SF public defenders release violent arrest video, accuse DA, SFPD of hiding evidence

San Francisco public defenders accused the SF District Attorney’s Office on Thursday of trying to conceal evidence that contradicted police officers’ accounts of a violent 2025 arrest.

Read more Mark Zuckerberg’s new toy is a parasite. Please don’t fall into his latest trap.

Kevon Gibson, 33, was hospitalized for several days after San Francisco police officers arrested him in August 2025, according to the SF Public Defender’s Office. In a statement, Gibson’s attorneys say body-cam footage from SFPD officers released publicly on Thursday, Oct. 8,show he was punched, kicked and restrained during the arrest. The office accused prosecutors of withholding evidence by attempting to limit what jurors could hear and see from officers’ body cameras.

“SFPD officers brutally beat Mr. Gibson as he screamed for help,” Deputy Public Defender Bonnie Chan-Silen, who represented Gibson with Deputy Public Defender John Paul Passaglia, said in a statement. “Instead of holding these police officers accountable, the DA’s Office tried to hide key evidence from the jury.”

The confrontation began Aug. 17, 2025, after a resident of a Sixth Street apartment building called police and accused Gibson, who had been staying there while helping care for a friend, of threatening him. Video released by Gibson’s attorneys shows the resident repeatedly using a racial slur while speaking to officers and threatening to stab Gibson, including saying he would “slice and watch him bleed everywhere.”

Three SFPD officers later encountered Gibson near an elevator. Body camera footage released by the defense shows officers grabbing Gibson and pulling him from the elevator before taking him to the ground. The footage shows officers punching him in the head, kicking him and restraining his head and neck as Gibson repeatedly said he could not breathe and asked them to stop.

The Public Defender’s Office said Gibson was hospitalized in intensive care for several days before being jailed for about a year while his case proceeded.

Officers later told investigators that Gibson had assaulted them during the struggle, including allegations that he bit one officer, punched another and wrapped a radio cord around an officer’s neck, according to the Public Defender’s Office. Gibson’s attorneys said body camera and surveillance footage contradicted those accounts.

Gibson’s attorneys alleged prosecutors sought to present portions of the body camera footage without audio and fought disclosure of information about the resident who accused Gibson of threatening him. A judge ultimately allowed the defense to present the broader footage and ordered prosecutors to turn over information sought by Gibson’s attorneys, according to the Public Defender’s Office.

The Public Defender’s Office also contends that the District Attorney’s Office compromised the independence of its review of the officers and then tried to keep evidence favorable to Gibson from the jury. It said investigators with the office’s Independent Investigations Bureau, which reviews potential criminal conduct by law enforcement officers, interviewed Gibson in the hospital and turned their notes over to prosecutors handling his criminal case despite that being a separate investigation.

The attorneys further alleged prosecutors offered to dismiss Gibson’s felony resisting arrest charges if he accepted a plea deal requiring a Harvey waiver, which they argued could have weakened potential civil claims against the officers. Gibson rejected the offer and went to trial.

Read more California plans to create 700 jobs at its first steel mill in over 50 years

San Francisco police spokesperson Officer Robert Rueca told SFGATE that the District Attorney’s Independent Investigations Bureau found the officers’ use of force justified under California law. SFPD is conducting a standard administrative investigation following the bureau’s review, Rueca said.

The District Attorney’s Office disputed the allegation that prosecutors attempted to conceal aspects of the video.

“The jury saw the video. The jury heard the evidence. The District Attorney’s office never asked the Court to exclude this footage which we played for the jury,” a spokesperson told SFGATE. “… Calling this a ‘cover-up’ isn’t just an attack on our prosecutors — it shows remarkable disrespect for the court and the jurors who heard the evidence and rendered the verdict.” 

Prosecutors dismissed the criminal threat charge against Gibson before the case went to the jury. Jurors acquitted him of the three felony resisting arrest charges but convicted him of misdemeanor resisting arrest and unlawful gun possession.

Chan-Silen accused prosecutors of presenting a misleading account of the case after the verdict, pointing to a District Attorney’s Office news release that thanked the officers involved.

“Brooke Jenkins claiming victory, hiding any mention of police brutality, and thanking the very officers who the jury described as violent, is deceitful and deeply unjust,” Chan-Silen said. 

The Public Defender’s Office said it plans to file a complaint with the San Francisco Department of Police Accountability and alert the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training as it seeks the officers’ decertification.