

prosecution's expert Mr. Mahoney addressed.

18

Mr. Mahoney, and I want to emphasize to the Court, answered them

19

without having realized what the traffic signal that controls

20

northbound traffic on Castro Street was right in front of him.

21

There was no need to make assumptions about when the light

22

turned red and when the walk signal became walk for pedestrians.

23

There was no need for him to infer from people's actions in the

24

crosswalk when the walk signal opened.

25

any speculation or assumption or inference of any kind.

26

I realize that

There was no need for

The evidence, objective evidence as he admitted on the stand

27

once he saw that light is that it turned red at 8:02:14 by

28

the -- at 8:02:14 by the timer on the videotape.

8:02:14, red

182

light.

So, we don't need to assume anything.

The Court has the

video and we know for a fact when the light turned red.

So the first question that Mr. Mahoney addressed:

light red when Mr. Bucchere entered the intersection?

establish the following.

left-hand corner of the top screen of People's No. 2 controls

traffic running northbound on Castro Street.

8
9
10

Was the
The facts

The traffic signal in the upper

And I've asked Julie to tee up the tape and to play it from
8:02:01.

That's fine.

Your Honor, we're starting the tape at 8:00:10.

It's now up

11

to 8:00:11.

Your Honor can see that the light in the upper

12

left-hand corner of the upper screen of People's No. 2 is green

13

and that traffic is flowing north on Castro Street.

14

can see that it turned yellow and red, that a car stops

15

northbound on Castro Street and that traffic commences east/west

16

on Market Street after a short delay.

17

about 8:01:45, the light turns green, traffic starts moving

18

north on Castro Street and also southbound on Castro Street in

19

the upper left-hand corner.

20

And let's stop it now.

21

So there is no doubt.

Your Honor

Your Honor sees that at

I ask for a finding from the Court

22

that the traffic signal in the upper left-hand corner of

23

People's Exhibit Number 2 controls traffic flow for northbound

24

and southbound on Castro Street.

25
26

Now, at 8:02:06, which is where we are now, the light is

green.

27

Can you please play to it?

28

And as the Court can see, at 8:02:11, it turns yellow and at

183

8:02:14 -- stop it.

At 8:02:14, it turned red.

Would the Court like me to replay that?

THE COURT:

MR. CASSMAN:

No.
I want to continue to play it and ask the

Court to focus on the upper right-hand portion of the screen but

before we do, I'll note that pedestrians are clearly depicted in

the crosswalk at 8:02:16.

And I ask the Court please observe traffic westbound on

Market Street.

10

Stop.

11

Traffic westbound on Market Street commenced moving three or

12

four seconds after that light turned red.

That's a critical

13

point for the Court to consider.

14

to make assumptions based on pedestrian traffic in the crosswalk

15

on Castro Street.

16

traffic eastbound on Market Street that did not move until three

17

to four seconds after the accident.

18

explanation for that:

19

light turned red had not ceased until at least 8:02:17.5 and

20

hence, the all red was in effect until that time and that's why

21

traffic -- in rush hour traffic at 8:00 a.m. in the morning on a

22

workday did not commence to move.

We had an expert who attempted

However, he ignored the fact that there was

There is only one

The all red for 3.5 seconds after the

That's the only explanation.

23

We don't need to speculate here based on what rush hour

24

pedestrians who are trying to catch a Muni bus, heading for the

25

Muni station across the street are doing and why they're doing

26

it.

27
28

Now, what we do know from Mr. Mahoney is that at 8:02:14,

Mr. Bucchere's head was visible within the intersection on

184

Market Street.

Honor?

I have the exhibit.

May I bring it to Your

THE COURT:

Yes.

MR. CASSMAN:

I had Mr. Mahoney circle Mr. Bucchere's head as he was

May I point to it?

proceeding through Market Street.

controlling traffic northbound on Castro Street turned red and

Mr. Bucchere was in the intersection.

opinion that the light was red for 6.5 seconds before the point

10
11

At 8:02:14, the light

Mr. Mahoney's expert

of impact is patently incorrect.

So, Your Honor, we have demonstrated beyond any doubt,

12

reasonable or otherwise -- and we have no burden but we have

13

demonstrated beyond any doubt that Mr. Bucchere did not run the

14

red light, and that comes from the prosecution's expert with his

15

own eyes who missed the most important fact in the case:

16

traffic signal in the upper left-hand corner of People's No. 2.

