For years I have been told of the horrors of the family court system – now I am seeing the system up close, and much of what I have heard appears all too accurate.

On Thursday, Judge Johnson once again changed the orders in the case of Benoit v. Gilson.  He gave custody of five children to a convicted felon and an accused rapist.  He did this, he claimed, to force Claire Benoit to come back to the country so that he or the courts can proceed with a proper evaluation of the wellness of the kids.

In fact, several people who were at the court said he was at a loss as to the proper thing to do here.  He certainly was not about to put the kids into the physical custody of Eric Gilson, but instead wants them back and will put them, at least temporarily, in foster care.

While his frustration is understandable, it still remains unclear why he insisted, in his capacity as visiting judge, to undo what Judge Kathleen White had put into place.  She was going to conduct a trial in October, even with the mother and kids in absentia, and then deal with the ramifications of the failure to follow court orders and the like.

Several lawyers have privately told me that they put the blame here on the mother.  She is in clear violation of court orders at this point.  She now faces potential arrest and removal of her kids.

Had they returned, some say, the system would have protected her kids and she would be in the driver’s seat.

While I respect the view of my lawyer colleagues, these are not family law attorneys and they have an inherent trust in the system that Ms. Benoit does not possess.  Her instinct is to protect her kids, and this is the only way she seemed to know how to do so.

From the perspective of Deputy DA Tiffany Susz, of the Yolo County Child Abduction unit, her correspondence indicates that the court has made changes to the custody order, saying that “the Court ordered sole legal and physical custody of the minor children to Mr. Gilson with the condition that the children be placed with Child Welfare Services upon the children’s return to the United States and not to the physical custody of Mr. Gilson.”

In addition, the court has ordered the child abduction unit to “take all necessary steps to obtain the return of the children.  The anti-abduction orders and orders for Ms. Benoit to return the children to the United States remain in effect.”

At this point, Ms. Susz claims they are “willing to pay for all four children’s return tickets to the United States, along with Ms. Benoit’s ticket, to assist Ms. Benoit with complying with the Court’s orders to return to the United States, Yolo County jurisdiction.”

In her letter, she notes, “I want to be clear there is no other motive today in offering Ms. Benoit our assistance to facilitate the return of the children. At this time, there is not a felony arrest warrant for Ms. Benoit. Our unit is acting pursuant to the Court’s order to assist in securing the return of the children to the United States.  As you know from the Court’s order, upon the children’s return, the children will not be given to the physical custody of Mr. Gilson.”

Ms. Benoit notes that she left the country on a pre-scheduled trip to Europe and simply did not return as planned as this case advanced.

She writes, “Eric has never had any custody nor access rights to my two youngest children. He was at neither birth, is on neither of their birth records, and had no involvement in their lives.”

She notes that her leaving the country “is not and was not illegal; which is why I have not been charged with child abduction and did not require Gilson’s permission to procure passports for my children. Eric had not even exercised his newly established supervised visitation rights at the time of my departure.”

Where does that leave us?

A lot of that will be determined by what Claire Benoit chooses to do.  Will she comply with the ruling by Judge Johnson and accept the DA at her word?

Will Judge White continue with the orders that Judge Johnson set forth?  Or will she re-institute what she had already laid out?  It seems probable that too much has changed for Judge White to simply go back to where things stood in late June, but who knows.

Attorney Kim Robinson had attempted to have Judge Johnson removed from this case, but her writ was summarily denied by the appellate court.  She has the option this week to file a writ with the state Supreme Court.

The bottom line is, stay tuned – because this case is far from over.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

The post My View II: Where the Benoit Case Currently Stands appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Mariel Barbadillo

On the afternoon of Friday, August 12, 2016, Judge Samuel McAdam presided over a preliminary hearing for Onellia Mojica Ambriz, who is charged with assault with a deadly weapon. On February 21, 2016, Mrs. Ambriz allegedly chased after and crashed into a car occupied by her husband and her husband’s girlfriend.

The preliminary hearing began with testimony from the prosecution’s first witness, the woman with whom the defendant’s husband was having an affair, “YG.”

YG said she was romantically involved with the defendant’s husband the day of the incident. The two of them met at his father’s property, where he parked his truck. They left in YG’s car, which the defendant’s husband drove.

After several hours, they returned to the property and saw Ms. Ambriz there. Her husband continued to drive past the property. She chased after them in her husband’s truck at approximately 90 miles per hour, and she hit the car with full force multiple times.

The initial hit occurred while the vehicles were on an overpass. When the defendant, in the husband’s truck, hit YG’s car, the latter came to a halt and lost power. That is when the defendant allegedly crashed into them a second time. At this point, YG said she saw the defendant drive straight down, make a right U-turn, and drive back to hit them a third time on the passenger side.

The final hit dented the passenger door inward and shattered the window. YG was sitting in the passenger seat, but she moved away from the door just before the impact. Neither she nor the defendant’s husband suffered physical injuries.

Ms. Ambriz, her husband, and YG then exited their respective vehicles. YG alleges that the defendant grabbed her by her hair, tried to hit her with a closed fist, and bit her hand when she, YG, tried to defend herself.

The prosecution asked the witness if she was scared during the incident. She said she was. When asked why, YG said, “there was no stopping her,” referring to Ms. Ambriz. YG was also afraid that the cars would lose control on the overpass and potentially fall off.

Ms. Ambriz’s attorney, Monica Brushia from the Public Defender’s Office, then began her cross-examination of the witness.

When asked how long she has known the defendant’s husband, YG said she has known him since they were young, but they have been romantically involved for three years. She confirmed that they began their relationship when he was already married and that they were “sneaking around behind her back,” referring to the defendant.

The defense questioned YG about an encounter two years prior, when Ms. Ambriz confronted her about the affair. The witness said she told Ambriz to ask the husband, neither confirming nor denying the affair.

Regarding the moment they saw first the defendant on the day of the incident, the defense asked YG if she asked the defendant’s husband to pull over and talk to the defendant. YG said she did, but he told her he did not want the defendant to hurt her.

As she was recounting the events leading up to the collision, YG asserted that the defendant’s intention was to hurt her and the husband. Ms. Brushia asked to have the statement stricken for speculation, but Judge McAdam overruled the objection as the statement expresses the witness’ state of mind and fear during the incident.

The defense asked if the defendant’s husband braked or stopped at any time during the chase. YG said he did not brake, that the car only slowed down after they were hit the first time.

After the defendant was “contained” by her husband, YG called the police. When police arrived on the scene, YG told the officer she was driving the car. She now admits she lied to the officer because the defendant’s husband had a suspended license at the time.

The defense asked, “Are you still in a relationship with the defendant’s husband?” YG answered in the negative. When asked when the relationship ended, YG said, “Then.”

The prosecution called their second witness, Deputy Jack Schubert from the Yolo County Sheriff’s Office. On the night of February 21, 2016, the officer was dispatched for a non-injury traffic collision and possible fight.

When he arrived on the scene, Deputy Schubert saw that two vehicles had collided. The passenger window was broken, the passenger door was damaged, and the bumper was loose on YG’s car.

Ms. Ambriz spoke to Deputy Schubert at the scene. She said she was behind YG’s car when the driver brake checked (tapping the brakes as if testing the brakes) twice, causing her to rear-end them both times. She said YG then attacked her and pulled her by her hair.

During cross-examination, the defense asked Deputy Schubert to talk more in depth about what Ms. Ambriz told him. According to the officer, Ambriz said both she and her husband were picking oranges on her father-in-law’s property when YG showed up and an altercation ensued. At one point, the defendant’s husband threw a beer bottle, but it was unclear why or at whom he threw the bottle.

The defendant also told the officer her vehicle lost control after rear-ending YG’s car. She claims that is why she hit YG’s car the third time.

When asked if he spoke to the defendant’s husband, Deputy Schubert said the defendant’s husband did not want to participate in the investigation.

The third witness for the prosecution was Sheriff’s Deputy Nick Morford, who spoke to the defendant’s husband briefly at the scene. According to the officer, the defendant’s husband initially told him he was in the black Ford Focus belonging to YG, but he later changed his story and seemed to not know for certain which car he was in during the incident.

He also told the officer that YG was driving when Ambriz rear-ended them, causing the car to stall and come to a stop. That is when the defendant’s truck rammed into YG’s car again.

The defense then cross-examined the Deputy Morford, asking him to elaborate on what the defendant’s husband said about the collision. The defendant’s husband first told the officer that the defendant hit the passenger side twice. She allegedly hit them once, reversed, and then ran into the car again. He then changed his story and said he was in a “tough spot,” considering the incident involved both his wife and his girlfriend.

The prosecution’s fourth and final witness was the defendant’s husband. He began by explaining that he was not romantically involved with YG on the day of the incident. Instead, he described their relationship as “friends with benefits.”

Recounting the events leading up to the incident, he said he was driving YG’s car back to the spot where he had parked his truck when he saw his wife, the defendant. He continued driving past the defendant, and the defendant began to follow them in the truck.

As Ambriz chased them, the defendant’s husband says he brake checked in an attempt to slow down because they were driving too fast. That is when, he said, the defendant rear-ended them.

Unlike YG and the officer, the defendant’s husband said the car did not stall after the initial hit. Instead, he said they started going faster. However, he said he brake checked again because they were approaching a stop sign at the other end of the bridge.

He said it seemed as if his wife had “lost it,” but he understood why, given the situation. He said he took a chance by braking, knowing the cars would get ruined, in order to slow his wife down.

At this point, he said both vehicles lost control and the truck spun around, eventually hitting the passenger side of the car where YG was sitting.

During cross-examination, the witness explained he has been married to the defendant for eight years and they have two children together. The defendant also has another child, but the defendant’s husband treats that child as his own as well.

He admitted to engaging in an ongoing relationship with YG for the past three years. The defense asked if the defendant had confronted him about the extramarital relationship before. He said she had confronted him before and he lied to her about the affair.

The defense then asked if he recalled the defendant saying she was going to “go get some fruit” the day of the incident. He said he recalls the defendant saying that, and he said he figured she would possibly go to his father’s property.

The witness said he was with YG for approximately three hours that day. They were supposed to go to Sacramento that afternoon, but he said they got into a fight and drove back to pick up his truck so he could leave.

He said he recalled getting a call from his wife that afternoon. At that point, he did not realize she was calling from his truck. When he drove to the location where he parked his truck, he saw her and, realizing he was “caught in a lie,” kept driving.

Regarding the brake check, the defendant’s husband said he braked to “scare her off of me.” He said it was “out of character” for her to drive at such a high speed in a reckless manner.

The defense asked, “She was following you, so you set the pace, correct?” The defendant’s husband answered, “Right.”

After getting rear-ended, the defendant’s husband said he made a “hard left.” This was because they were going downhill on the overpass and he wanted to avoid oncoming traffic, but also because the cars seemed to be “stuck together” after the initial hit.

When he turned left, he said he saw the truck spin and hit the passenger door. The defense emphasized that the defendant did not intentionally make a U-turn to hit YG’s car the final time, as YG alleges in her testimony.

The defendant’s husband described the subsequent confrontation between the defendant and YG as a “typical girl fight.” He said they both started the fight, as opposed to their statements blaming each other for initiating the conflict.

The two women ended up on the ground, pulling each other’s hair and hitting each other. The defendant’s husband tried to separate the two women by putting his body in between them and attempting to pry their hands from each other.

When asked why both the defendant and YG lied about the husband being the driver, he said it was not his idea for them to lie. He acknowledged that he broke the law by driving while his license was suspended.

The defendant’s husband disclosed that he is no longer living with the defendant and their children. He visits several days a week and says they are in the process of “working things out.”

The prosecution then asked the witness about a separate incident on April 13, when the defendant used her vehicle to stop someone from getting away. The defendant’s husband said he is familiar with the incident. The prosecution concluded that using a vehicle in an offensive manner is not necessarily “out of character” for the defendant, as the husband had previously stated.

The defense did not call witnesses or submit evidence. Mrs. Brushia says she is relying on the notion that it “makes sense” that a wife would go after her husband and mistress, but it does not necessarily mean she intended to hit them with her vehicle. The defense is arguing that the collision was a consequence of the husband’s brake check, which would mean Ambriz could not be held accountable for deliberate assault.

Judge McAdam, however, questioned why the defendant’s husband would tap the brakes in a small car while being chased by a truck. The judge referred to it as a “suicide mission,” while the defense said it was a “coward’s way out.”

The judge concluded the defendant’s husband is not credible, saying that his motives were conflicting and changing, referencing his apparent attempts to protect both women as well as himself.

Judge McAdam said the only way the defense could win at this point is by discrediting YG, which he could not see them doing. He asked, “What motive is there for [YG] to lie?” She is no longer involved with the defendant’s husband and she delivered her testimony calmly and straightforward, according to the judge.

Ultimately, the court held Onellia Ambriz to answer for assault with a deadly weapon in the February incident. She also faces a child endangerment charge for the April 13 incident the prosecution referenced. The preliminary hearing for that case will resume on Monday afternoon.

The post Woman Held to Answer for Assault with Deadly Weapon on Husband and Husband’s Girlfriend appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Mariel Barbadillo

On the morning of Monday, August 15, 2016, the trial commenced in the case against Jason Lopez and Stephon Ramirez. The co-defendants are charged with the attempted shooting at an inhabited vehicle and three counts of assault with a semi-automatic firearm, with enhancements for use of a firearm during the commission of the felony as well as committing the felony for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang. They also face a felony charge of criminal street gang activity and a misdemeanor for resisting or obstructing a police officer.

Deputy District Attorney Kyle Hasapes began his opening statement by beating his chest with his fist, saying, “This is my turf. You don’t belong here.” He went on to allege that Mr. Lopez and Mr. Ramirez are active members of the Broderick Boys gang in West Sacramento, and he believes they targeted the alleged victim because they thought he was a rival gang member.

The prosecution then detailed his understanding of the incident to the jury. He said the alleged victim had stopped at a liquor store with his wife and children when the defendants approached him. The defendants, he said, asked the alleged victim, “Are you from around here?” and, “Do you bang?”  The prosecutor told the jurors they will hear from an expert witness who will elaborate on the significance of those questions.

According to the prosecution, the alleged victim was driving with his brothers-in-law later on in the day when he recognized the defendants from the liquor store. One of the witnesses riding with the alleged victim said, “They got a gun.” They allegedly saw Mr. Ramirez holding a gun out of the passenger window, but the gun seemed to be malfunctioning, as Mr. Ramirez was initially unable to discharge the weapon.

Following this encounter, the alleged victim and passengers drove to the police station. They spoke to officers and gave statements of the incident. That is when they noticed the defendant’s black vehicle drive by.

The officers went after the vehicle and apprehended Mr. Lopez. Mr. Ramirez, however, was seen sprinting from the vehicle. A K9 unit was sent after Mr. Ramirez, believing him to be armed. He was later apprehended.

The officers searched the defendants’ vehicle and found one live round of ammunition. Mr. Ramirez’s hands also tested positive for gunshot residue.

The prosecution told the jury they will hear testimony from Officer Anthony Herrera, who will provide expert information on criminal street gangs, the violence such gangs engage in, and what is expected of members who come into contact with rival gangs.

Mr. Ramirez is being represented by the Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira, and Mr. Lopez by Attorney James Granucci.

Mr. Granucci gave an opening statement simply outlining the timeline of events. He began on May 8, 2016, at about 3:30 to 4:00 PM at Lighthouse Market & Deli in West Sacramento. He said the defendants were just about to leave when the alleged victim walked up to their car and they had a conversation. He asserted that there was no violence and no argument involved in that encounter, and the two parties parted ways after a few moments.

The second encounter was while the alleged victim was with his brothers-in-law. Mr. Granucci described this encounter as a “misunderstanding” at an intersection, lasting about five to ten seconds until the alleged victim drove away.

The alleged victim went to the police station and saw the defendants drive by on their way to Mr. Lopez’s apartment. The officers followed them, apprehended Mr. Lopez at the driveway to his apartment, and chased after Mr. Ramirez. He said Mr. Ramirez ran because he was scared.

Mr. Granucci asserted that the evidence provided by the prosecution will not be enough to convict Mr. Lopez and Mr. Ramirez of the crimes they are alleged to have committed.

Mr. Ramirez’s attorney, Martha Sequeira, said she would give her opening statement later in the trial.

The prosecution’s first witness was “VB,” the alleged victim. He is originally from Los Angeles, but he moved to West Sacramento four years ago. He said he does not belong to nor is he familiar with criminal street gangs.

The prosecution asked the witness if he has tattoos. VB disclosed that he has two: one on his upper left arm that was not visible under his sleeve and another on his forearm, which he showed to the court. He described the tattoo as signifying the Mexican holiday, “Day of the Dead,” including a woman’s face and ghosts. The prosecution asked if there are parts of the tattoo that appear to be dots. The witness said the eyes on the faces could look like dots from far away.

The witness said that, on the day of the incident, he was taking pictures with his family at a mall in Sacramento. He was driving to his in-laws’ house when his wife said her head was hurting. The witness stopped at Lighthouse Market to buy Advil. He noted that he saw a black Dodge Durango in the parking lot when he arrived.

When he went to pay for his items, he said he saw an individual in front of him in line with a tattoo on his forehead, but he did not interact with him at that point. The prosecution asked VB to describe the person he saw, and he mentioned seeing an ankle monitor.

Immediately, the defense counsel objected and asked to approach the bench. Prior to trial, the defense had filed a motion in limine to exclude any reference to Mr. Lopez’s ankle monitor, as it could be prejudicial. Mr. Hasapes, however, did not admonish the witness prior to his testimony.

The defense requested a mistrial, since the jurors heard the prejudicial information the defense sought to exclude, which would interfere with the defendants’ right to a fair trial. Judge Reed deferred ruling on the motion, but he had the witness’ last statement about the ankle monitor stricken from the record.

