Katie Sorensen ‘lied to us,’ Sonoma County prosecutor says in closing argument

Sonoma County Superior Court jurors, who began deliberating Tuesday in the trial of Katie Sorensen, must decide whether the former Sonoma woman truly believed a Petaluma couple tried to kidnap her children in December 2020 or whether her false accusations caused enough damage for her to be convicted of filing false police reports.

Deliberations are expected to resume Wednesday in the case of the would-be social media influencer, who repeated her false claims — that her children were nearly kidnapped on Dec. 7, 2020 — in an Instagram video she posted that was viewed more than 4 million times.

The jury of eight men and four women received the misdemeanor case Tuesday after the prosecution and defense each spent an hour delivering their closing arguments.

Opposing attorneys focused heavily on whether Sorensen knew she was making false statements to police when she identified a Petaluma couple as “child abductors.”

Police later determined the couple had done nothing wrong and Sorensen’s statements were all false.

Sonoma County Deputy District Attorney Robert Waner, throughout last week’s three days of testimony, argued Sorensen knew she was wrong and had committed a “grave mistake.”

“It’s a mistake she should be held accountable for,” he concluded Tuesday.

“She came into court and she lied to us,” he told jurors.

Sorensen’s attorney, Charles Dresow, countered that the prosecution never proved his client understood she was wrong when she communicated with police. He asked jurors to consider whether Sorensen truly believed her children were in danger.

“If the answer to that is yes, you must find her not guilty,” Dresow said.

Sorensen is charged with three misdemeanor counts of making a false report of a crime. Shecould be sentenced to as much as 18 months in jail, if convicted.

The charges stem from statements she made to dispatchers on Dec. 7, 2020 and in interviews with Petaluma police, in which she accused Eddie and Sadie Martinez of trying to take her then-4-year-old son and 1-year-old daughter at the Michaels store on North McDowell Boulevard in Petaluma.

“Her story continued to develop over time,” Waner said.

He told jurors Dec. 7 was an “extraordinary” day for Sorensen and her version of events are nothing like what actually happened. He added that “no reasonable person” would come to the same conclusions as her.

Her allegations went viral via a Dec. 13, 2020, Instagram video that she posted. It was viewed millions of times and attracted her thousands of new followers.

The prosecution contends Sorensen, who had created a “mommy blog,” was trying to bolster her profile as a social media influencer, which she has denied.

Sorensen testified last week that she filmed the video spontaneously, while she was parked outside a local Target.

In her Instagram video and in her statements to police, Sorensen claimed the couple followed her while inside Michaels and could be overheard making comments about her children.

Sorensen told authorities they followed her outside, where they were joined by someone in a white van, but they all left after she called out to a nearby elderly man and his caretaker.

Waner balked at Sorensen’s contention — that her video was a spontaneous act. He said the 20-minute video featured a well-dressed Sorensen, who provided new details about the Dec. 7 incident, as well as a bullet-pointed list of advice for parents.

On the second day of testimony, the prosecution presented surveillance footage showing she and the Martinezes were near each other inside Michaels but they never interacted.

While not referenced in court, Sorensen, according to court records filed by the prosecution, was ”in significant engagement with QAnon conspiracy theories, which tend to center around kidnappers and pedophiles.“

Sorensen took the stand last week and testified in her own defense. She told jurors that she believes she “misinterpreted” her surroundings on Dec. 7 due to stress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

On Tuesday, Dresow stressed that anxiety and illness due to the pandemic were rampant on Dec. 7. And given that environment, he argued, it’s believable that his client could take events out of context.

"She was wrong; she just didn’t know it at the time,“ he said.

Dresow said Sorensen, who was overcome with fear, did what anyone else would have done and called police. From there, it’s their responsibility to conduct investigations.

A Petaluma police officer who spoke with Sorensen testified that her claims were broad and did not require an immediate investigation.

Sorensen’s call to a dispatcher took place 15 minutes after her trip to Michaels. Waner said what supposedly took place should’ve been fresh in her mind, but nothing matched the surveillance footage.

“Already we see how wildly divergent her reporting is from reality,” Waner said of Sorensen’s first statements to dispatchers.

Authorities launched an investigation a week later after the Instagram video surfaced. Investigators said it included details that weren’t initially presented to them.

They specifically pointed to two claims she made in the video: The couple tried to grab her son’s stroller and they were overheard saying it would be easier to abduct him because he was unmasked and therefore not his mother’s priority.

“That’s kind of an ominous statement,” Waner said Tuesday.

According to testimony, investigators later showed Sorensen surveillance footage from Michaels and she positively identified the then-unknown couple as the people who tried to take her children.

Petaluma police circulated the footage and the Martinezes came forward.

Police later announced Sorensen’s claims were without merit and cleared the Martinezes of any alleged wrongdoing.

The couple testified during the trial and said they in no way intended to abduct anyone. They went to the store looking for Christmas ornaments and had no interaction at all with Sorensen, who they said they did not know.

Sadie Martinez told jurors the incident resulted in her and her husband being identified as “child abductors.”

On Thursday, Waner asked Sorensen if it was now clear to her that the Martinezes never tried to take her children. She said yes.

Sorensen was charged in April 2021 and twice attempted to have the charges dismissed through a court-approved diversion.

Under diversion, a misdemeanor case can be postponed up to two years and dismissed if the defendant fulfills terms and conditions that have been approved by a judge.

Sorensen’s requests were ultimately denied because officials said she never took responsibility or explained her actions, making it difficult to come up with appropriate terms for diversion.

You can reach Staff Writer Colin Atagi at colin.atagi@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @colin_atagi