ok your honor is the defendant detectives in this case arrested a seven year old grandmother because they didn't think she was sufficiently emotional when her husband died and because quote her makeup was not running her makeup was not running as a quote from the report that they provided to the district attorney when they sought the arrest warrant and it can't be disputed really at this point that this is goodman did not murder mr goodman and in fact that mr ruled out any objective lee reasonable basis for believing that a crime was committed or that lois didn't commit any crime so i mean it seems like our let me ask you do you agree or disagree that the facts underlying your claims against the l e p d defendants are largely and speed i disagree in the sense that the l a p d defendants dispute a lot of what mrs goodman facts are and mrs goodman certainly disputes all of the facts and circumstances on which they base their claim that there was probable cause it seems to me that you're arguing that the inference is that the opposite is true from the tally of the circumstances surrounding this mr goodman stand that were were were clearly erroneous is that your position the inferences were unreasonable the inference is that they drew the facts that they concluded are in dispute for example one of the facts they mention and their and their determination that there was probable cause was that her makeup was not running that's disputed we dispute the mrs goodman was even wearing makeup on the day that she on pyar nine college tennis matches under that with until sun that afternoon we dispute another one of the facts that they say make up the circumstances that led them to believe there's probable cause we dispute that she wasn't emotional or that she was cold number of the witnesses said she was sobbing and crying or in shock so those those facts are disputed there's no physical evidence there was zero physical evidence that tied mrs goodman to any crime or show that any crime was committed the most important thing is there was no blood spatter there blood spatter and detective mccarty the detective who actually showed up that night was a trained homicide detective he knew about he knew what blood spatter was he knew it was important knew why it was important and he looked for it and all of the officers at the house that evening your honor looked for blood spatter and on that evening they found no blood spatter the photos that they took showed no blood spatter so they didn't find out later they knew right away that there was no blood spatter mrs goodman shattered a mug against her husband's head causing the bleed and then continued to brutally beat him with a piece of the mug there was absolutely going to be blood spatter and we know that the defendants knew that because they looked for  officer who was there was there blood spatter and they were told no they sent out the criminalists two or three times to the goodman house and they swab every single wall and this is early in may within weeks looking for blood spatter so they knew it was important they knew it absolutely should have been there and they spent a lot of time looking for it and there was no blood spatter there also and none of mrs goodmans fingerprints on the mug and the part of the mug that they claim in the in their theory that mrs goodman used to hit mr goodman with had no blood on it there was a i mean you're folk there are the some facts here that are undisputed correct i mean you're highlighting some that are disputed but there are some that are undisputed correct i think it's undisputed the mr and mrs goodman were married for fifty years now isn't disputed that the initial responders to the goodmans among call believe the scene surrounding allen's body was suspicious that's disputed your honor i mean none of that none of the first responders thought none of the first responders they saw that there was a lot of blood is what they saw it was a surprisingly deep laceration to mr reason that's disputers because we know later that there that these lacerations weren't that deep that they were all superficial so that is disputed we don't dispute that he said that i mean we have no way of disputing that he said that but it's is there any broken bones do you dispute you dispute that i can't dispute the dr wang wrote in the in the report homicide after four months so i guess if people can't dispute that i know you dispute you know that there was any basis for itan but from the police perspective they get he made that determination a month after he completed the last test four months after the autopsy after twenty unrecorded meetings with the l a p d defendants after months of them telling him falsely that the is waiting that he needs to close the case there's a lot of pressure on dr wong dr wong provided no explanation for why there was a homicide but the his expert says clearly not a homicide nothing quote unquote nothing supported the notion of a homicide so i can't dispute that dr wong ultimately wrote homicide but what we can point out and that's what the police relied on the police didn't rely on that your honor because in the in august fourteenth follow up investigation report the police wrote dr wong is going to conclude that this is a homicide which corresponds to our conclusion as well so in other words what would happen if dr  it's undetermined i can't determine whether was a homicide or or not a homicide l a p d defendants had already determined it was a homicide they could have gone on and pursued the case the only way they couldn't to pursue the case or would have been very difficult for them to p case is if dr wong had said no this was an accident then it would have been difficult but he was while he was very helpful to them he was in an absolutely essential part and and his failure to determine homicide didn't p them from going forward in treating this as a homicide and it didn't even factor into their determination that it was a homicide because they said themselves they had already determined that it was a homicide so i don't think the l a p d think you're actually five minute mark no other court has ever applied by applying this judicial deception analysis to a multi volume or book what you claim against their claim against the corners for false arrest and malicious find that the coroner's failure to include the two most important issues in his corner report absence of defensive injuries and presence of injuries that support an accidental fall and his failure is fair to explain or justify or analyze the changing of his opinion from pending investigation to homicide can give rise to some inference that he was reckless he recklessly described or disregarded the truth  think mrs goodman deserves her day in court we think there were disputed facts we think the court applied the wrong analysis here and we think she deserves a day in court we asked this court to reverse the district court's decision thank you thank you  good morning your honour's lisa berger