17

I want to talk a minute about Nataniel Pollak.

The

I know that

18

the Court's not going to weigh credibility of witnesses, that's

19

not your job here, that's not the role you play in these

20

proceedings.

21

evidence and you must consider what's reasonable or even

22

possible and what's flatly contradicted.

23

I understand that.

But you must weigh the

In this case, putting aside his inappropriate and

24

disrespectful demeanor and his willingness to lie apparently

25

under oath when confronted with the fact that he was watching a

26

video and first wanted to say no, putting aside that, People's

27

No. 2 flatly contradicts his testimony and proves that it is

28

false.

185

Julie, let's roll the video.

We're at 8:02:14, Your Honor, and you see one vehicle in the

upper left-hand corner approaching.

Were you able to see that?

THE COURT:

Yes.

MR. CASSMAN:

And then at 8:02:20, you see the bicycle go down in the

Okay.

Great.

upper left-hand corner?

And at 8:02:25 -- keep going.

8:02:32,

a second vehicle appears to approach the intersection southbound

on Castro Street.

8:02:38, a third vehicle appears which --

10

stop it.

Mr. Pollak identified that as his vehicle when he

11

didn't realize that it was 30 seconds after the accident.

12

Keep going.

13

That vehicle that we just saw pull into the number two lane

14

on the lower screen, he identified it as his vehicle initially.

15

Watch the light up here.

It turns green, light in the upper

16

left-hand corner.

17

southbound on Castro Street.

18

up to the intersection.

19

number two lane and we see the second vehicle that had arrived

20

at the intersection proceed.

21

Traffic starts to proceed north and

We see the first sedan that came

We see Mr. Pollak's Element in the

Your Honor, the evidence in this case demonstrates beyond

22

any doubt that when Mr. Pollak said that he stopped at the

23

intersection as Mr. Bucchere was slightly behind his vehicle,

24

that's wrong.

25

that Mr. Bucchere whizzed by his car as he was stopped at the

26

intersection, that's wrong.

27

that the second bicyclist came down and stopped alongside him at

28

the intersection while he, Mr. Pollak, was parked there or

And when he -- the video showed us.

The video proves it.

When he said

When he said

186

stopped there, that was wrong.

Court has any question about that last point, I would like to

replay the video at about 8:02:20 again.

THE COURT:

MR. CASSMAN:

The video proves it.

And if the

That won't be necessary.

At 8:02:14 -- and if the Court has any

question of this, I would like to try to have you replay it or

ask to have it plugged into your own computer so that you can

look at it yourself.

I urge you to do that.

At 8:02:14, Mr. Bucchere had entered the intersection, the

10

light turned red.

11

Street intersection southbound on Castro Street.

12

vehicle was Mr. Pollak's Honda Element.

13

stand before he realized that that happened at 8:02:47 according

14

to the video, which is 30 seconds after the accident, after the

15

accident.

16

wrong, he was flat wrong.

17

Later, three vehicles approached the Market

The third

He admitted it on the

The video proves it, Your Honor.

Mr. Pollak was

The video proves that Mr. Bucchere did not run the red

18

light.

Certainly there's no reliable evidence in front of this

19

court that he did and I'm asking the Court to make that finding.

20

The second question addressed by Mr. Mahoney was with the

21

walk signal illuminated for east and westbound pedestrians

22

before the accident?

23

we know.

24

I'll just briefly review the evidence that

8:02:14, the light controlling traffic northbound on Castro

25

Street turns red.

We know from the traffic sequence control

26

report that there's a 3.5 second all red.

27

at least 8:02:17, probably 8:02:17.5 according to Mr. Mahoney,

28

the walk signal east and westbound on Castro Street did not

That means that until

187

1
2

illuminate.
Now, the witnesses that the Court heard from told a

different story and I want to suggest to the Court again this is

not an issue of credibility, I'm sure they were doing the best

they can and I'm sure they tried to tell the truth as they

remember it.

Ms. Woo, who was the prosecution's first witness -- I'm

sorry.

Excuse me, thank you.

Ms. Yu, Y-U, she testified that

she entered the crosswalk when the white hand illuminated.

