![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/SF-Hall-of-Justice-2021-3-e1715713621181-765x510.jpg\")
\n\t\tSan Francisco Hall of Justice \u2013 Photo by David M. Greenwald\t\t<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\tSan Francisco Hall of Justice \u2013 Photo by David M. Greenwald\t\t<\/p>\n
SAN FRANCISCO \u2014 Closing arguments in a San Francisco Superior Court trial centered on whether the accused intended to sell narcotics and whether he knowingly fled the scene of an alleged hit-and-run, as prosecutors and defense attorneys offered sharply different interpretations of the evidence and witness testimony during proceedings July 15 in Department 21.<\/p>\n
Deputy District Attorney Andre Guiulfo and Deputy Public Defender Deborah Awolope presented evidence and witness testimony related to allegations of a hit-and-run and possession of narcotics for sale.<\/p>\n
As outlined in Guiulfo\u2019s closing argument, the accused was involved in two incidents. First, on June 11, 2025, the accused allegedly struck a homeless man who was lying on a mattress in the street and then drove away. At the time of his arrest for the alleged hit-and-run, officers found narcotics and nearly $2,000 on the accused. After being released from custody, the accused was arrested again on July 21, 2025, for allegedly selling methamphetamine and cocaine base in San Francisco\u2019s Tenderloin district.<\/p>\n
According to Guiulfo, the case was \u201cabout [the accused], leaving a man in the middle of the street to protect his drug stash,\u201d in order to \u201cavoid having his drugs, which he intended to sell, taken by the police.\u201d<\/p>\n
In contrast, Awolope argued during her closing argument that the accused did not flee the scene because he possessed narcotics but instead because he was \u201calready on his way out.\u201d<\/p>\n
Guiulfo continued by outlining what he described as the \u201cundisputed facts\u201d of the case. According to Department of Motor Vehicles records, the accused owned the Chevy Tahoe seen in surveillance footage of the alleged hit-and-run. During an on-scene interview with arresting officers, the accused confirmed he was the only person who had driven the vehicle that day. During both incidents, the accused was found with methamphetamine and cocaine base on his person.<\/p>\n
Guiulfo presented Judge Teresa Caffese and the jury with video of the victim\u2019s emergency treatment in which the victim said, \u201cit\u2019s my right leg\u201d and \u201ceverything hurts up there.\u201d Guiulfo also argued the victim\u2019s \u201cpain is authenticated\u201d by medical records documenting \u201cpain, abrasions, and swelling in the right leg.\u201d<\/p>\n
Guiulfo then turned to what he described as the \u201cdisputed facts\u201d of the case, arguing that the purpose of the narcotics \u2014 possession for sale versus personal use \u2014 was a critical distinction.<\/p>\n
Guiulfo emphasized the quantity and variety of narcotics found in the accused\u2019s possession, as well as the absence of drug-use paraphernalia found during either arrest.<\/p>\n
According to Officers Hargreaves and Thomas Smith, whom Guiulfo described as \u201cseasoned narcotics officers,\u201d the \u201cregular\u201d amount of methamphetamine and cocaine base used for personal consumption is about 0.2 to 0.5 grams per use. A \u201cheavy user,\u201d they testified, would consume up to 2 to 3 grams at one time.<\/p>\n
Guiulfo noted the accused possessed 10.9 grams of methamphetamine and 3.1 grams of cocaine base during the first incident, and 7.1 grams of methamphetamine and 3.5 grams of cocaine base during the second incident.<\/p>\n
Guiulfo argued those amounts exceeded the \u201cregular\u201d quantities described by the officers, saying they were \u201cnot consistent with a user\u201d but would \u201cmake sense if [the accused] were selling.\u201d<\/p>\n
Guiulfo further argued that, during both incidents, there were \u201cno signs of any tools used to ingest these narcotics.\u201d He added that arresting officers found \u201cNo pipes, just drugs, exactly what you would expect from a seller,\u201d suggesting the accused possessed the narcotics for sale rather than personal consumption.<\/p>\n
Guiulfo also highlighted the accused\u2019s behavior after the collision while presenting surveillance video of the incident. Guiulfo said there was a \u201cslight pause, deliberation\u201d after the collision while the accused was \u201cthinking about what\u2019s gonna happen next.\u201d<\/p>\n
Guiulfo ultimately argued the accused \u201cdidn\u2019t want to lose his stash\u201d of drugs during an encounter with police following the collision.<\/p>\n
During the second arrest, Officer Hargreaves testified he observed a hand-to-hand narcotics transaction involving the accused in the Tenderloin, nearly the same location as the first arrest.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat\u2019s [the accused\u2019s] spot to sell drugs. This isn\u2019t an accident or a mistake, this is a clear choice,\u201d Guiulfo said.<\/p>\n
Guiulfo also addressed what he characterized as potential sources of reasonable doubt, focusing primarily on the possibility that the accused possessed the narcotics for personal use.<\/p>\n
