Could you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear affirm the testimony you give will be the truth and nothing but the truth will help you? God. Thank you. >> All right. You can lower your hand if you'll state your name. For the record, please. >> Deputy Steven Enriquez. >> From the video that at no point in time was Mr. Jordan Davis doing anything remotely coming close to evading arrest or detention, not even fleeing. You'll see from the video that at all times Mr. Davis was driving either at the speed limit or below. He wasn't weaving within traffic. >> The trial of Jordan Davis in the case State of Texas vers Jordan Davis 2024 begins with Deputy Steven Enriquez claiming he stopped Davis for a traffic violation involving defective headlights. Texas Transportation Code section 547321 requires a vehicle to have at least two functioning headlamps, but Enriquez testified that Davis had three working headlights, contradicting his initial justification for the stop. The defense, led by attorney Alonzo Cabanas, quickly seizes on this inconsistency, pointing out that the dash cam footage admitted as states exhibit 1 shows Davis's headlights functioning properly. Enriquez admitted the alleged violation wasn't recorded, undermining his credibility. This sets the stage for Cabanas to challenge the officer's narrative, highlighting that no evidence supports the claim of a traffic violation. The judge's attention to this discrepancy foreshadows her sharp scrutiny of the prosecution's case. Parties calling 2024 CR5244, State of Texas versus Jordan Davis. Can I all parties announce for the record for the state for the defense? >> Good morning, judge. Yes, for Mr. Davis. >> And are you Mr. Davis? >> Yes, ma'am. >> All right. Uh, Mr. Davis, can you raise your right hand for me, please? Do you solemnly swear affirm the testimony you give will be the truth and nothing but the truth will help you God? >> Yes, ma'am. >> All right. You can lower your hand. State your name for the record. >> Elijah Davis. >> All right. Mr. Davis, you do realize that you have a right to a jury trial. >> Yes, ma'am. And it's a the court has received a waiver of trial by jury and you're asking to proceed with a bench trial. Is that correct? >> And you understand that means that I will hear whatever evidence is presented and make a decision on whether you're guilty or not guilty. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Council, did you go over this waiver of trial by jury with your client? And did he do you believe he understood it? >> Yes, your honor. We reviewed it yesterday. He signed it yesterday and it is his desire to make sure trial >> and state. Did you sign the waiver of um trial by jury as well? Yes, sir. >> All right. The court will find that the waiver of uh trial by jury has been voluntarily given and signed by the defendant and also signed by the state and the defense. Uh states, you may proceed. In the name and by authority of the state of Texas, the grand jury of their counting state of Texas duly organized and counter sworn as such at the March term AE 2024 of the 187th judicial district court of said county in said court at set term do present in and to set court that in the county and state of said and anterior to the presentment of this indictment on or about the fourth day of March 2024, Jordan Davis here and after referred to as defendant while using a vehicle intentionally fleeing for a person namely S. Enriquez, a person that attended the new peace officer who was attempting lawfully to oppress and retain the defendant against the peace of dignity of the statement. >> How do you plead to that? >> All right. Any opening statements? >> Yes, fairly quickly. >> All right. You may proceed. What the evidence will show is that this is not the most egregious evading in a vehicle case that this court will encounter. The evidence will show that Mr. Davis did not speed egregiously did not weave in and out of traffic. It will only show that when office when deputy and activated his patrol vehicles emergency overhead lighting to detain tofully detain Mr. Davis that Mr. Davis did not give a prompt attention and stop when sing that is link in a vehicle. It's not the worst but it's still winning and after the court hears the evidence the court should find him guilty of the offense. >> Defense any openings? >> Yes, your honor. In the rush to judgement, nirvana, the state gives themselves an added burden to their already higher burden. For example, whereas the Texas Penal Code 3804 relating arrest for detention states that >> I'm sorry, just one moment. Excuse me. On the back row, you all are talking too loud and you need to just ask the deputy to move you all to the other end. >> All right. I'm sorry. Could you uh start with the code section you're citing council? >> Yes, your honor. Texas Penal Code 3804 that talks about evading arrest for detention. The code states that a person commits an offense if he intentionally flees from a person he knows is a peace officer or federal special investigator attempting lawfully to arrest or detain him. The added burden that the state has given themselves this morning is that the indictment says, and I'm paraphrasing, a person the defendant knew was a peace officer who was attempting lawfully to arrest and detain