The

10

video absolutely proves otherwise.

11

first of all, she admitted she was actually standing in the

12

crosswalk in the lane in front of the bus on the east side of

13

the street the entire time but that at 8:02:14, the video

14

clearly shows that she begins to proceed into the crosswalk.

15

And I submit to Your Honor that what she and the other

16

pedestrians walking eastbound clearly did is what we see

17

pedestrians in rush hour traffic do all the time, they wait for

18

the cross signal to turn red and they start to proceed across

19

the street.

20

turned red, she starts to go, other pedestrians follow.

21
22
23

That's clearly what happened here.

Are

you ready?
Your Honor, I want to briefly play it for you.
they're in the crosswalk.

25

aggressively across the street.

26

we have the accident.

28

The light

At 8:02:16 -- well, why don't we go back to 8:02:08?

24

27

She entered the crosswalk --

8:02:11,

8:02:14, she begins to walk

8:02:16, she's almost there and

Conversely, from the other direction on the west side, as

Mr. Mahoney admitted when he was watching the video, the

188

pedestrians on the west side commenced into the crosswalk at

8:02:16, a second before the light illuminates for walk.

Angelo Cilia.

Angelo Cilia, as the Court may have just

observed, he did pretty well.

8:02:16 or thereabouts and he's only taken one or two steps into

the crosswalk before 8:02:17, when the light turns white for

pedestrians and also at the time of the accident.

conduct and I believe his testimony actually contradicts Ms. Yu

and establishes that she started walking into the intersection

10
11

He stays on the sidewalk until

He -- his

well before the walk signal.

So the evidence establishes that Mr. Bucchere did not run

12

the red light, he entered the intersection lawfully, and the

13

evidence shows that the pedestrians entered the crosswalk too

14

soon, and many legal consequences flow from that.

15

them out a little bit in our memo.

16

And I laid

But under the law, because Mr. Bucchere entered lawfully, he

17

had the right of way, the pedestrians did not.

18

were required to yield to traffic in the intersection, they did

19

not.

20

walk signal illuminated and they did not.

21
22
23

The pedestrians

And they were required to wait until the white signal,

So 8:02:14, red light, 3.5 second all red, 8:02:17.5, walk

signal.
The third issue that Mr. Mahoney was asked to address, the

24

speed.

Mr. Mahoney is the only witness who testified that

25

Mr. Bucchere's speed exceeded the lawful limit of 25 miles per

26

hour.

27

based on speculation.

28

and trying to guess the distance from the point of impact to

He estimated his speed at 32 miles per hour.

He did that

He did that based on observing the video

189

1
2

where he could see Mr. Bucchere at 8:02:14 on the tape.

Now, I agree that the evidence clearly shows that

Mr. Bucchere was within the intersection.

You can see it, and

the Court can see it when you look at the exhibits, how far, how

many feet he was from the impact.

testifying to thousandths of -- to feet per second down to the

thousandths of a foot based on his time, distance calculations,

this is not reliable, this is speculative, this is guesswork.

Where we have an expert

So the prosecution by failing to fix Mr. Bucchere's precise

10

location at the time their expert wants to make a time/distance

11

calculation has failed to establish the predicate for that

12

calculation; and therefore, the speed calculation is not

13

reliable and should not be relied upon by this court, especially

14

when it's presented by an expert who was so severely wrong in

15

his opinions.

16

So, Your Honor, I'm asking the Court -- and I know it's

17

unusual but we have a case in which the evidence that is

18

presented by the prosecution and is irrefutable before the Court

19

establishes that the light turned red at 8:02:14, that

20

Mr. Bucchere was in the intersection at that time, and that the

21

pedestrians walking east/west on Castro Street proceeded into

22

the intersection before the walk signal illuminated and I'm

23

asking the Court to make those three findings.

24
25

THE COURT:

Do you wish to address the 17(b) issues now or

after Mr. Talai's response?

26

MR. CASSMAN:

27

MR. TALAI:

28

Your Honor?

I would like to after, please.

May I sit since this is a preliminary hearing,

190

THE COURT:

Yes.

MR. TALAI:

Thank you.

I would like to start and I should first say, please don't

let the length of my argument lend any weight towards my

feelings on this case.

I just don't need to go quite as long.

