By Lloyd Billingsley

Vanguard readers are right that the court system needs more transparency. On that theme, my own experience can provide evidence.

As a crime writer, father and grandfather, I was interested in the case of Colleen Harris of Placerville, who gunned down her husband Bob Harris, a U.S. Forest Service veteran known as “Grandpa Big Bear.” Nearly thirty years earlier, Colleen killed her second husband, Jim Batten, in similar circumstances. I thought it best to start with the Batten murder trial, and that proved educational in ways I did not expect.

I knew that, in the current system, court transcripts are treated as the property of court reporters. Writers have to purchase them, and that can involve great expense. For example, the transcript of the recent Winkler trial in Placerville, (defendant found guilty of murdering his wife) would cost nearly $1800.

Sometimes writers need transcripts even if they are present during testimony, particularly in courtrooms, such as those of Yolo County, that do not allow recording or use of computers. And as I learned, the transcripts do not include the text of video materials shown in the courtroom, such as the interrogation of Daniel Marsh.

I was willing to foot the bill for the transcript of the 1986 Batten trial, but it had an existential problem. Since Colleen Batten was acquitted, California law allows the transcript to be tossed, and that was the fate of the material I sought. El Dorado County prosecutors even tracked down the original court reporter, but she had no copy. This dearth of information would prove significant in the Harris trial.

The defense wanted to invoke the defendant’s prior claim of memory loss, but with the transcript missing, they had to rely on testimony from a journalist who had covered the case for the Mountain Democrat. After so long, that testimony was in effect hearsay, and for both defense and prosecutors it fell far short of what the transcript would have yielded.

Freida Batten, Jim Batten’s first wife and a UC Davis graduate, was outraged that the transcripts were the property of court reporters, and that in cases of acquittal the transcript could be tossed. To recall what someone said in a courtroom thirty years ago, with lives in the balance, there is simply no substitute for the transcript.

Whatever the verdict, nobody should be able to have these transcripts tossed. They belong to the people, not to court reporters, already highly paid for their work. To put this in perspective, imagine the outcry if bailiffs owned the gallery seats and charged reporters and spectators for their use.

What happens in a public courtroom is the property of the people. Every trial should be video and audio recorded in downloadable form. We have the technology, and the message to legislators should be clear:

“What do we want?”

“More transparency in the justice system.”

“When do we want it?”

“Now.”

Lloyd Billingsley is the author of Killer Confession: Double Murder Dialogue in Davis, California and Shotgun Weddings, about the Placerville case. Exceptional Depravity, his first book on the Marsh trial, appeared in 2014, and this year he published Bill of Writes, a journalism collection.

The post Free the Transcripts: The Case for More Transparency in the Court System appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

by Ribhu Singh

On July 28, 2016, in Department 8 of the Yolo County Superior Court, the preliminary hearing in the murder proceedings against Alejandro Loza Quezada reconvened. Mr. Quezada is being asked to answer for his alleged involvement in a potentially gang-related shooting that resulted in the death of a Woodland man on July 1, 2016. The prosecution is seeking the death penalty in this case. Judge David Reed presided over the matter.

The prosecution, led by Deputy DA Kyle Hasapes, called its first witness, the defendant’s ex-girlfriend.

The prosecution asked the defendant’s girlfriend whether or not she was afraid to testify against her ex-lover, and she, in turn, responded that she was not. The prosecution then asked the witness to detail the events of July 1, leading up to the shooting. The witness stated that she and the defendant had spent the day grocery shopping, going to both Raley’s and Walmart to cash a check, and that she had taken the defendant to get a haircut.

She then proceeded to tell the court that she and the defendant had gone to visit their landlord at around 3:00pm to pay their rent. She testified that on the way back from their landlord’s residence, the couple stopped at a convenience store to pick up vodka, and the two of them proceeded to drink alcohol back at their apartment. At this point, the prosecutor asked the witness if the defendant had expressed a desire to purchase bullets, and the witness replied that she “did not remember.”

The prosecution asked if the witness knew anything about the defendant’s gang affiliations, prior convictions for gang violence, or drug dealings, to which the witness answered, “No.”

The People continued to build their timeline, and asked what happened after the two had returned to their apartment and started drinking. The witness stated that the defendant was picked up his by his brother, and that she did not know where the two had gone. The prosecution asked the witness if the defendant was acting oddly, and the witness replied that she had thought the defendant was intoxicated, but clarified that she did not find that particularly odd.

Upon further testimony, the witness divulged that the defendant had returned with his brother and had picked up the witness and taken her to a barn on the outskirts of Woodland. The witness claimed that she did not know why she was taken to the barn, but she remained adamant that it was not to conceal or move any firearms. The defendant conceded that she was heavily intoxicated, and that the barn incident was the last thing that she had remembered.

During the ensuing cross-examination of the witness by Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira, it was revealed that the witness had given conflicting statements to police officers during an investigation of the shooting, and an investigation of the witness’ text messages with the defendant yielded information contradictory to her testimony. Ms. Sequeira stated that the witness’ text message were “criminal at face value,” and she advised the court to allow the witness to consult with an attorney prior to testifying in an attempt to prevent the possibility of self-incrimination. The Deputy DA agreed, stating that the DA’s office was receptive to granting the witness immunity, contingent upon her continued truthfulness with the court.

With her credibility impugned, the witness was excused.

The second witness called by the prosecution was another victim of the shooting, the deceased victim’s best friend, who was a passenger in the victim’s car during the altercation.

The prosecution asked the witness how long he had known the victim, and the witness stated that he had known the victim for 15 years. The witness stated that he did not want to testify, for he was afraid that he would be branded a “snitch.” The witness was very hesitant to testify further and proceeded to incoherently mumble for the entirety of the proceeding.

The prosecution stated that the witness was not competent to stand trial, and later, upon further testimony by the defendant, the defense asked the witness if he had consumed any alcoholic beverages before testifying. The witness answered, “No.” The inarticulate and obtuse manner with which the witness spoke proved problematic for the court reporter, who was obligated to record everything that the witness stated.

The witness stated that he was drinking with the victim in a local bar and that the two of them had gone to a liquor store around 7pm. The witness frequently claimed that he “did not remember” what had happened that night. The witness eventually conceded that an altercation had, in fact, happened and that he and the victim were allegedly shot at on 5th Street in Woodland. The witness stated that he “did not know why he was being shot at,” and he then proceeded to tell the court how he had abandoned his car and run. The witness then stated that he was arrested by a police officer and was taken to a hospital. Upon the witness’s arrival in the hospital, he discovered that his friend, the victim, had died.

The prosecution then brought up the witness’ prior gang convictions, and the defendant claimed that he did not know, nor think, that the incident was gang-related. The witness stated that he “did not know that his friend would die,” and he expressed his anger at the hospital, while in custody. When asked by the prosecution why he thought he was arrested, the witness stated that it was because he was drunk and acting “out of pocket.”

The preliminary hearing ended for the day, and will resume on July 29, 2016.

The post Woodland Murder Preliminary Hearing Resumes appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Sophie Marconi

On July 29 at 1:30 pm in Department 8, the preliminary hearing of the People against Alejandro Loza Quezada resumed. The preliminary hearing was not completed, as there were still witnesses who needed to provide testimony who did not appear in court, so the hearing will reconvene Monday morning at 9 am.

The first witness who provided testimony was a female police officer whose name is not available. This officer stated that she spoke to one of the witnesses, who at the time of the incident was coming home from Little Caesars with her mother, driving southbound on 5^th Street in Woodland. The witness testified that there were two vehicles swerving on the roadway on 5^th St. One black car and one grey car were traveling southbound when the driver of the grey vehicle stopped the vehicle and got out of the car. At this moment, another man exited the grey vehicle, removed a gun from his waistband, and shot at the black vehicle. Following the incident, the black vehicle left northbound on 5^th St.

After the prosecution finished their direct examination of the officer, the defense began their cross-examination of the police officer. The officer had spoken to nine separate witnesses regarding the incident. The first witness who gave a statement stated that she was in her home when she heard car tires screeching and came outside. When she came outside, she saw a Hispanic male in a tan car yelling at someone. She was not able to see the person this man was yelling at. She stated that, soon after the yelling, she saw the man from the tan car shoot a gun, so she ran back inside. Once she had returned home, she heard multiple gunshots. She stated that once she was inside, she saw the shooter run to her window and attempt to look inside before running away.

The police officer then answered more questions about the previous witness who was driving on 5^th St., and ran through her police statement. This witness had said that the man who exited the tan car was Hispanic, thin, and wore a white shirt, red shorts, and was about six feet tall. The second man who was in the vehicle was wearing a white shirt and had visible facial hair. This was the man who pulled his gun from his waistband and shot at the black vehicle.

The People’s next witness was Detective Pablo Gonzales. Det. Gonzales was assigned follow-up investigation of the shooting. He went to Woodland Memorial Hospital to meet the victim of the shooting, Geovanny Gomez. Detective Gonzales was never able to speak directly to Mr. Gomez, as he was in critical condition before he passed away during attempted resuscitation. Gonzales spoke with the nurse, who told him that Mr. Gomez had been shot in the side and the calf.

Det. Gonzales took swabs from blood that was in the vehicle in which Mr. Gomez was transported to the hospital. Gonzales stated that there were no firearms in that vehicle.

During his investigation, Det. Gonzales later discovered that there was a MoneyGram receipt in the suspected shooter’s vehicle. This MoneyGram led him to a local Walmart, where he pulled the surveillance tapes in an attempt to identify the suspect.

The detective later showed this surveillance tape to multiple witnesses. The first witness who viewed the tape identified the man in the surveillance tape to match the description of Alejandro Quezada as the man she saw shoot at the black vehicle.

The detective noticed that Quezada appeared to be with a young woman in the surveillance tape, so he ran some computer checks looking for arrests matching the prototype of the young woman and was able to find her by getting information about her employment and residency. He eventually got in touch with the young woman’s mother, who immediately suspected that the trouble had to do with her new boyfriend, Queszada.

The detective was later able to question the young woman about her boyfriend when the parents agreed to pick her up for dinner and let the officer speak with her. At this point, the young woman told the police officer that Quezada was in her apartment, so the police went and retrieved him.

Det. Gonzales asked Quezada about the vehicle from the crime scene, to which Quezada responded that he had not bought or registered a car since the last time he was in prison, which was in 2010. The detective also questioned Quezada’s brother, Ernesto Loza, who appeared very nervous. Gonzales stated that Ernesto Loza had such an elevated heart rate, even before questioning, that he could see his pulse through his neck. Officer Gonzales estimated that his heart rate was never under 110 during and leading up to questioning.

Ernesto said the last time he saw his brother was in May. Alejandro had been living with his brother and sister-in-law, but his sister-in-law made him leave, as she was not comfortable with his presence.

The last witness brought to the stand was Detective Tim Keeney. Det. Keeney also viewed the surveillance tapes from Walmart and showed the tape to some witnesses who had sen the crime. Both witnesses who viewed the tape said they were nearly positive that the man they saw on the tape was the man they saw shoot at the black vehicle.

Det. Keeney testified that he went into the home of Alejandro Quezada and found two pistols in a dresser, one matching the description given by the witnesses. He also found ammunition in the same drawer. Later during his search he found a cumulative 36.29 grams of methamphetamine throughout the apartment.

At this point the preliminary hearing was ended and scheduled to resume Monday morning August 1 at 9 am.

The post Day 3 of Woodland Murder Preliminary Hearing appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Sophie Marconi

On August 1, 2016, in Department 7, the preliminary hearing of the People vs. Thomas Phillip Leae began, with Judge Samuel T. McAdam presiding over the case. The hearing regarded an incident that occurred on November 30, 2015, at approximately 10 pm. On the given day, Mr. Leae was involved in a high-speed chase with several police officers. This dangerous and drawn-out pursuit ended in the death of Mr. Leae’s girlfriend, Ali Siufunna, a passenger in the vehicle at the time.

As a result of the event, Leae is charged with the following six counts: murder in the second degree; evading a peace officer resulting in death; evading a police officer through reckless driving; vehicle theft; receiving stolen property; and driving under the influence of drugs, causing injury. All charges except for the last offense are considered felonies by Yolo County.

The first witness who took the stand was Officer Marcos Castillo, a California Highway Patrol officer. Officer Castillo has been a CHP officer for nine years. During the People’s direct examination, Deputy District Attorney Deanna Hays asked Officer Castillo to describe how the incident began.

Castillo testified that he was sitting in his patrol car on the side of the road when he saw the defendant speeding. He estimated the defendant’s speed at approximately 80 miles per hour. At this point, Castillo checked the vehicle’s speed with his radar, verified that the vehicle was driving at a speed above the limit, and pursued the vehicle going southbound on Interstate 5.

The prosecution asked Officer Castillo if he believed he made the right decision, considering the possible risks involved with engaging in a high-speed chase. Officer Castillo responded that with his past training and because the traffic was light, he believes he made the right decision in pursuing the vehicle.

After about half a mile, Castillo caught up to the vehicle and turned on his warning lights. At this point, the vehicle did not slow down in speed and pull over to the roadside, but rather sped up in an attempt to evade the officer. In response, the officer sped up to keep up with the vehicle, while he ran the license plate.

After running the license plate, Officer Castillo discovered that the vehicle had been reported stolen in Washington. The officer then called in for backup as he continued pursuing the vehicle at speeds up to 110 mph. About 10 miles into the chase, the suspect turned off his lights in an attempt to lose the officer.

The suspect was now driving well over 100 mph, swerving between lanes without his headlights on, and posed a serious threat to other vehicles on the road. At this point, Officer Castillo updated dispatch with the current location, speed and traffic conditions of the stolen vehicle.

Deputy Public Defender John Sage conducted a cross-examination on the witness. Mr. Sage questioned the safety of the pursuit, bringing attention to the high speeds and issues with visibility at such a late time. He also questioned why the officer did not use a pit maneuver or road spikes to stop the vehicle, to which Officer Castillo responded that either of these maneuvers would be much too dangerous at such speeds.

The second witness the People called to the stand was CHP Officer Timothy S. Lovato, who has worked as a CHP officer for 11 years. Officer Lovato was called in by dispatch to join the pursuit, and shortly became the primary officer in the chase, due to his past experience with high-speed chases, which he estimated to number between 23 and 28.

Officer Lovato, in primary position, was pursuing the vehicle when the suspect exited the town of Arbuckle and turned left without stopping at the stop sign. At this point Lovato executed a pit maneuver by placing his bumper against the rear bumper of the suspect’s vehicle in an attempt to bring the vehicle to a stop. The suspect’s vehicle came to a complete stop, but only temporarily.

Lovato then got out of his vehicle and initiated a felony stop. Through the window, Lovato saw that the driver of the vehicle was male, and a female passenger sat beside him. Soon after Lovato made this observation, the vehicle sped away toward the off ramp, and drove the wrong way on I-5 southbound.

At this point three police vehicles were pursuing the suspect on the proper side of the freeway parallel to the suspect vehicle. The suspect was driving over 100 mph, on the wrong side of the freeway, with his headlights turned off, making the situation incredibly precarious. Each police vehicle had a spotlight on the suspect’s vehicle, in an effort both to keep the vehicle in sight and to allow other drivers driving on I-5 southbound to see the vehicle coming and avoid an accident.

