By JoJo Kofman
SAN FRANCISCO, CA – A preliminary hearing for two men charged with murder in July 2020 moved into its sixth day Wednesday in San Francisco County Superior Court – the homicide victim is the cousin of the husband of the New District of San Francisco Attorney Brooke Jenkins.
Judge Victor M. Hwang said he expects the hearing to end on Friday, which will mark his eighth day.
The co-defendants in the case are two black men, both 20 years old, Sincere Pomar and Stevie Mitchell.
Assistant District Attorney Aaron Laycook called San Francisco Police Officer (first name not available) Cheung for an examination – he had received video surveillance from 650 Gilman Dr, Candlestick RV park.
Cheung had gone to Gilman Dr to review video evidence the night of the homicide, as well as on several subsequent dates.
As Cheung described the steps he took to review the video evidence he received from the owner of the CCTV system, defense attorney Pamela Herzig objected.
Defense attorney Herzig said, “I have a fundamental objection to his second trip to 650 Gilman Dr to review the video evidence and what he learned on camera on that trip,” noting what she suggested was an inconsistency regarding the timestamp on the video evidence.
Cheung replied that he performed a time calibration of the surveillance system clock when he returned to Gillman Drive for the second time.
In response, Herzig noted that Cheung did not indicate anywhere on the form that he had changed the date or time of the recording device.
Reiterating his point, the defense attorney pointed out that on the first form Cheung filled out, he had indicated “no” to the question that asked if someone had changed the time of the recording device, adding : “But now it states that it changed the time of the recording device after the initial recovery.
Cheung said, “It was my mistake not to write that down,” explaining that the owner of the security monitoring system asked him to recalibrate the system to get the correct time and date.
When defense attorney Herzig asked Cheung if he took note of this system calibration, Cheung replied, “I didn’t.”
Defense attorney Herzig later confirmed that none of the forms indicated Cheung and the owner of the surveillance system had a conversation about the time adjustment.
Cheung described the monitoring system saying, “The monitoring system had its own internal monitoring time…usually with older systems we see some time lag.”
Defense attorney Herzig continued the cross-examination, noting that when Cheung returned to Gilman Dr. for the second time, he spoke with the CCTV company, who told Cheung that the CCTV camera recorded continuously and that it was also motion activated.
Herzig showed that, on the form, Cheung indicated that the camera recorded continuously, but did not indicate that it was motion activated. Cheung replied that he had just noticed this mistake during his own testimony.