I'm going to start by addressing the over 30-page motion

that was filed yesterday by Mr. Cassman.

In my only five years

of experience, I've actually never seen this happen before.

what I mean by that is there's a sentence in here on the first

And

10

page that says, "We believe that the evidence adduced at the

11

preliminary hearing does not even come close to supporting such

12

a finding."

13

The reason why I find that a bit ridiculous is this motion

14

was written before a preliminary hearing happened.

15

that is written, Mr. Cassman lays out the facts, and I say in

16

quotation "the facts of the preliminary hearing."

17

the Court the facts of the preliminary hearing before a

18

preliminary hearing has happened.

19

problems that I want to go through right now because what he

20

says are facts to you in this motion that he signed and he

21

conveniently handed out to the press yesterday are not facts

22

that were presented in court here yesterday under sworn

23

testimony.

24

And after

He has given

That obviously causes some

He goes on to start by talking about Stephan Morais's

25

bicycle route with the Defendant.

26

remind the Court, of the Defendant who admitted to Inspector

27

Cadigan sitting to my right that they don't always stop at stop

28

signs.

Okay?

Stephan is the friend, to

There's language about what Stephan Morais said.

191

None of that was presented to the Court yesterday.

He goes on to talk about the Honda Element and how 30

seconds after the incident is when you see the Honda Element.

Again, the problem with writing the facts before the facts are

actually given to the Court is you're going to give incorrect

statements.

Nathan Pollak was clear.

People's 5, if I may approach,

shows an intersection and prior to that intersection, there is a

white line.

The facts, the actual facts are Nathan Pollak said

10

he stopped at that first white line, Mr. Bucchere then flew by

11

him.

12

helpful.

13

that crosswalk which is shown in the video.

14

the Court heard them yesterday.

Then he was very eager to move forward.

He wanted to be

He eased forward after a while and then he stopped at

That's the facts as

15

"8:02:09" -- this is quoting from the motion -- "at least

16

two pedestrians have already started to cross from the east."

17

know the Court has the video, watched the video.

18

what else to say other than that that's incorrect, that's false

19

and that's misleading.

20

what's happening.

21

I don't know

When you watch the video, that's not

They are not crossing the street.

8:02:14 -- also, just because it's written on the board

22

doesn't make it a fact.

23

intersection, 8:02:13 is when it turns red.

24

8:02:14 but it's not just turning red at 8:02:14.

25

If that light is controlling that

It's still red at

This is, I guess, more of an opinion by Mr. Cassman.

26

pedestrian created obstacles to traffic.

27

crossing the street are obstacles.

28

in a second, was speeding.

The

I guess pedestrians

The bicycle, I will explain

192

"The government's expert evidence testified that STRAVA data

showed that Mr. Bucchere was going approximately 32 miles per

hour."

to write in this motion that I am relying on STRAVA to show that

the Defendant was speeding is again false, misleading and

inaccurate.

I don't even think I said the word STRAVA yesterday, so

Having covered what are not facts, I would like to actually

talk about what was talked about yesterday in court.

through that, I know the Court is familiar with the law but I'm

10
11

To go

reading straight from CALCRIM.

I need to show there's gross negligence.

A person acts with

12

gross negligence when the way he acts is so different from how

13

an ordinarily careful person would act in the same situation.

14

submit to the Court that an ordinarily careful person does not

15

run a light at 14th Street, does not run a light at 15th Street,

16

does not run a stop sign at 16th Street, and does not then run a

17

light at Castro and Market.

18

ordinarily careful person does not do those things while

19

speeding.

I would submit to the Court that an

20

I would submit to the Court that an ordinarily careful

21

person does not run those three stoplights, that one stop sign

22

and speed and fail to yield.

23

To go over the speed, Mr. Cassman said moments ago,

24

"Mr. Mahoney is the only person that testified to speed."

25

That's not in the motion, that was said here in court a few

26

minutes ago.

27

speed.

28

take that as fact.

Mr. Mahoney is the only person who testified to

We can't just say things to the Court and hope that you
Mr. Mahoney is not the only person that said

193

that.

about 30 on his bike, saw it on his speedometer when the

Defendant then whizzed by him, so it's false to say Mr. Mahoney

was the only person.

