12/15/25
CONTACT: Andy Blue (415) 533-4694 andy@justice4kevinepps.org
Statement from Justice 4 Kevin Epps Ahead of Verdict
A PROSECUTION INDIFFERENT TO TRUTH, FAIRNESS, OR JUSTICE
Verdict Delivered Today 9:15 AM / 850 Bryant 2nd FL / Dept 13
Supporters say award-winning SF filmmaker/journalist Kevin Epps was denied right to a fair trial
More info on Kevin Epps and trial at j4ke.org / KQED coverage
As the jury prepares to return its verdict, the trial of filmmaker and journalist Kevin Epps has already laid bare a profound miscarriage of justice in San Francisco courts. An award-winning documentarian, father, and Executive Editor of the San Francisco Bay View, Epps has spent decades chronicling Bayview-Hunters Point and mentoring youth who might otherwise have been lost to the streets. That a man devoted to community, accountability, and truth should face prosecution for defending his home and family is a tragedy that stains the city’s conscience.
This prosecution never should have happened. In 2016, after a violent intruder, Marcus Polk, forced entry into Epps’s residence, police and prosecutors declined to charge him—consistent with California’s Castle Doctrine, which presumes a resident’s reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm when confronting an intruder. Three years later, the District Attorney’s office revived the case without new evidence, relying instead on computer-generated 3-D animations so unreliable they were later ruled inadmissible by the court. For over six years, this unethical prosecution has hung over Epps and his family, finding no new evidence—only more time to construct a false narrative.
During trial, the state built its case on false and shifting testimony from its key witnesses, whose accounts changed dramatically since 2016, and on a misleading prosecution narrative that erased Polk’s well-documented history of violence, domestic abuse, daily methamphetamine use, and a conviction for lewd acts against a child. Judge Brian Ferrall compounded the injustice by limiting the defense’s ability to present this evidence, even barring Polk’s parole officer from testifying.
The prosecution’s closing arguments sank still lower. Assistant District Attorney Jonathan Schmidt—the same federal prosecutor whose misconduct in United States v. Blueford (9th Cir. 2002) helped define the law of prosecutorial misconduct—urged jurors to view Polk as a calm and peaceable man, directly contradicting evidence known to him. Schmidt’s closing also contradicted evidence presented at trial claiming that there was quiet before the shooting, that Polk was shot in the back, and that there was “no evidence Polk came at Epps.” These are serious misrepresentations and plainly inconsistent with forensic evidence of Polk’s wounds as well as witness testimony about commotion before the shooting and statements by Epps immediately afterwards: “He came at me. He came at me.”
Defense counsel moved for a mistrial citing that misconduct yet Judge Ferrall denied the motion and failed to correct the record, leaving the constitutional violation of fair trial rights unremedied. As the Blueford court warned, such actions violate a prosecutor’s duty “not merely to win, but to win fairly.” These failures have unfolded against the backdrop of a San Francisco District Attorney’s office already under investigation for ethics violations, including the withholding of exculpatory evidence and prejudicially late disclosures—problems that extend to DA Brooke Jenkins herself, now in a State Bar disciplinary diversion program for ethical breaches. The Epps case is emblematic of that culture: a prosecution pursued at any cost and indifferent to truth, fairness, or justice.
Regardless of the verdict—whether Kevin Epps is acquitted or convicted on any count—the process itself has betrayed the principles of equal justice. It has shown how prosecutorial misconduct and judicial error converge to criminalize Black self-defense while shielding official misconduct from consequence. City and State leaders must review this case in full to hold accountable those who have violated their oaths and to ensure that what happened here never happens again.
___________________________________________________________
CONTACT: Andy Blue :: (415) 533- 4694 andy@justice4kevinepps.org
KEVIN EPPS’ DEFENSE ATTORNEY MOTIONS for
MISTRIAL DURING CLOSING ARGUMENTS
FINAL DAY OF TRIAL
CLERGY/SUPPORTERS to HOLD SILENT VIGIL FOR EPPS’ RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL :: TUESDAY 9AM
Courthouse steps, 850 Bryant St.