After a short recess, VB continued his testimony. The prosecution asked if anything Mr. Lopez did caught his attention or if anything unusual happened. The witness answered to the negative.

VB went on to describe his encounter with both defendants, when he was leaving the store and they had just pulled out of the parking space. He said the driver, Mr. Lopez, asked him a question, so he approached them. He was about eight feet away from the vehicle when Mr. Lopez asked if he was from around the area. The witness answered yes.

The witness walked closer so that he was about four feet away from the vehicle when Mr. Lopez asked, “Do you bang?” The prosecution asked if VB had any knowledge of what that meant. VB said he thought he was being asked if he was a “gangbanger,” and he said he is not.

The prosecution proceeded to play surveillance footage from the Lighthouse Market parking lot, time-stamped at 15:42 hours on Sunday, May 8, 2016. VB was seen driving a white Jeep and pulling into a parking spot directly next to the defendants’ black Dodge Durango. VB exited his vehicle and walked into the store.

A few minutes later, Mr. Lopez was seen leaving the store briefly. He approached his car from the right side, talking to Mr. Ramirez in the passenger seat. He entered the store again, and then returned to the car and got in the driver’s seat.

The defendant was seen pulling out of the parking space, starting to drive away, until VB walked out of the store. VB walked over to the defendant’s vehicle. They appeared to be speaking briefly, perhaps a matter of seconds, and then he walked back to his Jeep. VB said he was getting money from his car so he could pay for his items.

The prosecution asked VB if he noticed the green sticker on the back of the defendant’s vehicle. He said he “kind of” noticed it, but it did not particularly catch his attention.

The prosecution showed the witness a visual of an aerial view of Lighthouse Market and the surrounding area. He asked VB to mark with a red pen where he saw the defendants go as they exited the parking lot. VB said he did not know where they went at that point.

Three minutes later in the surveillance footage, VB was seen leaving the parking lot. He said he did not mention the conversation to his family or anyone else. When the prosecution asked why, the witness said he did not tell anyone because he did not see a reason to be concerned about the conversation.

After leaving Lighthouse Market, VB drove to his brother-in-law’s house. He said he conversed with the family for about 35 minutes before leaving to go to a store to buy meat for the barbecue they planned to have that night.

The witness drove his Jeep to the store he described as being down the street from his brother-in-law’s house. His two brothers-in-law were in the car with him. They came to a stop on Casselman Drive because oncoming traffic from Andrews Street has the right of way.

At this point, VB said he saw a black Durango traveling from their left and he recognized the driver, Mr. Lopez. He said the driver and passenger were the same people he spoke to at the liquor store. He thought he was saying this to himself at the time, but he apparently said it loud enough for the defendants to hear.

The defendants’ Durango came to a complete stop approximately 25 feet from the witness’ car. The passenger door opened and one of the witness’ brothers-in-law said he noticed that the passenger, Mr. Ramirez, had a gun.

That is when VB said he saw Mr. Ramirez holding a gun with his finger on the trigger. The witness held up his hand to approximate the size of the gun, which Judge Reed said looked to be about six to eight inches. The witness then reenacted the defendant’s actions, moving his index finger repeatedly as if on a trigger to indicate that the gun was “jammed or something,” and then moving his other hand in a sliding motion to indicate cocking the gun.

Possibly Gang-Related Attempted Shooting Trial Continues

By Jamie Moddelmog

The trial of Jason Lopez and Stephon Ramirez resumed after a break for lunch, discussing, with the jury not present, defense counsel’s request for a mistrial. The request had been made based on the testimony of witness VB, who stated that Mr. Lopez had an ankle monitor on at the time of the incident.

Defense counsel claimed that knowing that Mr. Lopez had an ankle monitor was irreversibly prejudicial and that the deputy district attorney did not give the witness proper instructions on what information was and was not admissible.

Judge Reed ruled that the mention would not be grounds for a mistrial and that, as long as he gave admonishments to the jury to disregard the statement when coming to a conclusion, it would still be fair.

After that, the jury was called back in and questioning of witness VB resumed. VB was the alleged victim of the attempted shooting, who was driving the car at which Mr. Ramirez was accused of aiming his firearm.

Deputy District Attorney Kyle Hasapes was the first to examine the witness after break, asking him questions about how the events unfolded after Ramirez and Lopez allegedly shot at their Jeep from a black Durango.

VB claimed that they pulled up to the intersection of Casselman Drive and Andrews Street when the black Durango pulled up 25 feet away from them, traveling on the opposite street.  VB didn’t notice that one of the vehicle’s occupants had opened the door and had a gun pointed at him until other passengers in his car shouted, “Gun!”

He stated that he was in sort of shock and that he “froze” as the incident unfolded. He saw Mr. Ramirez point his gun over the top of the Durango’s open passenger’s side door, right at them, pull on the trigger several times and then pull the top of the gun backwards in a “cocking motion.” Once he snapped out of his daze, he drove straight forward through the intersection and proceeded driving toward the police station. The police saw him outside the station and searched him and the car’s other passengers for weapons.

It was around then that VB noticed the same black Durango they had seen earlier at the intersection, parked by the police station.  They identified the car for the police, the car took off and some of the officers pursued it.

The questioning was turned over to the defense team, with Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira beginning. She asked VB if he was being uncooperative with the police when they attempted to search him. He said he was not. Ms. Sequeira asked if the police officers there at the time would be lying if they said he was being uncooperative. He said he may have appeared uncooperative because he was trying so hard to convey what was going on, and he was very nervous.

Backing up to his first encounter with Mr. Lopez, VB described that he saw Lopez in front of him in line at the Lighthouse Market, as well as shortly after when he was called over to Lopez’s car in the parking lot.  He did not notice any weapons when walking up to the car.

VB has lived in the Broderick area for four years but has never had any interaction or involvement with anyone who was or claimed to be a “Broderick Boy,” a member of a local gang.  He did not surmise, by the defendant’s tattoos, that the defendant was in a gang.

When relaying the moment the gun was pointed at him, he said that about five to ten seconds passed in between the time the passengers in his car yelled, “Gun!” and when they yelled, “Go go go!” and he took off.

He claimed that the door of the other vehicle was open and the shooter was trying to shoot over the door. The defense brought up VB’s previous testimony from the preliminary hearing of this same case, wherein he said that the shooter had the gun pointed out the window. VB clarified that he meant the assailant had one foot outside the car and was shooting over the top frame of the door.

Ms. Sequeira noted that VB had an “L.A” tattoo, and asked if it was gang-related, stating that the tattoo could often be used to show allegiance to the “Sureño” gang, a bitter rival of the “Norteño” gang, with which the “Broderick Boys” were associated. He claimed that to him it just meant “Los Angeles,” that he didn’t know anything about gangs and that he just liked the Dodgers.

During Mr. Hasapes’ second line of questioning, he asked VB if he was scared to be in court testifying. VB said he was very scared, that he had a wife and three kids and did not want them to be in danger.

The next witness called by the prosecution, “JG,” was one of the passengers in VB’s Jeep. JG stated that he had lived in Los Angeles all of his life and drove up to West Sacramento to visit his mom for Mother’s Day. He claimed not to be familiar with street gangs, and never to have hung out with a member of a street gang.

JG was in the car on his way to a store where they could pick up supplies for a barbecue with his brother-in-law and VB.

He said that the first thing he saw in the black Durango, when it pulled up roughly 25 feet away, was movement on the driver’s side, a slight bouncing movement from the driver. He heard his brother-in-law yell, “Gun!” and then he saw Mr. Ramirez pointing the weapon at their Jeep. He said he could hear the driver of the Durango screaming, “Pop it! Pop it!”

He then ducked his head, but the seats were too small in VB’s Jeep for him to get completely covered so he ended up having his head stick out and being able to see everything. Sitting in the passenger seat of the car, he saw the barrel of the gun pointing in their direction.  He stated he saw Mr. Ramirez pull the trigger several times and then execute a cocking motion. Then he hit VB, who was in the driver’s seat, trying to get him to go, because he was frozen in position. JG estimated that the whole time the gun was pointed at them was about three seconds.

JG also testified that he believed the shooting to be a joke at first, and didn’t take it seriously, assuming the gun was a toy. He said that he could tell only by the look on Mr. Ramirez’s face that it was not a joke.

Like VB, he agreed he could have come across as “confrontational” with the officer who approached them at the police station, as he said he just didn’t like being treated like a suspect when they were the ones who had called about the attempted shooting.

He too said he was scared to testify because of possible retribution from gang members.

The Ramirez and Lopez trial will resume on Tuesday at 9:00 in Department 8.

The post Gang Trial Begins in Yolo County appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Sarah Gregory

The trial of Samantha Lee Green commenced in Yolo County Superior Court on August 15, 2016.  The defendant is charged with second degree murder with implied malice.

The proceedings began with jury selection.  Judge David Rosenberg addressed the court by providing a summary of the incident.  February 24, 2015, is the date 19-day-old Justice Rees was killed.  The victim was the defendant’s son.

The defendant reportedly became upset with her then-fiancé, Frank Rees, also the father of the victim, after he sought to have a threesome with her and another unidentified woman.

In response to this request the defendant ran from her home in Woodland, exposing her son to freezing cold temperatures when he was only wearing a wet onesie with his arms and legs exposed.  The defendant persisted in staying outdoors, despite the baby’s cries and the freezing cold temperature.

Both the defendant and the baby spent the night near Knights Landing.  In the morning, she left her baby behind in the slough and she was later found to have tested positive for methamphetamine.

Judge David Rosenberg asked the Jury Commissioner to send in a pool of 100 individuals at a time.  Eighteen of the potential jurors were called to the jury box.

Judge Rosenberg began by stating the goal of jury selection, which is to provide a fair and impartial jury.  Each juror in the first panel was asked to review the joint potential witness list developed by both parties, defense and prosecution.  The witness total adds up to 119.  None of the jurors knew any potential witnesses.

Rosenberg then discussed the role of a charge against a defendant.  He stated that a charge is not evidence of the defendant’s guilt and that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

Next, he asked the jurors if there was anything about the charge of second degree murder with implied malice to indicate a reason for potential bias.  One of the jurors stated that she has strong feelings about a mother’s role, being a mother herself as well as losing a child.  She believes that a mother’s role is to protect her child at all costs.

At this point, Rosenberg cut her off and reminded the court that a trial is decided on evidence and the law.  It would undermine the integrity of the court if a verdict were decided based on emotions.

However, many other jurors had the same complaint.  There was one pregnant mother and a few adoptive parents.  One in particular, who adopted her child from the custody of another woman, indicated that her child had been terrorized by her biological mother.  The juror related this with such frustration that her eyes began to water.

Rosenberg asked her if she could put her feelings aside for the sake of the trial.  She said she could not and stated that, similar to her child’s biological mother, the defendant has probably always had excuses for the mistreatment of the victim.

Next, Rosenberg asked the jurors if any had seen, heard, or read pre-trial media coverage on the case.  Most of the jurors responded in the affirmative.  Only a handful of jurors said they could not remain unbiased due to the influence of pre-trial media coverage.  Instead, they would use the pre-trial media coverage to substantiate their decision on the case if they were selected.

In addition, a substantial number of jurors have had family members who have abused methamphetamine – the same drug that the defendant was high on during the night the victim died.  One of the jurors had been convicted previously for possession of methamphetamine in Yolo County.  This juror felt he was treated unfairly by law enforcement, the district attorney’s office and the judge who presided over his case.

Rosenberg asked this juror if he could put his feelings aside in order to come to a fair verdict.  He responded that he could not, because he still held a grudge against the individuals that were involved in his prosecution.

Jury selection will resume on August 16, 2016, at 9:00 am.

The post Trial Begins in Samantha Green Baby Death appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Raya Zahdeh

The preliminary hearing in the case against Steven Hendrix resumed on August 15, 2016, in Department 13, Judge Paul Richardson presiding. Hendrix, of West Sacramento, is being charged with second-degree murder, among other charges, for his role in the Second Street collision in February of this year which killed Davis resident Cynthia Jonasen.

The witness to take the stand and give his testimony during this part of the preliminary hearing was West Sacramento Officer Steven Gill.

Officer Gill began by stating that he works closely with the center in Woodland that is in charge of interviewing children and investigating allegations of child sexual abuse cases. The center uses certain techniques such as open-ended questions, as these types of questions statistically result in more accurate answers from minors, especially young children.

The interviews of the children involved in this case took place at this center on June 10, 2016.

According to one of the child witnesses who was a passenger in Hendrix’s car on the day of the accident, Hendrix’s eyes looked red and he seemed tired when he picked the children up from the library in West Sacramento. The witness proceeded to explain that, during the drive to Davis, Hendrix was changing lanes without using his blinkers and was generally not driving like he normally would.

Another child in the vehicle, the first witness’ brother, stated during his interview that he was asleep during the accident, and that he did not see Hendrix smoke marijuana or drink alcohol on the day of the accident.

A third child witness in the vehicle stated that Hendrix was acting differently on the day of the accident. Specifically, he was speeding, was not as talkative, and was not being as responsive as he normally would be, according to the witness.

The witness also stated that she told Hendrix to slow down at one point before the accident occurred, and that he instead turned around, shrugged his shoulders, and sped the car up even more.

After the witness testimony, one of the attorneys for the defense stated that, after the accident occurred, Hendrix ran up to the victim and was really concerned. When he discovered that the victim was killed because of the accident, he was shocked and emotionally disturbed.

The attorney argued that Hendrix’s reaction at the scene was not indicative of influence from drugs – that his reaction was natural, considering what he had just been through. Furthermore, she stated that the child witnesses were not informed enough to accurately determine whether or not Hendrix had red eyes due to drug influence.

The judge noted that the test results indicated that Hendrix had methamphetamine and marijuana in his system at some point, whether it was during or before the day of the accident. The officer also added that, although he could not conduct a field sobriety test due to the nature of the accident, he did notice objective signs of drug influence on Hendrix such as dry mouth, disorientation, red eyes, and the scent of marijuana.

After the witness testimonies and the evidence were presented before the court, Judge Richardson concluded that the defendant would be held to answer on various counts including second degree murder with implied malice, gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, driving under the influence of drugs causing injury, abusing or endangering minors, and driving with a suspended or revoked license. The case is scheduled for an arraignment hearing on August 30, 2016, at 10 AM in Department 13.

The post Hendrix Held to Answer on Murder Charges appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Sophie Marconi and Jade Wolansky

On August 17 in Department 8 at 9:03 am, Judge David Reed presided over the case against two defendants, Joseph Lopez and Stephon Ramirez. The reconvening of the trial began with the continuation of witness testimony from an Officer Regan, who detained Jose Ramirez at the time of the incident on May 8, 2016.

The trial began with the People playing the footage from the officer’s dashboard camera the day of the incident. Throughout the video, Officer Regan described the incident. Regan testified that he saw the black pickup truck while he was driving, recognized the vehicle as being associated with a firearm, and immediately pulled the vehicle over. At this point, the driver began to slow the vehicle without stopping completely. Next, the passenger of the vehicle opened the door of the vehicle and jumped out while the car was still moving.

One can then see Officer Regan leave his vehicle with his K-9 to chase after the passenger of the vehicle. After this point, the court no longer had video footage of the event and had to rely solely on the testimony of Officer Regan. Regan testified that he chased Mr. Ramirez and eventually lost sight of him.

At this point in the video, Officer Regan was near a cement enclosure and he assumed that the fleeing subject must be within the enclosure, because he could see no sign of the man elsewhere. In reaction to this, Officer Regan lifted his K-9 over the cement enclosure in an effort to find out if Mr. Ramirez had climbed over the wall.

The K-9 barked when lifted above the enclosure, which Officer Regan interpreted as confirmation that the subject was hiding on the other side. At this point, Mr. Ramirez was discovered and detained, and soon after taken to the hospital as a result of moderate injuries that he sustained during his detainment.

Once at the hospital, Officer Regan used a kit to test for gunpowder residue on Mr. Ramirez, as protocol. At this point in the trial, the People asked Officer Regan questions about the weapon that was found in the black truck that Mr. Ramirez originally jumped out of. Regan testified that the gun that his fellow officers found was a 25 caliber ACP (Automatic Colt Pistol) with live round in the vehicle.

At this point in the testimony, the People brought their next witness to the stand, Officer Daniel Gill. Officer Gill is a West Sacramento Police Officer, and has had this position for 12 and a half years. He is also part of the K-9 unit and was present on the day of the incident.

At the beginning of Officer Gill’s testimony, the People presented the footage from his dashboard camera to help the jury understand the context of the incident. This video showed the court that on May 8, 2016, at approximately 5 pm, the black truck, the defendant’s vehicle, began to turn into the parking lot of an apartment complex. Officer Gill turned his lights on because he did not want to endanger the individuals living in the apartment complex.

Next, the court again saw the footage of Mr. Ramirez exiting the moving vehicle, and reviewed the events from that day from the viewpoint of Officer Gill.

Trial on Possible Gang Shooting Resumes

by Jade Wolansky

On August 17, 2016, Judge David Reed in Department 8 presided over the third day of the case against co-defendants Jason Lopez and Stephon Ramirez. The attorneys present for the defense included Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira for Stephon Ramirez, and Attorney James Granucci for Jason Lopez. Deputy District Attorney Kyle Hasapes represented the prosecution.

Prior to the jury entering the courtroom, the defense established with Judge Reed how evidence would be presented.

They discussed how Mr. Lopez’s tattoos would be shown to the court. Ms. Sequeira objected to having Mr. Lopez remove his shirt in the courtroom to display the tattoos on his body. She suggested that, instead, Mr. Lopez be permitted to approach the center of the room and place his hand on the projector. In this way, his hand tattoos could be displayed with the projector screen on the wall.  The bailiff stated that several more officers would need to be present for security purposes.