Approximately seven miles after the vehicle began traveling in the wrong direction on I-5 southbound, the suspect lost control of the vehicle while trying to exit at a rest stop, and drove down an embankment where he hit a tree. When the officers arrived at the accident, the car and passengers had sustained serious damage. The entire front of the vehicle was smashed to the point where both the driver and passenger had their legs entrapped by the dashboard.

Officer Lovato noticed that the passenger was unresponsive and had no pulse. Later the officer discovered that the passenger of the vehicle was Ali Siufunna. She died due to the injuries she sustained during the crash. She was not wearing her seat belt and none of the law enforcement witnesses could recall if her airbag had inflated.

Thomas Phillip Leae sustained critical injuries but survived the incident. He is scheduled to return for arraignment on August 16 at 9 am, as the People have met their burden of proof for Mr. Leae to be held accountable for all the felony charges against him.

The post High Speed Chase Ends with Death appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

by Sarah Gregory

The first witness in the Alejandro Loza Quezada murder case, the defendant’s previous girlfriend, was recalled to the stand despite the opposition of her new attorney, Jeff Raven.  She had previously been granted “use” immunity, which means statements by the witness may not be used against her, but the prosecution does not agree that it will never prosecute.  Raven requested a continuance for the preliminary hearing because he found the lack of professionalism in this case appalling.

Raven accused the prosecutor, Kyle Hasapes, of failing to provide him with documents such as copies of the witness’ previous police statements.  He also told Judge David Reed that the prosecutor had only just handed him one of his client’s statements five minutes prior and stressed that he knows nothing about the case yet and would like some time to go over the documents with the witness.

Judge Reed granted him an hour to go over the documents, even though the hearing had already begun a little over an hour late due to scheduling issues with the other attorneys.

An hour later, Raven was still frustrated.  He told Judge Reed the prosecutor had handed him yet another of the witness’ statements after his hour for review had begun.  He argued that an hour was not sufficient to go over multiple statements and requested a continuance until the next morning.

Judge Reed denied this request because the hearing was already running at least two hours behind schedule.  Raven also asked for his client to be allowed to log her use of immunity for the record and that he be allowed to sit next to her while she gives her testimony. This request was granted.

Next, the witness began her testimony.  She was extremely emotional throughout, because she was unable to recall many of her previous statements with police and on July 1, 2016, the day of the shooting.

As Mr. Hasapes began to question her, she became more unsure of herself and confused by his phrasing of the questions.  The witness also privately conversed with her attorney, Raven, before she answered any of the prosecutor’s questions.

The prosecutor began by reminding the witness of her previous testimony the week before.  He asked her with whom she had been living at the time of the shooting.  Raven advised his client that she should invoke the 5th Amendment.  The prosecutor argued that the action was unnecessary and Judge Reed ordered her to answer the question.  Several other similar disputes occurred throughout the rest of the direct examination.

The witness was living with the defendant, her previous boyfriend, and two coworkers on July 1, 2016.  She had begun dating the defendant about two months prior and he had moved in with her a week before.  The witness established that the defendant did not have a key to the apartment, but kept some of his personal items there.

Hasapes asked if she was aware of any drugs or firearms that belonged to the defendant in her apartment.  She said at first that she did not know of any guns or drugs in her apartment.  The witness told the court she was confused by the question and asked the prosecutor to rephrase.

The second time Hasapes asked the question, the witness responded that she did possess previous knowledge of drugs and firearms in her apartment.  The prosecutor asked if the defendant had ever asked her to buy bullets for him, she responded that he had only done so once.  The witness had refused to buy bullets for the defendant.

Next, the prosecutor moved on to the events of July 1, 2016.  The witness stated that the defendant left her apartment around 6 pm to work on his car and came back around 8:40 pm.  She observed that the defendant seemed out of sorts after he came home.  She asked the defendant if he was all right, and he told her he was and they did not speak about the shooting until three days later.

Hasapes inquired whether the witness had seen the defendant put a gun away after he came home that evening.  The witness stated that, in her first statement to the police, she had accidentally said the wrong thing.  She told the detectives that she had seen the defendant put a gun with a red handle away in her lingerie drawer, however, she recanted that statement and said she now remembers she did not see him putting away anything.  The last time she saw the gun with the red handle was about a month before July 1, 2016.

The prosecutor asked the witness if she had spoken with police at least ten times before coming to court.  She said she did not remember and that she had not had the opportunity to go over any of her previous statements.  At this point, the court took a lunch break, which is when the witness reviewed her statements and prepared herself for the rest of her upcoming testimony.

After lunch the prosecutor asked what else happened the night of July 1, 2016, after the defendant came home to the witness’s apartment.  The witness said the defendant arrived with his brother.

Hasapes asked if the witness knew the defendant, her previous boyfriend, sold drugs.  She stated that she did and that he kept them in her lingerie drawer along with the gun in her room.  The drugs were identified as methamphetamine and marijuana.  The prosecutor asked her how she knew the defendant was a drug dealer.  She said she knew he sold drugs because she originally asked him to get some for herself.

She also verified that she had never seen the defendant carry a gun and that the gun with the red handle had been on her bed about a month prior to the shooting.  That was the last she remembers seeing it.

The prosecutor then proceeded to ask if the defendant had ever asked her to hide a gun for him or help him get out of town.

The prosecution tried to bring up a text message conversation between the witness and defendant about going to Los Angeles in order to dispose of a gun.  However, neither Martha Sequeira, the defendant’s attorney, or Raven had copies of the text messages.  They asked of Judge Reed that the prosecutor move to a different line of questioning.

Hasapes moved to the defendant’s alleged gang affiliation.  The witness stated that she had no previous knowledge of the defendant being part of a gang.  However, she reported that the defendant did have several friends who were gang members.

The prosecutor asked if the witness had seen the defendant selling drugs to these gang members.  She stated she did not see the defendant selling drugs to them, however, she assumed he did so.  Apparently, he would go into her room with them for privacy for only a few minutes when they would visit.

The witness described what the defendant had told her about the shooting on July 1, 2016, a few days afterwards.  The defendant had gone to work on his car at his cousin’s house and took it for a test drive afterwards.  Another car pulled alongside the defendant and the people inside the car began yelling at him, “We know who you are!”

The passenger in the front seat of the other car stepped out and pulled his gun on the defendant.  The defendant noticed that the passenger was swaying and most likely drunk.  This is when the defendant decided to race down the road to get away from the other car and a car chase ensued.

Both cars eventually stopped.  The defendant turned around and shot back at the other car.  After he fired the gun and did not see any movement from the other vehicle, he hurriedly drove off.

The defense began cross-examination.  First, Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira asked the witness about her relationship to the defendant.  The witness stated she first met the defendant a couple months before the shooting at a friend’s birthday party. Since the witness worked 30-60 hours a week during the relationship, both she and the defendant had a limited amount of time to see each other.  When they did, it was almost always in the presence of company.

A week after the shooting, on July 8, 2016, the witness’ father picked her up from her apartment and told her they would be going to his birthday dinner.  During the drive to the restaurant, the car was stopped by police and the witness was taken to the station for questioning.

Not knowing how police found her or what they wanted from her, she told them the truth to the best of her ability.  She asked for an attorney twice.

The witness claimed that police questioned her for about five hours and it was not always recorded.  She stated that whenever she accidentally changed her timeline of events, the detectives would berate her.  This is when one of the detectives told her that he knew her father and that they had orchestrated an elaborate ruse to get her to come into the station for questioning.

The same day, detectives asked to look through her phone.  They held her phone for 12 days and told her she could only get it back if she came in for another round of questioning.

On July 20, a detective called her home phone and asked for her to come down to the station.  She was reluctant because she just wanted to be done with the whole thing.  She asked if they could meet at a public place instead.  The detective declined and said she had to come in or else she would not receive her phone again.

While giving her last statement, the witness reported the detectives appeared to be asking her questions to which they already knew the answers.

The defense asked the witness if she knew she had a constitutional right to not talk to the police.  The witness had no idea.

The defense finished with the remaining events of July 1, 2016.  After the defendant came home with his brother, his sister-in-law showed up at the apartment a couple of hours later.  After a while, the witness, the defendant, his brother and his sister-in-law decided to go to a family member’s house in the country.

However, the police statement says that the defendant ran away to the country to hide from law enforcement; the defense asserted that, in reality, they were just visiting.  The defense insinuated all of the witness’s police statements were summaries of what the detectives assumed happened, rather than what she had originally told them.

At this point, the preliminary hearing ended for the day, and was scheduled to resume the following day, August 2, at 1:30 pm.

The post Day 4 of Murder Preliminary Hearing appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

by Jade Wolansky

Alejandro Loza Quezada’s preliminary hearing reconvened for its fifth day on August 2, 2016, at 1:30pm in Department 8. Three witnesses testified during the hearing.

Mr. Quezada’s girlfriend was the first to testify. She had been recalled for questioning to review the events leading up to the shooting death of Geovanny Gomez on July 1, 2016, in Woodland.

The prosecutor, Deputy DA Kyle Hasapes, asked her several questions on what Quezada had told her about the shooting. The witness answered with uncertainty. When questioned about Quezada’s interaction with a passenger of the victim’s car, she stated: “Alex tried to calm him down…Now I’m just getting all mixed up. I won’t make assumptions again.” At this point, the witness began to tear up.

Throughout the questioning, the defendant’s attorney, Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira, objected to the prosecutor’s questions. She stated that Mr. Hasapes’ questioning was hearsay and needed foundation.

Ms. Sequeira also stated that Hasapes’ questioning was argumentative. Mr. Quezada joined in and said “argumentative” loud enough for the court to hear.

Judge Reed halted the preliminary proceeding and advised Quezada to not speak loudly enough for the court to hear him. He informed Quezada that he would lose his client-attorney privilege otherwise.

Jeff Raven, the witness’ attorney, also objected to the prosecutor’s questioning. He stated that he was concerned that the witness was answering questions incorrectly due to her nervousness. Judge Reed turned to Mr. Raven and denied Mr. Raven’s request. He admonished Mr. Raven and informed him that he was not permitted to address the court. Ms. Sequeira commented that perhaps Mr. Raven was concerned that the witness would be accused of perjury because of her incorrect statements. Judge Reed replied that if the witness was having trouble answering questions, she could be asked later if she wanted to correct or clarify any previous answers.

Soon after, the witness began to tear up, so Judge Reed called for a 15-minute break.

The next witness to come to the stand was Detective Tamara Pelle, a detective for the Woodland Police Department. She stated that she had commissioned video surveillance footage from Big 5 and was asked to identify the timeframe certain ammunition was bought.  She testified that she saw two females enter the store at Big 5. They had bought 9mm Luger ammunition, which was identified to be the same type of ammunition that was found with Quezada’s gun.

The last witness brought in for questioning was Detective John Ney, an investigator for the Yolo County Gang Task Force. During the previous two testimonies, he sat at the counsel table next to Mr. Hasapes. He stated that he specialized in gang crime cases.

He said that he had also spoken to several witnesses related to the homicide incident, including a passenger in the victim’s car. He stated that the passenger had several tattoos, including an X and a three, and that he believed Quezada to be a “buster.” Detective Ney revealed that the passenger admitted to being a member of the Sureño street gang.

Detective Ney stated that he had spoken to Mr. Quezada’s girlfriend on July 8 and July 20 and that both interviews had been recorded.

Subsequently, Det. Ney recounted information he had gained from his interviews with Quezada’s girlfriend.

Detective Ney stated that Quezada’s girlfriend had said that Quezada and his associates used the letter B and the name “Boza.” Ney believed that Boza referred to “Bosque,” a Woodland gang. Ney said that Quezada’s girlfriend knew Quezada sold drugs. This is because, when Quezada’s associates would visit, they would go to another room and close the door for privacy.

The defense attorney began her cross-examination. Ms. Sequeira first asked if Detective Ney had hijacked Quezada’s girlfriend. Ney said he believed so, and that they had brought her into the Woodland Police Department.

The defense asked if Det. Ney had asked Quezada’s girlfriend whether she was afraid of answering questions. Ney replied no.

Ms. Sequeira then proceeded to the core of her attack against Detective Ney.

She accused Det. Ney of summarizing, rather than using Quezada’s girlfriend’s exact words. Ney admitted to this.

Ms. Sequeira stated Detective Ney’s possible reasons for summarizing. She pointed to Ney’s frequent use of the word “associate.” Ms. Sequeira announced that the word “associate” is part of the language used for gang enhancement charges, and that it has nefarious meaning. She asked why Detective Ney did not used the word “friend,” as Mr. Quezada’s girlfriend would have. Ney, caught off-guard, stated he had no ill intent.

Ms. Sequeria then accused Detective Ney of lacking foundation and writing assumptions in his statement.

She cited about when Ney said Quezada’s girlfriend knew Quezada sold drugs. Ms. Sequeira asked Detective Ney if he had specifically asked Quezada’s girlfriend whether she had actually seen Mr. Loza exchange drugs for money.  Ney admitted he did not ask. Ms. Sequeira proceeded to other examples where Ney also admitted that he did not confirm his assumptions.

At one point, Detective Ney said he was unable to confirm some of Quezada’s girlfriend’s statements because she was “all over the place.” Ms. Sequeira then asked if Ney believed Quezada’s girlfriend to be afraid, nervous and intimidated. Detective Ney admitted that she was afraid and nervous, but not intimidated.

Unlike his replies to the prosecutor’s questions, Detective Ney was unable to provide full answers to Mrs. Sequeria’s questions.

The defense finished her cross-examination for the day by asking the court for Detective Ney’s recording of his interviews with Mr. Quezada’s girlfriend by the nexr day. She had asked before, however, the prosecutor had said that this would not be possible.

Mr. Quezada’s preliminary hearing will reconvene on August 3, 2016, at 1:30pm.

The post Woodland Homicide Preliminary Hearing Resumes appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

In a series of moves that are of questionable legality, visiting Judge Arvid Johnson shut down what had to this point been public proceedings in the case of Gilson v. Benoit. In this case, legal questions loom over the status of Claire Benoit, who has fled the country with her children, fearing for the safety of the kids with Mr. Gilson, who has a lengthy criminal record.

In addition to Deputy DA Tiffany Susz, additional officials were present with Deputy County Counsel Sheryl Cambron and Brian Pakpour, an attorney now for the first time representing Mr. Gilson.

Kim Robinson, representing Ms. Benoit, attempted to exercise a peremptory challenge of Judge Johnson under Penal Code section 170.6.

Judge Johnson first ruled that the peremptory challenge needed to be in writing and then he ruled it untimely.

Ms. Robinson argued, “Your Honor, the peremptory challenge does not need to be in writing. It can be made orally. We didn’t know to whom the case was being assigned before we walked in this morning.”

Judge Johnson responded that the matter was before him last time.

Ms. Robinson indicated, “I was not here.”

When Judge Johnson said, “You were here by phone,” Ms. Robinson indicated she was not.  “I did not appear by phone in this department before you. I’ve never appeared in front of you before. And, in fact, the last notice we got of any hearing from — was for July 19, and it was actually noticed for Department 3, Judge White, so I had no idea of your involvement in the case until we got an order in the mail a couple of days ago.”