him. So, the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this officer had to arrest and detain the defendant. Number one. Number two, your honor, you'll see from the video that at no point in time was Mr. Jordan Davis doing anything or remotely coming close to evading arrest or detention, not even fleeing. You'll see from the video that at all times, Mr. Davis was driving either at the speed limit or below. He wasn't weaving within traffic. He wasn't causing any accidents. He wasn't uh turning off his lights or causing a highspeed chase. Um, at one point during the the follow, your honor, Mr. Jordan Davis goes so much as to turn on the hazard lights to let the officer know where he's at and that he's looking for a place to park. And this is important because you'll see in the video that during the two miles that the stop is being trying Mr. D is trying to find for a safe place to stop. He's in a construction zone. He's not going or he doesn't stop in an area that's safe to him. He eventually stops in an area that is safe, well lit, and away from traffic. It may not be to the officer's liking that it took him two miles to stop, but nonetheless, at no point in time was Mr. Davis doing anything remotely close to fleeing. He wasn't doing anything remotely close to evading arrest or detention. The evidence would show the court, but again, Mr. Davis wasn't speeding. He wasn't weeding. He wasn't driving while intoxicated. He wasn't dashing into through the traffic to avoid um the officer. He was simply looking for a safe, welded place to stop, which he did. >> All right, stay call your first witness. >> Please call Deputy Enriquez. >> All right, Deputy Enriquez. >> All right, thank you. >> All right, thank you. >> All right, and everyone, we'll bring you back at 1:30. Okay. If you all would like to, you can take a seat or either we can remain up here. My understanding it's one witness. >> Your honor. >> All right. Thank you. If you'll take a seat, please. Could you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear affirm the testimony you give will be the truth and nothing but the truth will help you, God? >> Thank you. >> All right. You can lower your hand if you'll state your name for the record, please. Deputy Steven Enriquez. >> All right. Uh, stateutribe county sheriff's office. >> Can I get you to take this? >> And Sydney, do you need a microphone for the All right. Thank you. Judge Mike. >> All right. If you all want to sit, you can sit. If you want to stand up here, you can stand up here. All right. State. It's your witness. >> Do you need me to repeat my last question? >> I have deputy and please answer the last question. Yes. You play with the Bear County Sheriff's Office? >> As what? >> As a deputy sheriff officer. >> How long have you been with Bear County Sheriff's Office? >> Uh going on 7 years. >> And on March 4th, 2024, how were you employed? >> As a deputy sheriff on patrol >> and on March 2020 on March 4th, 2024, uh what were your patrol duties? uh just patrolling uh the district of Delta 30 which is commonly the calra area um searching for crime prevention and responding to uh calls for service. >> The district of Delta 30 is that in Bar County? >> Yes, sir. >> And what was the time of your patrol? >> Uh from 11:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. >> That approximately 035 house 35 minutes after midnight. Uh did you see a vehicle that got your attention? >> Yes, sir. >> What vehicle was that? >> If you recall, uh I don't recall right now, but I do have the report here. If I can refer back to that, please do. I would ask the witness be instructed to refresh his memory from the report, not read verbatim. >> All right, officer. You're allowed to refresh your memory from the report, but do not read directly from it. >> It was a red for vehicle. >> And what about that vehicle? >> Um, as it was approaching me, it did have its high beams on and uh it had three lights on instead of all four. >> Which light was not on? >> It was the passenger side and the outside. >> Was that the headlight? >> Yes, sir. Great. >> So after perceiving the high beams on and the headlight out, how did you proceed? >> Uh I conducted a U-turn as the subject was going in the opposite direction of myself and I proceeded to catch up to that vehicle as it was ahead of another vehicle. >> And did you activate your patrol vehicles emergency headlights? At that time, I did not because it was coming up to a red light and I didn't want to have conduct a traffic stop over the active red light. What happened next? Uh I pulled up next to the vehicle just to see if the uh vehicle had a seat belt on or anything like that and I did do a uh inquiry into the vehicle's license plate. >> What did you learn? >> Uh everything was up to date as far as the entrance and the uh registration. Um, all I had was the defective equipment at that point in time along with the uh the uh traffic uh I'm sorry, the transportation um violation was driving with the high beams on. >> Did the light eventually turn green? >> Yes, sir. It did. At that point, I got behind the vehicle and activated my emergency lights, which activates my fleet camera. >> Now, your fleet camera, does it begin recording when you turn on your emergency lights? It does, but it also records 30 seconds prior