In a swift trial that lasted mere hours, David DePape has been convicted on two counts of attempted kidnapping and assault in the federal case involving the bludgeoning of Paul Pelosi, husband of Rep. Nancy Pelosi. While DePape's defense strategy of claiming to live in an alternate, conspiracy-driven reality failed to convince the jury, his legal troubles are far from over as he prepares for a parallel state trial.

San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins wasted no time in asserting her readiness to move forward with the state case against DePape. If convicted, the 43-year-old Canadian could face up to life in prison, adding substantially more years to the potential 50 he could receive on the federal charges.

Adam Gasner, a veteran criminal defense attorney in San Francisco, commented on the implications of DePape's failed defense, stating, "This is probably a wake-up call to Mr. DePape and his lawyers that the jury didn't believe the defense's case and didn't believe him. The defense was not denying that he was the culprit, and that he committed these acts of violence."

One option that could potentially reduce DePape's jail time is a plea bargain, provided Jenkins is willing to offer one and DePape is willing to accept it. However, given the nature of DePape's testimony during the federal trial, prosecutors may be discouraged from extending a favorable plea deal. Furthermore, Jenkins may seek a backup conviction in case the federal verdict is appealed by DePape's defense team, which is a likely next step.

The pending state trial will present the jurors with compelling evidence, including DePape's own courtroom testimony, video footage of the attack obtained from police body cameras, a confession made to law enforcement, and a jailhouse interview conducted with a local TV station. The accumulation of evidence, combined with DePape's rambling and conspiracy-filled testimony in the federal case, leaves little incentive for prosecutors to offer him leniency.

Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor and criminal law professor, highlighted the main focus of the state trial, stating, "Much of the focus in state court will be on the attempted murder charge because DePape and his attorneys already admitted in federal court that he assaulted Paul Pelosi and broke into the home. But the question of whether DePape intended to kill Pelosi when he hit him in the head with a hammer is a new one."

Public defenders may seize upon DePape's testimony that he did not intend to harm Paul Pelosi, suggesting that his actions were a result of his plan being interrupted when the police arrived at the scene. DePape claimed to have felt remorse for hurting Pelosi, as he believed they had developed a "good rapport."

If Jenkins decides to pursue the attempted murder charge, DePape's own words may be used against him. He confessed to being on a "suicide mission" and warned that anyone who interfered with his plans would "take the punishment instead."

As DePape braces for his second trial, the courtroom becomes his platform to espouse his political message. However, with a failed defense strategy and overwhelming evidence against him, the Canadian assailant may find it challenging to sway the state jury in famously liberal San Francisco.

DePape's fate hangs in the balance as he awaits the next chapter in his legal battle, where potential life imprisonment looms large.