Nathan Pollak actually articulated that he was going

With respect to the video and the top light, nobody has come

into this court and articulated where the bicycle was at that

time, not one person has said that.

control that, which the only expert who's testified did not say

that, there's no evidence that the Defendant flew by at that

10
11

So even if the light did

time.
What Mr. Cassman's essentially saying is all seven or so

12

people in the intersection, all of them, each and every single

13

one of them violated the law and the Defendant was actually

14

obeying the law and Mr. Pollak flat out lied.

15

his words.

16

mistaken, but Mr. Pollak, who ironically not only happens to be

17

a bicyclist himself but bicycled to court yesterday, explained

18

what he saw.

He didn't mince

He said the other witnesses were actually maybe

19

I feel the need to kind of defend Mr. Pollak's testimony.

20

He is somehow a bad citizen or San Franciscan because what he

21

wanted to do was help, sends himself a message the day or very

22

soon after the incident to be able to explain exactly what

23

happened.

24

interested in what the media has to say about him.

25

not be further from the truth.

26

Through Mr. Cassman's questioning, he's somehow

That could

He came in here as a cyclist himself who said conservatively

27

he cycled in the City over 1000 times and simply explained what

28

happened.

194

And the ironic thing about the entire, did he run the red

light, did he not run the red light?

as they came out in my opinion are that he ran the red light.

The evidence and the facts

Even if you want to believe he didn't, which I'm saying is

not the case, but even if you want to believe he didn't, when

you're speeding and you fail to yield, those are two infractions

in the complaint which are enough to hold the Defendant to

answer.

Okay?

And to say that it is guesswork on the part of Mr. Mahoney,

10

who obviously knows more than, I think, than all of us given his

11

background, training and experience, is a stretch at best.

12

1500 investigations, many times for the defense.

13

very familiar with his background, training and experience

14

because you were here yesterday and you actually heard the facts

15

that were stated.

16

Over

I know you're

For all those reasons, I think it's very clear the Defendant

17

was not ordinarily careful as the same person would be in a

18

similarly situated position.

19

stoplights, one stop sign, speed, then run another stoplight.

20

Ordinary people do not run two

And what every single witness was very consistent about.

21

Castro and Market Street is not the Financial District.

22

and Market Street at 8:00 a.m. on a weekday is the height of

23

rush hour traffic with Muni there, numerous buses, numerous

24

pedestrians, numerous cars.

25

Castro

For all those reasons, I think there is at the very least a

26

strong suspicion that the Defendant should be held on the one

27

count that he's charged with.

28

THE COURT:

Submit.

Mr. Cassman, given that we've been at this

195

nearly an hour, I want to give you a chance to make the 17(b)

argument and then give you a chance to respond and present

substantive on the merits.

argument first.

MR. CASSMAN:

I'll be very brief.

Why don't you make the 17(b)

Yes, Your Honor.

Thank you.

We submitted the memorandum yesterday.

Obviously it had been prepared before the preliminary

examination so I tried to anticipate what the evidence would

show based upon in part on expert's report, and then the expert

10

came in did not rely on the very data that he presented in his

11

report to me.

12

With regard -- so the letters that were attached to the

13

memorandum, which are the bulk of the memorandum that counsel

14

referred to 30 pages, I'm not sure it's that long but both of

15

them are letters that counsel's had for many, many months so

16

there's nothing new there.

17

The letters of support demonstrate what is obviously true in

18

this case:

19

of great substance, a man of great potential, a family man, a

20

man committed to his community, a man who has demonstrated that

21

he's committed to bicycle safety.

22

Stanford, he does bicycle safety training for people, he does

23

regular riding.

24

30,000 miles.

25

hurt anybody, he's never seriously been implicated in any event

26

involving a bicycle or a motor vehicle for that matter.

27
28

That Mr. Bucchere is a man of great character, a man

He was on the bicycle team at

He has ridden in his lifetime over

He has never been in an accident, he has never

His driving record is clean, his criminal history is clean.

He is a man who gives back to his society, who knows how

196

fortunate he is, who cares for his community, and for his

neighbors and for his family.

In this matter, the factors the Court is to consider

pursuant to Penal Code 17(b) militate very strongly in favor of

a reduction to a misdemeanor should the Court find that there's

a basis for a finding that the offense was committed.