deputy city attorney for the city defendant mrs goodman has expressly stated that she doesn't believe her rights were violated by the investigation only by the arrest and she has expressly stated that she's not claiming there was judicial deception in obtaining the warrant so essentially this case is now narrowed down to whether or not there was any reasonable law enforcement officer could have believed there was probable cause to believe there had been a homicide and that mrs goodman was involved now what we have here is a case with very unique facts and to this day nobody has come up with a plausible theory of what happened that explains all of the evidence this is goodman council relies a lot on one particular line from one particular report but yes because  when you look at all of the ac for the whole thing and i'm not used to being on t v there were multiple experts that reached multiple different conclusions but even if you look at the ones on which this is  goodman really relies for example mr babel in order to explain the blood on the first floor speculated maybe mr goodman had a completely unrelated nosebleed that day and nobody has been able to explain why he was found lying neatly on a towel that had been laid on the bed there are multiple interpretations of the evidence and unless no reasonable law enforcement officer let's let's focus  it's it's reasonable for the l a p d the to conclude that mr goodman is death was a homicide the evidence connecting this is goodman to this crime was arguably rather thin so what's your best argument as to why there was probably cost her arrest specifically misess mrs goodman was the last person to be with mr goodman there was no evidence that anybody had entered the  townhouse is that enough there was also evidence of motive and that nobody else wants what's the motive evidence there there was evidence that over the course of at least four years that she had not been taking as good care of her husband as she should have been there with the adult protective services report made by the v a doctor for years prior to the death there were multiple notes in the records of how he was unable to self medicate when she would go away for weeks at a time because he couldn't read the pill bottles there was the incident when she had to call nine one one because he gave himself insulin because he misunderstood when he should and shouldn't give himself insulin why is that i was the nine one one call on the insulin trouble to her it's only an indication that in fact despite he disavowal that he was not able to take care of himself and when she would go for a walk away for weeks at a time without you know maybe somebody would come in and you know pop in and visit him somewhat like i have someone do for my cats when i go out of town  and may have been doing that for her cats as well that it was not sufficient there were indications that she had on more than a few occasions complained that she he call her all the time that it was interfering essentially with her ability to to go out and do things because he didn't want to go out anymore there were and there was an indication from the a strange daughter that she would not be at all surprised if if something untoward happened yes it was entirely circumstantial yes it was a lot of little different facts but as judge prager sim pointed out probable cause is a fairly low bar and to overcome summary judgment and particularly qualified immunity this is the admin needed to show that no reasonable law officer could have looked at this circumstantial evidence looked at the facts of the case and concluded that this was a homicide and that mrs goodman was involved it once the case is filed further investigation may or may not have revealed more evidence of her involvement but certainly the claim that she was completely exonerated because the blood on her pants wasn't her husband's and because she passed a polygraph test is putting a lot of weight on even thinner ground than are claimed the police had so there's no basis to reverse the summary judgment the fact that that multiple experts reach different conclusions certainly supports the idea that there was probable cause to believe there had been a homicide so again unless no reasonable officer could have looked at the circumstances of her being the only one on the scene her being the only one with access to the house her having shown signs of just really being tired of being the sole caretaker for her husband and not providing the care that perhaps he needed all of that was sufficient for reasonable law enforcement officers to believe that she was involved the fact that other law enforcement officers might not have agreed is not the level of this not the standard in order to overcome particularly qualified immunity would have to be shown that no reasonable law enforcement officers could have found it to be sufficient and they also have the da who found the evidence regarding her to be sufficient the and of course the arrest warrant the mrs goodman has basically said that she's not claiming judicial deception in painting the arrest warrant so it's just is the information available to the judge who issued the warrant sufficient on its face and our only argument against that is that well they just used the five books that there was no separate express labeled affidavit document that set forth all of the evidence that had been gathered during and lining your honour's on a rotter on behalf of the coroner's office as judge progress and said a few minutes ago there are a lot of cases where we have three corners and three different opinions the standard for liability here this isn't one of not see how any examiner could have competent and classify mr goodwin's death a homicide and that there were aspects of dr ryan's report that appeared to be extremely below the standard for an autopsy so with at least to a reckless disregard for the accuracy of the report doctor dr sheridan was mostly focused on this wound in the mouth that was actually what he said was the only thing that he thought was really beyond the standard of care and that and he says to everything else without without this wound in the mouth that maybe reasonable corners could differ and then he sees it happen and that everything else is a matter of an opinion interpretation so it's really dr sheridan's opinion really comes down to this mouth will and dr sheridan's initial report criticized the coroner for not even looking in the mouth and not noting any problem in the mou gentle region is where the gum line connects to the cheek and the mouth so so the coroner's report did actually describe something in the mouth it appears that dr sheridan miss that in his initial report at the deposition dr sheridan is asked about this comment in the report and he says i don't think dr wayne was describing what i see i think he must have been describing something else in the mou and so already you have dr sheridan backing off a little bit of the claim that clearly