By Mariel Barbadillo and Sophie Marconi

On September 20, 2016, Judge Paul Richardson presided over the second day of witness testimonies in the trial of Darnell Dorsey. Mr. Dorsey is charged with assaulting and inflicting deadly injury upon his girlfriend’s 20-month-old child, Cameron Morrison.

The prosecution called on Dr. Paul Lee to complete his testimony from the day before. Deputy District Attorney Michelle Serafin questioned Dr. Lee about hypoxia, or lack of oxygen to tissues, in this case, the brain. Dr. Lee confirmed that hypoxia can cause swelling of the brain, such as the swelling he observed in Cameron’s brain.

Dr. Lee stated that cardiac arrest could cause hypoxia and brain swelling. It occurs in adults and children, but it typically only occurs in children with heart problems. When asked if Cameron had issues with his heart, Dr. Lee stated the child’s heart appeared normal.

The prosecution then presented a computerized tomography (CT) scan image of a brain. Dr. Lee described the brain in the image as “normal.” He went on to discuss the differentiation between gray matter and white matter, indicating what a brain typically looks like.

Next, the prosecution showed CT scan images of Cameron’s head taken at the UC Davis Medical Center. There appeared to be a lack of differentiation between the gray matter and white matter. Dr. Lee said the initial CT scan of Cameron’s brain from Sutter Davis Hospital looked “normal,” but the loss of gray and white matter differentiation was much more significant by the time Cameron was brought to UC Davis.

Dr. Lee stated Cameron had a normal cervical spine, and he did not exhibit visible injuries to his bones or soft tissue. Still, Dr. Lee does not exclude the possibility of trauma, because trauma injuries are not limited to the cervical spine.

During cross-examination, Deputy Public Defender Joseph Gocke clarified that a Diffuse Axonal Injury (DAI) consists of lesions widespread in the white matter of the brain, which Dr. Lee confirmed is correct.

Mr. Gocke went on to question Dr. Lee about one of his colleagues who found no focal mass lesion in Cameron’s brain. Mr. Gocke asked if that finding is inconsistent with DAI, but Dr. Lee said that finding does not exclude the possibility of a DAI.

The defense then asked Dr. Lee about Global Cerebral Ischemia, referring to a drastic lack of blood flow to the brain, which can result in brain swelling and death. Respiratory arrest can cause both brain swelling and death, while pneumonia can cause respiratory arrest.

In redirect examination, Ms. Serafin asked how pneumonia causes respiratory arrest. Dr. Lee stated that pus in the air space impedes the exchange of carbon dioxide and oxygen, causing difficulty breathing and potentially respiratory arrest. However, both lungs would need to be infected for respiratory arrest to occur.

Dr. Lee said that, on CT scans and MRIs, medical practitioners are able to see lesions on a person’s brain. The prosecution asked Dr. Lee if he saw lesions on Cameron’s brain. Dr. Lee answered that he did not, but he did not exclude Diffuse Axonal Injury because imaging technologies have limitations.

When asked if other events can cause injuries similar to those Cameron sustained, Dr. Lee said a car accident could cause such injuries, especially if the person is not wearing a seat belt.

The prosecution’s next witness was Dr. Kee Kim, a neurosurgeon at the UC Davis Medical Center, who was consulted concerning Cameron’s condition.

Dr. Kim observed an anoxic brain injury (an injury to the brain due to lack of oxygen), but “more compelling” was the apparent lack of circulation to the brain. When asked why it was “more compelling,” Dr. Kim stated that nothing at that point could be done to make a difference in Cameron’s condition.

The witness said this type of brain injury is most common in children, referring to it as “shaken baby syndrome.”

During cross-examination, Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira asked Dr. Kim whether or not he knew that the American Pediatric Association stopped using the term (shaken baby syndrome) because it has found that the human force of shaking a baby cannot alone cause the injuries associated with non-accidental trauma. He answered that he did not know that.

In redirect examination, Dr. Kim clarified that his use of the term, shaken baby syndrome, referred to general non-accidental trauma injuries to children of Cameron’s age group.

The next witness was Dr. Matt Wayment, a pediatric critical care specialist who worked at the UC Davis Medical Center in January 2014 and tended to Cameron during his last day.

When Dr. Wayment examined Cameron, he found the child had no reflexes and exhibited retinal hemorrhages in both eyes. He also noticed external signs of trauma, specifically dark patches on Cameron’s back and bruising behind his left ear, which Dr. Wayment found concerning and unusual.