with no audio. >> Understood. Permission to approach. >> Granted, >> showing you what is marked one. Do you recognize this? >> Yes, I do. >> Can you tell the court what it is? >> Uh, it's the body one camera to my front dash. >> And how do you know that it is? >> Uh, it states it on there along with my signature. Have you reviewed this? Have you reviewed the contents of this test? >> Yes, sir. >> And to the best of your knowledge, have there been any alterations or dates to it? >> No, sir. >> And is it a true and accurate depiction of the events that were recorded by that device on that day? Yes, sir. >> Permission to tender to defense council for inspection. >> No objection to states number one. >> All right. States exhibit number one is admitted without objection. >> Permission to publish your art. >> Grant it. >> At this point in the recording, have you activated your emergency? >> Yes, I have. >> Did you at any point activate any other signals to indicate to this vehicle that you initiated? >> Yes, sir. as it passed uh multiple spots to pull over, that's when I activated my audible siren just to catch his attention. >> I'm stopping here. >> What to the left of this intersection did you see? >> Um there was a empty road that you could pull over to the left or to the right. >> Was it lit? >> No, sir. Now, do you see these buildings in the reporting? >> It's a shopping center with a gas station and a McDonald's. >> In your opinion, is it welded? >> Yes, sir. >> This intersection, are those buildings accessible to your view? >> Yes, sir. There accessible right there between the break and the barriers. saw a dirt road to go to that section. >> And do you see additional buildings here? >> Yes, sir. >> Do you know what those buildings were? >> That's a car wash. >> The vehicle that you're following burns. Could this vehicle have access to the left or the right? >> Object to speculation, your honor. >> Sustained. Would you have been able to access these buildings side to the left or your right? >> Yes, sir. >> Now, these buildings to the left, can you tell us what those are? Those are apartment complexes. >> And do you consider this to be a welded area based off of what you experience? >> Yes, sir. >> Now, these flights here. >> Yes, sir. >> What is this area? That's an elementary school. >> Was it accessible to you? Yes. >> And based from what you can see, is this a welded area? >> Yes. >> Now, what lights do you see on this road? Not at all. >> At this point, you pass the elementary school. >> Yes. Deputy Enriquez accused Jordan Davis of evading arrest by failing to stop promptly after the officer activated his emergency lights, citing Texas Penal Code Section 3804, which states, "A person commits an offense if he intentionally flees from a person he knows is a peace officer attempting lawfully to arrest or detain him. However, the dash cam footage reveals Davis driving at or below the speed limit, maintaining his lane, and even activating his hazard lights to signal awareness of the officer. Cabanas emphasizes that Davis didn't speed, weave through traffic, or attempt to flee, contradicting the officer's claim of evasion. Enriquez's testimony falters as he admits there's no video evidence of the alleged headlight issue and the judge begins to see through the officer's attempt to inflate a minor traffic stop into a criminal charge. >> Eventually did he identify himself or did you identify? >> Yes. >> Which one? >> Um he identify himself. >> And how did he identify himself? >> Okay. What did you say his name is? >> Uh, Jordan. >> And do you see the person that you arrested in the courtroom today? >> Yes. Right. >> Would you please point that person out by their position in the courtroom and by particularly? >> Sir, he's standing to the left of the judgment white shirt. >> Thank you. And just to reiterate, all of the events, did they occur in Bear County? >> Yes, please. >> Thank you. Absolut. >> All right, defense. >> Thank you, Judge. >> Officer Enriquez, good morning. Good morning. >> My name is Alonso Cabanas. I'm going to be asking you some questions. I'm going to start off by asking you some questions that came about from the state's um questions to you. Okay. Yes, sir. Can I go watch the video? Sure. And the mouse should still be there. It is your >> Thank you. And I'm sorry, Alfonso. Uh, do you have on the microphone for the court reporter? >> Thank you. It's so she can hear it through her headphones. system. So starting sensitivity of one officer at 2 seconds just to make I know it's correct at this point in the video. This is the dash cam from the control point. Correct. Right. And the my client's car is to your immediate left. Is that right? Yes, sir. >> Okay. You told the court that and it's in your report that the reason for the stop was that my client did not have the four headlamps. Is that correct? >> Now, which transportation code are you are you referring to when you're talking about the four headlamp required uh transportation code 547 which would be the uh the maintain maintenance of the equipment. Specifically for the uh headlights would be 547.333 which is uh turning off your headlamps from the brightness um 500 ft upon approaching other vehicle. >> Wait, let's a second because you're you're jumping the gun a little bit. Your reason for the stop and according to your testimony was that my client did not have the four headlamps. Right. So, and we'll get into the brights in a little bit, but your testimony was that he had three functioning headlights, correct? >> Yes, sir. >> Now, are you familiar with transportation code 547.321? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. 547321, correct me if I'm wrong, states that a motor vehicle shall be equipped with at least two headlamps. >> It doesn't talk about four or three, just two, right? And in Mr. Davis's case, he had not only two, he had three functioning headlights. >> Right. Hold on. We'll get there in a second. Okay. So, now that we know he has three functioning headlights, okay, your testimony is that you did a Uturn. So, in other words, your dash cam recording of these three functioning T headlamps is not on this dash cam. Correct. Correct. Did you not record that? >> Um, from the way our dash cam is mounted, there's only two ways to uh activate it. That's by turning on our emergency lights or reaching over, which is across from my computer and activating manually. >> I get it. But very simply, that wasn't recorded, right? Okay. All right. Now, >> the defense introduces the Texas Drivers Handbook, published by the Texas Department of Public Safety as a key piece of evidence to support Davis's actions. The handbook advises drivers stopped by law enforcement to slow down and move the vehicle safely to the right side of the road and park in a well-lit side street or parking lot away from high volume traffic if possible. Cabana shows that the areas Enriquez claimed Davis could have stopped, such as a shopping center, car wash, or school were all on the left, not the right, and the right side featured only unlit dirt roads or bike lanes unsafe for stopping. The officer's insistence that Davis should have stopped earlier ignores the handbook's guidance, and the judge takes note of this misalignment, further exposing Enriquez's weak justification. If you look at this video right here on the trail because you pulled the cord that you drove parallel to my client's car, you were checking to make sure that my client had what he's supposed to when somebody is driving. Right. So, you correctly stated that my client had a seat belt on. Correct. Right. I think you told the court that you ran his license plates right through it and there was no warrants coming out for him through it. Right. The car rightfully belonged to Mr. Davis, right? I already know it belonged to a family. Okay. But it wasn't identified as a stolen vehicle. Correct. Right. Um according to you, the back lights or the tail lamps were working just properly. Correct. And so at this point, I think you also indicated that while you're parallel to him, Mr. Davis is not exceeding the speed limits. Correct. Correct. He's not breathing in on the traffic. All right. He certainly does not almost hit you or you. Okay. All right. Now, starting the video at 2 seconds. Now, I'm going to try to jump to the parts that the state asked you about. Stopping the video at a minute and 47 seconds. Officer Rodriguez, this is according to you a shopping center to your left. Correct. Right. And this also is to the left of the defendant's car. Correct. Right. Now, you would agree with me that at this point, this area is still considered a a construction zone, right? >> Uh not that area, but the area before it was construction zone. Correct. >> Okay. And so to the right of your car, which is also to the right of my client's car, there's nothing but dirt road and no lights. Good. Right. Okay. So, starting the video at 147. I'm stopping it at 2 minutes and 46 seconds. Officer, I may have gone a little bit too far on the video, but again, to your left and to my client's left, we have is it a car wash or a school? No, that's a school. >> That's a school. Okay. So, we've asked the car wash, right? >> So, the school, the car wash, the shopping center, all these three locations were to the left of your vehicle and to the left of my client's vehicle. Correct. Right. To the right of the vehicle, you see nothing right, your vehicle, we see nothing but dirt, road, and grass and areas that are not well knit or not able for some reason to park. That's right. >> Officer, I want to show you or hand to you what's been marked as that's as defense exhibit number one. >> Are you familiar with this? >> Yes. Okay. What is it? Texas driver hand. Okay. >> I'm sorry. Could you repeat the last part? You said Texas and then I didn't hear the second. >> The Texas driver handbook. >> All right. Thank you. >> In the Texas driver handbook. Is it published by the Texas Department of Public Safety? Yes. Judge, may I approach the state? >> Yes. Judge, >> while the state confirms that that document is what it is, can I continue my questioning of Yes. >> Officer Enriquez? >> Okay. Officer Enriquez, while the state continues to review that document, >> up to this point in the video, a minute 246. At this point, you have no reason to arrest We'll go back to Mr. D. Correct. >> Um, for the month that he's been traveling and everything, I would say yes, he's still evading. Okay. >> Well, let's let's backtrack a little bit. Okay. In the transportation code or even under the debating arrest section, there is no set amount of limit