didn't look in the mouth because in the report there's something documented in the mouth there are also photos that are taken with the autopsy they show this region in the mouth dr sheridan as looks at one photo and says well i can't say for sure i wasn't there and i'll read you exactly what dr sheridan says he says he says something to the effect of you know it wasn't i wasn't there i don't know for sure but my impression is he didn't see that then they say what was he looking at in the mouth then and dr sheridan says well there's another picture in the mouth of a different lesion and he might have been describing that one but already shared and opinion is much less categorical than it was originally and dr wang says looking at the same photo that d  basically everyone else except for dr sheridan who's looked at this thing says this is not a traumatic injury this is a denture your attention so dr sheridan is putting all this weight the reason why he thinks this malthusian is so critical rules out homicide because it shows that because the injury is only inside the mouth and not on the outside lip that must be what happened is that mr goodman had a coffee mug in his mouth and he fell and the coffee mug of certainty that is required before a medical exam or can label the cause of death as homicide said that for him it's about ninety percent but the standard for especially on qualified immunity the standard is there is substantial showing that he in fact subjectively didn't believe his conclusion not that he was negligent this is not a negligent standard so even if dr sheridan had said this report doesn't meet the standards which again doctor should and only said missing the mouth lesion doesn't meet the standard the rest of the report he said maybe reasonable minds could differ without the mouth but again the standard is subjective beliefs and it's true that you can in subjective belief if there are obvious circumstances that would cause you to doubt the veracity qualified immunity you need a case that's pretty close on point you the supreme court keeps reminding us over and over again i'm qualified immunity the facts have to match pretty closely to real to put every reasonable person on notice the only cases that we've got on this reckless disregard standard and on the obvious circumstances did out the veracity are very far afield from this when we have the gall both opinion it is the only ninth circuit opinion on this that's a case of the twelve the six motions or accepting the facts in the complaint as they're alleged the allegation there is that the corner in his report says i  the knack and based on my review of the organs i find strangulation the allegation is you examine the body and you found that the neck has not been dissected that sounds pretty reckless because you've got the corner claiming to have done something and you've got hard physical evidence that there is no possibility of corner to the other cases the coroner says medical examiner says this little lacy case this is a district court case the the medical examiner says i very carefully at the autopsy measured the size of a wound with my ruler i measured it and i was very careful and i checked and then a week before trial the prosecutor says to the medical examiner you know your wound size doesn't match up with a theory it's going to make it hard to defend this case or to prosecute this case rather look at this photo that's not scaled looks to me like it might be small or you got the right size wrong in the medical terms is ok and testified at trial that that's what happen that he was essentially lying or didn't believe himself and you've got here the da saying well more than any of the reports i looked at were the photos i looked at the photos and it just didn't look like an accident he had way too many injuries on his head and on his face they were deep there was blood all over the house it was clear to me that he was murdered this is what the d a is saying and this is a scene where you find someone who's here is savard he's got gashes all over you've got a corner on sign out duty saying in  years i've never seen a fall case that looks like this it just doesn't add up and the question is is all of that really enough to say it's a substantial showing that dr wong must not have really believed his conclusion court is start there's no probable cause here no reasonable officer could have thought there was probable cause it's just impossible what we've heard today is that you have a dead body and there's one person in the house and there's some sort of marital background or whatever that that is probable cause at a low bar it isn't probable cause a low bar there's no probable cause the guy wasn't murdered she didn't do it and that's the end of it any reasonable officer would have known not that's what we want to prove what i want to address very briefly is the i d is what i look at is business as usual with forty three years in this i may still be a child but they didn't do they didn't do it by the book and when they don't do things by the book you start to question what's going on for example then counsel got a hold of the l a p d the detective the take is pushing mrs goodman around saying we're going to file charges on you then counsel says well if you want to file charges will bring her down she went down to the station and woodland hills three times on her own but that wasn't good enough for them when it came time we have to do business as lawyers we have to do business with the police we'll bring the client in that's not what the l a p d wanted they had this vendetta going on this huge of a are kind of thing against her where instead of allowing her to come in and surrender they concocted this absurd sed absurd scheme where they went to new york city to arrest her where they've alerted the media where they have this media sideshow where she is embarrassed she's humiliated she's put on national t v international t v for that matter and and she's made to look ridiculous and for what and then she's taken a rikers island in new york for in a no hole if you will and what does the l a p d do then singular in my experience singular in my forty three years l a p d goes on good morning america to talk about how they've arrested this guilty us open tennis referee they're not doing it by the book we call that malice that's what we would like to prove in district court that they were malicious toward mrs goodman that they didn't have probable cause they were malicious malice continues to this day she's got a tiny little insurance policy twenty thousand dollars policy every time she's tried to collect on it l a p d this particular fellow has told the insurance company we're still investigating she's still a suspect don't give her twenty thousand dollars we think that is malicious we would like to prove that below thank you very much i think you offer here for your argument today  the matter of the lowest goodman versus the city of los angeles police department will be s