Emotions run high in closing arguments for S.F. filmmaker’s murder trial

Love what you read? Love that it was free?

Mission Local will never have a paywall. All our articles are free for everyone, always. Help us keep it that way — donate to our end-of-year fundraiser to make Mission Local free for your neighbors.

Donate today!

Jurors in the murder trial of journalist and filmmaker Kevin Epps went into deliberations on Tuesday morning after hearing dueling closing arguments about whether Epps was justified in killing Marcus Polk, his once brother-in-law, in 2016. 

On Oct. 24, 2016, Epps shot and killed Polk, who was the friend of Epps’ fiancée, Maryam Jhan, and the former husband of Jhan’s sister, Starr Gul. Epps maintains that the shooting was in self-defense. 

In closing arguments that took up much of Monday and spilled into Tuesday, the attorneys disagreed on a range of facts, including whether Epps lived at the Glen Park home where he shot Polk, whether Polk was a well-liked visitor or bothersome intruder, and the nature of a purported rift between the two men. 

Emotions ran high inside the courtroom: Gul, who was in attendance with her children, sobbed quietly as jurors stole glances at her across the room; periodically Epps’ supporters would storm out of the courtroom, loudly declaring “prosecutorial misconduct,” calling the proceedings “ridiculous” and “lies.”  

In his closing argument, the prosecutor, Assistant District Attorney Jonathan Schmidt, emphasized that Epps faced no imminent threat or danger from Polk, characterizing Polk as a frequent and wanted visitor at the home. 

Schmidt suggested that Epps should have deescalated the situation with Polk, who was a methamphetamine user and was in and out of jail. He had been released after a parole violation just days before the shooting. 

“Right before he was shot, Mr. Polk was in his happy place,” Schmidt said. “He was indoors … he was about to watch television.” 

He added that Epps had “no basis” to believe he needed to use deadly force. 

“In a word, it just wasn’t necessary to shoot and kill Mr. Polk,” Schmidt said. He likened the shooting to “amputating an arm over a paper cut.”

But de-escalation was not Epps’ job, argued defense attorney Darlene Comstedt. And just after the shooting, Epps’ niece testified that she heard Epps say, frantically: “He came at me!” He came at me!” 

“There’s no duty to retreat,” Comstedt explained to jurors. “If you kill someone in self-defense, it’s a justifiable homicide. That’s what the law says.”

Epps, a well-known filmmaker from Bayview-Hunters Point is currently the editor in chief of the San Francisco Bayview newspaper. He has been living out of custody for most of the last nine years following his arrest.

In October 2016, Epps’ fiancée, Maryam Jhan, and their two children lived at the Glen Park home, and Jhan’s sister, Starr Gul, and her children were frequent visitors. Gul was Polk’s former wife. 

Gul had long before separated from Polk, but Polk, who was homeless and in and out of jail, was friendly with Jhan and dropped by the Glen Park home often. At times, witnesses said he was not permitted inside. There were tensions between Epps and Polk, but witness accounts differ on how serious those tensions were. 

A ‘simmering dispute’ 

Schmidt called it a “long-simmering dispute” between Epps and Polk. He referred to testimony from Gul’s daughter, Jalea Hale, who remembered Epps indicating the night before the shooting that he would “put an end to” Polk after Polk had arrived at the house “banging” on the door to be let in.

Schmidt showed the jury text messages between Jhan and Epps, in which Jhan appeared to be warning Epps of Marcus’ occasional presence at the home. 

“Marcus here going to leave soon so dont have a attitude. Thanks,“ read one text Jhan sent her fiancé in early October 2016. 

In another, Jhan texted him again about Polk’s presence at the house: “So please don’y GIVE ME THAT FACE.” 

Schmidt presented Polk as a beloved member of the family, calling him an “integral part of the household” in the days leading up to the shooting — although he did not live at the home and, even the night prior to the shooting, was asked to leave.

Schmidt did not mention Polk’s lengthy and, at times, violent criminal history that was not permitted to be presented as evidence to the jury.  

A call for a mistrial

At the conclusion of Schmidt’s argument, Comstedt asked the judge to declare a mistrial over his narrative. 

“The prosecutor has made certain arguments about Marcus Polk’s peaceful character that are not supported by the evidence and that are, in fact, disproven by evidence known to the prosecutor,” Comstedt said on Monday afternoon. 

Judge Brian Ferrall overruled the request. 

Comstedt said it was “understandable” for Epps to not want Polk around as he and Jhan raised their two young children, considering Polk’s violent history. 

Epps’ spokesperson, Julian Davis, said the judge had a “thumb on the scale” in favor of the prosecution, and said that attempts to rewrite Polk’s history by Schmidt amounted to a “denial of Kevin’s constitutional right to a fair trial.” 

In her closing argument, Comstedt insisted that prosecutors had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt Epps’ guilt. She scoffed at unproven assertions and inconsistencies in witnesses’ testimony which she called “flawed evidence.”  

For example, on Monday, Schmidt suggested for the first time that Epps could have fired as many as six bullets, even though Polk had two entry wounds, multiple witnesses heard two gunshots, and two bullet casings were found at the scene. 

“The prosecution has not offered a reasonable alternative explanation for what happened,” Comstedt told the jury. “They presented lots of versions of the events. They don’t make sense.” 

The ‘castle doctrine’ 

For jurors to convict Epps of first-degree murder, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Epps intentionally killed Polk, and that the killing was not self-defense. 

Over the prosecution’s objections, Judge Ferrall instructed jurors on the “castle doctrine,” which says that Epps could legally have had reasonable fear of death or serious injury if he resided at the house, and Polk unlawfully and forcibly entered as someone who is outside the family or household. 

While he portrayed Polk as part of the household, Schmidt disputed that Epps lived at the Glen Park home where he shot Polk — an effort to discredit Epps’ self-defense argument that would have allowed him to defend his home against an intruder. 

“Mr. Polk, then, was not a strange intruder into Mr. Epps’ house,” Schmidt said. “First, because it was not a strange intruder. Second, because this was not Mr. Epps’ house.”  

Comstedt countered that it was Epps’ home. Epps received his mail there, and the address was on his recent drivers license. 

The arguments were permitted after hourslong debate last week over how Judge Ferrall would instruct jurors to interpret elements of self-defense law. 

Twelve jurors were taken to the deliberation room this morning.