Overview: The trial of Kevin Epps, a Black filmmaker and journalist accused of murder, exposes the fragility of justice, equity, and truth in San Francisco. The jury, which hardly reflects the diversity of the city, is dominated by white jurors, and the prosecution is accused of shaping a narrative rather than revealing the truth. The prosecution’s theory that marijuana use caused Epps to shoot Marcus Polk is scientifically empty, and evidence shows that Polk had a violent history, which the prosecution has suppressed. The case is riddled with irregularities, and the trial raises questions about systemic inequity and false propaganda.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!Editor’s Note:
A 2025 report by USC’s Center for Health Journalism determined wrongful convictions and imprisonment—especially of innocent Black Americans— is a “serious public health issue.” According to the report, innocent Black people in the U.S. are nearly seven-and-a-half times more likely to be convicted of murder than innocent white people. In late December, a Black man named Kevin Epps was tried for murder in San Francisco, after shooting and killing a man who broke into his home. In this seven-part series, follow the Epps trial and his quest for justice as seen through the eyes of investigative journalist, Malik Washington of Destination Freedom Media Group, who followed the trial from start to finish. Learn of the jury’s ultimate decision and decide whether you believe justice was served.
Malik Washington
San Francisco styles itself as a progressive city, a beacon of justice, equity, and truth. But inside Department 13 of San Francisco Superior Court, on November 13 and 14, 2025, I witnessed a criminal trial that exposed how fragile those ideals become when a Black man — especially a Black artist who dared to speak truth to power — stands accused.
I, Malik Washington, sat in that courtroom. I watched every witness, measured every tactic, and absorbed every moment of a prosecution that appears more interested in shaping a narrative than revealing the truth.
And make no mistake, there are truths the prosecution does not want this jury—a jury that hardly reflects the people of San Francisco—to hear.
A Jury of Whose Peers?
When the Constitution promises a defendant “a jury of their peers,” most imagine something resembling the diversity of our city — a mixture of backgrounds, life experiences, and racial realities. But in the trial of filmmaker and community leader Kevin Epps, this was not the case.
I observed the jury with my own eyes: One Black man, two Hispanic jurors, one Asian juror, eight white jurors (6 of which are senior men and women).
The judge is white. The prosecutor, Assistant District Attorney (ADA) Jonathan Schmidt, is white. The court reporter is white. Every prosecution witness, except for police officer Steven Gomez, so far has been white.
That is not a jury of one’s peers — it is the architecture of structural imbalance.
It is very noteworthy for me to mention that although Kevin’s defense attorneys are also White, they have been passionately and zealously defending him. Defense attorney Mark Vermeulen, has been an avid note taker, while defense attorney Darlene Comstedt, has fought back with numerous objections to the prosecutions’ questionable narrative creation. However, there is still a pronounced appearance of systemic inequity and false propaganda emanating from this case.
A seasoned, Black filmmaker is fighting for his life, and the system surrounding him looks nothing like him, nor the community that embraced him and his work for decades.
A CSI Lieutenant Who Didn’t Know the Victim’s Name
On Thursday, CSI Lieutenant Heath took the stand. This was one of the prosecution’s key witnesses. Yet when asked by Schmidt if she knew the name of the alleged victim—Marcus Deleon —she could not answer.
This case is nine years old, and the District Attorney’s office is asking the people of San Francisco to believe this CSI Lieutenant cannot remember the victim’s name but she can recall the precise trajectory of the bullet, the microscopic blood spatter patterns, the condition of the scene and the integrity of evidence from nearly a decade ago.
Only after Schmidt handed her documents to “refresh her recollection” did the victim’s name return to her.
If she cannot remember the first and most basic fact—the name of the man who died—how can anyone trust the reliability of her more complex memories?
The marijuana distraction: A manufactured theory
Throughout the trial, ADA Schmidt has pushed the theory that marijuana use somehow caused or contributed to Epps shooting Polk. This is not just misleading — it is scientifically empty.
Officer Steven Gomez testified that when he found two baggies of marijuana on Epps at the Ingleside Police Station, Epps immediately produced medical documentation showing he was an authorized medicinal marijuana patient.
But Schmidt wants this jury—the non-diverse, unrepresentative jury—to believe that marijuana, not the violent history of Marcus Polk, was the dangerous variable in that house at 137 Addison where the death occurred.
Evidence-based research resoundingly shows marijuana does NOT cause violent behavior. Methamphetamine IS linked to violence.
Polk’s criminal history per NBC Bay Area includes domestic violence, attempted robbery, lewd acts with a child; Methamphetamine abuse; and repeat criminal conduct
These facts matter. The jury has not heard them because the prosecution filed a motion in limine (a request) to suppress them.
Children were in the house
Inside 137 Addison were four children, two women, and a man with a violent, meth-linked history. Polk’s past shows a man capable of violence toward partners, violence toward strangers and conduct endangering children.
Yet Schmidt wants the jury to believe that a medicinal cannabis patient with no history of violence was the unpredictable one.
A nine-year-old case: Why now?
This case has been riddled with irregularities including evidence storage concerns; a Medical Examiner’s office that has faced public scrutiny; legal disputes over who could represent Epps; and witnesses with selective memory.
And now, after nine years, the DA tries to reconstruct a case through fog, contradiction, and suppressed context.
Brooke Jenkins’ Ethical Responsibility
District Attorney Brooke Jenkins allows a heavily white jury; a suppressed record of Polk’s violent past; a debunked marijuana-violence theory; selective witness recollection and prosecution strategies that obscure truth.
Is this justice? Or, is this politics masquerading as truth?
San Francisco — You Should Be Outraged
I witnessed a nearly all-white jury judging a Black man; a DA suppressing the truth; a prosecution spinning marijuana myths; a CSI lieutenant unable to name the victim; a narrative that erases Polk’s violent past; and a defendant with no history of violence being painted as a killer.
This is not justice. This is not fairness. This is not San Francisco. We Must Demand Better. . . Demand full disclosure of Polk’s history, a representative jury, accountability from the DA, respect for scientific truth, and an end to narrative manipulation.
I will continue reporting. I will continue observing. And I will continue speaking truth — loudly and without fear, because justice demands nothing less.
Lastly, it is important for me to inform all those who may be unaware, that I Malik Washington was the former Editor-in-Chief at the San Francisco Bayview National Black Newspaper. There is no possible way that I would ever remain silent in the face of this injustice.
This story is republished with the permission of Destination Freedom Media Group and the Davis Vanguard. Destination Freedom Media Group and The Davis Vanguard are solely responsible for its content.