or fees that somebody has to follow before they come to a stop. Correct. Correct. Correct. So in other words, just because he's gone 100 ft, 200 ft, there's nothing in on the statute on the test code or the transportation code that indicates once a defendant is above 100 ft, they committed an offic. So up to this point again knowing that check the license plate, you check the inside of the vehicle to make sure that Mr. Davis and a seat belt on, right? Those are not any traffic, right? >> Correct. The traffic off a private. All right. We'll get to that. And so there's no warrant for him out. Correct. >> At that time, I don't know who's driving the vehicle. Okay. There's no speeding either. Correct. Correct. All right. He is not passing any of the white tires or anything. Correct. >> All right. >> Yes. I'm going to reject on the basis of >> All right. And you defense exhibit number one. That is the Texas driver handbook. >> Charge under 8038. >> No, no, no. Is it the Texas driver handbook? >> It is your honor. >> All right. The state's objection will be overruled. Are you seeking to admit that into evidence or you are just asking him to review it for de demonstrator purposes and for the court to take note of that as a treatis as you would a treatis? >> So, I'm going to ask him to read from it, but to address any concerns under 8038, it's a hearsay exception. And under 9025 it's self authenticating. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Make a judge me. >> Okay. Officer Enriquez. So I'm going to show you defense exhibit number one particularly and state. If you need to move around to view what the defense is showing the officer, you're more than welcome to. particular in page 65 that talks about what a driver should do when stopped by law enforcement. Do you see that? Okay. So, and I'm going to read it to you. Okay. It says if you the driver are stopped by law enforcement, it is suggested you number one slow down and move the vehicle safely to what side of the road? The right side of the road. The right side of the road. All right. So, The sple that's on the left, car wash that's on the left. Correct. Shopping center that's on the left. None of these locations are on the right side of the road. Correct. Right. What's on the right side of the road is nothing but dirt, grass, and places that on the plan perspective are not safe to park. Correct. >> In his perspective. >> Okay. Yes. Um, number two, park your vehicle as far the right of the main traffic lane as possible. Again, to the right, not to the left. So, you were asking my client because he did not go to the left. You're asking him to go against against Texas driver's handbook. No, right. I'm just saying that he could have stopped that along with the shoulder on the right hand side of the road that we went across all the way. >> And we'll get to it. We'll get to it. But according to this Texas driver's handbook, it only says to move to the right and park to the right. Right. It says if available, park on the right shoulder. Right. If unavailable, park on a nearby well lighted side street or parking lot away from high volume traffic, which we do best, right? Okay. So, starting the video at 3:46. One thing I forgot to ask is at this point and for the remainder of the stop, my client turns on his hazard lights. Correct. Right. So, turning on hazard lights is indicating to you, hey, I'm in front of you. Like, be careful. I'm I'm right here. Don't run into me. Don't crash into me. He's warning you and other drivers. I'm right here. Right. >> Yes, sir. I have my lights activated. Right. >> At any point during the stop or the the follow the traffic stop, did my client turn off his lights? No. At any point did they speed up in excess of the speed limit? No. >> The defense's cross-examination of Deputy Enriquez reveals more inconsistencies, dismantling his credibility. Texas rules of evidence. Rule 803 number8 allows the Texas driver's handbook as a hearsay exception. and Cabanas uses it to challenge Enriquez's narrative that Davis should have stopped immediately. Enriquez admits Davis's vehicle was not stolen. He wore a seat belt and no other traffic violations occurred. Yet, he persists in claiming Davis was evading. The officer suggestion that he would have stopped in unsafe areas like a bike lane or unlit dirt road. Contrasts with the handbook's safety guidelines. The judge observing Enriquez's inability to provide concrete evidence of evasion grows increasingly skeptical as the officer's testimony appears more speculative than factual. >> At any point did he leave within traffic to try to avoid you? >> No, he didn't. >> At any point during the stop, did you see him throw anything outside of the window? No, he didn't. So while he's following you, I'm sorry. While you're following him, you're following not only the car that's right in front of you and never moved or never fled from you, but he also has his hazards on you, right? [Applause] Is that right, sir? >> Yes. Video at 249 now at 3 minutes and 1 second. If you can see from the video, it's a little bit glor. But we see that my client is still driving within the lane and to the right of it, there's what? A sidewalk. It's a bike lane. >> A bike lane. Yes. And then next thing, what's this cement structure that's on? It's the uh sidewalk