Next, the first witness, Detective Ken Fellows of the West Sacramento Police Department was brought in. The defense and prosecution questioned him and determined the parameters of what could be brought up during testimony. It was established that Mr. Lopez’s parole status when Det. Fellows made contact with him would not be mentioned to the jury. This is because there were concerns about causing jury prejudice. Judge Reed ruled that a reading of Miranda rights were not required for temporary detentions.

The trial resumed when the jury entered the courtroom.

The prosecutor began by asking Det. Fellows about November 11, 2003, when he encountered Lopez and another individual.

Det. Fellows described that Mr. Lopez wore a red t-shirt, black leather jacket with red sleeves and a belt with a chrome buckle that had the initial “L.”  Mr. Lopez admitted he had been a gang member for three years. Det. Fellows listed off several of Lopez’s tattoos: four dots on his face, the roman numeral “XIV” on his left hand, and the name “Selena” on the left part of his chest.

Ms. Sequeira questioned Det. Fellows about why he wrote in his report that Lopez’s “BRK” tattoo was on his arm, when in fact, it is placed on his ear. Det. Fellow admitted to this discrepancy.

Ms. Sequeira then inquired of Det. Fellows if he had asked Mr. Lopez what the tattoos meant to the defendant. Fellows stated that Mr. Lopez’s tattoos indicated that he had gang associations. Sequeira informed Fellows she did not want his input, only the answer to her actual question. Det. Fellows admitted that he did not ask Mr. Lopez what the tattoos signified to him.

At this point, Det. Fellows began to answer in an irritated and annoyed manner.

Ms. Sequeira proceeded to ask if Mr. Lopez had a tattoo specifically spelling out “Norteño.” Det. Fellows replied that Lopez did not, however, his other tattoos strongly suggested that Lopez had gang affiliations. Ms. Sequeria again informed Det. Fellows that he did not answer her question. Judge Reed intervened and reiterated Sequeira’s specific question.

The jury and the witness were dismissed.

The next witness to take the stand was Officer Cody Coulter, also of the West Sacramento Police Department.

For similar reasons, the attorneys established limits on what could be mentioned during the witness’ testimony. Judge Reed again ruled that Miranda rights did not apply to temporary detentions. The issue would not be brought up during the trial. Mention of the defendants’ past probation and parole statuses would not be permitted.

The jury returned to the courtroom again and the trial resumed.

The prosecutor asked Officer Coulter to describe his encounter with Jason Lopez and several other individuals. He stated that he pulled over a white vehicle for a broken headlight and observed several passengers. There were four males who were in the back seat of the vehicle.

The prosecutor inquired whether Michael Lopez, Jason Lopez’s cousin, was known to be a gang member. The defense attorneys objected to this query and approached the bench.

Judge Reed told the prosecutor to change his line of questioning.

The prosecutor proceeded to ask if Jason Lopez was known to be associated with the Broderick Boys, a Sacramento gang affiliated with the Norteño gang. Officer Coulter affirmed this and continued to describe the other passengers in the vehicle. Coulter stated that the other passengers wore red and had several tattoos.

Officer Coulter stated Mr. Lopez was cooperative and was not arrested.

At this point, Judge Reed ended the testimony for the day. The case is scheduled to resume on Monday, August 22, at 10am.

The post Gang Trial Resumes appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Mariel Barbadillo

The trial for the People v. Samantha Lee Green resumed on August 18, 2016. Ms. Green is charged with the murder of her son, Justice Rees. Murder is defined in California Penal Code section 187 as the unlawful killing of another human being or fetus with malice aforethought.

Deputy District Attorney Ryan Couzens gave an opening statement on behalf of the People. His co-counsel, Deputy District Attorney Robert Gordon, accompanied him.

The prosecution’s presentation began with a phone call recording in which Ms. Green is heard explaining the night in question. Mr. Couzens recounted that on February 23, 2015, Ms. Green took her 19-day-old son to a slough while high on methamphetamine. Her baby ultimately succumbed to the cold weather and died. Ms. Green then allegedly left the baby’s body in the dirt by a tree to be found days later.

Mr. Couzens went on to highlight themes of the case, specifically excuse and blame shifting. He accused the defense of excusing the defendant’s actions or placing blame on everyone except the defendant. He claimed the defense is attempting to make Ms. Green appear as the victim, when Justice is the only victim in this case.

The prosecution then began to discuss Frank Rees, Ms. Green’s then-fiancée. According to Mr. Couzens, Mr. Rees was not nice, trustworthy, or helpful. His behavior created problems in his relationship with Ms. Green, which culminated on February 20, 2015, when he suggested he and Ms. Green have group sex with a babysitter.

Several days later, Mr. Rees again suggested a threesome, this time with a woman both he and Ms. Green knew. Ms. Green said no at first, but then reluctantly said yes to appease her fiancée.

The two of them took separate cars to Knights Landing to meet with this woman. The prosecution said this was likely because there was an understanding that one of them would have to leave after the fact, most likely Ms. Green.

The couple then had a fight about infidelity, and Ms. Green told Mr. Rees she was no longer going with him. He drove to Knights Landing without her. Later, Ms. Green allegedly texted him, saying something along the lines of, “I love you babe. I’m on my way.”

Prior to driving to Knights Landing, the defendant stopped at a Chevron station, which is where investigators found the last footage accounting for Ms. Green’s whereabouts on the night in question.

The next day, the family grew concerned because neither Ms. Green nor Mr. Rees had picked up Mr. Rees’s children from his parents’ house. They filed a missing person’s report. Someone then saw a flyer and said they had seen the car belonging to Ms. Green.

A K-9 unit was dispatched, using the scent from the defendant’s car to locate her. Officers later found Ms. Green’s belongings, including her purse and submerged tablet, which was retrievable.

An individual, “RV,” ultimately found Ms. Green. The defendant allegedly told this man she was kidnapped and didn’t know what happened. She did not mention Justice until the man asked her if she was alone.

In another account of the incident, according to the prosecution, Ms. Green mentioned a dream of a white-haired man. She claimed she was raped, and she left Justice to look for help.

On February 25, the defendant spoke to different detectives. She said she was dizzy that night as a man, “KF,” chased after her and groped her. She supposedly jumped in the water with her baby in order to get away from this man. The prosecution, however, said investigative evidence later showed KF was a highly unlikely suspect.

In an interview with another detective, Ms. Green disclosed that she and Mr. Rees had used meth. She explained that Mr. Rees told her the apocalypse was coming and that she needed to escape with their baby. When asked about KF, she admitted that the sexual assault never happened.

To yet another officer, Ms. Green claimed her life was at risk. She said KF threatened her, saying that Mr. Rees was tied up in Knights Landing and needed to take their baby to save him. He allegedly said he would hurt her if she spoke about this exchange.

The prosecution told the jurors they will be presented with evidence that shows Ms. Green has experience with meth and is aware of the dangers of taking the drug. Mr. Couzens showed a Facebook post in which Ms. Green appears to be communicating with a friend, claiming she is an unfit mother due to her drug addiction.

Justice was born testing positive for meth because Ms. Green used drugs during her pregnancy, including the day before she gave birth. She agreed to stop using meth in order to keep custody of Justice.

However, the defendant was unable to overcome her addiction and began to use meth again. Because she had used meth before, during and after her pregnancy, the prosecution stated Ms. Green had complete disregard for Justice and his well-being.

The prosecution contended Ms. Green’s actions were not solely the result of drugs, but that she was also fueled by jealousy. Mr. Couzens referenced a previous relationship in which Ms. Green allegedly kicked down a door to get at her ex-boyfriend.

Mr. Couzens reiterated his belief that Ms. Green consciously made the choices she did on the night in question: she consciously drove to Knights Landing, consciously took her baby to the slough, and consciously left him there in the cold.

He cited a pathologist who said the baby’s death was due to stress from the unfavorable environmental conditions, dehydration, and congenital heart disease. Justice had a perforated heart that made him more vulnerable to the extreme cold weather, which exacerbated his condition.

The prosecution closed by stating this trial is not about circumstances, but rather it is about choices. They assert that the evidence will show Ms. Green is guilty for the consequences resulting from the choices she made.

Tracie Olson, Public Defender of Yolo County, then gave an opening statement on behalf of Ms. Green.

The defense asserted that the story really begins in April of 2014, when Ms. Green quit her job due to her meth addiction and she and her roommates at the time were losing their apartment. Mr. Rees, the defendant’s drug dealer at the time, offered to let her stay at his place. Aside from drug dealing, Mr. Rees was unemployed. He lived with his parents and four kids from two ex-wives.

Mr. Rees and Ms. Green engaged in a sexual relationship and, a month later, Ms. Green was pregnant.

Refuting the prosecution’s claims that Ms. Green did not care for her child, the defense stated she had prepared for her baby’s birth and held a baby shower as a testament to her excitement. Ms. Green also took care of Mr. Rees’ kids – at first because she had to, but then because they bonded. According to the defense, Mr. Rees’ children sometimes called Ms. Green “Mom” and that made her happy.

For the first five months of her pregnancy, Ms. Green used meth with Mr. Rees. During this time, the defense said “Frank’s oddness” started to show. Mr. Rees would tell Ms. Green strange things, such as that there were cameras in their home watching them. At one point, he drilled a hole into a wall to show her the camera wires.

As ridiculous as it seemed at first, what Ms. Green was told began to become real to her. Mr. Rees was scared and paranoid, which in turn made Ms. Green scared and paranoid.

The day before Justice was born, Ms. Green used meth again. Justice was born by C-section and, testing positive for meth, he was put in the ICU for four to five days.

When babies are born positive for controlled substances, Child Protective Services are called to meet with the child’s family. CPS met with the Green and Rees family to discuss “worries” about drug use, Justice not coming home, and the housing situation due to the unemployment of both parents. Together, they created a “safety plan,” which included treatment, random drug tests, and, most importantly, the discontinuance of meth use.

The social worker then allowed Justice to go home. The defense emphasized that mentioning this is not shifting blame, but a social worker is supposed to assess situations for potential risk prior to making such a judgment.

After Justice’s birth, the defense said Ms. Green and Mr. Rees went back to doing “what drug addicts do,” meaning they relapsed into smoking and injecting meth once again.

On the night of February 21 and early morning of the 22^nd, Mr. Rees reportedly performed a rectal injection of methamphetamine on Ms. Green as a means of sexual inducement. The first two injections did not have the desired effect, but after the third shot, the two had sexual intercourse.

The defense described Mr. Rees as a “womanizer,” saying he has cheated on Ms. Green before with his ex-wife and he repeatedly suggested group sex. They had conversations about threesomes, both hypothetical and actual. They supposedly agreed on engaging in a threesome with the woman on the night in question, but Ms. Green later decided otherwise. Mr. Rees went to meet with the woman anyway.

After he left, Ms. Green changed her mind and went to find Mr. Rees. At this point, Ms. Green said things got “hazy and dreamlike.”

Ms. Olson then said she would only tell the jury about the “what” of the incident, because the “why” is convoluted.

At the slough in Knights Landing, Ms. Green was reportedly carrying her shoes, purse, diaper bag, and baby in her arms. The slough was deeper than she thought, and she fell into the water. At this point, she let go of her belongings, but she held on to Justice. Although they were both wet, Ms. Green tried to hold her baby above water to keep him safe.

As she walked around the area, Ms. Green somehow became covered in scratches, bruises, and sunburn. The defense showed pictures of the defendant when she was found, exhibiting scratches and bruises all over her body. Justice, however, did not show signs of scratches or bruises. He was reportedly wrapped in Ms. Green’s pea coat.

Ms. Green then passed out by a tree. When she woke up, she supposedly saw things that weren’t real. That is when she said she noticed Justice was cold and not breathing, and she concluded he was dead. She screamed and walked around looking for help, leaving Justice behind because she did not want to disturb his body.

Despite what the prosecution says the pathologist will present regarding Justice’s cause of death, the coroner ruled the cause of death is undetermined. No signs of neglect, abuse or malnutrition were found. Moreover, there were no signs of smothering or drowning.

The defense told the jury they will hear from three medical professionals, one of whom is hired by the defense. This particular expert witness will give an opinion on drug-induced psychosis. This is pertinent to the defense’s case of framing Mr. Rees’ “psychobabble” as the basis for Ms. Green’s delusions. The combination of what Mr. Rees told Ms. Green in addition to meth resulted in a phenomenon known as “folie à deux,” a term used to describe two people sharing the same delusions.

To attest to Mr. Rees’ delusions, the defense mentioned that Mr. Rees talked to the district attorney’s office about what he thought happened to his baby. He said there is video footage of four people in his home and they may be responsible. When asked if he knew these individuals, Mr. Rees allegedly told the DA’s office that Willy Wonka was in his home.

Mr. Rees also claimed he was “gaslighting” Ms. Green, or, in other words, manipulating her to the point that she did not believe her own judgment. He laughed as he said this.

While the “why” of this case will be confusing for the jury to determine, the defense asserts that what never changed was Ms. Green’s love for her son. She loved him, cared for him, sang to him, and kept him warm.

The defense closed by presenting pictures of sentimental items Ms. Green held on to. Pictures included Justice’s hospital wristband, Ms. Green’s own hospital wristband, items from the baby shower, and the baby’s first cap. Ms. Green began to cry as the pictures were shown.

The defense asserted that Ms. Green’s actions may be classified as criminal negligence or manslaughter, but she did not commit murder.

Witness testimonies will begin on the morning of August 19. The trial is expected to last five weeks.

The post Opening Statements in Samantha Green Trial appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

by Jade Wolansky

Friday, August 19, marked the fifth day of testimony for the Samantha Green trial in Department 14. Judge David Rosenberg presided over the case. Ms. Green is charged with second-degree murder with implied malice of her 19-day-old newborn, Justice Rees.

The first witness to take the stand was “KF.” He was in custody and wore prison clothing when he entered the courtroom. Judge Rosenberg instructed the jurors not to let KF’s in-custody status influence their evaluation of his testimony.

When asked to give sworn testimony, KF refused. He said he did not agree with the witness oath to tell the truth.

Deputy DA Robert Gordon questioned him about February 23, 2015. KF stated that he would not concur with “SR’s” answers. SR is KF’s girlfriend. She had testified earlier in the Samantha Green trial.

KF stated that he did not remember speaking to Sheriff’s Deputy Mike Glaser and another officer. KF also testified that he did not know Ms. Green.

During cross-examination, Public Defender Tracie Olson asked KF if he knew Mr. Rees. He replied that he did not.

When Ms. Olson asked if he had gone to Walter’s House (a residential addiction treatment facility in Woodland), he stated that he did not have to answer. Judge Rosenberg informed KF that he was bound to answer the question.

At this point, Judge Rosenberg stated he would dismiss the witness unless counsel had further questions. The witness was proving to be uncooperative and counterproductive to advancing the trial.

The next witness was Detective Matthew Jameson from the Woodland Police Department.

Mr. Gordon asked him about February 23, 2015. Detective Jameson stated that the Woodland Police Department had dispatched him to look into a stolen vehicle report. He arrived at the residence, which was associated with Frank Rees, the father of Justice Rees, and learned that a 2011 Chevy Traverse was missing.  Det. Jameson was informed at the residence that Ms. Green was the last to drive the vehicle.

Det. Jameson also spoke with Frank Rees. Mr. Rees informed Jameson that he and Ms. Green initially had plans to go to Knights Landing, however, Ms. Green did not want to go. The last time he had seen her was the day before and he said that she had taken the Chevy Traverse.

Jameson also testified that he had filed another missing person report for Justice Rees. He stated he arranged for a Yolo County detective to interview Mr. Rees. He felt Mr. Rees was suspicious.

Next, Ms. Olson asked Detective Jameson why he had filed another missing person report, since only one is needed. The witness replied that it was an error.

The next witness to testify was “DF,” who was also in custody. The prosecutor asked DF if he remembered calling the Woodland Police Department on February 24 about a stolen vehicle in a Knights Landing cul-de-sac. DF replied that he did not.

Mr. Gordon expressed his frustration with the stubbornness of the in-custody witnesses and halted questioning. Judge Rosenberg instructed Mr. Gordon to proceed with the trial.

The prosecutor then approached the witness and showed him a photo. Mr. Gordon asked DF if it refreshed his memory. DF stated that it did not. The witness was dismissed.

Crime Scene Investigator Lauren Hartfield of the Yolo County Sheriff’s Department was the next to testify.

Mr. Gordon had a map diagram of the Knights Landing levee displayed on a projector screen in the courtroom. He asked CSI Hartfield about the diagram. She stated that she had assisted in taking aerial photos for the map.

Mr. Gordon asked about her involvement in the investigation. CSI Hartfield stated she had walked the entire distance of the Ridge Cut Slough in Knights Landing. She testified that she had started from where the 2011 Chevy Traverse was found and the white gate where “RV” and Ms. Green first made contact. RV was the first individual Ms. Green encountered after leaving her baby. Hartfield arrived at the crime scene on February 25, 2015, with a partner from the sheriff’s department.

The prosecutor asked CSI Hartfield if she could see Justice Rees’ body from where the white gate was. Hartfield replied that she could see the general area, but not the body. She also stated it had would have been impossible to walk from where Justice Rees’ body was found to the white gate. She stated that the area was full of foliage and it would have been necessary to cross through water.

The witness had also documented whether houses and vehicles could be seen from various locations around the levee.

CSI Hartfield was subsequently asked about evidence. She listed a peacoat, a purse, and a diaper bag. The peacoat had been damp and covered in debris. Inside the diaper bag, common baby care items were found.

