Editor’s Note:
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!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.
Overview: The Kevin Epps trial in San Francisco ended with a “Not Guilty” verdict for first-degree murder and second-degree murder, but a “Guilty” verdict for voluntary manslaughter and a felon in possession of a firearm. However, the contradiction remains as voluntary manslaughter requires proof of intent to kill or conscious disregard for human life, which was not proven in the trial. The case raises questions about whether self-defense is applied equally and whether justice bends based on who is standing before the court. The trial also highlights the issue of wrongful convictions and imprisonment, especially of innocent Black Americans, which is a “serious public health issue.”
Malik Washington
On December 15, 2025, the jury in the Kevin Epps trial returned verdicts that brought relief, shock, and unresolved questions crashing into the same moment.
Not Guilty of first-degree murder.
Not Guilty of second-degree murder.
The jury rejected the prosecution’s most extreme claims—those requiring proof of malice, premeditation, and intent to kill. They did not believe Kevin Epps was a murderer.
And yet, moments later, the clerk—speaking so softly the room leaned forward to hear, announced a “Guilty” verdict for voluntary manslaughter, followed by “Guilty” for a felon in possession of a firearm.
Cheers erupted at the acquittals. The judge admonished the courtroom. The moment passed. But the contradiction remained.
Because under California law, voluntary manslaughter is not a compromise verdict. It requires proof—beyond a reasonable doubt—of either an intent to kill or a conscious disregard for human life.
The question that now demands an answer is not emotional. It is legal.
Where was the proof?
What the law requires. . . and what the jury rejected
A jury cannot reject intent for murder and then conjure it for manslaughter without new evidence. None appeared.
There was: no premeditation; no express malice; no statements expressing intent; no flight; no evasion; and no conduct demonstrating conscious disregard.
Kevin Epps remained calm, cooperative, and present. The defense conceded the firearm charge. There was no attempt to flee. No effort to hide.
If intent to kill was not proven for murder, then the law demands to know how it was proven for voluntary manslaughter.
Self-defense is not a loophole—it is the law
California’s Castle Doctrine exists for moments exactly like this. Inside one’s home, there is no duty to retreat. Force may be used if a person reasonably fears death or great bodily injury, especially when facing an intruder who is unlawfully and forcibly present.
Marcus Deleon Polk forced his way into Kevin Epps’s home. He was asked not to be there. He had a documented history of violence and instability. Epps feared for himself and for his children.
The prosecution did not disprove that fear beyond a reasonable doubt.
When the community warned the court—and the court looked away
Before the jury ever deliberated, the concerns were already documented by Justice4KevinEpps, whose organizers and spokesperson, Andy Blue, publicly warned of prosecutorial misconduct and judicial error.
Defense attorney Darlene Bagley Comstedt moved for a mistrial during Assistant District Attorney (ADA) Jonathan Schmidt’s closing arguments, citing violations of Kevin Epps’s constitutional right to a fair trial. The motion was denied.Justice4KevinEpps described a systematic effort to erase the truth about Marcus Polk’s violent history while presenting him to the jury as peaceful and harmless.See United States v. Blueford.
Selective Prosecution: The question San Francisco cannot avoid
After the verdict, NBC Bay Area reporter Ginger Conejero Saab interviewed me outside the courthouse. I stated, “Banco Brown was shot in the chest over $14.00 of candy, and their killer is still walking around.“Keita O’Neill’s killer is still walking around. Why did the District Attorney’s Office in the City and County of San Francisco pursue Kevin Epps so aggressively?”
These are not accusations. They are questions rooted in observable outcomes.
Two previous district attorneys declined to pursue this case. The current administration revived it. Why?
A jury may not compromise with a person’s freedom
Voluntary manslaughter cannot be used as a moral middle ground. If intent was not proven and self-defense was not legally defeated, then the verdict rests on unstable ground.
What is really on trial
This case is about whether self-defense is applied equally, and whether justice bends based on who is standing before the court.
Verdicts end trials. They do not end truth
I will continue to report. Because a justice system that suppresses truth cannot deliver justice.
As always, here’s our song/video for this article:
Public Enemy – Can’t Truss It
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.