before that self storage. Okay. at 302 from the video 323 offic sidewalk to be making it I guess unable for my client side 323 three and my client is still in front of you hazards notifying you where he's located. Okay, I'll stop the vehicle or stop the video excuse me 357. My client goes to his right to essentially make the right lane right now. What do we say is on the Texas driver's handbook when stopped by law enforcement it tells the driver to what? Slow down. So he move to the left which was my plan. He slow the vehicle down. Right. And then he moved to the right. That correct? And it was in the same manner. There were no accidents. Right. >> Correct. and turn did not get sidewalk at 57 at 428. So after he slows down and makes a right turn on my client comes to a stop on this on this road. Correct. What's interesting to know if I'm wrong is that there is no traffic on this road. Right. I did pass to block. >> Okay. But at this point, because there's no vehicles here at 428, but it's safe for not only the driver for you. And my last one of the questions officers at this point in time I think just last that when asked or my friend was asked by identify himself with him identifying himself and the lights were on and also a that was on as well. Right. Okay. And then the tal was to the left of you after or to the left of that medium quick. And then 497 to see my clients. No further questions. >> Any further questions? State is did he make reference to the handbook? Do you have any evidence that he had any knowledge of that handbook? So whether or not he was obeying recess would be speculation. Correct. Now you activated your emergency overhead light. Did Mr. They just utilized that front and turn. So he had a place where he could have turned right and stop to speculation. That would be sustained. >> Would you be turning right and stopping at this intersection if you were? >> Yes. >> There a street available? Yes. So you could have turned right at this. >> Yes. But you did >> because Mr. Dre from that but was that a left turn on the intersection? No. So it was also so you could have gone. Yes. Correct. >> But you didn't because Mr. Davis. Now at this point does Mr. Davis move the right hand this intersection. Is it possible to turn right? >> Yes sir. >> Did you turn right at this intersection? >> Is that because Mr. Davis turn right? Correct. >> Mr. Davis. >> He goes there. >> Now, what is Mr. Davis, right? >> Uh, in my lane, >> would you have been able to stop here? >> Yes, sir. Approaching the passenger side. You didn't stop because Yes, sir. So assuming that Mr. Davis was aware of the tax, there were nevertheless multiple areas where he could have correct. >> All right. And just one moment, council. So all of the attorneys, if you're waiting for to see the court after this um witness, the court is taking its break. All right. This intersection and occupy the center at this point. Is there a bicycle lady? No, sir. No. >> So, no safe place to stop the vehicle except in the middle of the light. >> Yes. Correct. >> And that's what the operator did? >> Yes. >> And again, did you see any lights aside from the lights off in this? No. >> All right. Defense. >> Just one more. Your honor, I'll be sure to read this. I'll leave your video at 0 seconds for your part my client immediate right turns. Right. Great. Now stopping the video at 20 seconds. You can see that the headlamps on my client's vehicle are illuminating the road just fine. Right. Correct. In fact, you see this light that I'm pointing that appears to be a light that's head lamp. It turns on and working effectively. Right. So that be >> so the the traffic that you claim happened you have no evidence of it. Correct. As part of the video, I did observe you observe there's no video of it. The only video that we can see is your dash cam which shows that the headlamps are working just fine. Correct. Correct. >> Nothing further judgment. >> All right. Any further questions for this witness? >> All right. Is this witness excused or subject for recall? >> Excuse. >> All right. Thank you so much for coming in. and you may step down >> after Deputy Steven Enriquez concluded his testimony riddled with inconsistencies about the alleged traffic violations and Jordan Davis's supposed to step down from the stand visibly undermined by the defense's cross examination. Judge Boyd recognizing the need to thoroughly review the dash cam footage states exhibit 1 proposed resuming the case the next day. Both the prosecution and defense council promptly agreed to return at 900 a.m. showing no objection to the court's request. This pause allowed the judge to scrutinize the evidence which later proved critical in exposing Enriquez's weak claims. The officer's exit from the stand signaled a critical moment as Judge Boyd's meticulous approach final verdict. >> All right. So, what I'm going to do, council, I know you have uh federal court. Uh, council, we can go off the record. Uh, are you all able to come back tomorrow? You want to come back this afternoon because I would like to view uh the state's exhibit. >> I'm coming back tomorrow if it's okay with the board not be in a rush to >> extend the docket and then look at this at this video. >> All right. So, yes, >> I'm here. >> Thank you. All right. So, what we'll do, uh, Mr. Uh