Mr. Gordon presented several People’s exhibits. They were photographs Hartfield had taken during her investigation. During the direct examination, Hartfield described the images. She explained she took 360-degree photographs of the crime scene. In one of the photos was an image of a wooded area with a life jacket. The life jacket was used to identify where Justice Rees’ body was.  The image of Justice Rees’ body without the life jacket was not shown to the court.

The witness also stated she had returned to the crime scene on the night of April 7, 2015, to investigate further. CSI Hartfield stated that the moonlight on April 7 was predicted to be similar to the moonlight on February 23, 2015. However, Hartfield revealed that the conditions were not the same.

During cross-examination, Ms. Olson asked her about 17 photographs. CSI Hartfield confirmed that the images were the 360-degree images she had photographed.

The trial is scheduled to reconvene on Monday, August 22, in Department 14 at 9am.

The post Samantha Green Trial Resumes appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Sarah Gregory

Dennis Lee Azevedo is being charged with multiple counts of sexual assault, including oral copulation and sodomy with a minor.  He is accused of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old boy periodically over several weeks at the local branch of the Yolo County Public Library.

Officer Keirith Briesenick was the first witness called to testify by the prosecutor, Deputy District Attorney Jennifer McHugh.  Officer Briesenick is with the Davis Police Department and was the first to initiate the investigation into this case.

Briesenick responded to a service call at a junior high school in Davis.  When she arrived at the school, she spoke with the alleged victim’s teacher.

The complaining witness reportedly disclosed to his teacher that he had been sexually assaulted by an older man at the Mary L. Stephens Davis Branch Library several times.  After speaking to the teacher, Officer Briesenick interviewed the alleged victim.

The alleged victim described the male attacker to be an older Caucasian man with graying hair.

The complaining witness stated that he first saw the man in the back of the library near the teen section.  Shortly afterward, the boy went to the restroom and the man reportedly followed him into a stall.  The man allegedly commanded the boy to “duck down.”  The alleged victim then proceeded to give the man oral copulation and vice versa.

The alleged victim indicated that the man performed anal intercourse on him only once, but they performed oral copulation on each other every time they met in the restroom.  The sexual assaults supposedly occurred every Thursday night for several weeks.

Next, the defense attorney, Vincent R. Maher, cross-examined Officer Briesenick.  Mr. Maher asked the witness if she had received any background information about the alleged victim from his teacher before she interviewed him.

Briesenick indicated that she had, and that the teacher had notified her that he was developmentally disabled.  The alleged victim is 14 years old, and cognitively functions at a 2nd or 3rd grade level.

She spent about 30 minutes questioning the alleged victim.  In her interview, the boy indicated that his last sexual encounter with the man was about a week before.  Officer Briesenick did not ask for any clarifications or specifics, as she knew that an MDI would be conducted later on in the investigation.

An MDI refers to a Multi-Disciplinary Interview, usually of child abuse victims.  The goal of an MDI is for detectives to conduct an interview without adding trauma to the victim while successfully building an investigation.  An MDI is conducted by an interviewer who is fed a portion of the questions by the investigating detectives.

The defense asked Officer Briesenick if the alleged victim ever mentioned being threatened by the man.  She stated that he had only indicated that he was scared most of the time, and she could not determine the cause.

Next, the prosecutor called her second witness, Detective Janell Bestpitch, also of the Davis Police Department, to testify.  Detective Bestpitch conducted an interview with the alleged victim’s aunt on April 26, 2016.

The aunt has had legal custody of the boy for about three years.  Bestpitch questioned the aunt about the extent of the boy’s developmental disability.  She provided a generalization, stating that her nephew is good at remembering which day of the week it is, but is foggy when it comes to recalling what happened the day before.

A few days later, Bestpitch conducted an MDI with the complaining witness.  The interviewer asked him to recount all of the sexual incidents that occurred between himself and the man he met at the library.

The alleged victim indicated that the man was the one that always followed him into the restroom and initiated the sexual acts.  Bestpitch had to review the interview transcript several times to refresh her memory.  This prompted the prosecutor to suggest audio of the interview be played later on in the hearing.

The prosecutor decided to move on to a different subject.  She questioned Detective Bestpitch about an interview of staff personnel at the library.

Bestpitch stated that she went to the library and gave the alleged victim’s description of his attacker.  The staff recalled a man who periodically goes to that specific branch and gave her his name.  This man was later identified as the defendant.

Bestpitch then performed a records check through the DMV database and had the complaining witness pick the defendant out of a photo lineup.  The next day, Detective Bestpitch went to Mr. Azevedo’s listed residence and questioned him about the boy’s accusations.

Bestpitch provided Azevedo with a fake name, “Manny,” and asked the defendant if he knew who that person was.  The defendant indicated he did not, so Bestpitch showed him a photo.  The defendant stated that he had seen the boy at the library a few times and that the boy would walk around the library and stare at him for long periods of time.

The defendant admitted to the detective to having sexual relations with the boy, including oral copulation and masturbation.  However, the defendant was adamant that no anal intercourse ever occurred.

The defendant told the detective he had no idea how old the alleged victim was, stating that he was “bad at ages.”  He was therefore surprised to discover the alleged victim was only 14 years old.

Next, the defense cross-examined Det. Bestpitch.  The defense attorney confirmed several aspects of the defendant’s statement that day on April 30, 2016.

The defendant corroborated the alleged victim’s statement that neither of them spoke to each other in or outside of the restroom.  This explains how neither the defendant nor the alleged victim knew each other’s names.

As Azevedo recounted to the detective his sexual encounters with the alleged victim, Bestpitch noted that his version of events was drastically different from the boy’s.  The defendant described the complaining witness as being sexually aggressive, and insisted that all of the encounters were completely consensual.  No force was ever involved, according to the defendant.

According to Azevedo, the victim was so aggressive that the defendant started avoiding him at the library and even stopped going there altogether about a month before the interview.

Bestpitch went on to describe the defendant’s version of the first sexual encounter.  He stated to her that they were in the restroom and the alleged victim was in the stall next to him.  The alleged victim proceeded to lower his penis underneath the partition between the stalls in full view of the defendant and began masturbating.

At this point, the defendant had no idea who was in the other stall and left the restroom as quickly as he could.

The defense then referenced another portion of the defendant’s interview, where he had described the alleged victim as crawling into his stall and turning around with his pants down, indicating he wanted the defendant to perform anal intercourse on him.  The defendant told the detective that he refused.

As opposed to the alleged victim’s statement to authorities, the defendant indicated the boy was the one that followed him into the restroom and pursued him sexually.

When asked how many times these encounters occurred, the defendant replied only a few times, and he was adamant that it was no more than five times.

Detective Bestpitch pulled surveillance video from the library and found the defendant does not appear in any of the footage at the times the alleged victim stated the incidents occurred.

The victim’s aunt also indicated that her nephew would argue with her to be allowed to go to the library after dinner.  There was a particular instance on March 17, 2016, where the alleged victim is shown on video entering the library at 7:26 pm, heading straight for the restroom and leaving about ten minutes later.  According to the complete video of that evening, the defendant never went to the library.

In the MDI, the alleged victim also stated that he never spoke to the defendant.  The defense argued that this contradicts the alleged victim’s initial statement where he said the defendant told him to “duck down.”  It was later revealed in the MDI that everything the alleged victim thought he heard during the incidents was in his head.

The complaining witness also indicated in interviews how he felt during these encounters, that he was primarily shocked.  He said he wanted to scream, but was unable to.

The defense referred to the interview transcript and indicated a passage where the alleged victim stated he was “unable to control” himself.  The defendant stated the alleged victim ejaculated in his mouth, which indicates the alleged victim was possibly enjoying the sexual encounters.

The defense asked Bestpitch if the alleged victim ever indicated why he continually returned week after week to the library on Thursday evenings.  She stated that, in the interview transcript, the boy stated he came back “because it was Thursday.”

The prosecutor asked Det. Bestpitch if the alleged victim is able to express himself despite his disability.  Bestpitch replied that the boy’s aunt indicated it is hard for her nephew, due to his disability, to express himself because of a cognitive delay.

The preliminary hearing will reconvene in Department 7 at 1:30 pm on August 23, 2016, at the Yolo County Superior Court.

The post Alleged Underage Sexual Assault Preliminary Hearing Begins appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

by Jade Wolansky and Raya Zahdeh

The Samantha Green trial resumed on August 22, 2016, at 9am in Department 14. Judge Rosenberg presided over the case. Public Defender Tracie Olson is representing Samantha Green, who is charged with the second-degree murder of her son, Justice Rees, with implied malice. Deputy DA Ryan Couzens and Deputy DA Robert Gorman are the prosecutors assigned to the case.

Before the jury entered the courtroom, Judge Rosenberg announced that he had just received the two motions Ms. Olson had filed on Sunday night. She had filed a motion to exclude Robert Kinsey’s (an entomologist expert witness) testimony and a motion for an Evidence Code section 402 hearing regarding the admissibility of Deputy Sean Rosner’s testimony about his K-9 unit. In response, Mr. Couzens filed oppositions to Ms. Olson’s motions.

Judge Rosenberg asked the prosecution if it would be possible to have the expert witness testify another day. Mr. Couzens protested and stated he preferred to have the expert witness come in today.

Counsel approached the bench to discuss the matter further. Judge Rosenberg ruled that witnesses will testify out of order and Ms. Olson’s motions would be addressed at a future point in time.

The first witness to take the stand was Kurt Zeiler from the Yolo County Sheriff’s Office.

Mr. Couzens asked what Mr. Zeiler’s role was in the Samantha Green case. Mr. Zeiler stated that he led the investigation in February and March of 2015. He testified that there was the initial investigation (when Justice Rees’ body was found) and two subsequent evidence searches. They found a lighter, ChapStick lip balm, mascara and Ms. Green’s purse with several items inside.  All evidence was then handed in to Crime Scene Investigator Lauren Hartfield for examination.

Mr. Zeiler stated that the organization, Drowning Accident Rescue Team (DART), assisted with the evidence searches. Volunteers spaced themselves at arm’s length apart and crawled along the bank searching for evidence.

During cross-examination, Ms. Olson inquired about more details regarding the levee. Mr. Zeiler confirmed that the levee had a drop-off, approximately 8½ -9½ feet deep.

Next, Mr. Zeiler affirmed for Mr. Couzens that the lighter, ChapStick and mascara were not for certain Ms. Green’s. They may have just been items that were found relatively close to Ms. Green’s purse.

The next witness to testify was “JS,” a registered nurse in Woodland.

Mr. Couzens asked about JS’s contact with Ms. Green. JS testified that she was Ms. Green’s nurse and that she performed several assessments. In addition, she informed Ms. Green regarding hospital safety. JS noted especially that Ms. Green had a flat affect, a reduction in emotional expressiveness.

The prosecutor asked JS to clarify how she determined Green’s flat affect. JS explained that she came to this conclusion because Green lacked emotion in her answers and avoided eye contact during her care as a patient.

JS also stated that Ms. Green mentioned she had been assaulted.

Ms. Olson asked for further clarification on what specific patient care JS provided.  JS stated that she performed a skin assessment and found scratches on Ms. Green’s legs and arms. She also noted that Green had a C-section scar which was healing.

JS stated that she, due to Ms. Green’s flat affect, repeated the hospital’s health instructions to ensure Ms. Green understood them. These health instructions included fall prevention and basic hygiene.

Next, Judge Rosenberg instructed the jury that there would be a 15-minute break.

During this time, Judge Rosenberg spoke with counsel on Ms. Olson’s motions and Mr. Couzen’s oppositions. Judge Rosenberg inquired about the relevance of the expert witness’s testimony.

Ms. Olson believed it was not necessary to have an entomologist expert witness testify. Mr. Couzens argued otherwise, and stated that the expert witness could provide more precise information on Justice Rees’ time of death through analyzing larvae found in the body. Mr. Couzens stated that this information was relevant because Ms. Green had given multiple answers on what time she had left Justice Rees.

Judge Rosenberg inquired whether the expert witness would provide an exact time. Mr. Couzens replied that the expert witness would testify to a range of time.

At this point, Mr. Couzens appeared to grow very irritable with Judge Rosenberg.

Ms. Olson cited a similar case, People v. Clark (1970), to argue that the expert witness would not provide proper evidence in his testimony. In People v. Clark (1970), an entomologist expert witness gave a range of time of death by analyzing larvae in the victim’s body. The defendant appealed the case because the defense believed that the expert witness substituted mathematical probability for relevant evidence. This was because there was no data on temperature and how it would affect larvae growth.

Mr. Couzens referred to the Kelly/Frye standard for admissibility of expert evidence to state that the expert witness’ testimony would be valid. Under the Kelly/Frye standard, methods that are accepted generally by the scientific community are admissible in court.

Ms. Olson, in response, referenced Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012), which ruled that trial judges are responsible for reviewing expert witnesses, including their methodology and whether the evidence they provide is valid.

Judge Rosenberg stated that the expert witness may cause jury bias, pursuant to California Evidence Code section 352, and that an EC section 402 hearing may be needed.

In respect to Deputy Sean Rosner’s testimony, Judge Rosenberg agreed with Ms. Olson’s motion and stated that a 402 hearing may be necessary as well.

Counsel approached the bench to discuss the issue with Judge Rosenberg.

The final witness was Kelly Arthur-Kenny, a forensic pathologist expert witness. She was assigned to examining Justice Rees’ body and determining his cause of death.

Mr. Gorman first asked Ms. Arthur-Kenny about Justice Rees’ autopsy. The witness stated that the body had no obvious fractures or skeletal fractions.

Ms. Arthur-Kenny explained in her testimony about the difference between neonatals and infants. A neonatal is a newborn that is under 30 days of age. An infant is a child that is from 0-1 year in age.  The witness stated that neonatals are more susceptible to different diseases and conditions than infants.

She stated that Justice Rees suffered from atrial septal defect (ASD, a hole in the wall between the two upper chambers of the heart) and patent ductus arteriosus (PDA, a persistent opening between two major blood vessels leading to the heart). ASD is when the interatrial septum, the wall between the left and right atria, has a hole. PDA is when the ductus arteriosus does not close, as it usually does soon after birth. PDA and ASD are normal for fetuses, and often resolve themselves after birth. The condition is only abnormal if the holes in the interatrial septum and ductus arteriosus do not close after several months post-birth.  She also explained that congenital heart disease is difficult to detect in neonatal children.

The witness determined Justice Rees’s death to be caused by unfavorable environmental conditions, dehydration and congenital heart disease.

During cross-examination, Ms. Olson asked if a mother’s methamphetamine abuse during pregnancy would cause ASD and PDA. Ms. Arthur-Kenny stated there was no strong evidence that there is a correlation.

Ms. Olson then asked the witness if she had sent any blood tests. Ms. Arthur-Kelly stated that she had sent blood samples to a laboratory and that no drugs were found present in the body.

Afternoon Session

by Raya Zahdeh

The trial for the People v Samantha Green case resumed on the afternoon of August 22, 2016, in Department 14, Judge Rosenberg presiding. Ms. Green is being charged with the murder of her infant son, Justice Rees.

The first witness to take the stand in the afternoon, continuing her testimony from the morning session, was forensic pathologist Dr. Kelly Arthur-Kenny, who conducted the autopsy of Justice Rees’s body. Dr. Arthur-Kenny stated that the results of the autopsy revealed that she could rule out physical or mechanical abuse as a possible cause of death, as Justice had no injuries to the brain or to any of his bones. She was also able to rule out malnutrition and drug exposure as other possible causes.

Furthermore, Arthur-Kenny conducted a test of the vitreous fluids, a type of postmortem chemical analysis. This particular fluid analysis reveals information regarding potassium levels, dehydration, etc. The results showed that potassium levels were elevated in this case, which is expected in a dead body and indicates that internal decomposition has begun. She was unable to test the urea nitrogen levels that would indicate dehydration levels or quality of kidney function, as there was an insufficient amount of the specimen available.

Based on the autopsy, Dr. Arthur-Kenny narrowed the possible causes of the death of baby Justice down to his cardiovascular heart defects and environmental exposure. In addition, she stated that his lungs and brain tissue had edema (extra fluids) and that many of his organs were congested (filled with blood), both of which are common findings in all autopsies.

Arthur-Kenny confirmed that lung, brain and heart hemorrhaging had occurred, as well as red blood cell extravasation (blood release out of vessels and into surrounding tissue.) At one point during the cross-examination, Arthur-Kenny stated with certainty that, if she had done the same autopsy in a case just like this but with an infant who did not have heart defects, the environmental exposure the baby was subjected to in this case would have likely been the cause of death on its own. It was also her opinion that the position the baby was found in was not the same position that the baby had died in, based on various medical factors that she observed during the autopsy.

The second witness to give her testimony was “MS,” the mother of “SS.” During the testimony, MS stated that her daughter SS had previously been married to Frank Rees (the father of Justice Rees) for seven years. MS had kept in touch with Frank Rees and Samantha Green, and occasionally spent time with her grandchildren, Mr. Rees’ children with SS.

MS stated that, on Monday, February 23, 2015, she had encountered Mr. Rees, Ms. Green and Justice Rees in the garage of their home. She described the scene as cold and smelly, and stated that she saw drugs all over the place, including methamphetamine pipes and marijuana.

MS further stated that Ms. Green and Frank were not in good condition at the time, and that both seemed to be under the influence of drugs. MS said Justice was not clothed appropriately, and that he had been shivering from the cold. Ms. Green appeared to be upset and did not allow MS to hold the baby, as she claimed that the baby was ill. She also did not welcome any suggestions from MS regarding ways to comfort the infant.

The case is scheduled to resume at 9 AM on Tuesday, August 23, in Department 14.