Mr. Pakpour started to point out that, under 170.6, “once Your Honor has decided a contested issue, which I believe it did at the last hearing…”

But Judge Johnson noted, “170.6, at this point is denied as being untimely.”

Kim Robinson, who believes that Judge Johnson erred in this ruling, will file a writ to the appellate court later this week to challenge it.

In the meantime, Judge Johnson continued to undo the arrangement that Judge White had set up in June to move the case forward to trial.

The judge indicated, “The concern I have, and the reason I’m treating this a little like a juvenile at this point, I would like to ask county counsel and the CPS to inquire and investigate whether or not CPS should be involved and whether or not a protective warrant should issue for the return of the children.”

He continued, “She is clearly in contempt of court. She’s refused to make herself available. She has been ordered back. She is basically hiding in different places in Europe. And my question is whether or not that is grounds in and of itself for a protective warrant for picking up the children and returning the children. I believe that it is, but I don’t know, so I would like CPS and county counsel to look into that.”

In June, Judge Kathleen White, recognizing the delicate situation, attempted to settle the issue of custody for Mr. Gilson who, as the Vanguard has reported, has a lengthy criminal record of abusing two women – his ex-wife and Ms. Benoit, who has accused him of rape that resulted in the birth of their youngest child.

The next hearing is set for Thursday, August 11 at 1:30.

The court then undid the remainder of Judge White’s orders, noting of Ms. Benoit, “She has submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the court. She has refused to come back and refused to appear.”

When Ms. Robinson noted, “She has actually not refused to appear…  She’s been granted permission by Judge White to appear by Skype at the trial in October.”

The judge disagreed stating, “She’s been ordered back, and she’s not come back.”

He continued, “So that’s my question. And I think I know the answer, but I would like to give this to CPS, and then I want to (be) clear that if you would like to talk to the Child Abduction Unit….They are, in essence, an investigating arm of the court, and I think that’s pursuant to Family Code 3130 through 3134.5.

“The Court, pursuant to that, is ordering the District Attorney’s Child Abduction Unit to assist and take all steps necessary to locate and secure the return of the children.”

The judge then countermanded Judge White’s decision regarding Skype, saying “that doesn’t make any sense to do a deposition by Skype.”  He added, “So if they want to schedule a deposition, that’s fine, but it needs to be live, not Skype. But hers needs to go first.”

Ms. Robinson noted her “continuing objection regarding the peremptory challenge.”

Mr. Pakpour told the court, “Before we finish here, I have an ex parte motion for custody and to appoint minor’s counsel in this case and to hear that ex parte, and I calendared that for today and I have moving papers on that. But my client would be okay hearing that on the 11th.”

At this point, the Vanguard through its attorney will file a motion to re-open the court as a public matter.  Kim Robinson plans to file her objection to Judge Johnson at the next hearing.

In June, Judge White had ordered this matter to trial in October with depositions to occur via Skype this summer.  At this point, that timeline is in jeopardy as Ms. Benoit is in Europe and unlikely to return to the country to allow the court system to have a chance of putting her children in the custody of Mr. Gilson.

As the Vanguard reported last week, Mr. Gilson has a lengthy criminal record of domestic abuse and stalking.  A Contra Costa County judge ordered him into intense therapy before the custody situation with his two kids from a previous marriage could be adjudicated.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

The post Judge Suddenly Shuts Down Public Hearing in Benoit Matter appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Jade Wolansky

The first witness to come to the stand was Detective John Ney, with the Yolo County Sheriff’s Office and its Gang Task Force. He had been recalled from the previous day for further testimony. The prosecutor, Deputy DA Kyle Hasapes, asked Det. Ney why he had summarized a witness’ words in his statement. Det. Ney answered that he saw no need to give a verbatim account, since the interview was recorded.

The next to testify was another recalled witness, Woodland Detective Pablo Gonzales.

Ms. Sequeira questioned him on the statements he had collected from a witness about the July 1, 2016, incident. Ms. Sequeira asked if the witness to the incident had described two vehicles, one light-colored and one dark-colored, that had passed by at high speed on her street. Det. Gonzales affirmed that the witness had said that, and he said that the witness had also stated that the dark-colored car was always trailing the light-colored car.

Mr. Hasapes next asked Det. Gonzales for facts about the witness. Gonzales stated that the witness was approximately 70 years old. Mr. Hasapes proceeded to ask if Det. Gonzales believed the witness to be confused. Gonzales replied that she seemed clear on what she had seen.

The rest of the preliminary hearing was focused on questioning the next witness, Detective Aaron Moe, an investigator for the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office. He currently serves as a member of Yolo County Gang Task Force and has been an expert witness in Woodland, Yuba, Sutter and Butte Counties. He has received certifications and training, and has been involved in investigating gang-related crimes.

The defense challenged Det. Moe’s credibility as a Woodland gang expert.

Ms. Sequeira argued that any police officer had equal access to the resources that qualified Det. Moe as an expert witness. She also questioned the criteria the Yolo County Gang Task Force utilized for identifying gang members. She believed that supervisor and peer review was not sufficient to affirm whether their evaluations were accurate. Sequeria had Det. Moe admit he had first testified as an expert witness only two weeks after becoming an officer.

The defense then requested that Judge Reed call into question whether Det. Moe should be qualified as an expert witness. Judge Reed decided Det. Moe was sufficiently qualified for the purposes of the preliminary hearing.

Next, Mr. Hasapes began his examination of the witness.  Det. Moe testified about Woodland gang culture and dynamics. He explained that “VBN,” or “Varrio Bosque Norte,” was a subset of the larger Norteño criminal street gang. He stated that they had a rivalry with the Sureño gang.

He stated that Norteño gang members affiliate themselves with the color red, the number 14, and that they use gang symbols that represent the letter “B.”  The Sureño gang use the color blue, and associate themselves with the number 13. Gang members have loose and shifting leadership, since leaders often have been imprisoned or have moved away. General members are known as soldiers, and they commit various crimes to gain status within the gang.

Det. Moe explained the history of the Norteño gang’s origin. The gang had started in the state prison system as a defense against the Mexican Mafia, also known as the Sureño gang. Norteño gang members use the derogative term “scrap” to refer to Sureños. Similarly, the Sureños use “busters” to refer to Norteños.

At this point, Mr. Sequeria objected and asked the purpose of Mr. Hasapes’ line of questioning. He answered that he believed that the Quezada murder case was a result of a gang altercation between Norteño and Sureño gang members.

Mr. Hasapes reminded the court that, in a previous testimony, two female passengers in the victim’s vehicle wore blue hats.

Mr. Hasapes halted momentarily and asked permission to approach the bar. He obtained several of the People’s exhibits. The exhibits included documents related to the defendant’s past conviction. Mr. Hasapes showed them to the witness and asked him if he recognized any of the names listed as known VBN gang members.

Ms. Sequeira objected and cited the California Supreme Court’s ruling in People v. Sanchez (2016) and the Crawford rule (from Crawford v. Washington in 2004, which set in place a stricter standard for the admission of hearsay evidence, as related to the 6th Amendment’s confrontation clause). She argued that the prosecutor was violating the defendant’s 5th and 6th Amendment rights.

She stated that the prosecutor was having the witness affirm evidence about which he did not have personal knowledge. She then requested the court to read the Sanchez court case.

The prosecutor countered that Sanchez nonetheless permitted him to continue questioning Det. Moe. Mr. Hasapes stated that, in the court case ruling, an expert witness may rely on hearsay to give their opinion so long as they testify about general information. It is up to the jury to determine whether they will consider this information when reaching a verdict.

Mr. Hasapes next requested Ms. Sequeira to stipulate to several facts of the case, from after the incident. These requests included that the defendant had initially tried to avoid arrest when they arrived at the apartment he was sharing with his girlfriend, and that the victim had died from gunshot wounds. Ms. Sequeira acknowledged and so stipulated.

Shortly after, the court took a 15-minute break to review People v. Sanchez and how it would apply to the preliminary hearing.

When Judge Reed returned he explained that a witness’s general answers would not be limited by the Sanchez ruling. However, case-specific answers would not be admissible for the truth of the matter. The only exception would be if the witness had personal knowledge of the information.

Judge Reed then said the preliminary hearing would resume on August 4, 2016.

The post Possible Gang Homicide Preliminary Hearing Continues for At Least Another Day appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Sarah Gregory

Detective Aaron Moe, a member of the Yolo County Gang Task Force, testified to the indicators of Alejandro Loza Quezada’s gang membership.  Moe had been recalled from the previous day for further testimony.  The prosecutor, Deputy District Attorney Kyle Hasapes, asked Detective Moe about the only witness from the shooting that occurred on July 1, 2016.

The witness is a Woodland resident who happened to live on the street where part of the shooting occurred.  The witness, who will be referred to as “HL,” was driving southbound on his street when he saw a dark-colored sedan driving northbound.  HL reported that the dark-colored sedan was swerving and, as it was passing him, he locked eyes with the driver and observed that the man seemed scared.

HL also observed two men waiting in the middle of the road for the vehicle, one of which was holding a gun.  As the car approached, the man with the gun took aim at the dark-colored sedan and fired.  HL said he was about 10 feet away from the shooter as this occurred – close enough to be able to lock eyes with the shooter as well.

The description of the men in the roadway was fairly detailed.  HL stated that the shooter appeared to be Hispanic, and he had a lean frame, had his hair slicked back into a ponytail, and was wearing a white t-shirt with dark blue jeans.

HL also described the other man in the street as stocky, short, and wearing a dark shirt, Hispanic as well.  The description of the shooter is similar to the appearance of the defendant.

After HL witnessed the shooting, he drove to his house down the street and locked himself inside.  A short time later, both men showed up and began pounding on HL’s front door, yelling, “It’s me! Open up!”   When HL did not respond, they went to the side of the house, kicked down the gate leading to the backyard and jumped the north fence.

The prosecutor asked Detective Moe if he was familiar with a Steven Gutierrez.  Gutierrez was, in fact, the previous occupant of HL’s home.  Moe replied that he was familiar with the name and that he knew Gutierrez to be a known associate of the Norteños, a street gang originating in Northern California.

Next, the prosecutor revealed People’s Exhibits #13 and #16 to the court in order to build Det. Moe’s credibility.  The prosecutor asked Moe to identify the exhibits.  He stated that the exhibits held photos of different men.

Among the men listed was Roberto Rojas, a known member of the Norteños.  Moe indicated that Rojas is a gang member because he was wearing red and has a tattoo of the number 14, which are both gang identifiers for the Norteños.

The prosecutor focused on the defendant and asked Detective Moe if he was aware of the defendant’s previous contact with law enforcement.  Moe stated that, because he researched the defendant, he was able to find every single incident where the defendant made contact with law enforcement.

For example, in July of 2008, an officer performed a car stop on the defendant, who had been driving at the time.  The only passenger was one of the defendant’s brothers.  In the report of the incident, the officer noticed the defendant was wearing red.

In another instance, in January of 2010, another officer performed a car stop because of a defective brake light.  The defendant and two of his brothers were in the car.

When the officer came close enough he immediately smelled marijuana emanating from the vehicle.  All three occupants admitted to smoking a “blunt” earlier in the day.

Only one of the defendant’s brothers reported a weapon on his person during the standard pat-down.  The weapon was a cue ball wrapped in a rag.  The officer assumed it would be used to inflict blunt force trauma.

The prosecutor asked if Det. Moe knew the defendant’s brothers to be gang members.  Martha Sequeira, the defendant’s attorney, objected to this question because of its lack of relevance to her client.

Judge Reed asked the prosecutor to rephrase the question.  Instead, the prosecutor asked how often Moe sees family members in the same gang.  The defense argued that family members do not have to belong in the same gang. This line of questioning was abandoned.

The prosecutor inquired as to what research Moe did while investigating the defendant’s background. Moe stated that he had looked up the defendant’s Facebook account and saw photos that suggest the defendant is associated with the Norteños.

The prosecutor presented these photos to the court in People’s Exhibit #12.  Moe was asked to describe each photo.  In several of the photos, the defendant is shown wearing red and displaying either the number 14 or the letter “B.”  All are validated gang identifiers.

The prosecutor presented People’s Exhibit #17, which are pictures of the defendant’s tattoo, taken after he was arrested.  The picture shows the word “capitan” across the defendant’s left forearm with the letter “n” highlighted in red ink.  The highlighted “n” suggests an association with the Norteños.

Next, the prosecutor asked for Moe’s opinion about whether or not the defendant was an active gang member at the time of the shooting on July 1, 2016.  Moe replied that, based on the Facebook photos, the tattoos and the defendant’s apparel at the time of his contacts with law enforcement, he would agree that the defendant is an active gang member.

The prosecutor then asked if the testimony of the defendant’s girlfriend would bolster Moe’s opinion of the defendant’s gang membership.  The defendant’s girlfriend had previously testified that the defendant is a drug dealer and has sold drugs to verified members of the Norteños.  Moe responded that this fact does strengthen his opinion of the defendant as an active gang member.

If the defendant is the shooter, then Daniel Vallejo, a friend of the defendant, is suspected of being the man standing next to him in the roadway on July 1, 2016.

People’s Exhibit #18 shows photos of Vallejo’s tattoos.  Vallejo has a Boston Red Sox “B” tattooed on his left bicep and 4 dots on his left elbow as well as one dot on the other suggesting the number 14.

Detective Moe believes that, based on these photos alone, Vallejo is an active associate rather than a member of the Norteños.

People’s Exhibit #19 illustrates the tattoos of another known gang member, Daniel Bravo.

The prosecutor asked Moe if he was familiar with monikers and asked him to explain what a moniker is.  In relation to gangs, a moniker is a nickname or alias some gang members use for various reasons.  Daniel Bravo’s moniker is “32.”

Bravo also has one dot on his right hand and four dots on his left knuckles, indicating the number 14.  Moe also believes Bravo is associated with the Norteños.

Next, the prosecutor presented a detailed hypothetical for Detective Moe.  He proposed a scenario of two individuals in the front seat of a car, driving through a residential neighborhood.  These two individuals are referred to as “A” and “B.”

Another car approaches from behind them with the same set up.  These individuals are referred to as “C” and “D.”

Both C and D are wearing blue hats and refer to A and B as Norteños. D identifies himself as a member of the Sureños.  The Sureños is the rival street gang of the Norteños.

A and B open fire on C and D in the car behind them.  C and D respond by giving chase.  Somehow, A and B end up doing the chasing, eventually stopping their vehicle and stepping out.

C and D stop, as well.  D steps out and raises his gun.  Suddenly, A fires 12 shots toward C and D.  C is killed.  Then A and B run to a home where a gang member used to live in order to hide.

The prosecutor continued the hypothetical, strictly focusing on A, which indirectly refers to the defendant.  He told Det. Moe that A is in possession of two semi-automatic pistols and four magazines, two of which are extended. The prosecutor asked if it would be safe to assume that the guns in that scenario are being used for gang activity.  Moe replied that he would agree with that assessment.

The prosecutor asked if the killing of C would have been done to benefit the Norteños.  Moe stated that, based on the fact that the shooting occurred between two rival street gangs, it is possible that the killing of C, a Sureño, would have benefited the Norteños.

