understood your honor i think when you look at the totality of the record here it's clear that daniel garza was denied his right to a fair trial in the mono portion of this case and there are a number of ways in which he was denied a fair trial based on the exclusion of relevant evidence the jury was here was deprived of the key evidence it needed to decide whether the city of los angeles who is the defendant here or not chief that the city of los angeles made the conscious affirmative choice to promote officer cardona within three weeks of a jury verdict against him finding constitutional violations they start him acting maliciously when he battered and essentially tortured who guards when he was subdued and he applied a painful wrist law and i'd like to go through each and every one of those pieces of evidence that was excluded i think any one of those pieces of evidence or risk losing warrant reversal here and when you put excerpts of record eight o five it's a letter on chief that's letterhead there's a video of this incident a large portion of the incident after mister gars it is subdued and in that letter on eight o five under chief that's letterhead it says the act you complained of occurred but we find this to be lawful justified lawful improper and so this is relevant to chief beck is the final policy maker approving the conduct and the basis for what do we have to prove more to prove ratification we have to prove that the city of los angeles approve the act and the basis for all of it we have a piece of evidence a letter that goes out and she spends letterhead in which they say we've reviewed the act we've witnessed the conduct and we say that it's lawful just divide and proper what more compelling piece of evidence could there be for ra ication yet the judge in the or twenty in the excerpt of record on page twenty in a footnote just as i'm excluding the letter without it is a legal basis for the exclusion now it is true that previously he had decided against us on summary judgment that the letter alone could not constant gratification he said without additional evidence and of course here we do have additional evidence you have  correct it was my question was limited to what he subjectively knew and this is where i think the court erred as as a matter of law your honor because the case was clear that under the hammond versus county of mid air a case for instance only evidence that was relevant was what chief that would subjectively admit that he knew and excluding everything else the court made reversible errors in the following ways one a clear case law for based on having versus county of los angeles that holds that municipal decision makers may not insulate themselves from liability by attempting to delegate themselves out of responsibility and in fact in  cited as a matter of law that the defendants had ratified their conduct and it also hold the board the defendant there the board was charged with knowledge of the laws so incorrect analysis of the law that this was added statute his hands were tied and he could not he could not interfere with officer cardona as promotion because he was informed there was out a statute that is depositions or something that was just wrong and as a trial so in terms of your honor's point where you were given the opportunity to cross examine him as we've made clear in our in our papers i had impeachment i had impeachment evidence that he made the bridge decision not to reopen this investigation and inexplicably the trial judge would not allow me to read that impeachment evidence into the records on the very point that we have to prove that she had made a deliberate decision not to reopen this investigation he was allowed to bring up a new defense that he had testified to a trial and i was not allowed to impeach him on earth if you look at the record every time i would ask him him a question about about these items and i can you know a bit basically point you out to the pages in the record he would fall back on well this is out of statu that is correct as a matter of law under government code section three thousand three hundred and four subsection f if there is pending civil litigation that involves a public safety officers and is read to the public that civil case itself holds the statute of limitations so it was within the statute of limitations and so the other is a good i mean even if even if he was mistaken on i mean the long long list of of of the th circuit in supreme court decisions that says that one is constructive knowledge can be used against the policymaker so the fact that he should have had constructive knowledge to that is an objective standard not a subjective standard and three that you cannot delegate responsibility and then claiming i didn't know so all of those all of those doctrines that if you look at the ha case and again castro versus city of los angeles th circuit two thousand and sixteen case it quotes the supreme court that they strongly suggest that the blue liberty different standard for municipalities is always and then when you take into consideration what actually occurred here you have a city attorney who is the agent of the city of los angeles now i would bring your honor back to the end our versus city of cincinnati case in which the policy maker who tried to the delegate saying well i was following me the advice of the district attorney in that case they said no you can't claim that you're just following it legal advice from the legal advice is wrong this is a ten a case in which they ended up breaking into someone who hadn't complied with awards it was clearly contrary to law and no you broke the law though in this case you have a city attorney as the agent of the city of los angeles that actually argue position trial in fact it was so brazen your honor that when the city attorney argued in her clothes in our respect for the city attorney's office in los angeles but she actually argued that there was no evidence here that there you had a supervisor commander prokop would testified in that st trial that would he view that video that officers conduct was unreasonable unprofessional and you have  here that we were able to get into evidence his response to interact the tories which said i reviewed the internal investigation and then another major error here was that we couldn't get into evidence anything about the st trial so you had and how was a jury supposed to make a decision as to whether a promotion ratifies prior misconduct without context about what their prior misconduct was we weren't allowed to play the video we were that officer cardona had battered mister garza over twenty times twenty times while mister garza was just protecting himself and not fighting back the jury was not given any of that evidence i could ask chief that did you know about it chief that says no i didn't know about it and then i had no evidence in the city attorney in her closing argument actually if you review it i argued that that you didn't hear any evidence of the commander saying that this was unreasonable you just heard mister pease of on asking about it you just heard daniel garza's mother saying that's what happened so they were able to retreat from the position and the concept of traditionalists stoppel just does not allow for that because they were able to take advantage of what they did in the st instance in the st trial to avoid compensating mister carson so what you are not hearing the judge so what would have happened is that all that happened is there would have been the reopening of the investigation and the city of los angeles would have been given the opportunity to review all the evidence that harry a misstatement of the law instead of allowing the objective evidence and what he constructively knew and we were denied we submitted jury instructions on agency and the jury instructions basically said city attorney is an agent and  should have constructive knowledge of all those that the city attorney had and that is what the law is and there is no reason not to why those bedrock concepts of law in terms of agency here and i see i have a minute thirty left and if there's no more result he wanted he wants to retry everything that existed before but that's simply not what's at issue here on the on the contrary