The post Pathologist Reveals Cause of Death for Baby in Green Case appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Christina D. and Raya Zahdeh

Through further witness testimonies on August 23, 2016, in Department 14, defendant Samantha Green’s past commitment to prenatal care were called into question. First, seven stipulations were read to the jury, instructing them to be accepted as fact without testimony. During her pregnancy, Green had undergone six separate urine drug screening tests, from the first in June 2014 to the last in February 2015. Out of those six screens, she tested positive for THC (the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana) two times, and for amphetamine/methamphetamine four times. Justice, the baby, tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine on February 6, 2015.

Then the prosecution called on a total of eight witnesses from various branches of Kaiser Permanente clinics to testify on their interactions and prenatal appointments with Green. Green was first in contact with Kaiser medical personnel on June 27, 2014, when she called in with suspicions of pregnancy. Over the phone call, Green admitted to using marijuana on a daily basis up to three months prior, and to anxiety, although she was never formally diagnosed. She visited the Kaiser in Davis on the same day to determine the length of the pregnancy at that point.

After her first visit, Green missed follow-up appointments in mid- to late-July, despite attempts to contact her through three voicemails and a mailed (and later returned) certified letter. Green eventually visited the Kaiser clinic in Vacaville for “what was supposed to be her second prenatal appointment” on September 24, 2014; the second visit usually falls around 11 weeks of pregnancy. The gynecologist testified that Green was not late to the appointment, but it could be considered inadequate since there typically should be 10-12 prenatal visits. Green spoke with that same doctor, who ordered a toxicology screen. Although Green denied drug use, the test came back positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine.

The next day, on September 25, 2014, Green visited Kaiser in Fair Oaks. She took an AOQ (Adult Outcomes Questionnaire) test (depression screening questionnaire) and refused medication and classes despite scoring 19, a moderate score. She also had a physical examination, was found at 21 weeks pregnant to be gestational, and was scheduled for a formal ultrasound (normally conducted at 20 weeks.) Green also elected to do a cystic fibrosis lab test, which is normally recommended if both the mother and father are white Caucasians. She was encouraged to keep her prenatal appointments.

Pregnant for 38 weeks, Green again visited Kaiser in Davis on January 20, 2015. She had not visited for the past four months, and had told the gynecologist it was because she was left with no transportation when her car broke down. Green took another drug test and tested negative for THC and amphetamine/methamphetamine. She was prescribed medication for her STD (sexually transmitted disease) condition that could present a danger to the child. She was also tested for gestational diabetes.

Green also received on the same day video counseling for mood and substance abuse during pregnancy. She was assured confidentiality unless the therapist, as a mandated reporter, suspected child or elder abuse; reports are not made if only adults are involved in drug use. Green had said there was no drug use at home and that she hadn’t used drugs for three to four months, but talked about using marijuana weekly as needed for sleep. Green denied prenatal services providing food, chemical dependency recovery, diapers, clothing, baby formula, etc. The therapist did not report to CPS (child protective services).

Green had reported that she was not taking her medication because she was not feeling well and was unable to tolerate it. However, she was strongly advised to take the medication due to her STD condition, and was given a separate prescription to help with nausea. On February 5, 2015, Green was counseled for a Caesarean section birth. She chose a C-section knowing all the risks to herself, and even though there is only a one percent to five percent chance of her STD transmission through vaginal birth. Green had not been taking her medication, having lost her bottle of pills. She also tested positive for a drug screen.

After the C-section, Green again tested positive for a drug screen on February 6, 2015, and was advised not to breastfeed. Justice was born a healthy baby despite the drugs in his system, was put in the NICU (newborn intensive care unit), and CPS was contacted. Justice was discharged on February 10, 2015 and was expected back one to two days later for a pediatrician appointment. Green missed that appointment, but visited Kaiser on February 13, 2015.

Thomas Hayes, a detective with the Yolo County Sheriff’s Office, testified then as to what happened after Justice was born. On the morning of February 23, 2015, Green and her boyfriend had visited California Check Cashing Stores, Romeys Gas plaza, and a Chevron gas station, all in Woodland. Hayes had visited all three places for confirmation of Green and her boyfriend’s cars and surveillance camera video, clips of which Deputy District Attorney Robert Gorman played during the witness testimony. Hayes testified that Green was found on February 24, while her baby was found the next day. Hayes was also present for the investigative interview of Green’s boyfriend on February 25, but could not recall whether it was said that the baby was with the couple on February 23.

Afternoon Session

by Raya Zahdeh

The People v Samantha Green trial resumed on August 23, 2016, in Department 14, Judge David Rosenberg presiding. Ms. Green is being charged with second-degree murder of her infant son, Justice Rees. Public Defender Tracie Olson is representing Ms. Green, and Deputy DAs Ryan Couzens and Robert Gorman are representing the prosecution.

Detective Greg Ford of the Woodland Police Department was the first witness to give his testimony during this afternoon’s portion of the trial. Deputy Ford was on duty on February 24, 2015, when he was notified of the “missing person” report for Ms. Green and baby Justice.

During his testimony, Dep. Ford identified a man identified as “DF,” a civilian who reported the location of the white Chevy Traverse SUV that turned out to be the vehicle Ms. Green was driving before she and Justice had gone missing. DF recalled seeing a similar vehicle in the “missing person” flier, and checked the flier again to confirm that the license plates matched before reporting the vehicle to the police.

Dep. Ford responded and eventually met with DF near where he found Ms. Green’s car parked on a street in Knights Landing. There, Deputy Ford interviewed DF and took his statement in response to the police report.

Afterward, Dep. Ford stated that he quickly glanced inside the vehicle without touching it or opening any doors. He recalled seeing a child’s car seat in the back, with its front side facing the rear of the vehicle.

The next witness to take the stand was Darryl James Turner, a physician’s assistant at the Woodland Memorial Hospital.

According to the testimony that he gave, Ms. Green was one of the patients Mr. Turner saw on the morning of February 25, 2015, the day after she and baby Justice had gone missing. He stated that Ms. Green was seeking treatment because she was dehydrated and had been receiving intravenous fluids at the hospital that same morning.

Prior to receiving medical treatment, Ms. Green was found wandering around the portion of the Sacramento River located in Knights Landing before the police brought her to the Woodland hospital. At the hospital, she complained of generalized body pain and difficulty with movement of the extremities. She specifically felt pain in her wrists, ankles, and legs, and in other joints as well. Ms. Green stated that she had not fallen or experienced any trauma, but could not recall when and how the pain started. She also informed Mr. Turner that she had used methamphetamine about 10 days prior to being admitted to the hospital.

Mr. Turner stated that the results of Ms. Green’s urine toxicology test showed that she tested negative for marijuana and positive for the presence of methamphetamine. He also noted that she did not give him many details as to how she ended up in the condition she was in, other than stating that she had been sexually assaulted and had scratch marks on her skin from the bushes and thorns near the river.  After conducting a skin examination, Mr. Turner confirmed that Ms. Green had scratches all over her body, in areas such as her legs, stomach, and back. She did not appear to have any serious injury other than tenderness in joint movement, and he described her feet as being dirty and callused, indicating that she had been walking barefoot outdoors for an extensive amount of time.

Mr. Turner further stated that he was not yet aware that baby Justice had died or that Frank Rees was her husband. Ms. Green seemed most concerned about getting in contact with Frank while she was being seen at the hospital.

After various medical exams and questions, Ms. Green was diagnosed with rhabdomyolysis (the break down and release of muscle cells into the blood stream, due most commonly to exertion of muscle tissue and possibly due to hypothermia or drug abuse), poly-substance abuse, and methamphetamine abuse.

Deputy Shawn Rosner of the Placer County Sheriff’s Department was the next witness called to give testimony for the case. Deputy Rosner was assisted by Jet, his German Shepherd K-9 partner, on the day of the incident. Jet’s training is specialized in patrol protection, tracking (human and narcotic odors, footprints, etc.), and obedience.

During his witness testimony, Dep. Rosner stated that he was called out to Knights Landing and arrived at the particular location on the evening of February 24, 2015. He received a report informing him that there had been a missing two-week-old infant in that area. Upon his arrival, he noticed law enforcement vehicles, fire vehicles, and a personal vehicle (later identified as Ms. Green’s SUV) at the scene.

Eventually, Dep. Rosner signaled Jet to conduct a search of the interior and exterior of Ms. Green’s vehicle in order to obtain information and gain familiarity on various scents and odors, which the K-9 can recall for future search and detection purposes.

Afterward, Dep. Rosner gave Jet a “foot-track” search command, at which point Jet began searching and tracking any familiar scents in the nearby area. Within a few minutes, Jet showed a significant behavior change and led Dep. Rosner into an area that was heavy with vegetation and surrounded one part of the river. Although no humans (specifically, baby Justice’s body) were found, Jet did eventually lead Dep. Rosner to a baby diaper bag in the area.

The final witness to take the stand during today’s hearing was John Knapp, director of Valley Toxicology Inc. Mr. Knapp gave a shorter testimony and mainly went over the results of Ms. Green’s lab tests.

Mr. Knapp stated that on February 25, 2015, he conducted blood-alcohol and drug content lab exams for Ms. Green. The results showed that the alcohol content in her blood was zero. However, the sample contained acetone, a chemical that is not typically found in the blood under normal conditions. Mr. Knapp did not have any information as to why Ms. Green’s blood contained acetone, but he stated that this is usually caused by diabetes and less frequently by starvation or malnutrition. Other than being produced by the body, acetone may have been present in her blood due to ingestion of the chemical either intravenously or through the mouth.

The testimony is scheduled to continue on Wednesday, August 24, 2016, at 9 AM in Department 14.

The post Witnesses Testify on Green’s Parental Responsibility appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

Dahvie James sitting in the living room at Field and Pond

Dahvie James sits on a chair in the living room of the main building in the Field & Pond bed and breakfast.  The 100-year-old building is decorated in period-specific decor.  Isolated from other residents, quiet and tranquil nestled against the eastern edge of the coast range just north of Winters, it is difficult to imagine that this facility has been the subject of a bitter land use dispute that has gone through the County Planning Commission and will now go to the Board of Supervisors.

The process began in January of 2014, Mr. James tells the Vanguard, when the property was allowed eight annual events and the county was welcoming of agritourism.  Now, more than two years later, what Mr. James believes should have cost $2700 in administrative fees has resulted in more than $60,000 in costs for the planning staff to process the application, with a rejection at the County Planning Commission which now is leading the project to get decided by the County Board of Supervisors.

Dahvie Jones, a graduate of UC Davis, and his husband Dr. Phil Watts, an Australian who practices as a veterinarian in the Bay Area, came upon Yolo County as a vet and marketer, not as developers.

They found the spot where Field & Pond would be and saw a need in the county for agritourism.  But, while the county was receptive at first, their neighbors became increasingly oppositional and, in their mind, hostile to the bed and breakfast and, in particular, its desire to have 20 wedding events a year.

A back room in the main building

Mr. James describes that they were told by the county that this was a welcomed activity.  Under the General Plan, the zoning was changed from AI to Ag Extensive, as the property is not on prime ag land.  That means that if the property is over 40 acres, it automatically comes with by-right entitlement for eight events.

He told the Vanguard, “The present code allows for an unlimited number of events that are non-paid or not for profit. It also allows for an unlimited engagement in vacation renting. In theory, with the existing code, anyone could run a lodging facility with unlimited events.”

“We have tried to go through the county’s legal process for getting a use permit to conduct these activities, which ensures that we not only have met all county legal codes, but also that the county gets the benefit of business tax dollars over the longer term,” he said.

“Before we purchased the property, we met with County Planning as part of our due diligence, to determine whether we could operate our intended business at that location,” he explained.

Main bedroom

County staff advised them that: “1) our property was just rezoned to ‘Ag Extensive’ because it was not prime farm land, and it would lend itself to a more ag-commercial use, 2) this rezoning would give the property a basis of entitlement for 8 events, Bed & Breakfast and Farm-Stay operations, 3) a minor Use permit would afford it (Unlimited) ‘Events’, as well as a larger Bed & Breakfast room capacity, and 4) our project proposal, which was very similar to Park Winters, would likely be a great fit for the area, based on the County’s General Plan which ‘encourages agritourism.’”

When they initially talked to their neighbors, it seemed like things were going well.  And then suddenly, Mr. James says, “The wheels came off.”

The pond in Field & Pond

Dahvie James told the Vanguard, “Since we have started this process in applying for our Use Permit, we have endured constant harassment characterized as ‘drive-bys’ of our home throughout all hours of the night, trespassing, public slander, and even direct sabotage of our business operations; these people have run off contractors who were working with us, they’ve even talked with our clients.”

While his neighbors, primarily the prominent Rominger family, Bruce and Robyn Rominger, have couched their concerns in land use issues such as protection of agricultural land as well as safety and access concerns, Mr. James believes that they have other motivations.

In a letter, he writes, “Since the submission of our Use Permit application, our opponents, including Robyn, Bruce and Patty Rominger, have made a deliberate and concerted effort to convolute facts regarding our application scope and event operations. Further, as one of the most blatant examples, they have continually and publicly made all sorts of declarations about our intentions, integrity, capabilities, family, and even lineage; and in most cases, they’ve attempted to criminalize and shame us for actions that they themselves have taken, and have openly approved of with other properties in the area.”

The outdoor event area which was setting up for a Sunday Wedding

The barn or covered event portion

The Perspective of the Neighbors

For neighbors down the road, long-time farmers Bruce and Robyn Rominger see Field & Pond as a threat to their farming operation with issues of road safety, environmental concerns and other issues foremost on their mind.

“Field & Pond will interfere with our farming operation,” Robyn Rominger told the Vanguard.

They cited the findings of the County Planning Commission which listened to a lot of testimony before denying the application.  The hearing, on August 11 in Woodland, saw the commission vote 3 to 1 to deny the use permit for the proposed event center and B&B.

From their perspective, safety considerations are a crucial part of their objection.  They argue that the road goes down to a single-lane with sharp, blind turns.  Bruce Rominger told the Vanguard, “We move a lot of equipment on it.”  These include farming equipment and cattle trucks.  “You end up with an event center with a lot of people coming here for the first time.  They’re not familiar with the road.  They are not necessarily familiar with driving in agricultural areas and it becomes a hazard.”

There have been two fatalities on the unlit, uneven road in the last 12 years. They are particularly concerned with drinking late at night after weddings have ended.  Bruce Rominger said, “You get an unfamiliar driver, especially after he’s been drinking…”

Robyn Rominger noted that there is a fire danger here with limited access in and out of the property.  If they have a party with hundreds of people and a fire breaks out – she fears panic and road congestion.

Fire is not a theoretical concern.  Three times in last few years, a nearby housing development has been evacuated due to fire.  There have been at least two major fires at Berryessa and the road has been used by emergency vehicles as a staging area.

In an attempt to deal with this anticipated problem, the owners of Field & Pond have proposed using a shuttle bus to take wedding parties with over 150 attendees in and out – in theory, avoiding this problem for some events.  But, for the Romingers, that’s insufficient.

Bruce Rominger responded that the shuttle bus idea has been brought up a lot in these discussions.  “The reality is that it doesn’t work very well and other event centers that we’ve talked to said they’ve tried that,” he said.  “One of them just gave up because you can’t force people to use the shuttle.”  Instead, he said, “people will just go straight to the site.  They don’t want to be tied to the bus’s schedule.” He also noted that the size of the bus, which they described as “Greyhound bus size” would make it difficult for tomato trucks to pass by.

Joe Rominger said that when he does tomato harvest, he has 700 acres to harvest and that makes for several hundred truck trips during harvest times.

The owners of Field & Pond suggested that they might be able to schedule their events when the harvest is not occurring.  Bruce Rominger responded, “There are issues like that that can be partially mitigated, but you’re going to end up with no parties in July, August, September and October.”  He noted that planting and harvesting occur March through November.  “No practical mitigation measures have been brought forward by either side nor the county.”

Zoning regulations are designed to prevent land-use problems, they said, and non-agricultural uses in the county’s rural areas need to be compatible with agriculture.

“A compatible use must be incidental to the commercial production of agricultural commodities, not the other way around as is the case with this project,” said John Gamper, California Farm Bureau Federation director of taxation and land use. “The primary use of this project is essentially an outdoor party venue that will be operated from approximately noon to midnight during the busiest times of the year for nearby agricultural operations. The attempts by the applicants to pursue some agricultural uses on the small usable area are incidental to the event center and therefore illegal.”

While they laid out concerns about non-compatible agricultural activities and the need to preserve local farmland, they said many of their concerns are site specific and that other rural event centers in the county–like Park Winters, which has multiple access points–were less concerning.  They noted that Field & Pond–unlike other rural event centers in the county–has only one substandard access road with one way in and one way out, creating traffic hazards and health and safety risks in case of fire.

Bill Chapman, who owns the cattle ranch at the end of County Road 29, said, “If I want to open a bar and event center within the City of Davis, to be located in a second-story building to serve 150-plus attendees, how many fire exits will be required by code? Why would rural event centers be exempt?”

They also pointed to concerns about 500-foot spray buffers.  The Field & Pond site does not have enough space for 500-foot-wide pesticide spray buffers that protect their guests. The only place for spray buffers is on the adjacent farmer’s property, and that would be a negative impact on agriculture because the farmer could not protect his crops, resulting in lower yields. The manager of the walnut orchard across the road testified at the planning commission hearing that 25 percent of his walnut crop is at risk because of the spray issue, which is a considerable loss.

Dahvie James’ Response to the Neighbors

Dahvie James questions how Field & Pond will interfere with the farming operations of his neighbors, who are a whole mile away.  He told the Vanguard, “All events are held on weekends; predominantly Saturdays, during the hours of 3 p.m. to 10 p.m., in where there are typically no farming operations occurring on the road.”