Next, the prosecutor asked if gang members typically commit crimes together.  According to Moe’s experience, gang members do tend to do this, in order to intimidate others.

The defense began her cross-examination. Ms. Sequeira asked Det. Moe how he determines a witness’s credibility.  If the individual displays consistency, relays facts and has a specific involvement in the case, that witness is considered reliable.  Specifically discussing the defendant’s girlfriend, Moe would determine her credibility based on her direct relationship with and personal knowledge of the defendant.

The defense also inquired as to how many cases Moe has testified in where the defendant was an active gang member.  Detective Moe stated that he has only testified under that specific circumstance five times.

The defense will continue the cross-examination tomorrow on August 5, 2016.

The post Day 7 of the Woodland Gang Murder Preliminary Hearing appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Jamie Moddelmog

The preliminary hearing of Steven Hendrix resumed Thursday in Department 13, Judge Paul Richardson presiding.  The day began with the issue of defendant Steven Hendrix’s prior domestic violence conviction, and whether it should be given judicial notice.

Deputy District Attorney David Robbins stated that it should be given judicial notice, because it points to his state of mind at the time of the accident.  Robbins argued that, because the defendant was sentenced on February 19, 2016, only five days before the accident, he might have been angry, especially considering that with him in the car was his girlfriend who testified against him in the domestic violence trial.  Robbins claimed the Hendrix might have been “taking out his anger” by driving too fast or erratically.

Robbins stated that he based the theory on the timing of the incident, five days after the conviction, as well as Hendrix’s general  abusive relationships.

Judge Richardson told Robbins that he believed it speculative to say that the behavior of Mr. Hendrix (driving recklessly) was indicative of “malice aforethought,” but he did take judicial notice of the fact that that Hendrix was out on bail, awaiting sentencing.

The first witness called was “BC,” a Davis resident who was riding his bicycle along Second Street when the crash occurred.  BC stated he was riding westbound on Second St., going to his gym, when he was passed very closely on the left by a large red vehicle traveling at a “high rate of speed” just as he was approaching the Pena Drive intersection.  He claimed that the vehicle went into the bike lane, dangerously close to him and he felt a rush of wind as well as a rush of adrenaline, thinking that he had almost been killed.

He estimated the vehicle was traveling around 70 miles per hour.  He also said that he had experience gauging speeds, as a recreational motorcycle racer.

BC claimed that most cars go slightly faster than the speed limit on Second, usually around 50 miles per hour in a 45 mile per hour zone.

He said he was very scared because he had “almost been killed” on Second Street six years earlier, when he was traveling westbound on his motorcycle and a car turning onto Second St. did not notice him and pulled out in front of him.  He crashed into the side of the car, flew off his motorcycle, and landed on another adjacent car.

Because of that incident, the passing of the red vehicle stuck out in his mind as significant, and frightened him even more.

As the car was speeding by in the bike lane next to him, BC claimed he heard some car on the street “sit on the horn” for around five seconds, and then he saw the red vehicle pass another vehicle on the right side of the road, staying in the bike lane through the Pena intersection.

BC said he then saw the red vehicle pass another car, still traveling at the same high rate of speed, on the left side, in the middle turn lane – what he referred to as the “suicide lane,” in the middle between east and westbound traffic on Second Street.  As the red vehicle passed the second car on the left side, it went out of BC’s view.  It was at that point that BC recalled hearing brakes and the “sound of an explosion” from ahead of him, and he saw dust and small debris flying in the air.  He claimed that the car that the red vehicle had just passed before the collision did a three-point turn, getting out of the way of the accident, although he did not mention that fact when questioned at the scene.

He said that the (red) vehicle was not moving jerkily and both of the cars that were passed were passed fairly smoothly.

As for the conditions on the road, BC claimed that there was not much of a glare and there was no construction happening.

He continued to ride his bike to the crash site at Second and Cantrill Drive, the next intersection after Pena.  BC testified that he saw children sitting on the side of the street, with the red vehicle jutting out into the bike lane and the car that had been hit by the red vehicle in the eastbound lane, sideways. The front of the red vehicle had been smashed and the driver’s side of the hit vehicle was smashed as well.

He said that he saw the defendant in the road, trying to get to the woman in the hit vehicle, looking “very distraught and upset” and being restrained.

He claimed that people turning onto Second from Pena or Cantrill, such as the woman killed in the crash, often have a hard time spotting oncoming traffic in the main lane traveling westbound because of cars in the right-turn lane for each of the intersections. However, he said he did not see any car in the right-turn lane at the time of the incident.  He also said that he believed the car turning onto Second from Cantrill, the one that was hit, was proceeding in a safe and normal manner.

The second witness called to testify was Detective Janell Bestpitch, with the Davis Police Department. On February 24, 2016, Det. Bestpitch was dispatched to the intersection of Second and Cantrill because of a fatal car accident.  After visiting the scene, she went to go talk to the red car’s occupants, who were sent to the UC Davis Medical Center for treatment.

The first of the car’s occupants that Det. Bestpitch interviewed was “ES,” the 12-year-old niece of Hendrix’s girlfriend.  Bestpitch testified that ES told her that she was not paying attention at the time of the collision and was looking at her phone, with ear buds in and with the window rolled down.  The detective also claimed to have been told by ES that the car used to have brake problems, but those problems had recently been fixed.

According to Bestpitch, ES also said that the family was driving from the West Sacramento Library toward a shelter in Davis and that they had to be there by 5:45pm.

Next, Det. Bestpitch had interviewed “AS,” also 12 years old, who is the daughter of Hendrix’s girlfriend and cousin of ES.  Bestpitch testified that AS told her that her chest, leg and foot hurt after the collision, but had stopped hurting by the time she was being interviewed.  She also told her that she did not have her seat belt on, because she was unable to put it on.

Detective Bestpitch stated that she asked AS if drug use had occurred and she replied that she didn’t know.  Bestpitch claimed she asked if AS knew what marijuana was, and AS also replied that she didn’t know.

After AS, Bestpitch went to question “WS,” sister of Hendrix’s girlfriend and mother of ES. She allegedly said her right side and right leg hurt. She told Bestpitch that they weren’t going to the homeless shelter, but they were driving to a “check-in” location for the local shelter and they had to be there by 5:45pm, and that if they didn’t arrive by 5:45, they couldn’t sleep there for the night.

Bestpitch claimed WS told her that her family had been at the shelter for several months.

WS also allegedly told Bestpitch that she had been wearing her seat belt at the time of the collision, but it had come unbuckled in the crash.  She claimed to have checked to make sure that the children in the car had their seat belts buckled before going anywhere, and she said she knew all of the children in the car were buckled when leaving the West Sacramento Library.

Bestpitch testified that WS claimed to have “everything fixed” in the car, except for getting new tires.

WS allegedly told Bestpitch that she also had her ear buds in and was looking at her phone, so did not see the accident as it happened.

WS also allegedly mentioned that she was told by her sister that there was a car stopped in the middle of the road and that Hendrix was traveling at 60 miles per hour, too fast to stop in time and that that was what caused the collision.

This statement was contrary to testimony given by her sister the previous day, in which her sister stated that she did not know at what speed the car was traveling at all.

Det. Bestpitch claimed that she asked WS if she or anyone else in the car smoked marijuana and that WS replied that she does not smoke it and is unsure if her sister or Hendrix do.

WS allegedly described the defendant’s behavior after the crash, saying he felt really bad and had started walking over to the car with the victim inside, crying.

From all three of her interviews, Det. Bestpitch gathered that the defendant, Hendrix, was in the driver’s seat, his girlfriend was in the passenger seat, with her niece, ES, directly behind her, her daughter AS in the middle seat, her sister WS in the seat behind Hendrix, and her two sons, “IS” and “JS,” in the very back two seats.

Bestpitch claimed she attempted to interview JS, but that he did not want to talk to her, and did not look at her when she talked to him or gently touched him.

IS and his mom were transported to a different hospital than the other four members of the family and Det. Bestpitch was not sure which one.

The post Preliminary Hearing Resumes in Second Street Davis Fatal Car Crash appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Sophie Marconi

On August 5, 2016, in Department 8 at 1:50 pm, Judge David Reed presided over the continuation of the preliminary hearing for the People’s case against Alejandro Loza Quezada, for the fatal shooting last month of Geovanny Gomez in Woodland. During the hearing, only one witness provided testimony, lasting until 4 pm. The preliminary hearing is scheduled to continue on Monday, August 8, and is expected to end that afternoon.

With Deputy DA Kyle Hasapes representing the People and Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira defending Mr. Quezada, the hearing began with the continued cross-examination of Detective Aaron Moe, as investigator with the DA’s office. A considerable amount of the hearing consisted of Ms. Sequeira having the witness clarify specific terminology used by the Woodland Police Department in reference to gang activity. Ms. Sequeira asked the officer to define the words associate, membership, validation, snitch, busters, primary activities, and much more vocabulary within the context of gang activity.

All of this clarification regarding terminology led Sequeira to make the argument that Quezada cannot rightfully be charged with gang activity because of the lack of evidence supporting his membership or involvement in VBN (Varrio Bosque Norte), a regional subset of the Norteño street gang.

Ms. Sequeira then asked the detective if Quezada had ever been convicted of a gang crime, to which the answer was no. She also reminded the court that the evidence the People have to support Quezada’s gang charges is rather unconvincing. She had Det. Moe state the 11 criteria that officers use to determine whether an individual is a gang member. Det. Moe stated that, in order for an individual to be considered a gang member, they only have to fit two out of 11 criteria. Some of the criteria include gang correspondence (conversing with a gang member), tattoos that appear to be “gang logos,” wearing gang clothing or colors, and being in the company of identified gang members.

Martha Sequeira brought attention to the fact that the People used Mr. Quezada’s “relationship” with a Mr. Rojas as support of the charge that he was a gang member. Ms. Sequeira then asked the witness if anyone had ever told him that Mr. Quezada and Mr. Rojas know each other, to which he responded no.

The defense then created doubt about the witness’ gang expertise by revealing that the officer did not feel comfortable estimating the amount of gang members in VBN, even though he has been a part of the gang unit since August of 2013. She then brought up the fact that the witness had stated that he was aware of the defendant because of his prior acts. She asked how his prior acts, which involve a DUI and Health and Safety Code violations, have any relevance to a gang involvement charge when the three are completely unrelated.

The defense reminded the court that Quezada has no gang-related charges or convictions on his record previous to this case, and the Woodland Police Department has never even tried to validate Quezada as a gang member up until now. She then asked the witness how he discovers information regarding gang members of VBN, and asked the witness if he looks for people in the community so he can arrange consensual contacts about gangs. The witness quickly stated that he did not seek people out for such interactions, and was then reminded by the defense that doing so was a specific task for which the gang suppression unit (the unit he is a member of) is responsible.

Ms. Sequeira then ended her cross-examination by bringing attention to the absurdity of some of the evidence used to charge Mr. Quezada of gang involvement. She brought the first image to the attention of the court, which was an image of Quezada and his brother tailgating at a 49ers game, which had been accessed via Facebook. The officer’s explanation was that the “4” on the 49ers hat that Quezada was wearing was a gang symbol.

The officer also stated that the defendant was holding up a “4” with his hand, while it appeared that the defendant was really holding up a “3.” When Ms. Sequeira brought this to the attention of the detective, he stated that if the defendant is not guilty of gang involvement then he should not be hanging out with his brother, since his brother is allegedly a gang member.

The post Gang Murder Preliminary Hearing Resumes appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Raya Zahdeh

The preliminary hearing for Anthony Carmon Fusaro took place on August 4, 2016, in Department 9 of the Yolo County Courthouse, Judge Janene Beronio presiding.

Mr. Fusaro was pulled over in November of 2015 for reckless driving. Before the preliminary hearing began, the court announced the following stipulations by both parties regarding the defendant: a blood test that showed a positive result for methamphetamine, and three prior convictions that violated parts of the California Vehicle Code.

The court brought Officer Michael Simpson to the stand to give his testimony as a witness for the prosecution.  Officer Simpson stated that he pulled Fusaro over on a highway in Sacramento County after receiving a radio call from a different officer regarding a reckless driver on that highway. Officer Simpson indicated that he confirmed he had pulled over the correct vehicle before proceeding. Officer Simpson also specified that Fusaro had been speeding, at 86 mph, and conducting improper lane changes.

Officer Simpson proceeded to add that the defendant had appeared to be making fast, erratic body movements and that his speech was rapid. These observations led the officer to believe that Fusaro might have been under the influence of drugs.

When Simpson questioned the defendant about his drug use, Fusaro initially stated that he first used drugs 10 years ago. He later changed his answer and stated that he had never used drugs before.

After the officer took Fusaro’s keys and asked him to step out of the vehicle, the defendant admitted to possessing a methamphetamine pipe in his left pocket, which the officer found to be true. Simpson then collected the pipe and conducted a series of field sobriety tests. Furthermore, before conducting the tests, the defendant admitted to using about four to five dollars worth of methamphetamine per day, and considered himself to be an addict. The defendant also later admitted to using three hits of the drug earlier that same day.

Officer Simpson conducted tests such as the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test, the finger-to-nose test, and a pulse reading. The defendant’s pulse turned out to be 104 beats per minute, which was above the normal range of about 60 to 80 beats per minute. In addition, the officer noted that Fusaro’s hands and fingers were twitching while they were at his sides, and that he could not remain in the starting position required for the sobriety tests. The defendant was also unable to complete the finger-to-nose test and the finger-touch test. Afterward, Officer Simpson arrested the defendant for driving under the influence of methamphetamine. There was no alcohol present in the defendant’s blood test.

The second witness for the prosecution was Sergeant Sam Machado, of the Yolo County Sheriff’s Department.  Sgt. Machado gave a shorter testimony and based his information on his experience with DUI arrests in general. The sergeant stated that it was difficult to determine whether or not the defendant was showing withdrawal symptoms, based on the police report. However, Machado did agree that the defendant must have built up a tolerance to the drug, given that he is a regular or frequent user. He further explained that the increase in tolerance to the drug would require the user to increase the dosage over the years in order to obtain the same results achieved previously.

After the witness testimonies, Judge Beronio set the case for an arraignment hearing on August 19, 2016, at 10 AM in Department 13 of the Yolo County Courthouse.

The post Judge Holds Defendant to Answer in Reckless Driving, Meth Case appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Jamie Moddelmog

The trial of Vernon Earl Rubidoux commenced Friday morning with Judge Samuel T. McAdam presiding.  Rubidoux had been charged with a crime in 2007 in which he threatened a civilian with a knife, and he had been found not guilty by reason of insanity. He is currently in a mental health facility and has reached the end of the maximum sentence available.

The People have requested an “extension of commitment,” maintaining that Mr. Rubidoux poses a substantial danger of physical harm to others as a result of a mental defect, disease or disorder.  Under California jury instructions CALCRIM No. 3453 on extension of commitment, to be successful in gaining Mr. Rubidoux an extension of commitment, they must prove:

Element 1. He suffers from a mental disease, defect, or disorder

Element 2. As a result of his mental disease, defect, or disorder, he now poses a substantial danger of physical harm to others.