some of what happened before right well part of based on ceefax understanding that they were out of statute and there was no or did you know reasonably they weren't well what happened was he would have been sued by everyone on that transfer order for her improperly denying them promotions they were legally entitled to represented the police department for many years right of course the point of the investigation is to determine whether or not the opposite it consistently with the policies of the right and  well the trial is much broader than the internal investigation report the trial covered or the entire range of activities that took place and everything cardona did there was also a different body of evidence that was considered there were there were different witnesses or testified they were asked if a question the jury delta but he would disagree based on the evidence the jury saw but whether the risk like was appropriate or not has nothing to do with whether he was acting as a police officer would engage those are two completely different questions well that's not true actually it caused it he party i think that may be a stretch of interstate sure i think they were just looking at the physical actions that were taking place not whether he was in the course or scope or d or are other more theoretical the mayor that's a completely different legal consideration i'm not even sure internal that is a lot more than the chief of police generally gets involved in a civil service promotion he was already making grace and based on all the understand he had there was nothing to be done because as far as the city knew he only lost involved is the federal one and that was filed more than a year after the incident so the time was told they were out of statute there was nothing to be done and that matters because you can't accidentally ratify something she changed back wasn't indorsing anything cardona did you thought it was doctored or statute ones in this case if he had found evidence he could use that was i was that there was something he could use all the new information he could and he has some ability to use that but that is something a file policymaker the fact that he's in the process and has some discretion in this process does not make point someone has to be the person who is the know you are you saying that he has no discretion on who to promote or who not to promote based upon not not based upon sort of ignoring or violating any laws or regulations but simply based on the facts that  also has veto power over new recruits who haven't finished the probationary period those are both facilities provided for that in the charter but with regard to the lower price ballou tenet it is absolutely not true what she has no discretion about that you might have some ability to affect it it is certain bad results the way that worked out but then they decided to take that away from the chain of command the police and make it a civil service is asian as a way of making it more fair and less discriminatory and more or less personal politics and all sorts of all the reasons you have a civil service the of how you have a bystander to function in the system that's a gift or an issue from what the how the charter says it should work yeah just yet as a practical matter maybe that's how you all have that shows that the city of los angeles is liable he could have reopened the investigation into cardona after the jury's verdict to see whether or not the internal affairs investigation properly adjudicated that this was lawful has the ability to promote officer cardona within three weeks of this further and the message it sends why does he need to do it because we're talking about policies here that basically traditionally monella liability have been the type of policies the chief of police may do they tolerate or condone excessive force you have a very public verdict that was in the l a d times it was on television and you are promoted officer sergeant in three weeks the message that sends as a chief of police to the rank and file officers is that excessive force is tolerated condoned in fact you could be promoted within three weeks of being found there the other reason he needed to do that is because you have the city and he said that if it was so despicable that afternoon it has to be held to be malicious that he acted in willful and knowing just regard of mister garza's right to safety so that knowledge of the city attorney that officer the subjective standard it's an objective standard when you're looking at a sin city entity and again the famed sheriff joe arpaio was the defendant in that case they said he was a redundant defendant and they made the county  the defendant in this particular case and they said therefore you don't look at what's in our pale subjective knowledge you look at objective leave what the county knew and the same way objective the the city of los angeles knew that officer a commander saying that this conduct was unreasonable they were deprived of an eyewitness they were deprived of the video itself i mean how do you show whether or not that is ratified unless you know the actual conduct was so all we are tiptoeing around the edges of some  of we were never able to introduce evidence so i would agree that normally a jury verdict a i lose a jury verdict it's the end of being this is a case where that's not true because the jury didn't hear all the relevant evidence there are two main purposes of section one hundred and eighty three litigation one is deterrence one is compensation for client hasn't received a dime in compensation for the harm it is done to him because the office declare bankruptcy and you're not right to interfere with this promotion they had the absolute right because the statute is told when those lawsuits are file and that's in government code thirty three over four in the hands case and if the all of the supreme court progeny says those coliseum makers they are imbued with knowledge of the law they have to have knowledge of the law and it was just profoundly unfair in this trial for chief beck at every turn when i tried to cross examine sa my hands were tied i couldn't violate the law when he is misstating the law the knowledge of the law or the knowledge of the city attorney in terms of what the city he knew about the st trial should have been imputed to chief beck and again it's the city of los angeles's is the defendant and what we have here is a really bad dangerous result because we have a situation where you have a person who's civil rights were violated he's not compensated but more importantly you have in this time where we want police accountability you have a department which has provided absolutely no accountability here you have a department which said that we condone the use of excessive force we can go so far to have  one of our representatives a city attorney arguing horror that this officer acted despicably and maliciously and within three weeks promote that officer something's wrong or something is drastically wrong and this court that can right this wrong by reversing and remand him and i would suggest a couple of things one it should be joint and several liability for the authorities that we've that we've placed in there and to i think that this is so egregious that we should actually when this is a matter of war we asked for a directed verdict and i argued to judge wilson judge wilson there marking a point of law as an excuse for not interfering with this promotion that's contrary to the law contrary to government code thirty three dollars or four we should get a directed verdict and the jury wasn't given that law in three thousand three hundred and four in other words that was an injury instruction that i can then tell the jury this is the law that you have to follow and that the law that that when chief beck said the law was told is absolutely wrong this is why that wasn't a jury instruction that was given instead the jury instruction that was given was actually he added on to the th circuit ratification instruction in a way that was misleading because impeach chief that on the very key point that he deliberately chose not to reopen the investigation and that's reversible error right there that did not allow for cross thank you we understand your