MATTHEW RAFAT

1
Pro Per
2

3 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

4 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
5 HALL OF JUSTICE
6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Case No. C1914108
7 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT’S TRIAL BRIEF
8 v. Date: October 13, 2020
9 MATTHEW RAFAT, Time: 9:00 a.m.
10 Defendant. Dept: 52
11 Judge: Hon. Griffin M.J. Bonini
12 Case Filed: July 24, 2020
13 Warrant/Charge: July 30, 2019
14 (1900129088)
15
16 Defendant MATTHEW RAFAT (“MATTHEW”) respectfully submits the following trial
17 brief in the above-referenced matter.
18
INTRODUCTION
19 This case involves an alleged misdemeanor at SAP Arena during a two-day basketball
20 event in March 2019 during which SJPD officers were paid by a corporate entity for their
21 presence. The warrant and police report contradict each other in terms of the specific Penal Code
22 violation. The warrant, signed by Judge Cynthia A. Sevely on July 30, 2019, cites an “offense of
23 PC602.1-M-OBSTRUCT OR INTIMIDATE BUSINESS OPERATORS.” However, the police
24 report states an offense of “tresspassing.” [sic]
25 Nonetheless, the DA’s Office has confirmed it understands it must prove all the elements
26 in PC 602.1, and the only subsection that applies to a private entity (rather than public agency) is
27 PC 602.1(a), which requires the government to prove “intentional interference with a lawful
28 business by obstructing or intimidating those attempting to carry on business, or their

DEFENDANT’S TRIAL BRIEF 1

 1 customers, and who refuses to leave the premises…” [Emphases added]
2 LEGAL AUTHORITY

3 PC 602.1(a) ”Any person who intentionally interferes with any lawful business or
4 occupation carried on by the owner or agent of a business establishment open to the public, by
5 obstructing or intimidating those attempting to carry on business, or their customers, and who
6 refuses to leave the premises of the business establishment after being requested to leave by the
7 owner or the owner's agent, or by a peace officer acting at the request of the owner or owner's
8 agent, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for up to 90 days,
9 or by a fine of up to four hundred dollars ($400), or by both that imprisonment and fine.”
10 On information and belief, the only relevant judicial council form jury instruction is
11 2930. Trespass: To Interfere With Business (Pen. Code, § 602(k)).
12 LEGAL ANALYSIS
13 It is impossible for the State of California to prove any willful interference through
14 intimidation or obstruction because objective evidence, including a contemporaneous video
15 posted to YouTube taken by Defendant, proves 1) Defendant and no one else requested police
16 presence when approached by private security at SAP Arena; 2) Defendant was polite and
17 respectful in his interactions with SAP private security when approached; and 3) Defendant
18 voluntarily and immediately left floor area where event was occurring when private security’s
19 request for police was effectuated, thereby removing himself from the possibility of any
20 obstruction of the event as well as intimidation of guests.
21 SJPD’s own police report confirms the aforementioned when it states, the Defendant “left
22 his seat and came down the stairs to the concourse level” before being placed “under arrest.” The
23 police report also admits police offered Defendant a “citation” (aka “cite and release”) in lieu of
24 an arrest, further proving Defendant’s compliance with police orders as well as his willingness to
25 leave the premises. (A “cite and release” is incompatible with intentional refusal to leave the
26 premises because it involves release of the suspect rather than custody or further police action
27 beyond issuing a citation.) Finally, the Defendant attended the second day of the event without
28 incident, and no one disputes Defendant paid for and had valid tickets for both days of the event.

DEFENDANT’S TRIAL BRIEF 2

 1 It gets worse for the State of California. Assuming the video taken during the event by
2 Defendant is admissible, all witnesses, based on their own statements in the police report, are

3 objectively non-credible due to lying or clear drunkenness. All evidence in fact points to a sober
4 Defendant surrounded by drunk persons or staff who failed to do their jobs at the first day of the
5 event. Moreover, it is undisputed that Defendant never made physical contact with any guests,
6 including the drunk male guest in a group of four, all of whom remained seated while Defendant
7 asked the drunk male guest to stop making potentially racist hand gestures. In contrast to the
8 group of four, which included two males, Defendant was a single, unaccompanied, unarmed
9 person.
10 CONCLUSION
11 As of the date of this brief and less than one week to the pre-trial conference set on
12 October 1, 2020, the DA’s Office has not provided any police bodycam footage to Defendant as
13 required under the Brady rule. The key exculpatory evidence from the bodycam footage would
14 be an officer offering Defendant a “cite and release” outside the SAP Arena main building. The
15 police report mentions bodycams but it is unclear if all officers involved were actually using
16 them.
17 The only rational reason for this prosecution is that the DA’s Office is abusing its
18 discretion on behalf of a powerful alliance between the local government and a major
19 corporation that pays substantial monies to SJPD every year. Defendant seeks to show a pattern
20 of corruption, misconduct, and harassment by the State of California--in which every major
21 political entity is controlled by a single party--against an outspoken political minority not a
22 member of the state’s de facto single party rule.
23
24 Dated: October 1, 2020
By:
25 MATTHEW RAFAT
PRO PER
26
27
28

DEFENDANT’S TRIAL BRIEF 3