The day began by addressing the somewhat odd circumstances of the trial, one of which being the absence of the defendant.  Mr. Rubidoux refused to show up for court, refusing transportation by the district attorney from the California State Prison-Sacramento (commonly referred to as SAC).  His absence led the district attorney’s office to previously suggest forcibly removing him from SAC in order to have the defendant present for a jury trial, so that the jurors could view his demeanor.  Mr. Rubidoux’s attorney, Chief Deputy Public Defender Allison Zuvela, did not want her client to be forcibly removed so, “as a strategic move,” she waived her client’s right to a jury trial.  Because the client has refused to come into court, Ms. Zuvela said that he effectively handed over his waiver of a jury trial to her, citing the case People v. Tran from 2015 regarding required waivers of the right to jury trial.  Judge McAdam agreed and the bench trial, with no defendant present, proceeded.

The first and only witness called by Deputy DA Deanna Hays was Silvia Torrez, a psychologist who works for the California Department of Corrections in the SAC prison.  Her job title is “73.01 coordinator.”  Ms. Hays asked her what a 73.01 was, and Torrez explained that a 73.01 was the name for individuals who have been found “not guilty due to insanity” and were later deemed too dangerous for hospitals, forcing them to be put into the psychiatric services unit of a state correctional facility. Mr. Rubidoux is one of 26 people in the State of California currently in this program. Torrez claimed her job was to write reports on the 73.01s, providing consultation for clinicians and a diagnosis of any mental health issues they have.

When writing her report on Mr. Rubidoux, who was referred to the California Department of Corrections in February of 2015 and arrived at SAC on August 16, 2015, she said she looked over documents from the hospitals at which he was previously treated, as well as reports from his previous prison sentences.  She also interviewed him before writing the report.  Based on her findings, she diagnosed him with “anti-social disorder” and “persecutory delusional disorder.” She defined anti-social disorder as a “pervasive pattern of the disregard of rights of others.”  She defined delusional disorder as “always having delusions that people were out to get him.”  His specific paranoia, as described by Ms. Torrez, is that “he believes he is a high priority ‘hit’ for the Hells Angels motorcycle gang.”  Ms. Torrez admits that Mr. Rubidoux did in fact testify against one of the members of the Hells Angels in 1999, but claims that he has such a rigid, extreme belief that “everyone he meets is the Hells Angels” that he can be diagnosed with delusional disorder.

According to Ms. Torrez, Mr. Rubidoux was treated at three separate facilities.  First, he went to the Napa State Hospital where he was given an Access 1 diagnosis (major mental illness), but they diagnosed him with a different mental illness than delusional disorder.  He was then transferred to Atascadero State Hospital where he was not diagnosed with any major mental illness. Later he was transferred to the Patton psychiatric facility, where he was given differing diagnoses by different psychologists at the facility. He was diagnosed with delusional disorder by one doctor, just the ant-social disorder by another, and a third wrote that they should consider the possibility that he may have delusional disorder.

Ms. Torrez stated that, throughout Rubidoux’s roughly ten years in the three hospitals where he was treated, he displayed a pattern that led the hospitals and the director of all California prison systems to believe he was too dangerous to be treated at a hospital and should instead be given into the custody of the CDCR (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation).  These patterns included assaulting, intimidating and threatening others, as well as having narcotics sent into the hospital.  He also consistently claimed that hospital staff were members of the Hells Angels gang and vowed to escape from them, saying he would hurt anyone who got in his way.

He was constantly either restrained in his bed or accompanied by several “observers” following him around to make sure he didn’t hurt people.  On April 10, 2015, he was involved in a physical altercation in the bathroom in which he seriously injured another patient.  It was at that point that the Patton facility requested he be put in the 73.01 program, with the understanding that he would not be taken out of it until he no longer demonstrated those same behaviors and nor posed a threat to the safety of others.

After reviewing his records at other facilities, Ms. Torrez also interviewed Mr. Rubidoux when he came to SAC. She stated that during the interview Mr. Rubidoux told her that that he knew she was a part of the Hells Angels.  He answered most of her questions with responses like “don’t play stupid,” and consistently called her a b—h throughout the interview.  He claimed that he was not mentally ill, though he did acknowledge that he was anti-social, describing himself as a “malingerer” and “not caring what other people think about me.”

Torrez said that he has only had one incident since arriving at SAC, when he broke the rules by resisting a guard escorting him from his cell.  Ms. Hays asked if that meant he was doing better, and Torrez responded that he was only doing better because he was in “the most restrictive setting possible in a maximum security prison.”  He is held in an 8 by 12-foot concrete cell alone, and is escorted in handcuffs by several guards whenever he leaves.  He must be contained inside a Plexiglas module whenever he meets with anyone.

To determine whether he was still a threat to others, Ms. Torrez claimed she wanted to have him go out in the general yard with the other prisoners.  He refused, because he was concerned for his own safety, saying, “I’m a dead man if I go out there and you know that.”

Ms. Hays moved to have Ms. Torrez classified as an expert witness in diagnosing mental disorders.  Ms. Zuvela objected to classifying Torrez as an expert, saying that only the “trier of fact,” meaning the judge in this case, could state whether or not Mr. Rubidoux was mentally ill.  Judge McAdam agreed but stated that he would not come to a conclusion based on her opinion, only add weight to the fact that she was an expert in the field.  Ms. Torrez was classified as an expert witness.

In her cross-examination, Ms. Zuvela asked Ms. Torrez whether she knew that the defendant had not been diagnosed with delusional disorder at the first two hospitals he has treated at.  She said she was unaware of their diagnoses because she did not have access to those records.  Zuvela also noted that his delusional disorder had only existed on paper for about a year, and asked, “So you don’t have to have this disorder for a long time to be considered a threat?” Ms. Torrez replied, “No.”  Torrez also said that Rubidoux has demonstrated an inability to regulate his impulses for years, citing his past prison terms.

Ms. Torrez told Ms. Zuvela that Mr. Rubidoux was not attending the minimum 80 percent of his treatment required for eligibility to leave the CDCR, and he has not been able to demonstrate any improvements because he has had “very limited access to assault people,” due to his fear of leaving the psychiatric services unit.  She claimed that they are not allowed to forcibly extract him and cited another individual who was kept in the psychiatric unit for nine years because of his refusal to leave.

Judge McAdam ruled in favor of the DA regarding element 2 of the jury instructions, stating that Ms. Hays had in fact proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Rubidoux posed a substantial danger of physical harm toward others.  He hesitated in stating that he had a “mental disease, defect or disorder,” and asked if there was any specific definition.  Ms. Hays told him that it was completely at his discretion to decide whether or not Mr. Rubidoux had a mental disease, defect or disorder, and that he should use the common meaning, because there is nothing more specific.  In other words, she advised Judge McAdam to trust the diagnosis by professional psychiatrists.

Ms. Zuvela brought up the fact that, although Rubidoux had been diagnosed with delusional disorder by some medical professionals, he has, more the majority of the time, been diagnosed only with “anti-social disorder” by others, which is only an “Access 2” diagnosis.  This is opposed to delusional disorder, an “Access 1” disorder, meaning “a major mental illness.”  Ms. Zuvela advised the judge to only consider “Access 1” diagnoses when deciding whether or not Mr. Rubidoux suffered from a mental illness.

She also argued on the basis of a “gut feeling,” saying she “didn’t think it was right” to keep him in his current conditions.  She said that he wasn’t even supposed to go to prison, he was supposed to get help, and now, because the psychiatrists treating him have decided that medication will not help, and he is not leaving his cell, he is receiving virtually no treatment, essentially receiving a prison sentence.  She stated she did not want Rubidoux to end up like the man who spent nine years in the psychiatric facility.

Judge McAdam decided that he could not be restricted by “Access 1 or Access 2” diagnoses, that he must evaluate all evidence.  He stated that Ms. Torrez had ample information and was very well informed.  He said he also “gave great weight to the fact that she actually interviewed Mr. Rubidoux” before making a diagnosis.

He ruled that the state had met its burden on element 1 as well, having proven that Mr. Rubidoux did in fact have a mental disease, defect or disorder.  He extended Rubidoux’s commitment for two more years, until May 1, 2018.

He also verified that the court is ordering that the prison staff provide treatment to Mr. Rubidoux and agreed that they are doing “all that they can.”

The post Man “Too Dangerous for Hospitals” Gets Commitment Extended at California State Prison appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Sidney Adebayo

The preliminary hearing in the case against Steven Hendrix, facing murder and other charges, was conducted on Friday August 5, 2016, in Yolo County Superior Court, Department 13, at 8:30 a.m. The presiding judge for the hearing was Judge Paul Richardson.

The case against Hendrix deals with a fatal car crash that occurred on February 24, 2016, on Second Street at Cantrill Drive, in which the driver of the other vehicle died. The defendant Steven Hendrix, who was driving with his family, is believed to be responsible for the crash, due to reports of reckless driving made against him. He was arrested and detained following the incident and has been an inmate of the Yolo County Jail ever since. The continuation of the preliminary hearing today went over the witness testimonies of various police officers who responded to the crash. To ensure testimonies as honest and unbiased as possible, all other witnesses were ordered to leave the courtroom (the witness exclusion rule). Only the police officers gave testimony in this hearing. The defendant was not asked to testify at this time.

According to the testimonies of the various police officers who responded to the car crash, Hendrix was reportedly driving recklessly. The police did not catch up to him until after the fatal crash occurred, although they had a visual on Hendrix. When the police arrived at the scene they quickly examined any and all damages to the vehicles and civilians present, and they talked to potential witnesses, including Hendrix, to get further details on what happened.

Because Hendrix was reported as driving recklessly (speeding and performing illegal turns) in a red SUV, finally crashing into a silver sedan, police officers such as Daniel Lafond quickly rushed over to ask the defendant some questions. According to the police officer who arrested Hendrix, when the officer asked Hendrix why he thought he was being questioned, the defendant declared it was because he was the one driving – with no license, as he openly admitted – with his family in the vehicle.

Hendrix’s Recollection of Events According to Police

Furthermore, when the police asked Hendrix what his recollection was of the events which transpired, leading to the fatal car crash, Hendrix gave statements conflicting with what other witnesses observed. Contrasting to the claims made by others involved in the crash who said that Hendrix was driving 60-80 mph where the posted limit was 45 mph, Hendrix claimed he knew the speed limit was 45 mph and that he was driving 45 mph. The defendant seemed genuinely surprised that others present would even make that allegation. Hendrix also claimed that the woman in the silver sedan crashed into him. According to the defendant, according to his recollection of the events which led to the fatal car crash, he used the bike lane to pass a vehicle because the driver of that vehicle was driving like “Ms. Daisy.” Hendrix saw a bicycle rider nearby, but he did not drive too close to the bicycle. He said that, before the collision with the silver sedan, he stopped his vehicle in an attempt to avoid the other car crashing into him.

Witness Statements to Police

Hendrix’s recounting of events to the police, however, is in conflict with what other witnesses told the police. Several witnesses, including the bicycle rider, who were questioned by the police reported that Hendrix was indeed speeding, driving approximately 60-80 mph and not 45 mph. Also, the witnesses claimed that both Hendrix and the vehicle he was driving had a strong smell of marijuana. The witnesses also told police that the things Hendrix was saying did not make any sense and that Hendrix seemed emotionally disconnected from the incident, indicating Hendrix may have used drugs prior to driving.

Marijuana Found

The claims that Hendrix had taken drugs were looked into when the police officer who questioned Hendrix noted that the defendant was exhibiting strange behavior and characteristics. The officer noticed Hendrix had red eyes, that he was fidgeting and could not stay still, and his speech was slurred. Also, Hendrix could not even remain still when ordered to do so by police officers. The officer also noticed that the car smelled like marijuana, and, when searching the vehicle, he found marijuana stems, but not “nuggets,” in the car as well as “blunts” (thickly-rolled marijuana) which Hendrix claimed were not his.

According to the testimony of the police officer conducting the search of Hendrix’s vehicle, when he questioned Hendrix on his drug usage, the defendant admitted to smoking marijuana at 8:30 a.m. the morning of the fatal crash. Upon further questioning,  Hendrix revealed he smoked all the time and that he replenishes his stash approximately every two to three days. Hendrix admitted to the police that he did not have a medical marijuana card, but that his girlfriend once had one, which had expired. Hendrix also admitted to using methamphetamine approximately three to four days prior to the incident.

Hendrix, however, stated to the police, “I am 32 years old, got bullet holes in my body, and I done every type of drug there is so of course I’m not still going to be feeling the effects of weed.” Hendrix claimed to the police that it would take a “gong” of marijuana to affect his driving and that the last time he ever smoked that much marijuana was last week. The police officer, therefore, had Hendrix take part in several tests to discern whether Hendrix was still under the influence of marijuana, and he sought a warrant to take a blood sample from the defendant.

Defense Argues

Hendrix’s attorney, however, argued that the police officer did not know Hendrix that well and that common symptoms of drug use can be mistaken for other problems. For example, the red eyes could have been a symptom of Hendrix being really sleepy the day of the crash, or because of he had recently woken up and started driving that day.

The defense pointed out that the police officer does not know the way Hendrix talks, and the terms and language that Hendrix was using may not necessarily have been the defendant being emotionally disconnected from the incident, but simply the style and mannerisms that Hendrix grew up with and always exhibited. Also, Hendrix may have felt nervous, defensive or offended by the tone the police officer assumed during his questioning of Hendrix. Furthermore, no alcohol was found in the blood sample taken from Hendrix.

Also, Hendrix passed several of the tests the police officer had him undergo. For example, when Hendrix was asked to close his eyes for 30 seconds and count, in order to see if Hendrix’s internal clock had sped up or slowed down, Hendrix had counted up to 36 the first time and 32 the second time at the police station. These are average results, and are inconsistent with the normal results for someone feeling the effects of drug use. Also, the slurred speech the police and several witnesses claimed to have heard could have just been the way the defendant usually talks or could have even been the result of the head injury Hendrix claimed to have suffered during the crash.

Also, during an examination to see if Hendrix’s eyes had been dilated, the results showed that, in fact, his eyes were not dilated. However, the police testified that if a person is a chronic user of marijuana, as Hendrix is, instead of a first-time user, it is common for the eyes not to dilate due to being “burned out” from excessive marijuana usage.

The defense also continuously argued in court that none of the police officers summoned to testify had taken any courses or studies in the area of addiction, and are therefore not experts on the subject. As such, according to the defense, they should not be qualified to judge whether or not Hendrix was emotionally dependent on drugs.

Possible Racial Bias

According to several police officers, when they discussed the details of the incident with Hendrix, the defendant had made accusations that his being black had something to do with the witnesses and police testifying against him. Hendrix also, according to the police officer who questioned him, stated that this would not be a problem if the woman in the silver sedan had not died. The officer, however, claimed that skin color had nothing to do with the charges against and arrest of Hendrix.

The post Davis Fatal Car Crash Prelim Resumes appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Sarah Gregory

Alejandro Loza Quezada is charged with murder, attempted murder, shooting at an occupied vehicle, possession of a firearm while being previously convicted of a felony, and possession of a controlled substance for sale.  Quezada was allegedly involved in a shooting on July 1, 2016.