Jordan, we will come back tomorrow and if you will be here at 9:00 a.m. That way uh this evening I will have a chance to review states exhibit number one in its entirety and then I'll come back with my decision. >> Yes, ma'am. >> All right. Is there anything else? >> Not from defense council. >> All right. Thank you so much for addressing appropriately for and state and defense. Do you all both uh rest and close state? >> Yes, your honor. >> Defense. >> Rest and close your honor. >> All right. Thank you so much. All right. Once you sign the reset form, you're excused. You're welcome. And court is calling 2024 CR5244, State versus Jordan Davis. I have parties announced for the record for the state >> defense. >> Good afternoon, Judge Alfonso Cavanas from Mr. Jordan Davis. >> And are you Mr. Davis? >> Yes, ma'am. >> All right. You all had a bench trial with the court and the court after both parties have rested and closed the court asked for an opportunity to view states exhibit one in its entirety. The court did have a chance to review states exhibit one in its entirety. Uh so the court will hear closing arguments. uh state, >> your honor, does the state typically not give closing arguments and trials following the defense? >> Uh if they want to My understanding from speaking with you off the record that the defense didn't really want to do a closing. So that's why I was asking you for your closing. >> But that's I don't know whether whether defense council wanted to or not. But >> defense, have you do you want to hear closing? >> Yes, your honor. Okay, then I'll hear your closing. >> Thank you, Judge. Judge, as the court was aware during cross-examination a couple of days ago, the only officer that stopped Mr. Davis testified that the alleged offense, the alleged traffic offering, excuse me, that he saw being committed was not recorded. I asked him about rather when I talked and described as to the reason for the stop. He initially said well his headlamps were turned off or he didn't have the number of requisite headlamps as per the transportation code. When he confirmed on the stand that as per the transportation code my client had more than two. He had three functioning headlamps. So much so that during the video of the court recalls, the officer testifies that the headlamps in my client's car were working. Therefore, judge, we have testimony from the officer that the alleged traffic offense of not having any functioning headlamps is is completely false. Secondly, judge, after we move on from that point, the officer goes on a narrative in which he's trying to tell the court what he, the officer, would do in this situation. The transportation code and the penal code don't read that way. The transportation code and the penal code read that my client or the individual who is alleged to have been committing an evading offense needs to be clearly shown as evading um law enforcement. If this recalls from the video during the entire length of this of the officer following my client, my client doesn't speed, doesn't turn off his lights, does not drive in excess of the speed limit, does not drive under the speed limit, does not avoid traffic, does not flee from the officer. Additionally, my client goes so much as to take the extra step and notify the officer by turning on his hazard lights. The officer makes it a point to say that there were multiple shopping locations or or shopping centers on the left side of the highway in which my client could have turned. Well, judge, then I question the officer on Texas DPS um the driving manual, which states that when being followed by law enforcement, a driver has to stop, or rather must go to the right and stop in a place that's well lit and safe, not only for himself, but law enforcement behind him. In closing arguments, the prosecution attempts to salvage the case by citing Lopez versus state, which holds that fleeing is anything less than prompt compliance with an officer's direction to stop and fleeing slowly is still fleeing. However, this argument crumbles as Cabana's counters that Davis's actions driving safely using hazard lights and stopping in a well-lit safe area align with the Texas driver's handbook, not evasion. The prosecution's claim that Davis's failure to stop immediately constitutes a crime ignores the lack of evidence showing intent to flee. The judge, having reviewed the dash cam footage in its entirety, recognizes the prosecution's reliance on a misapplied legal standard and Enriquez's unconvincing testimony, setting the stage for her final ruling. So, when I questioned the officer as to whether or not my client could have stopped on the right, being that it's a construction zone, being that there was nothing but grass and dirt and it was not lit, the officer said, "Well, I I don't know, but I could have stopped there." As we proceed through the stop or through the video, you're on again, you continue to see that at no point in time did my client commit any additional traffic offenses other than the alleged traffic offense, which again was not recorded. The officer testified that my client was driving a vehicle that was not stolen. He was driving a vehicle with a seat belt on. There was nothing that my client was doing as he was driving that warranted a traffic stop. As the officer continues