Throughout trial and closing arguments, prosecutor repeatedly attempts to lead jury to draw conclusions not supported by evidence and violates Epp’s right to a fair trail
Supporters will gather in protest of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct in the case
SAN FRANCISCO, CA — Defense attorney for Kevin Epps, Darlene Comstedt, motioned for mistrial half way through prosecutor Jonathan Schmidt’s closing arguments Monday, alleging violations of Epps’s right to a fair trial.
A packed court room overflowing with supporters of the award-winning filmmaker and journalist listened as Judge Brian Farrell denied the motion and overruled objections to Schmidt’s repeated attempts to lead the jury to draw conclusions not supported by evidence presented in the case.
Rev. Amos Brown/supporters will gather Tuesday 9AM on the courthouse steps to protest prosecutorial and judicial misconduct in the case in advance of Schmidt’s closing rebuttal on the trial’s final day before jury deliberation.
Statement from Justice4KevinEpps
Throughout this trial prosecutor Jonathan Schmidt has systematically attempted to erase the truth about the Kevin Epps’s attacker, Marcus Polk, a man with a frightening history of violence, domestic violence, daily methamphetamine use, and lewd and lascivious acts against children. These facts are known to him, though many are suppressed from the jury, and yet he presents Marcus Polk as a calm and peaceful man who was minding his own business the day he barged into Epps’s home and attacked him.
These misrepresentations are also contradicted by evidence on the record in the trial. This is prosecutorial misconduct and Judge Brian Farrell’s complicity in allowing him to proceed in this manner is judicial error, plain and simple. It denies Kevin’s constitutional right to a fair trial. Our vigil is statement against this injustice, we demand Justice for Kevin Epps.”
Find more information about this case and about renowned filmmaker/executive editor (SF BayView) visit justice4kevinepps.org.
_____________________________________________________________
SUPPORTERS DEMAND DA DROP CHARGES AGAINST KEVIN EPPS
Filmmaker on Trial after Defending Himself from Home Intruder
CONTACT: info@justiceforkevinepps.org
SAN FRANCISCO, CA — Nearly a decade after a violent confrontation inside his home left him fearing for his life, award-winning Black filmmaker and San Francisco Bay View Executive Editor Kevin Epps now finds himself on trial for murder.
Supporters, including Revered Dr. Amos C. Brown, will gather on the steps of the courthouse to demand that District Attorney Brooke Jenkins drop charges. They say the prolonged and unusual prosecution calls into question whether self-defense protections are being applied fairly. The trial is currently underway in Department 13.
In 2016, Epps faced a terrifying threat when a drug-addicted sex-offender with adocumented history of violence barged into his home. Epps defended himself, shootingand killing the man. Afterwards, he made no attempt to flee; he remained at the scene and told officers upon their arrival that he had acted in self-defense.
After reviewing the evidence, prosecutors declined to file charges—consistent with California’s Castle Doctrine where it is presumed that any person using deadly force to defend themselves from danger inside their home had a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious injury
when confronted by the intruder.
Three years later, the case was unexpectedly revived. The decision did not rest on new facts or on any allegation that Epps posed a danger to the public. Instead, prosecutors relied on controversial 3D animations produced by a contractor whose work has been ruled inadmissible and discredited by prosecutors and in other jurisdictions. Although the animations have since been ruled inadmissible in the Epps trial as well, they served as the basis for bringing charges that otherwise would not exist.
Epps is widely respected for his decades of work documenting San Francisco communities, including his acclaimed film Straight Outta Hunters Point (2003). As Executive Editor of the San Francisco Bay View, a longstanding Black community newspaper, he has spent years exposing injustice, amplifying marginalized voices, and holding institutions accountable in San Francisco.
“This is a straightforward principle,” said Julian Davis, a spokesman for Epps. “When someone is confronted with a violent threat from an intruder inside their own home, the law gives them the right of self-defense and presumes they acted out of fear of death. Mr. Epps acted in accordance with the law, cooperated fully, and has lived with the cloud of this ordeal for nine years. The question now is whether those protections apply
equally to everyone.”
The case raises a broader concern about the consistent application of self-defense laws. Across the country, similar incidents have been resolved swiftly under long-standing legal presumptions.