He was at his cousin’s house that day fixing his car.  After the defendant was finished, he took the vehicle for a test drive around the neighborhood.  The only passenger in the vehicle was in the front seat.

The defendant was driving when another car rapidly approached from behind.  There was a driver and passenger in the front seat of this car as well.

The occupants of the car behind the defendant were both wearing blue hats.  After the shooting, one of these individuals identified himself as a member of the Sureños and claimed the defendant and his passenger were both members of the Norteños.

The Norteños and Sureños, both street gangs, are longtime rivals.  Blue is also a gang identifier for the Sureños.

As the other car approached from the rear, the defendant, allegedly affiliated with the Norteños, turned around and began shooting at the Sureños.  The men in blue hats responded by giving chase to the defendant and his passenger.

At some point, the defendant began chasing the Sureños instead.  Eventually, the defendant and his passenger stopped their vehicle on the side of the street. Both occupants exited the vehicle.

The vehicle with the men in the blue hats, members of the Sureños, came to a stop as well.  The defendant and his passenger were waiting for the other men in the middle of the road.  The passenger of the other vehicle stepped out and raised a gun, pointing at the defendant.

The defendant, still in the middle of the roadway, raised a 9mm pistol and fired 12 shots at the other men.  A bullet grazed the lower body of the passenger and another lodged itself into the shoulder of the driver.  The driver of the other vehicle, identified as Geovanny Gomez, died at the hospital a short while later.

The defendant and his passenger ran to a nearby home where a known gang member had previously lived.  The defendant banged on the front door and screamed, “It’s me, let me in!”

Hearing no answer, the defendant ran to the side of the house and kicked down the side gate.  The defendant and his passenger both peeked into the windows at the back of the house to see if anyone was home.  When they realized that no one appeared to be home, both men jumped over the back fence and kept running.

Detective Dana Tello, a county deputy sheriff and member of the Yolo County Gang Task Force, was called to the stand by Deputy District Attorney Kyle Hasapes. The prosecutor, Hasapes, began by establishing Tello’s credibility.  Tello has been with the Yolo County Sheriff’s Office for nearly 12 years.  She was assigned to the defendant’s case on the day of the shooting.

Over a week later, on July 12, 2016, Detective Tello took a statement from a witness in the case.  This individual, who will be referred to as “CT,” bought 9mm bullets for the defendant a few days prior to the shooting.  The prosecutor asked Tello to recount the witness’ statement.

CT was shown in surveillance video purchasing 9mm bullets for the defendant at Big 5 Sporting Goods in Woodland.  The witness was with the defendant and a friend of his at the time.

The defendant had asked his friend to pick him up from his apartment in order to buy bullets.  However, the defendant decided to pick up his brother before going to Big 5.  He made his friend drive to his brother’s house, but they found that the brother was not home at the time.

As the defendant and his friend were about ready to leave for the store, CT requested a ride from them, as she had to go grocery shopping.  The defendant and his friend obliged.

First, the trio went to a liquor store, then a grocery store, and finally to Big 5 Sporting Goods.

When they arrived at Big 5, only the friend and CT went inside.  The friend purchased a box of .45 caliber bullets by mistake.  The defendant wanted 9mm bullets.

CT and the friend had to go back inside to purchase the correct bullets.  This time, it was CT who purchased the box of 9mm bullets.

The defendant was unable to purchase the bullets himself because he has previously been convicted of a felony and it is, therefore, illegal for him to possess a firearm or live ammunition in the state of California.

Next, Detective Jeff Moe, who is also a member of the Yolo County Gang Task Force, was recalled as the final witness.  The prosecutor began his direct examination by posing a hypothetical.

The prosecutor proposed an individual who possessed 36 grams of methamphetamine which were separated into three different amounts: 17 grams, 13 grams and 6 grams.  There was also, hypothetically, a cell phone packaged in a clear plastic bag, a digital scale and a little over $1,300 in small denominations of cash.  The prosecutor asked whether or not Moe believes that, in this scenario, the drugs are meant for sale.

Detective Moe replied that he does think, in this case, the drugs would be meant for sale.  He came to this conclusion based on a few factors.

The packaged phone indicates that cell phone is used to call the individual’s clients to schedule a drug deal; the separate amounts of methamphetamine can be used for easy distribution; smaller denominations of cash reflect the amount of money people usually have in their pockets and could possibly buy drugs with; and the digital scale implies the methamphetamine is weighed in order to properly package different amounts.

Next, the defense attorney, Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira, cross-examined Detective Moe.  She asked Moe if the majority of people have cell phones.  He did not answer the defense’s question and instead replied that not all people have cell phones, including himself.

The defense further inquired that, if Moe did not have a cell phone, how he could judge that the cell phone in the hypothetical was used for the sale of methamphetamine.  There was an objection from the prosecutor and the defense was asked to move on to the next question.

She asked Moe if the clear plastic bag had any relevance to his judgment that the cell phone was used for making drug deals.  Again, the prosecutor objected and the defense changed the question.

The defense asked Detective Moe why he thought a little over $1,300 in cash indicates the individual in the hypothetical is a drug dealer. Moe replied because it is an unusually high amount of money to carry around.  Then she asked Moe if this meant anyone carrying that much money was a drug dealer.  He stated the negative, and that the main factor was the amount of methamphetamine which the individual possessed.

Next, Judge David Reed reviewed all of the evidence submitted during the hearing and verified each one with both parties.  Afterward, the prosecutor and the defense both summarized the evidence for the court and how they view each piece of evidence in relation to the charges.

None of the charges were dismissed.  Judge Reed held the defendant, Alejandro Quezada, accountable for all five counts.

The post Defendant in Gang Murder Prelim Held to Stand Trial appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Jade Wolansky

The preliminary hearing in the case against Charles Arthur Cochenour was presided over by Judge David Rosenberg in Department 14. The defendant is an elderly grey-haired senior who had to rely heavily on a front-wheeled walker. He spoke feebly when answering Judge Rosenberg.

Mr. Cochenour was charged with felony possession of a controlled substance and two misdemeanor counts for simple possession of a controlled substance and drug paraphernalia.  The principal core of contention was whether Mr. Cochenour had intent to sell the drugs.

Sergeant Ryan Mez of the Yolo County Sheriff’s Office was the first to testify. The prosecutor, Deputy DA Alexander Kien, asked him to recount Mr. Cochenour’s arrest.

Sgt. Mez described that on July 8, 2016, at approximately 9:44am, he observed a green vehicle parked far away from other vehicles. When he approached from the driver’s side he saw two individuals with syringes in their hands. Cochenour appeared to be ready to inject the needle, which had 40cc of black liquid inside.

Sgt. Mez stated that, when he asked the defendant to put his hands up, Mr. Cochenour tried to hide the syringe. Inside the vehicle, Mez found a white straw with black residue, aluminum foil, a small metal spoon, a small digital working scale, and a container with the letters “DRE.” After discovering this evidence, Sgt. Mez asked the defendant for his statement. When Cochenour said he didn’t feel good and was confused, Mez halted his questioning.

The prosecutor proceeded to ask Sgt. Mez the specific amounts of heroin he found in the vehicle. Mez replied that the syringe the defendant was holding contained 40cc, as already stated, the foil had .09 grams, and 23.4 grams were in the defendant’s pocket. Sgt. Mez stated that he used a narcotics test kit to verify that the substances found were indeed heroin.

Next, the prosecutor asked for further details about the three “containers” where the heroin had been found: syringe, pocket, and foil. The defense objected to the use of the word “container.” Judge Rosenberg interceded and clarified that the three “containers” would now be referred to as “quantities.”

During cross-examination, the defense attorney, Deputy Public Defender Stephen Betz, asked Sgt. Mez about drug consumption techniques. Sgt. Mez verified that users often utilize tin foil to smoke heroin with a heat source. He also verified that a spoon and water are used to transfer heroin into a syringe to “shoot up.”

The defense inquired whether Sgt. Mez had found pay-owe sheets, large amounts of cash, cutting agents, or unused baggies – essentially, items that are commonly found with drug sellers. Sgt. Mez replied that he had not found any of these items.

Agent Shad Begley, a member of the Yolo Narcotic Enforcement Team (YONET) as well as an officer with the West Sacramento Police Department, was the next witness to testify. The prosecutor had him testify as an expert witness on drug-related crimes.

The prosecutor began questioning Agent Begley on his qualifications and background in drug investigations.

The prosecutor asked Agent Begley about common heroin user and drug distributer practices. Begley stated that most users consume .1 grams to .2 grams per session. He explained that users usually do not carry more than one dose of heroin. This is because they are cognizant that they most likely lack the self-control to prevent themselves from overdosing. In addition, drug users are fearful they might be robbed. If they carry a small amount, the losses are less severe than if they had carried their entire stash with them.

Next, the defense began by calling into question Agent Begley’s credibility. Mr. Betz asked if Agent Begley read literature on drug crime, outside of his training courses. For instance, he mentioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s fact sheets on drugs. Agent Begley replied that he had not, and that most of the literature came from his training classes.

The defense then asked Begley in how many cases he had testified as an expert witness. Agent Begley replied that he had never done so before.

At this point, the defense argued that Agent Begley did not qualify as an expert witness. Judge Rosenberg ruled that Agent Begley did qualify.

The prosecutor proceeded to ask about the astounding amount of heroin found in the defendant’s vehicle. He requested Agent Begley to calculate how long 23.5 grams (the amount was rounded up from 23.49) would last.

Agent Begley answered that, if the defendant used .1 gram per session, 23.5 grams would be 235 dosages. Each dosage puts a user under the influence for three to five hours on average (four was used for calculation purposes). Agent Begley totaled that the defendant would have 940 hours of being “high.”  He stated that most users consume heroin four times a day. Therefore, the defendant would have 57.8 days’ worth of heroin.

The prosecutor then asked Agent Begley to verify how it would be impossible for 23.49 grams of heroin to be solely for personal use. Begley responded by stating that, taking into account all the information gathered, and his knowledge that drug users often don’t carry more than they need for one session, he strongly believed that the three quantities found could not just be for personal use.

The defense asked Agent Begley to reaffirm that he had heard Sgt. Mez’s testimony that no items commonly found on drug sellers, such as packaging or payment and sales records or cutting agents, were found. Agent Begley confirmed this.

The defense also asked Begley to corroborate that drug users who have a greater tolerance to a drug would require a larger dosage than others, and that some drug users sometimes “binge” use. The witness agreed.

Agent Begley was asked if the defendant was on file in drug investigation records. He replied that Mr. Cochenour was not.

The defense asked about heroin cost. Agent Begley answered that it was cheaper to buy the drug in bulk.

The prosecutor and defense then gave their final arguments. Judge Rosenberg ruled that the case required a jury’s decision.

Judge Rosenberg set the defendant’s arraignment for September 8, at 10am.

The post Preliminary Hearing for Heroin Possession and Possible Intent to Distribute appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Raya Zahdeh

The court gathered with Judge Stephen Mock presiding on the afternoon of August 9, 2016, for the preliminary hearing of the People v. Alvarez and Lambirth. The attorneys present for the defense included Deputy Public Defender Dean Johansson for Michael Robert Alvarez and Attorney Robert Spangler for Olivia McKenzie Lambirth, along with Michael Vroman for the prosecution.

The preliminary hearing began with witness testimony from Officer Kimberly Walker of the Davis Police Department.  The incident in this case occurred on December 29, 2015, at around 6 AM in the city of Davis. Officer Walker stated that she had been dispatched to a Davis AMPM Convenience Store, where she interviewed the alleged victim, who was working as a Lyft (a business matching passengers with drivers through a smartphone application) driver on that day.

The alleged victim stated that he had picked up Alvarez and Lambirth from West Sacramento and had dropped them off at an apartment complex in Davis earlier that morning. Upon their exit from the vehicle, the alleged victim stated in his interview with Officer Walker that Alvarez pulled out what appeared to be a black handgun and took the gold iPhone that the alleged victim had on his dashboard as a navigation system for his ride service. Alvarez also proceeded to demand that the alleged victim give up his wallet and his second cell phone. The alleged victim handed Alvarez the other cell phone, but told Alvarez he did not have his wallet on him. Alvarez then fired the object that appeared to be a handgun three times, but no bullets came out.

Officer Walker stated that, according to the alleged victim, Ms. Lambirth was still sitting in the back seat of the Lyft vehicle during this encounter. Officer Walker also said that statements indicated that Lambirth did not speak to either the other defendant or the Lyft driver at the time, and was not present during the actual incident.

The next witness was Corporal Eric Labbe of the Davis Police Department. On the morning of December 29, Corporal Labbe was dispatched to the apartment complex in Davis where the alleged victim had dropped off the defendants.

Upon Labbe’s arrival at the apartment complex, he identified Alvarez and noticed that Alvarez was looking at different vehicles and trying to open the doors of some vehicles in the parking lot. Some time after that, Cpl. Labbe saw Alvarez speaking to another Davis police officer. Alvarez quickly started to run away and was chased by the officer who was speaking to him.

In the meantime, Labbe identified Ms. Lambirth in the same parking lot. The first time he asked her questions about the reported armed robbery of the Lyft driver, she answered as though she did not know anything about the incident. Afterward, she told Labbe that Alvarez and the alleged victim got into an argument over a wallet. She did not give many details past that.

Ms. Lambirth also told Cpl. Labbe that she lived at one of the apartments in that complex. Labbe then detained her and walked her over to her apartment. As they were approaching the apartment, Alvarez was spotted leaving the same apartment, at which point he was also detained.

Corporal Labbe then searched the apartment after receiving informed consent to do  so from the defendants’ two friends, who lived there. In one of the bedrooms, Labbe found the blue jeans and black hooded sweatshirt that matched the description of what Alvarez was wearing during the incident with the Lyft driver. He also collected three cell phones that were located next to the clothing items. Cpl. Labbe gave the items to Officer Francisco Talavera, who was going to conduct a field showup (a field identification procedure, or lineup, in which only the suspect is displayed to the witness) after collecting all of the items.

The next witness to give his testimony was Officer Michael Yu, also of the Davis Police Department. He stated that he had not received a call about this incident until around 8 AM, about two hours after it had occurred. He was assigned to assist in the investigation of the robbery.

The investigation involved Officer Yu and a detective, who interviewed Alvarez after reading him his Miranda rights. During his interview, Mr. Alvarez stated that he had spent the night at Ms. Lambirth’s apartment. He then claimed that the following morning, he had gone outside to smoke a cigarette when he was tackled by police officers. Alvarez also denied having a firearm and claimed that he did not have a credit card or debit card, which are required in order to use Lyft ride services.

After finding out that Lambirth had eventually taken the blame for what happened, Alvarez agreed and seemed content with her claim. Officer Yu then took both Alvarez and Lambirth to jail. Officer Yu later reviewed the camera recording in his police vehicle, and heard parts of a private conversation in which Ms. Lambirth told Mr. Alvarez she took the blame for everything. Mr. Alvarez responded by telling Ms. Lambirth to “plead the fifth.”

After the witness testimonies, Mr. Vroman stated that, although he does not believe that Ms. Lambirth committed the robbery, she did assist Alvarez in the robbery and provided him with a place of safety after he committed the robbery.