The road to the east

He claims, “Since hosting events in 2016, all events have used shuttles without exception, in order to bring guests to and from the venue.  This has resulted in less than 35 cars, even for the largest wedding, but it typically results in ~20 cars, which would include vendor vehicles.”

“We have acknowledged the Rominger concerns about ‘potential interferences’ with their farming operations,” he explained.  “However, our position is that like any cooperative business environment in where there is a mutual interest in the betterment of the total community, the businesses should be able to come together, communicate and devise ways to avoid disruptions to the respective operations, so that there is a collective win.”

Dahvie James also disputes the impassibility of the roads, noting that the point at which the road transitions toward a single lane is past the point of the Rominger’s farming operations.

He disputes the notion that “urban drivers will be prone to drive unsafely in an unfamiliar rural area.”  He instead argues that “our evidence and observation would suggest the complete opposite.  When drivers are ‘coming here for the first time,’ they will be inclined to drive even more slowly and safely, simply because they don’t know where they are going.”

Nevertheless, they say that “we have used shuttles without fail, for every 2016 event.  This is not something that we necessarily have to mandate either.  Our clients generally prefer the option of shuttles, so that their guests can enjoy themselves to the fullest, and avoid factors such as driving under the influence, getting lost, or even feeling a need to leave the celebration early.”

Dahvie James also disagrees with the neighbors’ assessment of the need for multiple access points.  He told the Vanguard, “The concern about multiple access points is only one shared by the Romingers, not law enforcement or fire officials.”

Instead, he believes there is little different between this operation and Park Winters.  He said that “the reality is that there is very little difference between the nature of our operations, and benefits to the community, and Park Winters.   We actually represent a much smaller footprint in terms of events and lodging.  We are more isolated from neighbors.  We are also not building new structures.  We are much further away from intensive farming operations.”

He adds, “Like Park Winters, we are responsible for directly funneling a great deal of business and commerce to downtown restaurants and lodging.”

Is there a peaceful resolution to this ongoing dispute?  Mr. James said that he hopes to find a solution that accommodates his neighbors’ concerns, but allows his events to continue.  For the Romingers, they simply believe this is the wrong location for a large-scale wedding event center.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

The post Idyllic Bed and Breakfast Becomes the Subject of a Bitter Land Use Dispute appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Christina D.

On August 24, 2016, in Department 14, witnesses continued to testify about events involving Samantha Green and her baby.

On February 7, 2015, Ms. Green was a patient in the Kaiser hospital in Roseville, under the care of a registered nurse in the postpartum unit. Her baby, Justice Rees, was cared for in the NICU (neonatal intensive care unit) on a different floor in the same hospital. According to her nurse, Green requested to visit her baby at 3pm on the same day but showed up at the NICU an hour later.

When Green returned from the NICU that day, the nurse questioned Green about why it took her so long to reach the NICU on the first floor, when the trip from her bed on the third floor should take less than five minutes. Green responded that she had gone to get lunch with her mother. The nurse observed that Green seemed intoxicated because her walking was wobbly and her behavior was different from normal. The nurse testified that the NICU nurse also shared the same observations and concerns of Green’s possible intoxication. The nurse reported her concerns to her manager and an involved physician, but did not ask Green about it or run lab tests to confirm her belief that Green was intoxicated.

Because she received instructions from the day-care nurse to keep tabs on Green, and she had suspicions that Green left the hospital grounds, the nurse strongly recommended Green to stay on the grounds for her own safety. The nurse also testified that Green had visited the NICU two more times that day for 10 minutes and 20 minutes, respectively. She considered Green’s condition stable enough to visit the NICU.

A different registered nurse from Kaiser testified that on February 8, 2015, Green visited the NICU with her boyfriend Frank Rees, the baby’s father, when Justice was sleeping and doing well. Green asked the nurse to call whenever he woke up. That day, the nurse called three different times during her eight-hour shift from 3-11pm, but Green was unable to be reached each time. The nurse testified that the calls were to a cell phone, and that she reached voicemail the first time and spoke to a person the second time.

A third witness, who worked in the NICU at Kaiser in Roseville, was on duty from 10:45pm on February 8 to around 6:45am on February 9. She testified to Green visiting the NICU with Rees, and feeding her baby at 11:30pm on February 8, 2015. After feeding, Green passed Justice over to Rees to hold, while the nurse performed a quick vitals assessment on the baby. The nurse noticed that the father was awake when he was handed the baby, but fell asleep in his chair during the few minutes the nurse was performing the assessment.

The baby was ordered to feed “ad lib,” meaning whenever he wanted to feed, so the nurse agreed to call Green via cell phone whenever Justice woke up. The nurse testified that he woke up and she called Green at 3:45am. However, the call went to voicemail so the nurse went ahead and fed the baby herself. After feeding, Justice went back to sleep, but woke again at 6:45am. The nurse called the cell phone and was again directed to voicemail, so she then called the hospital phone in the parents’ room. Rees answered, saying he would ask Green if they were going to visit, but neither parent showed up. The nurse testified that she was a little concerned about feeding Justice throughout the night by herself, especially since she had made a plan with Green. The nurse never received any calls from Green about not visiting the NICU due to exhaustion, like other mothers usually do.

An emergency room doctor from the Woodland Memorial Hospital testified that Green appeared in the hospital on the night of February 24, 2015. She was brought to the ER by the police, and she identified pain in her right leg and in her neck. The doctor went through a review of bodily systems with her but found nothing abnormal about Green, other than slurred speech. During the physical examination, the doctor noted Green’s state as anxious and disheveled. Additionally, since Green showed some altered level of consciousness in that she couldn’t remember when or how her pain started, the doctor ordered a CT scan (x-rays of head and spine) from a radiologist.

A registered nurse also from Woodland Memorial Hospital testified as Green’s admitting nurse for February 24. She performed an emotional assessment on Green to determine the baseline emotional state. Green did not meet the criteria for the assessment, meaning there was no risk of self-harm and there was no need to evaluate the patient. In regard to psychosocial history, the nurse noted signs of physical and sexual abuse because of Green’s bruises and self-report of abuse. The nurse received responses to most questions asked, except for requests for notification of primary care physician and for advanced directives.

Green was initially tearful then turned very fatigued, to the point that she was falling asleep during questioning. Green was diagnosed with rhabdomyolysis (muscle degradation due to hypothermia, excessive exercise, and/or drug use), which could have been the cause of her pain. Because of damage to the cervix, Green was also diagnosed with acute cervical strain, meaning it was short-term, active, and recent.

A forensic analyst from Valley Toxicology Services testified to using GC-MS to identify different substances in blood and urine samples taken on February 25, 2015, from Green. Green was tested for THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, but was instead found to have 0.07 milligrams of methamphetamine per liter of blood. Because drug breakdown depends on a host of factors that differ for each patient, it is not feasible to infer when Green used the drug. The methamphetamine level in her blood was not within the range for a prescription (0.01 – 0.05 mg/L). However, the analyst testified that, considering the half-life (time it takes for a quantity to reduce to half its initial value) of methamphetamine (six to 12 hours), the elimination period could be 2-6 days. However, if the drug was taken in increments as medication, there would be constant elimination and addition.

Frank Rees’ mother and father, “PR” and “WR,” testified that their son lived with them on and off. In 2014, Rees had brought Green to live with them as well, and both parents found out when Green became pregnant one month later. In addition, PR and WR also took care of Mr. Rees’ four children from his past marriage.

The mother remembered seeing Green the morning she went missing, at around 7:30am. Green was feeding three of the children breakfast, while holding and singing to Justice in her arms. Both PR and WR testified that Green knew how to appropriately dress the children, protect them from the cold, and feed them. They also testified to positive relationships with Green, to her helping around the house, and to her motherly role and interactions with the kids. PR said she never had concerns that Green wanted to harm her baby, and would not ever imagine Green leaving Justice in a car on a trip to the convenience store.

Meanwhile, Frank Rees was in bed complaining of some condition, although he usually was also up at that time in the morning. PR remembered that Rees also asked for money, although he has asked her for money so many times she does not have independent memory of each occurrence. PR also testified that, although her son spent a lot of time with Green in the garage, which was turned into some kind of den, he was often not home either. PR would send text messages asking for his whereabouts, and Green would leave voicemails, either threatening to leave him or pleading with him to return home. Twenty clips of these voicemails were presented as evidence by the prosecution.

PR claimed that Green was very attached to Frank Rees, and that the attachment was mutual. PR also testified that her son would say a lot of things he wouldn’t really mean, such as thoughts of leaving Green and complaints that Green caused his depression. PR said Green had the tendency to leave and go for a long walk in the park whenever Frank yelled at her. She also attested to Green’s frustration and overwhelmed feelings from taking care of five kids in the house.

PR and WR testified that they had cameras installed in their home – one in the family room, aimed toward the kitchen, and the other in PR’s bedroom. It would only record pictures when a button was pushed, and recordings in the system can be saved. PR, WR, and Frank Rees all had their own cell phones, but WR testified that Green borrowed his for one evening. PR and WR both said they preferred that Green be the driver when she and Frank borrowed their cars, but Frank would occasionally just take a car out without asking. WR said his son would often pick up the kids from school, but that Green could also be counted on to do it sometimes.

PR and WR were present with Green and Frank Rees at a CPS (child protective services) meeting to discuss making the home safe for Justice. Rees had not held a paid job since 2012, and one of PR’s concerns during the meeting was for her son to get cash aid. Rees also had a history of methamphetamine use since he was 15 years old, and he was supposed to attend a drug rehabilitation program. PR’s role was to keep an eye out for drug use and report to CPS when suspicions arise. She said she never saw any sign of drugs or drug use, but Rees was arrested when the police searched the garage and found methamphetamine.

The trial will resume next Monday, August 29, at 8:55am in Department 14.

The post Testimonies Provide Insight into Factors Leading to Baby Death appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

by Misha Berman

This morning in Department 8 the case against Defendants Jason Lopez and Stephon Ramirez reconvened. Both Mr. Ramirez and Mr. Lopez are not in custody. Before the jury was let in, both the prosecution and defense attorneys discussed important matters regarding the case.

“I am ruling on a motion to exclude using the evidence of the gunshot residue because it is not appropriate for this section of the case,” stated Judge David Reed.

Judge Reed granting a motion not to admit residue from a gunshot into evidence was an example of the many important matters that were discussed before the jurors were called in. The prosecution then told Judge Reed that he has seven witnesses and Detective Anthony Herrera needs to testify as an expert witness. The prosecution also pointed out that one of their witnesses, a woman, will arrive at 3:30pm due to having to drive from Irvine.

“I want bring the jury until then,” responded Judge Reed, after the prosecution informed him about the fact that one of their witnesses could not testify until 3:30.

Judge Reed also stated that he would not grant another exclusion motion, one specifically not to include pictures from cellphones. Judge Reed then reviewed the photos to see which ones he would not exclude from evidence. Judge Reed decided not to include certain photos because some of them were “duplicative,” according to him.

One of the photos Judge Reed looked at was one where a little girl was dancing. Judge Reed stated that he was going to include this picture as evidence because he stated that the girl is doing gestures that are common in gangs.

“That is really prejudicial,” declared Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira, representing Mr. Ramirez.

After Ms. Sequeira and Mr. James Granucci, representing Mr. Lopez, objected to the photo, the prosecution and Judge Reed got into a debate on whether the photo of the little girl dancing and doing gestures that are common in gangs is enough evidence to use in this court case, or whether Judge Reed and the prosecution are being “prejudicial.” Mr. Lopez got really irritated and grunted in frustration and asked if he could have a break.

Judge Reed then decided that the court will have a 15-minute break. After 15 minutes, Officer David Asaro, a police officer for the West Sacramento Police Department, was called to the witness stand. The prosecution was the first to ask questions. The first questions he asked were whether Officer Asaro was on his shift on Februrary 17, 2016, and, if he was working that day, whether he got any calls on that day and what they were for.

Officer Asaro responded that he was on shift on that day and he did receive a phone call because, according to him, one of the other officers working that day needed back up because of recognizing an “outstanding vehicle.”

“Why did you need to stop the vehicle?” asked the prosecution.

Asaro responded that the vehicle needed to be stopped because it might have been in a shooting. Officer Asaro then described what he did when he got to the area where the vehicle was, which was to stop the vehicle and have the people in the vehicle get out.

“When I looked at the FI (field identification) card the first names of the people in the car were something like Ramirez and ‘W,’” replied Asaro.

Officer Asaro then stated that, after he got all the people out of the vehicle, he took Mr. Ramirez into custody. Ms. Sequeira then stood up and asked Judge Reed if, on February 17, 2016, Asaro did not actually go to the area where the vehicle was until the Vallejo Police Department arrived there as well. Judge Reed said this happened.

“I don’t recollect whether Mr. Ramirez was a passenger or driver,” said Asaro.

Officer Asaro was then given the report so he could refresh his memory, and he then stated after reviewing the report that Mr. Ramirez was one of the passengers.

“Mr. Ramirez was detained while Vallejo police were arriving,” said Asaro.

Ms. Sequeira then pointed out that Officer Asaro didn’t say in the FI card that Mr. Ramirez had a tattoo. Asaro at first did not recall, but then Ms. Sequeira asked him to look at the FI card and tell her what he put in the tattoo section. He stated he did not include the tatoo.

“I am not sure why I did that even though it is not true,” explained Asaro.

The jurors were then brought in and Officer Asaro was asked the same questions again, by both the defense and prosecution, that he was asked before the jurors were in the courtroom.

By Raya Zahdeh

The People v Ramirez and Lopez trial reconvened in the afternoon on August 24, 2016, in Department 8, Judge Dave Reed presiding. A few witnesses were called back briefly to continue giving their testimonies regarding the case.

The first witness called to the stand was Officer Meganya of the Salinas Police Department. He stated that he was on duty on January 16, 2008, and had been assigned to the violence suppression unit.

Around 4 PM that day, he recalled making lawful contact in Salinas with several men, including Jesse Diaz (an associate of the “Norteno” gang) and Stephon Ramirez. At this point, Officer Meganya was released from the witness stand.

The second witness to provide testimony was West Sacramento Officer Rinaldo Monterrosa. During Officer Monterrosa’s testimony, the attorney for the prosecution played footage from the officer’s in-car camera, which dated back to May 8, 2016.

The footage showed three men sitting curbside in the West Sacramento Police Department’s parking lot, facing three police officers standing in front of them. Officer Monterrosa also identified the alleged victim’s vehicle in that same parking lot.

The final witness of the day was Detective Anthony Herrera, also of the West Sacramento Police Department. Detective Herrera’s testimony focused mainly on his background, expertise, and experience with gangs and narcotics.

Detective Herrera explained that he keeps himself and law enforcement officials updated on what is going on among gangs in the streets by talking to various gang members while undercover. He also added that the “Broderick Brothers” gang is a subset of the larger “Norteno” gang.

The trial is going to resume on August 25, 2016, in Department 8 at 10 AM. Judge Reed anticipates that they will be finishing the evidence and will most likely continue with closing arguments on Friday, August 26, 2016.

By Ribhu Singh

On Thursday, August 25, 2016, the trial of Jason Lopez and Stephon Ramirez resumed in Judge David Reed’s courtroom. The defendants, two alleged members of the Broderick Boys gang of West Sacramento, are charged with the felonious attempted shooting of an inhabited vehicle with a semi-automatic firearm, with numerous enhancements for their alleged gang member status. Deputy District Attorney Kyle Hasapes prosecuted the case, and attorneys Martha Sequeira and James Granucci represented the co-defendants.

The proceedings began with the recall testimony of a Yolo County criminologist, who, acting as a witness for the prosecution, provided insights into the firearm purportedly used by the two defendants in the shooting. The criminologist testified that she had performed the customary analysis, SEM/EDX (scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive X-ray analyses), of the firearms in the shooting, and she assured the court that the tests were done “according to trained experience.”

Deputy DA Hasapes inquired into the purpose of the test and also asked the expert witness to explain the significance of her findings to the court. The criminologist testified that the SEM/EDX testing was used to analyze the chemical residue left on firearms after shootings and also stated that the results of the analysis were characteristic and consistent with the firing of a pistol.

The defense objected to many of the witness questions, and both Ms. Sequeira and Mr. Granucci objected on the grounds of hearsay and foundation numerous times during Mr. Hasapes’ line of questioning. Forced to rephrase his questioning, Mr. Hasapes then inquired into the specificities of the SEM/EDX analysis and further questioned the witness regarding gunshot residue.

The witness responded, stating that she had performed 200 SEM/EDX tests in her career as a criminologist and that this particular test had yielded an above-average reading of particulates, the metric by which gunshot residue is measured. Mr. Hasapes asked her to elaborate on this abnormality and she stated that the average test yielded a gunshot particulate reading of five or six particulates, while this test had resulted in a reading of ten particulates.

Mr. Hasapes then asked the expert witness if it was possible for any of the residue in question to come from a police officer discharging their weapon, and the expert witness replied, stating that such a scenario was “possible but improbable that they came from a police officer.” Mr. Hasapes then asked about the potential ways, excluding the discharge of a firearm, by which gunshot residue could appear on a particular surface.

The expert stated that “gunshot residue could be present on the person or surface that a firearm touches after being discharged.”

Mr. Hasapes concluded his questioning by asking the expert witness whether or not the tests were reviewed, and the expert witness responded by telling Mr. Hasapes that the tests were reviewed by her supervisor.

As the direct examination was the result of a witness recall, the defense was unable to cross-examine, and the witness was excused.

The jury then broke for a short recess and then, shortly thereafter, was sequestered from the courtroom yet again for a lengthy sidebar between the defense and prosecution regarding the potential admissibility of Facebook pictures and captions as evidence.

The trial will reconvene tomorrow on August 26, 2016, at 9:00 AM in Department 8.