To accept that explanation, Guiulfo argued, jurors would have to believe three things. First, that the accused was a \u201csuper human drug user,\u201d because the amount found exceeded what officers testified would be consumed in one use. Second, that the accused was a bulk buyer, even though Guiulfo argued \u201cit makes no sense for someone to buy multiple days of narcotics.\u201d Third, that it was \u201cjust a coincidence,\u201d because at the time of his arrest, the accused \u201cdidn\u2019t show signs of being under the influence and didn\u2019t have anything to use drugs with.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201c[The accused] was not a victim of drugs, there is no evidence that he consumed drugs. [The accused] was ready and willing to do anything, including leave a man on the street, to protect his stash,\u201d Guiulfo said.<\/p>\n
Awolope began her closing argument by reminding jurors of the legal standards of the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. She told jurors they must presume the accused innocent unless the prosecution proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.<\/p>\n
\u201cYou only need one reasonable doubt to find [the accused] not guilty. All it takes is one,\u201d Awolope said.<\/p>\n
Awolope presented video of the alleged hit-and-run, arguing the accused did not flee because he possessed narcotics but because he was \u201calready on his way out.\u201d<\/p>\n
In the video, the accused is seen waving goodbye to unidentified individuals before getting into his vehicle. As he pulled forward to back away from the curb, the vehicle drove over the mattress, pushing the victim off it. An unidentified individual wearing a gray hoodie then directed the accused to stop, reverse and pull away.<\/p>\n
Awolope argued the accused was \u201crelying on the guy in the gray hoodie\u201d for direction, also pointing to the \u201cthumbs up\u201d the unidentified individual gave the accused before he drove away.<\/p>\n
Awolope also presented a close-up video of the collision. She argued that although the vehicle drove over the mattress, the victim was \u201cpushed over,\u201d \u201cboth legs are not underneath the tire,\u201d and the victim was not \u201crolled over.\u201d<\/p>\n
The victim is also seen lying on his left side on the mattress. Awolope noted it was the victim\u2019s \u201cleft side that is getting pushed,\u201d despite medical records and statements indicating the victim\u2019s right side was injured.<\/p>\n
In video from the on-scene interview with arresting officers, the accused said, \u201cI didn\u2019t hit him, I hit the mattress,\u201d and \u201cI pulled back, the guy told me.\u201d<\/p>\n
The accused also stated, \u201cThere\u2019s a dude that already flipped him off the mattress.\u201d Awolope argued the victim\u2019s abrasion may have resulted from an earlier incident rather than from the accused\u2019s vehicle.<\/p>\n
The victim\u2019s medical records showed \u201cno bone fractures,\u201d only swelling, redness and tenderness. The victim had also visited the emergency room on May 15, 2025, before the incident. Awolope argued, \u201cHe\u2019s already having issues, he\u2019s already experiencing pain.\u201d Emergency Medical Technician Sean Delise also testified that, when he treated the victim, he \u201cdidn\u2019t know the cause of the abrasions.\u201d<\/p>\n
Awolope also challenged the prosecution\u2019s narcotics evidence, noting that officers found a razor blade and a lighter on the accused, even though Guiulfo \u201csaid there was no paraphernalia.\u201d Awolope argued a razor blade could be used to divide narcotics and a lighter could be used to smoke them for personal use.<\/p>\n
Awolope also referenced testimony from defense drug expert Kathy O\u2019Brient. O\u2019Brient testified it is \u201ccommon\u2026to have large quantities of substances\u201d because people \u201cget the best deal the more they buy.\u201d Awolope argued that, based on O\u2019Brient\u2019s testimony about San Francisco\u2019s drug culture, it was reasonable to conclude the accused possessed larger quantities of narcotics for personal use.<\/p>\n
Awolope concluded by urging jurors to apply the law governing circumstantial evidence, arguing that when two reasonable explanations exist \u2014 one pointing to innocence and the other to guilt \u2014 jurors must choose the interpretation favoring innocence.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat is what the law requires,\u201d Awolope said.<\/p>\n
Jurors were scheduled to begin deliberations on July 16, 2026. Sentencing will follow if the accused is convicted.<\/p>\n
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:<\/p>\n
Facebook: https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/DavisVanguard<\/a><\/p>\n LinkedIn: https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc\/<\/a><\/p>\n Instagram: https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/davisvanguard\/<\/a><\/p>\n X: https:\/\/x.com\/davisvanguard<\/a><\/p>\n Bluesky: https:\/\/bsky.app\/profile\/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social<\/a><\/p>\n Subscribe <\/a>to the Vanguard News letters.\u00a0 To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org\/donate<\/a> or give directly through ActBlue<\/a>.\u00a0 Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.<\/p>\n Categories: Breaking News<\/a> Court Watch<\/a> National Court Watch<\/a> San Francisco Court Watch<\/a> Vanguard Court Watch<\/a> Tags: Court Watch<\/a> Criminal Justice<\/a> Hit-and-Run<\/a> narcotics prosecution<\/a> Possession for Sale<\/a> San Francisco Superior Court<\/a>