Judge Mock concluded this part of the hearing by holding Alvarez to answer for first degree robbery. He then decided that there was not enough evidence to give Ms. Lambirth the same charge. He supported holding the order for that charge on Lambirth, but he did state that she violated Penal Code section 32 due to the fact that she witnessed Alvarez rob the victim and therefore aided him, as well as providing him a place to stay after the robbery. Mr. Alvarez is the only one of the two defendants who is currently in custody.

The case is scheduled for arraignment on August 24, 2016, and the preliminary hearing is scheduled to reconvene on August 23, 2016, at 9 AM in Department 7 of Yolo County Superior Court.

The post Judge Holds Defendants to Answer in Armed Robbery Case appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

Claire Benoit’s vacation in France with children downward spirals into a fearful custody battle and extended stay abroad.

(From press release) – Perplexed, drained, confused and afraid… Claire Benoit spends every day feeling like an unwarranted fugitive trying to understand why Yolo County Family Court (CA) District Attorney, Jeff Reisig (Child Abduction Unit) is in favor of awarding sole custody of her two toddlers to her ex, Eric Gilson.

Claire Benoit decided to seek peace from the havoc and trauma endured by Eric Gilson during their violently turbulent relationship.  Not only was she a victim of domestic violence and rape by Gilson, she is one of several women that have undergone severe mental and physical abuse, after falling victim to his womanizing and manipulating tactics.

Benoit’s fear of returning to the U.S. with her children stems far beyond her relationship with Gilson… it reaches back through his criminal record, mental illness, prior imprisonment, and testimonials from his ex-wife/domestic violence survivor, Veronica Fragoso, who is also in the midst of a custody battle with Gilson.

He has several domestic violence and stalking charges against him involving Veronica and other women in different cities and counties across the country. As court documents reveal, these issues span most of his adult life… including an entire decade he spent in hiding.

Benoit is pleading for the current judge in her case to fully understand and assess Gilson’s character and history of the case.  Gilson’s criminal record reveals that he spent several years in hiding for defrauding the United States military out of hundreds of thousands of dollars and was among the most wanted by the FBI.  He served prison time for this crime before being released around 2006.

After separating from Gilson, Benoit petitioned the Yolo Family Court in July of 2015 to establish paternity of her youngest child, who was the product of rape by Eric Gilson, via DNA testing.  “My sole purpose for the petition was to have my son on record as being entitled to survivors benefits as the son of a classified permanently mentally disabled father. As Eric has a chronic history of suicide attempts, I also wanted to be sure that my son was covered in the event of tragedy (in the event continued suicide attempts prove successful)” says Benoit.

Supervised visitation was granted at the first hearing, but never exercised by Gilson up until Benoit’s extended vacation departure to France with her children in October 2015.  Unbeknownst to Benoit, Gilson would ignore her attempts to alert him and use the loss of her cell phone as an opportunity for him to file an ex-parte motion for a custody hearing and used a text message from his cell phone to Benoit’s (after being alerted that it wasn’t in her possession) as “proof of service”.

Benoit’s attorney will be standing in on Benoit’s behalf at the next hearing scheduled August 11, 2016, as the Yolo Family Court proceeds with the ex-parte custody hearing and decides if a protective warrant to pick up the children will be issued.

The post Yolo County Family Court Favors Mentally Ill Father in Custody Battle appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

Motion to Suppress Evidence of Controlled Substance and Paraphernalia Confiscated During Unwarranted Stop

By Mariel Barbadillo

On July 5, 2016, Defense Attorney J. Robert Spangler, on behalf of his client David Ramirez, filed a motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5. Mr. Ramirez is charged with possessing a controlled substance and drug paraphernalia, both of which were allegedly found during an unwarranted search and detention.

The incident occurred in Knights Landing on the night of January 1, 2016. Yolo County Sheriff’s Deputies Alex Ingman and Jack Schubert stopped a motor vehicle that allegedly had a cracked rear taillight. There was one person in the driver’s seat, one person in the front passenger seat, and another person in the rear passenger seat. The person in the rear passenger seat was later identified as the defendant, Mr. Ramirez.

Once in contact with the driver and passengers, Deputy Ingman allegedly told them the reason for the stop and proceeded to question whether any of them had been in any legal trouble before. They all answered that they had not.

The deputies then conducted a record check on the occupants of the car and found that they had, in fact, been in legal trouble in the past. Acting on this information, the deputies continued their detention of everyone in the car.

The occupants of the car allegedly “looked nervous” and were ordered out of the car. The driver gave the officers consent to search the car.

The deputies proceeded to ask each detained person for consent before conducting a pat down search.  The driver and front seat passenger consented and were searched. Nothing was found.

Mr. Ramirez, however, did not consent to the search.

The deputy told Mr. Ramirez that he would only search for weapons. He then allegedly consented to such a search.

During the search, the deputy felt a lump on the defendant’s person, which was immediately identified as a methamphetamine pipe. Mr. Ramirez was summarily arrested.

The defense argued that this search and seizure was unlawful. They are asking the court to suppress all observations made by the arresting officers, any statements by Mr. Ramirez, and the meth pipe, as well as plastic baggies allegedly containing methamphetamine, that were seized from the defendant.

As ruled in United States v. Salvucci (1980), an illegal search and seizure violates the federal constitutional rights of those with a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place or seized thing. The defendant bears the burden of showing a legitimate expectation of privacy, as well as legitimate standing, in order to bring forth a Fourth Amendment challenge, according to Rawlings v. Kentucky (1980).

The defense stated simply that both the vehicle in which Mr. Ramirez was a passenger as well as his own person were private, and were searched and seized. Thus, the defendant has standing to object to the search and seizure.

A search without a warrant is presumptively illegal and, according to Welsh v. Wisconsin (1984), the prosecution has the burden of justifying the search under a recognized exception to the warrant requirement articulated in the United States Constitution.

The prosecution also has to prove that “the consent was, in fact, freely and voluntarily given,” as well as that the warrantless search was justified as incident to a valid arrest, as stated in Chimel v. California (1969).

The detention of Mr. Ramirez was unwarranted and the alleged consent given by the defendant was, according to the defense, “so limited as to preclude the inquiry into other items detected during the search.”

Furthermore, the defense argued that the detention was unlawful due to a lack of reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion consists of specific and objective facts that would cause an officer to reasonably suspect that there is criminal activity taking place or about to take place and that the person the officer intends to detain is involved in the activity.

On the other hand, “a mere curiosity, rumor, or hunch” is not enough for an officer to stop or detain someone.

In the instant case, the defense argued, Deputies Schubert and Ingman did not have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was taking place or that Mr. Ramirez was involved in such criminal activity. Therefore, the defense argued that the deputies’ detention of Mr. Ramirez was unlawful.

Lastly, the defense argued that evidence resulting from an illegal search or seizure must be suppressed under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, as detailed in People v. Williams (1988).

According to the exclusionary rule, if law enforcement officers conduct a search that violates a person’s Fourth Amendment rights, all primary and secondary evidence must be suppressed. Primary evidence refers to physical evidence seized during the unlawful search, while secondary, or derivative, evidence is obtained after-the-fact through information officers learn during the unlawful search.

The defense thus argued that the court should exclude the “fruit of the poisonous tree,” referring to the derivative evidence, as well as “the tree itself,” referencing the primary evidence.

Preliminary Hearing on Assault with Deadly Weapon

By Raya Zahdeh

The preliminary hearing for the People v. Bucio occurred on the afternoon of August 10, 2016, with Judge Samuel McAdam in Department 7. The attorney present for the prosecution was Deputy DA Davitt, with Deputy Public Defender Dan Hutchinson representing the defense.

The hearing involved witness testimonies regarding an incident that occurred in West Sacramento around 4 PM on June 9, 2016.

The first witness to take the stand was Officer Tyler Rainey of the West Sacramento Police Department. On the afternoon of June 9, Officer Rainey was dispatched to a preschool in West Sacramento where there had been a call received regarding an assault with a deadly weapon.

Officer Rainey spoke to the alleged victim, who happened to be the director of the preschool. She explained to Rainey that, while she was working inside the preschool, she heard an alarming noise coming from outside, near the front area of the building.

She noticed the noise coming from a male that she recognized as Oscar Bucio, the defendant in this case. She had previously encountered Bucio, as he was frequently present in an alleyway near the preschool before this incident occurred. During previous encounters, Bucio had yelled at her and vandalized the fence bordering the preschool.

On the afternoon of June 9, the preschool director had walked outside and spoken to Bucio when she realized the noise was due to his removal of one of the wooden boards of the fence at the preschool. He responded by telling her he would burn the school down and by threatening to kill her.

When she approached and was located between the two vehicles parked in the driveway of the preschool, the defendant held the four-foot wooden board as if it were a baseball bat and swung it at her. The preschool director moved out of the way fast enough, and the board missed her by a couple of inches and instead struck the back portion of her van, parked in the driveway.

The director then made her way back to the door of the preschool, while Bucio picked up three rocks and threw them toward the entrance of the school. By this time, many people had come outside and were observing what was going on. At the same time, Bucio started to walk away from the preschool.

During this encounter, the preschool director attempted to call the police. Meanwhile, Bucio continued to threaten her and yell inappropriate comments about her. The director told Officer Rainey that she was afraid for her life, and felt very vulnerable during his interview with her. Officer Rainey conducted a field show-up afterward, with only the suspect being shown to her, during which she was able to positively identify Bucio. The officer recognized Bucio during the show-up, and stated that he also had had prior encounters with the defendant.

Next to give his witness testimony was Officer Scott Farnsworth, also of the West Sacramento Police Department. Officer Farnsworth stated that he had been dispatched to the same preschool on the afternoon of June 9, 2016.

He spoke to a witness at the scene who was working with the preschool director at the preschool that day. The witness told Officer Farnsworth that she was speaking with the director before they both heard the noise, at which point the director left to go outside and figure out what caused the noise. The witness overheard the argument between the director and the defendant, and she recognized Bucio from previous encounters as well.

She specifically overheard the preschool director telling Bucio that he had to leave the property, and that she was going to call the police. The defendant proceeded to swing the wooden board at the director. The witness stated that she saw Bucio pick up the wooden board, hold it above his head, and throw it at the director a second and third time. She also said she believed that the board missed the director after each of the three attempts, and that she heard Bucio threatening to kill the director.

After speaking to the witness, Officer Farnsworth conducted a field show-up with her. She was immediately able to recognize and identify Bucio as the male from the incident that occurred outside the preschool building.

After the witness testimonies were completed and the evidence was presented before the court, Judge McAdam stated that the defendant would be held to answer on counts of assault with a deadly weapon, vandalism, and criminal threats. Furthermore, an arraignment on the information is scheduled to take place on August 25, 2016, at 9 AM in Department 7 of Yolo County Superior Court .

The post Court Watch Coverage of Suppression Motion and Preliminary Hearing appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

by Christina D. and Jamie Moddelmog

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016, in Department 9, the jury trial for Donald Wayne Keeling commenced in front of Judge Janene Beronio. Keeling was charged with violations of Penal Code sections 273.5 (a), 273a (b), and 166 (c)(1). Before the jury was called in, Deputy District Attorney Kassie Cardullo and Defense Attorney James Bradford presented their arguments on admitting a May 12, 2015, 911 radio call as evidence. Because the caller is currently on the East Coast and isn’t available for giving testimony, the People wanted to submit a recording of the 911 radio call instead.

The defense argued that the recording violates hearsay and confrontation clauses, due to speculation and prejudicial content, and the lack of the presence of the witness. The caller could not see what was going on in her neighbor’s house, and only assumed that the victim was screaming because she was being hit by Keeling. Additionally, admitting the call recording as evidence violates the defendant’s right to a fair trial, since the caller won’t be present for cross-examination.

Cardullo responded that the recording would provide valuable insight because the caller was describing what she heard as events were happening. It was also the only evidence prior to the second incident, for which the police came out and initiated the case. Although some statements in the recorded call were determined to be speculative by Judge Beronio, she allowed for stipulation of an edited transcript of the call to be presented to the jury during the trial.

Domestic Abuse Trial of Deaf Defendant Begins

By Jamie Moddelmog

The trial of Donald Wayne Keeling began Tuesday afternoon with Judge Janene Beronio presiding. Mr. Keeling faces two charges of “Inflicting Injury on Cohabitant Resulting in Traumatic Condition,” one charge of child endangerment and another of violating court orders regarding a protective order. The trial had been delayed, originally supposed to begin in the morning, as the People’s attorney, Kassie Cardullo, and the defense attorney, James Bradford, argued to the court which evidence would be admissible.

When the afternoon session began, they were nearing the end of their discussions. Judge Beronio was deciding whether or not a 911 phone call placed by Mr. Keeling’s neighbor should be admitted as evidence. Mr. Bradford claimed that only the “essence” of it should be conveyed because the call contained a lot of hearsay. Ms. Cardullo argued for it to be read aloud by the judge in its entirety. Mr. Bradford claimed there were lots of unnecessary parts to the call that qualify as hearsay. Eventually the judge ruled that she would read the transcript of the call aloud.

With that cleared up, the jury was called in and the trial commenced.

People’s Opening statements

The People’s opening statements, made by Ms. Cardullo, began with the phrase: “violence is not love.” She claimed that not everything that happens inside the home is private and, in some cases, such as the case involving Mr. Keeling and his girlfriend, the law must step in. She described the defendant’s relationship with his girlfriend to the jury, saying it was “complicated” and that violent things happened. This trial would be focused around specifically two violent incidents, one on May 12, 2015, and the other on September 22, 2015.

Cardullo turned on a slideshow and showed the jurors a picture of the alleged victim, the defendant’s girlfriend, with a black eye.

She claimed that on May 12, 2015, Keeling struck his girlfriend in the face when he was angry, and, even further, admitted two days later that he had done so.

Cardullo showed another photo of a document containing typed questions and answers written by the defendant. She pointed out the question that asked, “Did you strike her [the victim] in an argument on 5/12?” and his answer was, “Yes.”

She said that, after the May 12 incident, a restraining order was issued forbidding him from going near his girlfriend, but yet, on September 22, 2015, he returned to try to recover some “male enhancement pills” that he had left in the girlfriend’s home. The girlfriend would not give them to him, and, in a state of anger as well as to get what he wanted, he choked her.

She then showed photos of the girlfriend’s neck and pointed out red marks on it. A juror claimed that he could not see any red marks on the photos, and Ms. Cardullo assured him that they were there. She also showed photos of the male enhancement pills Keeling had come for, as well as a window that he broke during the incident. The girlfriend’s seven-year-old son was the one who called the police. Ms. Cardullo played the 911 recording of a child’s voice telling the operator that his stepfather went up and started “like choking” his mom. Officers responded to the home and Mr. Keeling was arrested. Ms. Cardullo claimed that the evidence would eventually show that, on several occasions, Mr. Keeling had abused his girlfriend.