to follow my client, my client with his hazard lights turns to the right as he should and then parks in an area where the officer testified, "There's no cars coming back and forth, thereby making it safe for my client and law enforcement to continue this interaction." And so, the point of of this, your honor, is that at no point in time did my client evade any arrest or detention. My client simply drove to find a place to stop. We know that he did not flee. We know that he didn't even intend to evade arrest or detention. He was simply looking for a safe place to stop. And as he was doing so, he notified the officer behind him by turning his hazard lights and maintaining a safe rate of speed. And for those reasons, your honor, I asked the court to find my client not guilty of the offense of evading arrest or detention. >> All right. state >> uh defense council's arguments are well made but at certain points logically inconsistent and at other points irrelevant. Uh Mr. Kabanas points out that the deputies testimony was that Mr. Davis had three headlights on. Now if Mr. Cabanas means this to mean that the high beams were on. Then Mr. Davis committed an offense by having his high beams on uh within 300 ft of oncoming traffic in which case Mr. Davis committed an offense of the transportation code. >> Was there oncoming traffic? >> There was your Okay. will be able to see it from the officer's uh dash cam record. So, Deputy Enriquez, he did have reasonable suspicion to detain the vehicle. Moreover, case law is clear. Under Lopez v state, the court of appeals for San Antonio stated that although the officers agreed that Lopez was not accelerating from them or driving recklessly after the exiting the highway, fleeing is anything less than prompt compliance with an officer's direction to stop and fleeing slowly is still fleeing. So fact that Mr. Davis did not speed or travel under the speed limit. The fact that he did not weave in and out of traffic. The fact that he was wearing his seat belt. These are all very interesting assertions, but they are not relevant to the court's determination of whether he evaded arrest or detention. Finally, there's been no evidence introduced that Mr. Davis was actually following the Texas DPS handbook. There's been no evidence introduced that he's ever read it. There's been no evidence introduced that he was even vaguely aware of it. And so Mr. Cavanias's reliance on this Texas DBS handbook is misplaced because there's no evidence that Mr. Davis was actually following its advice. Even if he were, there were multiple areas for Mr. for leaves to stop. The area in which he stopped was not a well-lit place. Deputy Enriquez testified that after the vehicle came to a stop, other vehicles had to go around it. And it's because where Mr. Davis stopped was on a two-lane road with no bike lane or improved shoulder for him to move into. And so the only place that he could stop was in the land. So for those reasons, the court should find him guilty. >> All right. So you're saying that there is no proof that he knew what was in the Texas driver's handbook and therefore that should be disregarded. The officer's testimony on the with regards to the Texas driver's handbook. >> The officer's testimony is not evidence that Mr. Davis >> No, that's what I'm saying. You're you're saying that there is no evidence that he knew about the rules for the Texas driver's handbook. >> Correct. >> And how is that relevant? Because does the the defense doesn't have to present any evidence. Correct. >> Correct. The defense does not need to present any evidence. But if the defense wants to rely on this DPS handbook for the proposition that Mr. Davis was obeying its advice, then there should be some evidence that he was at least aware of it, much less that he read it and that he obeyed it. And there's been no evidence. >> All right. All right. The court has reviewed um states exhibit uh number one in its entirety. I've heard both parties argument as both parties are aware argument is not testimony. It's not the law. It's just your argument. Uh after reviewing everything, listen to the testimony and seeing states exhibit number one, the court will find the defendant not guilty. Is there anything else from either side? >> Not from defense council. Thank you. >> Thank you. If you will give this to the court reporter, please. >> Yes, sure. Thank you for dressing appropriately for court. >> Thank you. >> Be excused, your honor. >> Yes. >> Judge Boyd delivers a decisive not-guilty verdict, effectively dismantling the prosecution's case and exposing Deputy Enriquez's false narrative. Texas Penal Code section 3804 requires proof of intentional fleeing, which the prosecution failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge's ruling hinges on the dash cam evidence showing Davis's compliance with safe driving practices and the absence of any recorded traffic violation. By prioritizing the evidence over Enriquez's inconsistent claims, the judge upholds justice, demonstrating her commitment to fairness. This verdict serves as a powerful reminder that a sharp judge armed with evidence and legal scrutiny can see through a lying officer's attempt to unjustly criminalize a defendant. Like and subscribe for more police cam stories. Watch the next recommended video.