We got a late start after arriving at the courthouse an hour late, but the third day of Araoju’s misdemeanor trial quickly showed a courtroom already in a state of transition. In the missed hour, the defense laid out their entire side of the case, relying solely on Doctor Laney’s expert testimony on how we process, save and alter memories all the time. By 10 AM, the judge was reviewing jury instructions with counsel when I arrived, fine-tuning the language jurors would carry with them into deliberations.
One of the more subtle points of contention revolved around how to define the certainty required for a conviction. Defense counsel urged for a “moral certainty” phrasing, arguing that any honest uncertainty should be treated as reasonable doubt. The state objected, warning that such phrasing could sound religiously charged in a case tied to the burning of a Quran. The judge ultimately struck a balance, keeping the term out of the instructions but permitting the defense to use the argument in closing.
The instructions also limited how jurors can consider evidence. They were told that Exhibit 12, depicting Araoju’s defensive gear, could only be considered for the items testified to by Officer Serrano—not the knife or baton—further narrowing the scope of what could support the assault charge. The expert witness instruction was included, confirming that the defense’s expert testimony had been presented, though much of it focused on fallible memory and post-event contamination of recollections rather than direct evidence.
As expected, the jury received an option to consider attempted assault in the fourth degree if they believed Araoju took a substantial step toward causing injury but did not cause legally recognized physical harm. Notably, the unlawful use of mace charge was presented only in its completed form, leaving jurors an all-or-nothing decision on that count.
Closing Arguments
The state began by acknowledging that Almosa is not widely liked, even noting she had written about it herself, but emphasized that free speech protects the unpopular. The prosecution framed the case as a simple one: Araoju took it upon herself to decide who could exercise free speech and used mace to silence Almosa. Jurors were reminded that physical contact under Oregon law includes objects or substances released by a person, making the pepper-like spray a qualifying act if they believed Almosa’s account.
The defense countered with a narrative of misidentification and investigative failure. They argued that Portland Police conducted virtually no follow-up, relying entirely on Almosa’s selectively edited video and delayed report rather than interviewing other witnesses or conducting proper photo lineups.
Defense counsel walked jurors through the timeline of evolving memory:
- March 24: the protest incident
- March 27: Almosa’s delayed police report, relying on voice recognition and community tips
- April 3: Officer Wands’ involvement, when Almosa claimed to suddenly recognize Araoju’s face but still omitted tattoos or facial features
- Court testimony: asserting she had always known Araoju’s name, contradicting earlier reports
Their expert’s testimony underscored how post-event information can overwrite memory, turning assumptions into certainty over time. Combined with clothing discrepancies and a lack of corroborating witnesses, the defense argued that the state’s case left room for doubt.
In rebuttal, the state urged jurors to ignore ideology, insisting the case was about conduct, not politics. They framed the defense as a distraction from the straightforward act of spraying mace at a known adversary, pointing to the dragnet flyer and Araoju’s distinctive summer protest gear as corroboration.
With those arguments complete, the judge reminded jurors of the unanimity requirement before sending them to lunch. Deliberations are expected to begin in the afternoon.
Potential Consequences if Convicted
If the jury returns guilty verdicts, the legal consequences range from symbolic probation to the full weight of Class A misdemeanor penalties.
- Assault in the Fourth Degree – Class A misdemeanor
- Max penalty: 1 year in jail, $6,250 fine
- Attempted assault: Reduced to Class B misdemeanor; max 6 months jail, $2,500 fine
- Unlawful Use of Mace – Class A misdemeanor
- Max penalty: 1 year in jail, $6,250 fine
- No attempted version considered by the jury
Because both charges arise from the same event, any jail time would almost certainly run concurrently, meaning the realistic maximum exposure is 1 year.
In reality, a first-time offender like Arajou, who has already completed anger management and remains in mental health treatment, would likely see probation, conditional discharge, or suspended fines rather than incarceration. These sentences are in line with the vast majority of cases of simple assault and use of mace from defendants with no criminal history, and even matches with many examples of convictions of low level felonies. It is in no way related to any idea that the judicial system would pick sides just because it’s protest related (as a lot of detractors of Mulnomah County and Oregon courts in general maintain)
Defense attorneys are expected to argue against any probation conditions that disarm her, citing ongoing harassment and doxxing—including campaigns on Kiwi Farms, a site known for celebrating violence against trans people, as well as the consistent and reliable threats made against her whenever The Post Millenial’s Andy Ngo posts about her, doubly so if it is a suspended (no required jail time) sentence.
If the jury opts for the attempted assault route and either acquits or deadlocks on the mace charge, the case narrows even further to a likely probationary or suspended sentence, signaling jurors found wrongful conduct without serious harm.
Below’s a full breakdown of the options available to the jury, with the maximum and likely consequences of each option:
| Assault in the 4th Degree | Unlawful Use of Mace | Charge Level(s) | Max Penalty (Concurrent) | Likely Outcome for First-Time Offender |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guilty (Completed) | Guilty | 2 × Class A Misd. | 1 year jail / $6,250 fine | Probation or conditional discharge; likely suspended fines |
| Guilty (Attempted) | Guilty | Class B + Class A Misd. | 1 year jail / $6,250 fine | Probation; suspended or reduced fines |
| Guilty (Completed) | Not Guilty | Class A Misd. | 1 year jail / $6,250 fine | Probation or conditional discharge |
| Guilty (Attempted) | Not Guilty | Class B Misd. | 6 months jail / $2,500 fine | Probation; likely suspended fine |
| Not Guilty | Guilty | Class A Misd. | 1 year jail / $6,250 fine | Probation or conditional discharge |
| Not Guilty | Not Guilty | — | — | Full acquittal |
We will be staying in the courtroom throughout deliberations, and will update our BlueSky as we get more information.