Defense Opening Statements

Defense Attorney James Bradford provided a very different narrative on the events. He began with the September 22 incident that Ms. Cardullo had described as the defendant trying to take back the pills and using violence to do so. He claimed that the alleged victim had found the pills and gotten angry, because she believed them to be evidence that her boyfriend, the defendant, was cheating on her. That led to a huge argument in which he attempted to get the pills back, by coming at her from behind, putting his arms around her and trying to pry the pills out of her hand. He claimed that her seven-year-old son might have seen this happen and mistaken it for choking, when in reality it was just Keeling trying to get his male enhancement pills back. He also claimed that Mr. Keeling in no way intended to hit his girlfriend in the face on May 12, the earlier incident. It was at that point that the transcript of that 911 call was read, in which a neighbor described “hearing something hit the wall,” “yelling for three or four hours,” and “what sounds like screaming.” He said that the evidence would clearly show that Mr. Keeling did not actually slap his girlfriend on May 12, 2015, and he did not choke her on September 22.

Officer Erik Thruelsen Testimony

The People called Officer Erik Thruelsen, a 22-year veteran of the West Sacramento PD. He has received extensive training on domestic violence and has also taught courses on domestic violence. He said he receives two to five domestic violence calls a day. Ms. Cardullo asked him to explain what the cycle of violence is.

He broke it up into three phases: 1)Tension building phase; 2)Explosion phase (violent outburst); and 3)Honeymoon phase (abuser apologizes to victim and makes promises that they will never do it again). He explained that the phases get shorter and shorter in duration the longer the cycle goes on, leading to more violent outbursts.

Officer Thruelsen stated that he was dispatched to the residence of the defendant’s girlfriend on May 12, 2015, because of a neighbor’s report of possible domestic violence. When he got there he saw that the alleged victim was deaf and could not speak to him but was excitedly trying to explain to him that he was not needed there. He said that he noticed that she had a black eye. He asked her if her boyfriend, Mr. Keeling, who was also inside the apartment, had hit her and she said yes. This led to the arrest of Mr. Keeling, who is also deaf.

Once Mr. Keeling was at the police station, the officer wrote out questions for Mr. Keeling to answer on a sheet of paper and saw him fill it out. He saw him admit to hitting his girlfriend by writing yes when he was asked that question. He left a question at the end, asking if he had anything to add, to which he wrote, “No.”

Mr. Bradford started his cross-examination by trying to discern how Officer Thruelsen obtained any information from the alleged victim, as she is deaf. He stated that he used her son as an interpreter, because the boy knew sign language and English. Mr. Bradford asked if it was department protocol to use a seven-year-old child as a translator or interpreter. Officer Thruelsen said it was common practice. He admitted, though, that the May 12 incident was his first experience of domestic violence with deaf people. Although he got a statement from the alleged victim, a statement was never taken from the defendant.

Mr. Bradford turned it over to the People once again, and Ms. Cardullo questioned why the officer did not take a statement from the defendant. He said it was because he did not want to further involve the child by using him as an interpreter for both parties and wanted to use him as little as possible. He also said he believed the statement he had already obtained was sufficient to make an arrest.

In his final line of questioning, Mr. Bradford asked the officer what he was at the scene to do. He answered that he was there to investigate and admitted that usually, in an investigation, the investigator talks to all parties involved and he did not. He said he made a judgment call for the “health and emotional welfare” of the young child. When asked, he said he did not deem it necessary to get an American Sign Language (ASL) translator or interpreter to the scene.

Officer Andrew Ha Testimony

The next witness called by the people was Officer Andrew Ha, who was dispatched to the same apartment on September 22, 2015, when a child called about his mother being choked. When he arrived, he claimed the alleged victim had a worried look on her face. He could not arrest the defendant then because he had left the premises.

He said that he observed a broken window and red marks on the woman’s neck. Seeing that the apparent victim was deaf, he took a written statement from her on a notepad. She told him that she and her boyfriend were fighting over some male enhancement pills, and she showed him the package with the medication in it. He took photos of the medication as well as areas of the neck where he saw red marks. He said there were no other injuries on her and she was not having any trouble breathing. He also observed the child in the home and claimed the boy did not seem distressed at all.

Officer Jerry Watson Testimony

The third and final witness of the day was Officer Jerry Watson, Officer Ha’s partner, who responded to the apartment with him on September 22. He testified that he interviewed the son of the alleged victim, stating that the kid was bouncing all around and very energetic. When asked whether he considered using the child as an interpreter, he said that he would normally try to stay away from doing that. He believed the kid understood all of his questions and he purposely tried to keep them simple. He also noted that there were other deaf people besides the alleged victim in the apartment, but he did not take statements from them.

Domestic Violence Case between Deaf Persons Resumes

By Christina D.

After witness testimonies from three police officers on August 9, 2016, the jury trial reconvened on August 10, 2016, in Department 9 in front of Judge Janene Beronio. Two more American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters were brought in to interpret for Witness 4, in addition to the two already interpreting for the deaf defendant (Donald Keeling). Witness 4 was the alleged victim and the defendant’s deaf girlfriend of two years, herein referred to as “SA.”

Before bringing in the jury, the court instructed SA to avoid any mention of child protective services (CPS) for her son, of Keeling’s past felony conviction, and of his other criminal history. Then, with the jury assembled, Deputy DA Kassie Cardullo called SA to the stand.

SA testified that neither she nor Keeling held jobs, but that she was paid under the table to help with various tasks for her apartment. She also mentioned very briefly in passing that Keeling had a hard time with employment due to his past felony conviction. As she already had for several days, on May 12, 2105, SA repetitively asked Keeling about getting a job. They started arguing outside, then moved into their bathroom, where Keeling ended the argument by striking SA with an open palm and giving her a black eye.

After the slap, SA left Keeling and her apartment to talk to her manager, and found that the police had arrived when she returned. Her neighbor had heard shouting and called the police. Officers only asked SA whether she needed an ambulance and about the whereabouts of Keeling before leaving. When SA and Keeling argued again on May 14, 2015, Keeling threw a glass, which shattered on the rocks they had outside. The same neighbor called the police again, and Keeling was arrested.

During cross-examination, SA testified that only two questions were given to her, in written form, but the neighbor, who didn’t live in the same apartment and had reported the incident, talked to the officers for a long time. Since SA is deaf, she didn’t know and couldn’t confirm what the neighbor told the police.

SA testified that on May 14, 2015, when the police arrived they asked SA if her black eye was from May 12, since they couldn’t see two days earlier when her eye was covered up by her sunglasses. Although SA asked for an ASL interpreter because she couldn’t properly communicate to the officers everything that happened, none was provided. SA’s seven-year-old son, who can speak and hear normally, was asked to interpret instead, and was questioned. SA also wrote a written statement on the incident for the police.

On September 22, 2015, SA woke up in the morning to find her son late for school and Keeling nowhere to be found in the apartment. When SA eventually found Keeling sleeping outside in his truck, she disbelieved his explanation that he had gone out for a smoke and fell asleep. Both went into the house, where they argued and SA ordered Keeling out of the house.

Keeling grabbed a hat, out of which fell erectile dysfunction pills. Although Keeling signed in ASL that the pills were a surprise for her, SA testified that she thought it was suspicious and that he was seeing other women. She said she snatched up the pills, and, in an attempt to retrieve them from her, Keeling wrapped his arms around her from behind. SA’s son saw the struggle and called 911 because he thought Keeling was choking her. When the police came, they noted a window that was broken by keys being thrown through it, and laughed about the pills, which they helped SA retrieve from where she had thrown them behind her dresser.

At this point, SA mentioned that the police dropped by her apartment again in the afternoon, and told her she could not pick up her son. The prosecution cut SA off before she could continue describing the afternoon’s events, and reminded SA to focus only on the morning’s struggle.

SA recognized photographs of her neck, and the red marks on it. When asked, she testified that she did and still does love Keeling, but hesitated before answering that she does not know whether the social worker would allow her to continue being his girlfriend.

During recess for the jury, Attorney James Bradford objected to SA’s testimonial references to Keeling’s criminal history and the involvement of CPS. Bradford motioned for mistrial, but it was denied. The witness was brought in and again admonished not to say anything about CPS or Keeling’s past criminal record, or that her son was not staying with her.

The jury was brought back in, and Bradford began cross-examination of SA. For the May 12, 2015, incident, SA testified that her argument with Keeling, up until they entered the bathroom, was all sign language and verbalized sounds. She could feel the vibrations and saw that Keeling was being loud, and wanted him to keep it down.

SA testified that, in the small (less than 10ft by 10ft) bathroom, she and Keeling stood face to face. They were still signing and arguing, standing at less than two feet apart, and he was fed up with her repeatedly asking him to get a job. SA again brought up Keeling’s past felony conviction.

Although she testified that Keeling left with no apology after slapping her, she couldn’t recall that she told Bradford and his investigator that Keeling did apologize over and over again.

For the September 22, 2015, incident, SA testified that they were in the bedroom when she repeatedly told Keeling to take his clothes with him and leave. While arguing, Keeling threw his keys, which flew into the window and broke it. Instead of his clothes, Keeling reached for his hat, and the pills fell out. She was suspicious because he typically didn’t hide male enhancement pills from her, and they usually bought them together. But SA picked up the pills and headed into the living room. Her roommates were in the kitchen, and her son was in the doorway to the apartment.

SA hunched over a chair with the pills in the living room, and Keeling wrapped his arms around her when SA’s son saw the situation. Keeling didn’t throw SA to the ground, but left right away. SA only learned later on that her son had called 911. When the police came, they spoke to SA’s son first. SA asked for an interpreter right away, but the police had her son interpret instead. SA testified to concerns that her son may have misinterpreted, with his limited ASL signing abilities and considering his young age.

Additionally, SA testified that her son often told people things that didn’t happen, and liked to exaggerate and add to his stories. When SA would ask the boy why he would do that, he told her he didn’t like Keeling because he hurt her.

The jury was then excused before SA continued. Even though she can’t hear what her son says, she knows he has been untruthful, and gave examples of when other people brought to her attention instances her son said something she knew was not true.

On the train, SA’s son told people she killed her daughter, when in fact the baby had died in her sleep due to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Her son also told people he had four brothers and four sisters, when he only has three brothers and two sisters, one of which was the one who passed away. Additionally, SA’s neighbor informed her that the boy said Keeling had forced him to do something relating to sex and playing with boys. However, SA attributed her son’s statements to his dislike of Keeling, and to talking with older neighborhood boys. When asked by DDA Cardullo, SA testified that she tried to explain SIDS to her son, but that he still did not understand. She was also a single mother for six years before meeting Keeling, and thought that her son could just be jealous.

The jury returned, and SA confirmed that she told the truth about the incidents as she remembered them, finishing her testimony.

Eight-year-old’s Testimony Leads to Mistrial Request in Domestic Abuse Case
By Jamie Moddelmog

The prosecution’s second witness of the day was ZH. ZH is the now eight-year old son of the alleged victim, and the one who placed the 911 call on September 22, 2015. Before he was put on the stand, the judge advised counsel to choose their words very carefully when questioning ZH, because of the several topics that the jury is prohibited from hearing. Judge Beronio said that it would be difficult to give admonitions to someone that young and expect him to monitor his own testimony, telling them they should be extremely cautious in their questioning so as not to lead ZH into an answer that may reveal inadmissible information.

ZH arrived inside Department 9 before the jury returned from their break, so that the court could determine whether he knew the difference between the truth and a lie.
He came into the court room with a “comfort dog,” a labradoodle named Aloha that he was allowed to lead around the room. He also had a “support person,” who was his social worker. ZH said he wanted Aloha with him when he testified. The judge agreed that the dog was good to have for all parties and she wanted the jury to see him with it, saying the dog was almost “more important than the person.”

When testing ZH’s knowledge of lies, prosecutor Kassie Cardullo first asked ZH if he knew what a lie was. He replied, “Yes.” Then she asked, if she were to say her hair was bright purple, whether that would be a true statement or a lie. He replied, “Lie!” He answered similar subsequent questions correctly, as well. Once it was decided that he could discern truth from lie, he was able to take the stand.

When he came back to the courtroom later on, there was an attempt to swear him in, standing directly in front of the jury, but Aloha pulled him away, not allowing him to stand still or raise his right hand. He was eventually sworn in, in the witness stand. When asked to raise his right hand, he accidentally raised his left hand. When asked if he would tell the “truth, the full truth and nothing but the truth,” he charmed the jury by asking, “What does that mean?”

Both the prosecution and defense said that they wouldn’t take too much time questioning ZH, and they meant it. Ms. Cardullo questioned ZH for less than five minutes, first asking him if he liked his teachers, what his hobbies were and if he liked his lunch. He said he liked his teachers, he plays basketball and he had two burritos and a strawberry freeze at Taco Bell during lunch.

She then questioned him about the incident on September 22, when he called the police, asking if he remembered that. He said he did. She asked what he saw the defendant, Don Keeling, do on that day. ZH said that Don had broken a window on that day. She then asked ZH, “And what else did he do?” ZH said that Keeling had grabbed his mom’s wrist. Ms. Cardullo tried to clarify that the wrist grabbing had happened on September 22, 2015. ZH said that it was not on that date, it was “in Indiana.” The defense attorney, James Bradford, objected, and Ms. Cardullo moved on to a new question.

He said he called 911 because he didn’t want to get hurt. He said he didn’t remember it that well. When he was asked if he was scared to talk about it, he nodded a “yes,” and Ms. Cardullo ended her line of questioning.

Then Mr. Bradford began his cross-examination of ZH, also starting out with some ice breakers, asking ZH about his birthday. ZH said he got a drum and his favorite artist was Lecrae, who wrote his favorite song, “All I need is you.”

After that, Bradford asked whether ZH could remember as far back as September 22 at all. He said that he couldn’t, and with that the defense had no further questions. Both attorneys wanted to question ZH as little as possible. ZH was subsequently dismissed and he, his social worker and Aloha went on their way out the door. He and the defendant made eye contact as ZH walked past, giving each other a gesture in sign language.

Soon after ZH had the left room the jury was ordered out. Mr. Bradford objected to the prosecution’s broad questions that led to ZH revealing inadmissible information about other possibly abusive incidents. He claimed that the comment made by ZH about the defendant grabbing his mom’s wrists “in Indiana” was extremely prejudicial and would make the jury see Mr. Keeling as an abuser. He said that it could be stricken but it would still inevitably influence the jurors. Once again, he asked for a mistrial.

He claimed the question “and what else did he (Mr. Keeling) do?” – the question that led to ZH talking about the inadmissible information – was too broad because it did not specify the date Cardullo was talking about. He stressed that she did not narrow it down enough.

Ms. Cardullo stated that her line of questioning was not broad at all. She said that she could not have been more specific than she was about that date. She asked if he remembered the day he called 911 and then specifically asked what happened on that day. When she asked “what else happened” after that, she believed it could very reasonably be assumed that she meant “during the same day we have been discussing.”

Mr. Bradford said that, although they may be able to know that, she should not have assumed an eight-year-old would know what she meant.

Ms. Cardullo said, “I’m sorry that ZH has witnessed multiple clear instances of abuse.” Mr. Bradford strongly objected to her statement, leading Cardullo to agitatedly snap, “I’m talking!”

After the somewhat heated arguments, Judge Beronio found that the statement was not grounds for a mistrial and that Ms. Cardullo had done the best that she could have in her questioning.

The post Trial Begins in DV Case Involving Hearing Impaired Defendant appeared first on Davis Vanguard.