THE COURT:

Mr. Talai, the 17(b) issue.

MR. TALAI:

Sure.

9
10
11

Given that Mr. Cassman, obviously, which

is within his right, relied on some hearsay regarding

Mr. Bucchere, it's also within my right to do the same thing.
I don't personally know the Defendant but I do know that the

12

day of this incident, he submitted a blog and that blog I think

13

is very telling of his character.

14

MR. CASSMAN:

Is the blog before the Court?

15

THE COURT:

It is not before the Court.

16

MR. TALAI:

And within that blog, he says, "In closing, I

17

want to dedicate this story to my late helmet."

18

want to dedicate this story to the man whose skull he fractured,

19

the man whose brain he forced to hemorrhage.

20

dedicating this story to the man that he killed.

21

This is a form of a homicide.

He does not

He is not

And it's not a murder, it's

22

not as serious as a murder, that's why it's not filed as a

23

murder.

24

experienced cyclist, I find more worrisome.

25

familiar with that intersection is more worrisome, that he knows

26

how busy it is at 8:00 a.m., that he is supposedly so

27

experienced having been on the Stanford's riding team.

28

are going above the speed limit --

He was extremely reckless.

The fact that he is an

The fact that he is

When you

197

MR. CASSMAN:

MR. TALAI:

Excuse me, Your Honor.

If the Court looks at one of these pictures

where there's about five people or so within the intersection

and what the Defendant did according to Mr. Nathan Pollak is

barrel down in order to speed up.

conservatively 30, 40 or probably more feet away from all these

pedestrians would be experienced enough that he would try to

avoid the collision as opposed to barrel down and speed up.

An experienced rider who was

I cannot speak further on his character other than the blog,

10

which I think is more telling than a year after the incident

11

having hired a team of attorneys and gathered a series of

12

letters.

13

more telling than what you're doing a year later when you're

14

charged with a felony.

15

I think how you act soon after the incident is far

I can say that there are family members of the victim here

16

as far as Taiwan.

17

Defendant killed on March 29th of last year, he was a very

18

important man.

19

father, he was an uncle.

20

people say, he was a very healthy and happy 71 who family

21

members told me yesterday we still needed him.

22

wanted him, we all still needed him here.

23

reasons, I feel the Court should not reduce this to a

24

misdemeanor.

25
26

THE COURT:

From what I know about the man that the

He was a husband, he was a grandfather, he was a

And while he was 71, which I've heard

It's not that we

For all those

Mr. Cassman, I'm going to give you the last word

on either the 17(b) issue or the substantives.

27

MR. CASSMAN:

Thank you, Your Honor.

28

Showing you Defense Exhibit C, Your Honor, the limit line

198

that Mr. Pollak was referring to that he finally stopped at

8:02:47, which is clearly shown on the videotape, is this line

here north of the crosswalk, on the north side of Market Street.

To suggest that what that video shows is his car stopping at the

limit line sometime before the accident, which occurred at

8:02:17, and then creeping forward a few feet towards that line

is patently absurd and wrong and misleading and it cannot be

countenanced.

before the Court and the prosecution shouldn't be making such

10

That's just wrong.

That's not the evidence

arguments to the Court.

11

THE COURT:

Anything else on the 17(b) argument?

12

MR. CASSMAN:

Okay.

I was just going to say Mr. Pollak's

13

testimony is flatly proven to be false and wrong.

14

him a liar but he's wrong.

15

And I'll move to 17(b).

I want to say this.

I didn't call

After this

16

accident, and Inspector Cadigan is here so she knows this to be

17

true, Mr. Bucchere called her about Mr. Hui's condition everyday

18

and inquired.

19

flowers.

20

man who cares and who knows that life is precious and that we

21

all have to treasure.

22

before the Court.

23

from very important and prestigious people supporting

24

Mr. Bucchere and demonstrating his good character.

He went to the hospital and brought a card and

He was concerned about Mr. Hui because he is a good

That blog is total hearsay and it's not

What is before the Court are the many letters

25

THE COURT:

Okay.

Submitted from both sides?

26

MR. TALAI:

Yes.

27

THE COURT:

Mr. Cassman, submitted?

28

MR. CASSMAN:

Thank you, Your Honor.

Yes, Your Honor.