The post Gang Trial Resumes appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

The pond in Field and Pond

by Dahvie James and Philip Watt

We are concerned that information that was published in the Winters Express on both August 18^th and August 25th is drifting away from what would be considered news without bias.  While bias certainly can play a role in journalism, it is still well outside of what would be considered ordinary for the subject who is directly involved in the news to also be granted the advantage of reporting on it.

In the August 18^th issue of the Winters Express on page A-6, Robin Rominger is featured as a guest columnist purportedly “reporting” on the Field & Pond project and Planning Commission hearing.  Nowhere in the paper or the column written does it indicate that she is also the primary obstructionist and most vocal antagonist to agritourism, and in particular to the Field & Pond project.  The readers should be made aware of this.

In general, the article is duplicitous because of the lack of transparency about the writer, and her direct involvement with the project. In particular, the article asserts a number of false statements, and there are also critical omissions.

One only need to read as far as the headline “Planning commissioners vote to protect Yolo County farmland”, to recognize her intent to mire the truth.

Readers should be aware that the county staff actually recommended approval of our project.  They should also be aware that only four out of the seven commissioners were present for the hearing.  One Commissioner recused himself following a publicly made allegation that he was operating an event center without proper permits.

In fact, the chair of the commission, Leroy Bertolero, who was also asked to recuse himself, due to longstanding employment history with the Romingers, also read a personal statement insisting that he still be allowed to preside over the hearing, because he felt that despite this fact, he could still remain unbiased and offer a fair vote.  Surely, these circumstances would have been of interest to your readers, and arguably would be germane to the subject matter.  Yet they were omitted.

During the hearing, two commissioners accepted the staff’s proposal to approve our application, while two did not.  However, worth noting is that there was confusion amongst the Commissioners throughout the hearing.   Listening to the audio of the meeting substantiates this; it’s available at www.yolocounty.org.

Proposed motions for approval were not formulated clearly, and therefore were not appropriately acted upon.  Commissioner Friedlander proposed 16 events as part of the approval for Field & Pond.  No other commissioners provided a Second to the motion.  Commissioner Bertolero later proposed 12 events as part of the approval for Field & Pond.

However, to everyone’s surprise and confusion, Commissioner Friedlander who originally put forth a proposal of 16 events did not follow-up to act on the proposal of 12.  One could hardly characterize this as “Planning commissioners vote to protect Yolo County farmland.”  Further, the stated reason for denial was about concern for safety on the road; not protection of “Yolo County farmland.”

We would also be remiss if we didn’t share how much we resent the accusation in the August 18^th article that we are in some way “illegal.”  The quote shared indicated “the attempts by the applicants to pursue some agricultural uses on the small usable area are incidental to the event center and therefore illegal” simply has no basis.

 How are our “attempts” to farm “small usable area” illegal?  Further, the very basis of this statement which clearly acknowledges that our land is not prime farmland is in blatant contradiction of the very title and subject of the article, which purports that there was some sort of vote for the salvation of farmland.

Similarly, the article published August 25^th also underscores the same misplaced bias.  While we appreciate the opportunity to have given input to the story, and take no issue with its content written by Justin Cox, we do find that the tile is incorrect, and completely deceptive; “Supervisors oppose  rural event center.”

As a point of fact, the Board of Supervisors has not reviewed our project yet, nor have they commented on whether they oppose or support it.  However, this title gives the impression that there is outright rejection of our project.

We have filed an appeal of the Planning Commission decision for some of the obvious aforementioned reasons.  This means that the project will go before the Board of Supervisors for consideration.

Nonetheless, again, the title is misleading, and our concern is that it really does misrepresent the facts in a way that does drive bias amongst your readers, in favor of Bruce and Robin’s very personally motivated agenda.

Dahvie James and Philip Watt are the owners of Field & Pond

The post Guest Commentary: Field & Pond Owners Respond to Recent Article appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Raya Zahdeh

The court gathered in Department 8 on the afternoon of August 30, 2016, for the People v. Brian Douglas Cassidy, Judge David Reed presiding. Back in 2015, Mr. Cassidy was charged on multiple counts, including a hit-and-run crash that resulted in the injury of an alleged motorcyclist victim in the city of Davis. He also faced other charges such as driving under the influence (causing injury and hit-and-run crash) and a misdemeanor count of driving with a suspended or revoked license. After this incident, Mr. Cassidy had most recently been on probation and ended up in custody due to multiple violations of his probation terms.

The first witness to give his testimony was Agent Gary Richter, with the Yolo County Sheriff’s Office, who set out on a probation search for narcotics on January 25, 2016, at the mobile home in which Mr. Cassidy resided. Agent Richter stated that he found 1.6 grams and 0.4 grams of methamphetamine in separate containers, both in the bedroom of the mobile home. He also found a used methamphetamine pipe along with probation paperwork addressed to Mr. Cassidy by Yolo County. At one point, Mr. Cassidy confirmed to Agent Richter that the bedroom belonged to him.

According to Richter’s testimony, the methamphetamine belonged to “DY,” a friend of Mr. Cassidy’s, whom he met while in custody. Mr. Cassidy informed Agent Richter that DY had access to Cassidy’s mobile home even when he was not home.

Agent Richter proceeded to testify that he did not charge Mr. Cassidy for methamphetamine possession, as he had also found the drug in an outdoor shed right after someone fled on foot upon noticing the officers conducting the probation search. He believed Mr. Cassidy was just a methamphetamine user, and that DY was the supplier/seller of the drug. Furthermore, he stated that DY was the main target of the search at the mobile home that day.

The next witness to take the stand was Detective Justin Raymond of the Davis Police Department. Det. Raymond conducted a probation search on April 21, 2016, targeting Mr. Cassidy at the same mobile home as mentioned previously. During that search, Mr. Cassidy admitted to possessing heroin in his pocket. The officer retrieved the substance (1.5 fluid ounces) in its container from Mr. Cassidy’s pocket. Later tests revealed the contents to be positive for containing a heroin substance.

The third witness was Officer Mariano Lopez, also of the Davis Police Department. Officer Lopez conducted a search of the same Davis mobile home on June 7, 2016. Officer Lopez stated that, upon his arrival, Mr. Cassidy and two other adults were present in the mobile home (“MR” and “MR,” one male and one female.) After asking all three of the adults to step out, Officer Lopez conducted the search.

In the living room, he found a marijuana pipe, four methamphetamine pipes, and bottles of alcoholic beverages. He then found more alcohol and about five hypodermic needles that appeared to be used, all in the master bedroom of the mobile home (also identified as Mr. Cassidy’s bedroom.) According to the testimony, Mr. Cassidy told Officer Lopez that the needles were used for his “anabolic steroids” that he supposedly used as painkillers. The needles were not taken into a lab for testing.

The final witness to give a testimony was Officer Lance Dustin of the Yolo County Probation Department. Officer Dustin supervised Mr. Cassidy and is familiar with his probation terms.

On June 23, 2016, Mr. Cassidy had been ordered to report to Officer Dustin following a court appearance that day, which consisted of a SCRAM (Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor) device download and a drug test, in compliance with the probation terms. According to Officer Dustin’s testimony, Mr. Cassidy failed to report to the officer that day.

The following day, Officer Dustin attempted to contact Mr. Cassidy and was able to reach him on his phone. Mr. Cassidy informed the officer that he was out of town and therefore unable to report back to him on time. Officer Dustin then ordered Mr. Cassidy to report to him on June 27, and he once again failed to report on that day. After these many failed attempts and multiple probation term violations, Officer Dustin took Mr. Cassidy into custody and arrested him on July 3, 2016.

After the testimonies and closing arguments came to an end, Judge Reed found the following allegations to be true based on sufficient evidence presented to the court: possession of heroin, possession of paraphernalia, possession and purchase of alcohol (violation of probation term), and failure to report to probation officers. Judge Reed does not intend to reinstate Mr. Cassidy on probation, and has sentenced him to five years and eight months in prison, along with parole of up to three years following the jail sentence. The case is set for a post-sentence report hearing at the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation on October 25, 2016, at 9 AM.

The post Defendant Held to Answer in Davis Possession Case appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Raya Mzahdeh

The People v. Samantha Green trial reconvened on the afternoon of September 9, 2016, in Department 14, Judge David Rosenberg presiding. Ms. Green is being charged with the second-degree murder of her infant son, Justice Rees. Public Defender Tracie Olson is representing Ms. Green, and Deputy DAs Ryan Couzens and Robert Gorman are representing the prosecution.

The hearing began with a recalled witness, Detective Dean Nyland, who continued giving his testimony. He stated that during his March 30, 2015, interview with Frank Rees, Green’s boyfriend and father of the baby, Rees was vague about his drug use at first. He later admitted that he and Green had smoked methamphetamine together the week before she and Baby Justice went missing. He also admitted to administering to her a “butt shot” of about a fourth of a gram of methamphetamine on the morning of February 23, 2015.

The next witness that was recalled to give further testimony was Detective Polay, who interviewed Franks Rees at the Woodland Memorial Hospital on February 24, 2015. During the interview, Mr. Rees described Ms. Green’s behavior as “erratic” when he was with her earlier the same day that she arrived in Knights Landing to look for him. He claimed that she was “trippin’,” and that he suspected she had been going through postpartum depression. In addition, Rees’ information indicated that Green’s motivation for going out to Knights Landing was to find him with the woman she suspected he had been cheating on her with, known as “MC.”

The third witness to take the stand as a recalled witness was Detective Mike Glaser, who investigated the death of Baby Justice. Det. Glaser spoke to “CF,” a friend of Ms. Green and Mr. Rees, who had been at the Rees residence on February 23, 2015. Det. Glaser stated that there had been allegations that CF was down at the slough in Knights Landing where Ms. Green and Baby Justice had been.

Furthermore, CF confirmed to Det. Glaser that he and his girlfriend, “SR,” were at the Rees residence around noon on February 23. CF stated that Green had been acting “strange.” He elaborated that it surprised him when Green did not offer to give him a ride to where he and SR were headed after stopping by at the Rees residence. During Det. Glaser’s interview with SR, it was confirmed that CF had been with SR all day after leaving the Rees residence. SR also stated that Ms. Green’s behavior was “strange” on the afternoon that she and CF interacted with her at the Rees residence.

On February 27, 2015, Det. Glaser went to the Rees household and picked up Ms. Green to transport her to the police station for an interview. He sat with Green for about two hours, while they waited for Rees’ interview to end. During her interview, Green admitted that she took one “butt shot” on the Friday night before she went missing, two on Saturday, and one more sometime between Sunday and Monday. She also took six hits of methamphetamine via a pipe.

The witness who followed was Dr. Michael Wu of the Woodland Memorial Hospital. On February 25, 2015, Dr. Wu examined and discharged Ms. Green after she had already been admitted to the emergency room. His discharge papers indicated that Green was diagnosed with methamphetamine intoxication, dehydration, rhabdomyolysis (breakdown of muscle tissue), and cervical strain (neck muscle strain.)

The final witness to give her testimony was Crime Scene Investigator Stephanie Gill of the Yolo County Sheriff’s Office. CSI Gill stated that, on February 25, 2015, she and another investigator analyzed footprints at the scene where Ms. Green and Baby Justice were in Knights Landing. She and the other investigator concluded that whoever made the footprints was not wearing shoes, but was also not completely barefoot. Based on the appearance of the footprint and the patterns they observed, the investigators determined that there was some type of cloth or other material involved while the footprints were made.

After several witness testimonies, Judge Rosenberg declared the trial would resume on Monday, September 12, at 10 AM in Department 14.

The post Witness Testifies to Green’s Behavior, Suspecting She Had Postpartum Depression appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

The outdoor event area which was setting up for a Sunday wedding

The County Board of Supervisors will make a final determination on the contentious Field & Pond event facility on Tuesday.  Staff is bringing forward the Planning Commission’s decision not to approve the project as the recommended action, in accordance with county code.

The board has the ability to go either way, and staff recommends it should either deny the appeal, deny the project application and adopt associated findings – or the opposite, approve the appeal, approve the project and adopt associated findings.

The item is officially “an appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission not to approve a Use Permit for a proposed large special events facility and large bed and breakfast known as Field & Pond.  On August 11, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Field & Pond Use Permit application and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project.  The Commission voted not to approve the project and not to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (1 for approval, 3 against, 1 recused, 2 absent).”

The applicants have now filed an appeal.  According to county staff, the application, filed in April 2015, “has sparked a significant amount of public interest.”

Currently, large special event facilities which allow more than 12 events per year and/or more than 150 attendees or 100 trips per event require the issuance of a Use Permit in the agricultural zones.  Staff notes, “There is also a provision in the Zoning Code that allows a property owner of a parcel greater than 40 acres to hold up to eight paid, for profit events per year, not more than one such event per month. The applicants have exercised this zoning allowance over the last year while the Use Permit application has been pending.”

Staff notes that the key concerns, which the Vanguard covered in its August 24 article, regarding the proposed project “arise from site constraints with respect to location and access, roadway safety, fire susceptibility, conflicts with agriculture, and biological sensitivities.”  The key question is whether the project, as proposed, “is properly sited.”

Staff notes, “The project site’s rural location, with its backdrop against the Blue Ridge Mountains, lends itself to serene and rustic beauty, which is currently a sought after setting for a wedding. With the success of other permitted rural wedding venues such as Park Winters and others, the applicants were encouraged by the 2030 Countywide General Plan, which supports agricultural commercial and industrial support uses, where appropriate (Policy LU-2.2, emphasis added). Thus, in accordance with County Code Section 8-2.210(g), staff’s review of the proposal included an evaluation of impacts on the rural landscape and the identification of potential land use incompatibilities.”

Staff adds, “During staff’s review, the Agricultural Commissioner and Yolo Habitat Conservancy (YHC) were consulted, among other county and outside agencies, as addressed below. Based on feedback from the Ag Commissioner and spray permit conditions provided for reference, staff proposed several mitigation measures to limit the project’s scope to address the potential for conflicts with neighboring agricultural operations, particularly with respect to spray buffers. YHC also provided feedback with respect to the potential for special status species and/or their habitat to occur at and within the vicinity of the project site.”

At the Planning Commission meeting, the Commission adopted oral findings proposed by counsel that the requested permit does not meet the requirements for approval of a use permit under the Yolo County Code [Section 8-2.217(e)] because of concerns related to road hazards and potential conflicts with agriculture.

The applicants pushed back, arguing that the decision was biased and arbitrary, carried out by a partial commission, overtly political and based on inadequate findings.

Staff argues, “Although the appeal was filed within the appeal period, the appeal did not discuss or analyze evidence to support any of the claims itemized above. Therefore, Staff cannot properly address each claim with specificity.”

Staff writes, “It is unclear whether the applicant’s claim of a ‘partial’ Commission refers to the number of Commissioners present at the meeting, or a commission that was not impartial.  Staff disagrees that the Commission was not impartial.”

Staff also disagrees that “the Planning Commission’s decision was made arbitrarily given that the project had been subject to thorough vetting, individual meetings with the applicants, site visits, meeting with neighbors in opposition, pouring over staff materials provided at the August 11, 2016, public hearing, the February 2016, public workshop, two CEQA review periods, as well as their individual efforts to better understand the merits of the project in light of a newly adopted Zoning Code and updated General Plan. After nearly three hours of public testimony, each Commissioner gave a lengthy summary during their deliberations prior to making a final decision.”

Staff further notes that “applicants deviate from their application when they ask the Board to approve a nine-room bed and breakfast in the three existing structures on the property. The original request included five rooms in the main house and four future rooms in stand-alone bungalows. The appeal modifies this request to omit the four stand-alone bungalows, but allow a more intensive use of the two other existing residences at the project site, each apparently containing two bedrooms.”

Staff is bringing forward the Planning Commission’s decision not to approve the project as the recommended action.

Staff has also provided the Board its previous staff recommendation to the Planning Commission, “At the Planning Commission meeting, staff recommended a significant reduction in the number of allowed annual events, from the applicant-requested 35 and the CEQA-analyzed 20, to a total of 12 events. It should be noted, though, that the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project found that environmental impacts could be mitigated to less than significant levels if the number of events was limited to 20.”

Accordingly, “[T]he Board is free to approve any amount of events up to the 20 event cap included in mitigation measures set forth in the CEQA document; anything more would likely require further environmental review.”

The Soluri Meserve Law Corporation has submitted, on behalf of the Farmland Protection Alliance. their letter of opposition to the project.  They argue that the Board “may not consider the ‘Revised’ project that Field & Pond has proposed in its appeal,” arguing that the existing MND (Mitigated Negative Declaration) is “inadequate to describe the new project proposed by Field & Pond.”

Like the neighbors, they also, argue that the project is not large enough to support requested uses.  “Although the total acreage of the site is 80 acres, the usable area is only about 11 acres. This does not leave enough room for agricultural spray buffers or the recommended protections for Tricolored blackbirds during nesting season.”

Perhaps the most interesting part of the argument that the law firm makes is the case that Field & Pond is not entitled to hold any events by right on the site.

They write, “Many may believe that Field & Pond may hold eight events per year ‘by right’; this is unsupported by the text of the Yolo County Code. Under the Code, a ‘special event facility’ located on a parcel greater than 40 acres is allowed by right to hold no more than eight events per year, subject to restrictions on number of attendees and vehicle trips generated.”

They argue, “Among other evidence, the Planning Commission’s findings supporting denial of Field & Pond’s application stated that the permit would not meet Yolo County Code requirements for a use permit due to road hazards and concerns with Project compatibility with agricultural uses. These are precisely the types of concerns that remove a special event facility’s ‘right’ to hold up to eight events per year. Thus, because the Planning Commission has determined that the Project-related road hazards and conflict with existing agricultural uses make a use permit inappropriate (among other conflicts), the Project is correspondingly ineligible under the Code to hold eight events per year in absence of this permit.”

In the end, the Board of Supervisors will get the final say on these matters.  The hearing will be at 1 pm on Tuesday.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

The post County Board Will Decide Fate of Field & Pond on Tuesday appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Sophie Marconi

On September 15, 2016, in Department 13 the prosecution provided opening statements regarding the case of the People v. Darnell Dorsey. Mr. Dorsey is charged with the death of a child that was in his care. The trial broke for the day at the end of the prosecution’s opening statement, before the defense could present their statement. The defense provided their opening statement the next morning.

Judge Richardson first gave jury instructions. The prosecution then began their opening statement by describing the alleged offense committed by the defendant, Darnell Dorsey. Mr. Dorsey has been charged with Penal Code section 273ab, assault on a child under the age of eight years old resulting in death, by someone having the care and custody of the child.

Cameron Morrison was pronounced dead in the hospital on January 25, 2014. At the time of death, Cameron was 19 months old and weighed 27 pounds. The prosecution stated that he was a perfectly healthy, growing child. The events leading up to Cameron’s death began around 8 pm on January 22, 2014, when Cameron stopped breathing.

At the time, Cameron’s mother was at the gym with her aunts. The only adult in the house was Darnell Dorsey. The prosecution argued that Darnell Dorsey brutally beat and shook Cameron until he was unconscious. The prosecution also stated that Mr. Dorsey kicked Cameron on his abdomen, which they believe to be the cause of the multiple rib fractures that Cameron obtained during the incident.

When Cameron arrived at the hospital on January 22, his heartbeat was incredibly faint. He had not been breathing for a while at this point, and doctors were very concerned that there was nothing they could do. The prosecution told the jury that multiple nurses told police officers that Dorsey was acting strangely at the hospital. Several nurses even told officers that they suspected Dorsey had beaten and shaken Cameron, causing his death.

The prosecution told the court that Mr. Dorsey seemed to feel a sense of detachment from Cameron. Dorsey was not Cameron’s father, and the prosecution said he had told Cameron’s mother at one point that he wished she had never had Cameron. The prosecution also stated that Dorsey is likely the cause of previous injuries, such as healed and healing rib fractures, that were found on Cameron at the hospital.

The prosecution then stated that Darnell never called for help. He did not call the police or an ambulance. He also drove to the hospital separately from the family. He supposedly showed no concern at the hospital, while the other members of the family appeared panicked and vocalized their apprehension.

The prosecution described the medical conditions found on Cameron’s body, stating that the broken ribs found on the front and back of Cameron were highly indicative of impact injury. Doctors also found hemorrhaging of the optic nerve and brain. The cause of death was evaluated as traumatic brain injury caused by multiple blunt force injuries.

The next morning the defense provided their opening statement. The statement went as follows: Darnell Dorsey has waited in jail for 968 days to provide his side of the story in court. On January 23 of 2014 at 1 am, nurses made conclusions based on initial presentations without examining any lab work or previous medical records. Nurses gossiped to the police, stating that they suspected Mr. Dorsey was the cause of Cameron’s death, and Mr. Dorsey was immediately arrested.

While Cameron did have recently fractured ribs, according to the defense it is very plausible that these fractures occurred during the multiple CPR attempts made by family members, EMT workers, and Darnell Dorsey himself. Cameron had severely low vitamin D levels, so his bones were weaker than the average child. Dorsey did not call the police when Cameron stopped breathing because he did not have access to a phone. The mother had taken the only working phone the family owned to the gym with her.

Cameron’s brain was shut off from oxygen for 20 minutes before he arrived at the hospital. This deprivation caused the swelling and other symptoms that appeared to result from trauma. The differential diagnosis exam showed that the cause of death was Global Cerebral Ischemia, insufficient blood flow to the brain, resulting in lack of  oxygen to the brain.

The damage in Cameron’s brain and eyes, according to the defense, was compatible with oxygen deprivation and not axonal injury from an outside trauma to the head. Cameron’s blood was found to contain incredibly high levels of lactic acid and three times the normal amount of glucose, both signs of ischemia.

At the age of 19 months, children have disproportionately more weight in their head compared to the rest of their bodies. Because of this, if Cameron had experienced shaken baby syndrome, there would have been obvious injuries on his neck and spine. This was not the case.

The previous rib fractures that were found on Cameron’s body were also explained. Cameron had likely obtained rib fractures from two previous falls that had occurred prior to the incident. At one of the incidents, Cameron had fallen off a three-foot deck and was immediately taken to the ER.

Lab results revealed that Cameron had anemia and a clotting disorder that both could have played a role in the hemorrhages found in his brain and his optic nerve.

Dorsey took care of Cameron and his brother constantly. He was the “home-maker.” None of the mother’s family members ever voiced any concern about Mr. Dorsey. Cameron’s aunts even told the police that they saw nothing suspicious in Dorsey’s behavior.

The defense ended their opening statement by reminding the jury of the importance of their decision. They stated that, unless the jury is sure beyond a reasonable doubt that Darnell Dorsey is guilty, they must acquit him. The defense concluded their statement with, “You will declare his innocence when you view the totality of the evidence.”

The post Trial Begins in Davis Child Death appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

Dahvie James sitting in the living room at Field & Pond

by Dahvie James

By now you have probably heard about the Board of Supervisors 4-1 vote to approve Field & Pond as a Bed & Breakfast with 20 special events each year.  And I’d be willing to bet that if you are a Yolo County local, you have also heard about Field & Pond and a litany of reasons for why this particular project has caused such a stir within our quaint little community.  Did I get that right?

Well, we have certainly encountered and considered these concerns, and while we do take them very seriously, we feel that the situation is really not quite as extreme as what you may have heard.  For starters, as much as we marvel in the idea of our being thought of as extremely wealthy commercial developing tycoons, jet-setting across the globe, buying and flipping, flipping and buying, candidly, nothing could be further from the truth. I’m a UC Davis Engineer, and an MBA (Master in Business Administration), specializing in Marketing and Sustainable Enterprise.  Philip, my husband, is a veterinarian surgeon from Australia; he actually taught at UC Davis for some time.  And though we do engage in some level of modest jet-setting from time to time, it’s usually for vacations and visits with family.  Generally, I think we are considered by most townies who know us to be a fairly down-to-earth, fun-loving and ordinary married couple, who happen to have a dream of getting off the corporate rat-wheel, and getting back in touch with the things that we love; nature and people.

You might be surprised to know that we actually came upon the opportunity to buy our ranch on a whim.  It was part of a larger landholding, approximately 1,400 acres.  It had been parceled out, in order to increase the prospect of selling.  Our parcel in particular was the portion of that landholding that contained all of the structures, and unfortunately, or rather fortunately for us – depending on how you look at it – our land also possessed the sub-prime soil. The structures needed TLC, the grounds, though beautiful, begged for florals and structure, and the farmland itself had lain fallow for many many years.  Now, if at this point you are saying to yourself, “That doesn’t sound like a great deal,” you are right.  Well, sort of.

The conditions surrounding our ranch were such that you couldn’t farm it very easily, because of all of the structures, and conversely, it would also be an awful lot of land to pay for, if you were just looking for a private residence.  Well, needless to say, our ranch sat on the market without a single offer for almost two years.  And then we came along.  Where others saw an undesirable piece of property, we saw a new home and hope for our family and business.  Where some had seen a remnant of the long forgotten past, we saw a tremendous honor and opportunity to restore the historical agriculture, and to contribute to a longstanding legacy put forth by some of Winters’ early founding families like the Scotts, the Chapmans and the Irelands.

Filled with excitement, but also a discipline for diligence, we met with a number of different agencies and stakeholders, in order to share our business idea, learn about the property allowances, and to ultimately determine if it was truly a right fit for us.  We met with County Planning, Public Works, and the Building Department.  We met with various members of the local government, as well as other local business owners, and community members.  And even though typical Real Estate prudence precluded our talking directly with immediate neighbors prior to a purchase, to the extent possible, we found ways to meet with other neighborhood folks; we attended a couple neighborhood picnics, camped out many weekends on our friend’s couches, all just to get a real sense for the area, people and culture.  Further, given that 70 of the 80 acres south of the creek that dissects the property, is part of a land conservation easement, we also met with the land easement holders in order to confirm that we would be allowed to farm and graze there, and potentially integrate components of the hospitality portion of our business there as well.  Additionally, when appropriate, we brought in experts like a General Contractor, Architect and Topographic surveyor, in order to help with County meetings, and to gain deeper perspective on the road ahead.  Ultimately, it seemed that all indicators were “a GO.” Even the County General Plan and zoning allowances for the property, Ag Extensive, indicated a “GO.” As an Ag Extensive (versus an Ag Intensive) property, the property already had intrinsic zoning code allowances that were geared towards supporting agritourism.  For example, a Bed & Breakfast, conducting up to 12 events, only required an administrative Site Plan Review; not even a minor Use Permit.  Needless to say, we were so excited to embark upon this journey.

Now, this is probably an appropriate time to share that our vision for Field & Pond, and for Winters, for that matter, was (and is) far from aspiring to become just another Napa Valley carbon copy.  Worth noting is that today within the County area near Winters there is one active approved event center, and two Bed & Breakfasts.  Also worth noting is that, within the last six years, a “whopping” total of 16 Use Permits for hospitality businesses were issued in all of Yolo County; only one of these was for a B&B, Park Winters.  For perspective, in Napa today there are more than 80 restaurants, with more than 500 wineries, and 150 hotels.  A vision to become Napa? No.  Our vision is that Field & Pond will become a destination wildlife sanctuary that people from all over the world could come to visit, in order to bask in the beauty and abundance that nature uniquely shares, while also enjoying luxury accommodations.  Our tagline is ‘Discover your true nature.’  Its meaning, being both literal and figurative, is all about allowing guests the opportunity to commit to a fulfilling and mind-opening experience that will provide opportunity for self-discovery and inspiration here in our bold bucolic service-scape.

Field & Pond is an 80-acre ranch located approximately 6 miles from downtown Winters.  Nestled away in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains, home of Berryessa Snow Mountain, Field & Pond boasts sweeping views, along with lush gardens, and vast meadows.  The ranch itself was established in 1882, just seven years after the town of Winters was founded.  The grounds feature a number of archeological gems to include a main lodge, built in 1910, two cottages, a 1,200 square-foot restored historic barn, along with iconic toolsheds and grain silos reminiscent of early settlement in Yolo County.  Chickahominy Slough divides the ranch into a 10-acre north side, which includes all of the buildings, and a 70-acre south side of beautifully stunning graze-land and open space.

As a point of fact, we have never thought of, identified or claimed ourselves as farmers.  Yet, we see agriculture as an integral part of the Field & Pond business and value proposition.  Our services will fund investment in agriculture production and expansion, and in turn the agriculture will inspire and enhance the overall service experience.  Without question we are coming in at the ground level of farming; both literally and figuratively. The learning curve has been steep, the road to “growth” riddled with potholes and surprises, and the costs rack up fast.  And yes, there are also a plethora of cynics and critics that would endeavor to shame and mock you for even making an attempt.  Notwithstanding all of this, we have committed, and are courageously charging into the storm.  Our first couple of years have really focused on learning about our soil, water, wind and light, and ultimately devising an enterprise plan that will not only focus on conservation of habitat for the indigenous wildlife, but also integrate physically and conceptually with the services portion of our business.  This has meant understanding the existing wildlife, learning about the local agriculture, and discovering how we might be able make a positive and unique contribution to the market.

To date, we have 500 units of bay laurel planted, a 4-acre fruit orchard, with everything from persimmons to peaches, to pears, to apricots, which has a lot of historical relevance to this area.  We also have become home to over 200 honey bee hives; having a unique source of water and floral gardens has made our ranch a perfect sanctuary for them to thrive, while they do us the favor of pollinating our crops.  With many acres of graze land, we are now coming into our second year of grazing; first with ~50 head of sheep, and we have recently established an agreement for 10 head of beef cattle.  But wait, there’s other exciting stuff too.  We have a 2-acre catch and release fishing pond that we dream of one-day progressing even further to add to our overall agricultural bundle.  And our most recent 4-acre test crop of various squash, watermelons and honeydew melons was an absolute success.  Finally, we have also signed a land leasing agreement with another farm who will be partnering with us to help us to make inroads into more expansive crops.  Nevertheless, we are the first to admit that we are certainly a long way away from where we want to be, but we are failing, learning, and succeeding, in repetition, concurrently, but with excitement and pride.

Field & Pond event activity has certainly been a topic of hot discussion; however, in essence, we applied for a Use Permit so that we could legally and legitimately conduct events in much the same way as other property owners have been doing in the area for some time now, without county oversight, taxation or accessibility, health and safety measures. Upon purchase, our property was already entitled to conduct eight events; however, due to various pressures, to our surprise, the county revised their rules in March (i.e. wedding season), to require that only one event could be conducted each month.  Nevertheless, we have endeavored to always remain in lock step with county guidance and rules, if for no other reason than to ensure that we not jeopardize our application for a Use Permit.  Ultimately, this endeavor made for some very challenging and expensive decisions and sacrifices.

To date, our structures are all legally permitted for their use.  Our Historic Event barn, which is approximately 1,200 square feet, is outfitted with structural reinforcements, sprinklers and ADA accessible pathways; all approved by Winters Fire, Cal Fire and the County Building Department.  One need only look at the very long list of conditions for Use Permit approval for our project to see that there has been a high-level of scrutiny on our project site.  The compliance measures are equally rigorous.  As stated during the Board of Supervisor meeting, these conditions and measures actually allow the county to have a greater level of oversight of Field & Pond operations than what they have for any other operation in this area.  We have fully accepted all of the conditions and measures, and we have taken personal initiative to implement even more strategies to minimize our impact on neighbors and surrounding Ag operations.  For example, for every event, we use shuttles to transport guests to and from the ranch.  On our own volition, we also proposed and accepted a requirement of a “black-out period,” spanning from July 15^th to September 15^th, in where we will not schedule any events, so that we are minimizing traffic on the roads during tomato harvest season.  Further, all of our events are worked using private security to minimize incidents of smoking, loitering outside of our grounds, and trespassing.  Finally, we proposed and committed to only conducting events on Saturdays; and they will generally start after 3 p.m.  These concessions overlaid to the Board of Supervisor approval for 20 events will essentially result in what we estimate to be a total of 20 hours of event traffic on the road every year, during hours in where there are no other businesses typically working.

There are no row crops near the Field & Pond site.  The nearest occupied home is 1 mile east, and there is only one other home occupied by a single resident beyond Field & Pond, out a little over 1 mile to the west.  There is an orchard across the street, which is actively worked.  For an orchard such as this one, the managers would typically be subjected to a 50-100 foot pesticide spray buffer, given the type and method of pesticides used.  However, worth noting is that this buffer would be in place whether there was one person occupying our property or many.  In essence, there would be no change required to the farming practices there.  In practice, anyone applying pesticides is required to notify and receive approval from owners of any nearby occupied structures, and they are required to avoid spraying or drift from the property being treated; and in an absolute worst case, avoiding spraying and drift beyond the designated buffer (i.e. the 50-100 feet).  However, fortunately there is already adequate separation between our properties to accommodate this buffer.  Nevertheless, as an additional concession to protect the Ag operations of the neighboring orchard, and to aid the managers with flexibility for scheduling unplanned sprays, we decided to waive our rights for enforcing buffer requirements stipulated by the Ag Commissioner’s office.  Additionally, we have committed to sharing our event schedule months in advance, in order to also aid them with any scheduled and planned sprays.  Ultimately, we are new to the neighborhood, but we are not new to the notions of trying to be good neighbors, and relying on communication, collaboration and friendship as the primary guides for co-existing.

During our application process, a local environmentally focused group, Tuleyome, raised some concerns about the wildlife corridor that exists within Chickahominy Slough.  Chickahominy Slough is the creek that runs through our property, and many others along the county road, before tying into other creeks and water systems.  Upon learning of their interest in our project, we met twice with them to understand their concerns, and to collaborate with them on ways to address them.  As a result of our work with Tuleyome, we devised a plan to move the originally slated location for our parking area for guests from the west side of our property to the east.  We also engaged our landscape architects to design and specify plant lists and foliage buffers to provide more isolation to the slough.  Finally, we committed to forgoing our endeavors for planting orchard on the south side of the slough, so that it would not remove even more forage space for hawks and deer in our area, which has been depleted to an ever more fragile state.

Through our journey of discovering and developing Field & Pond, we have met so many friends.  Winters has provided us with the love, camaraderie, and community that we have always wanted out of the place that we call home.  Whether it’s the star-gazing tractor rides with buddies, Sunday breakfasts at the various and varying welcoming tables of grandparents, Jim teaching us to fish, aimlessly firing shots with Jose’s hand gun behind the shed, Chris talking me through pruning fruit trees, or attempting to enhance my Spanish by pelting Dago with broken phrases; it has all been so fulfilling and rewarding.  Even as we weathered the storm of going through the permit process, by and large, the people of this town have literally sheltered us with love and encouragement.  Sometimes as adults we bury some of our basic needs for community and inclusion.  However, these aspects are so important for health and happiness, fulfillment and spiritual balance; and this town has given us this.  It has also given us an opportunity to help contribute to local commerce, the employment network, and the richness of our culture here.  Who knew that such a little town would have such a ginormous heart?   We are so grateful to be here, and we are honored by the friendship, love, and votes of confidence that have been given to us and Field & Pond.  It feels good to be home.

PS.  We are hosting an Open House at Field & Pond, Saturday, October 1^st, from 1 to 4 p.m.  We welcome friends and supporters to join us.  Space is limited, so if you would like to attend, please email dahvie@fieldandpond.com to RSVP.

The post Field & Pond Has Found Its Home in Winters appeared first on Davis Vanguard.