Dr. Wayment diagnosed Cameron with non-accidental trauma. He came to this conclusion due to the rib fracture, healing rib fractures, blood in the child’s eyes, and blood in his brain. The doctor found these injuries consistent with shaken baby syndrome.

The prosecution asked if pneumonia could cause cardiac arrest. The witness confirmed that it is possible. The prosecution asked if a patient can develop pneumonia in the hospital, and the witness confirmed that it is also possible. However, Dr. Wayment did not hear or see signs of pneumonia. Also, Cameron’s white blood cell counts were not elevated, as they would be if he had an infection.

Dr. Wayment stated that the broken blood vessels in the back of Cameron’s eyes were consistent with head trauma, while the liver laceration was indicative of inflicted trauma. The child falling cannot cause such a laceration; a penetrating or direct blow likely caused the tearing.

He went on to say that it is not typical for children less than two years of age to have broken ribs. It is typically caused by trauma. When asked if ribs can be broken due to CPR, Dr. Wayment said that, in his experience, CPR cannot cause broken ribs. He postulated that blunt force trauma or squeezing caused the injury.

Dr. Wayment stated he has had 25 or so patients with similar injuries, all of which were caused by non-accidental trauma.

Mr. Gocke cross-examined the witness by asking if grabbing a child could cause injury to posterior ribs. Dr. Wayment said it is possible, but the person would have to be grabbing the child very tightly.

Judge Richardson dismissed the jury for their lunch break a few minutes early to give defense counsel the opportunity to address their concerns. The defense questioned the subject matter of the prosecution’s discussion with Dr. Wayment prior to his testimony. Mr. Gocke argued that Dr. Wayment’s testimony was more polished than that of the other witnesses, and he disclosed information that was not provided to the defense. Mr. Gocke asked for time to receive and review the new discovery before proceeding with cross-examination.

The prosecution claimed they only spoke to the witness to clarify certain statements and terminology. Both prosecuting attorneys took notes during their discussion with Dr. Wayment, as did the investigator who was present at the meeting.

The court ordered that the three sets of notes be turned over to the defense. Judge Richardson denied the defense’s request for a continuance to review new discovery.

Afternoon Session

Department 13 got a late start in the afternoon, and Dr. Wayment continued his testimony regarding Cameron’s death and the physiological events that led up to it.

Dr. Wayment testified that he heard no abnormal sounds coming from Cameron’s lungs during Cameron’s hospitalization, though other members of the faculty have stated that they noticed diminished breathing.

Wayment later explained the definition of hypoxia, which is when a region of the body is deprived of oxygen. He also told the court that Cameron had a noticeable bruise on his head a week prior to hospitalization, which he learned from the child’s mother.

Dr. Wayment also stated that he directly reviewed the CT and MRI scans of Cameron’s brain.

The defense asked Dr. Wayment if he knew the other doctors he was working with, as he was the attending physician and this is part of his duty. The doctor admitted that he did not know the other doctors.

Wayment told the court that, while Cameron had low calcium levels and low magnesium levels, the calcium that was circulating in his blood was at a normal level.

The doctor also stated that it is possible for ribs to break during violent coughing and vomiting fits, which is relevant because Cameron was ill during the days leading up to his death.

Dr. Wayment also explained that medical professionals receive specialized training regarding CPR performance on a child, because of the heightened risk associated with children.

The defense asked the doctor if someone who is not experienced in CPR, such as Darnell Dorsey, could accidentally break a rib because of this lack of training. Dr. Wayment stated that this was possible.

The case will resume tomorrow, September 21, at 8:30 am.

The post Medical Professionals Testify About Child’s Injuries in Dorsey Trial appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

by Antoinnette Borbon

A trial date previously set for November 7, 2016, for six men who allegedly were involved in stabbing a man in a downtown Davis nightclub, was vacated.

Peter Gonzales, 23, was in town to attend his sister’s wedding when he was fatally stabbed inside KetMoRee Thai Restaurant & Bar.

Witnesses say a fight broke out about 1:30 am. Gonzales was taken to UC Davis Medical Center in the early morning hours of September 19, 2015, after sustaining a fatal stab wound to the abdomen, according to Davis Police reports.

One witness, who wishes to remain anonymous, told the Vanguard, “It was a bloody scene, a man drenched in blood from head to toe running past me as he fled the nightclub.” People screaming and running out of the nightclub, the witness recalled vividly.

He described the scene involving seven to eight men engaged in an altercation. Bouncers worked quickly to break up the fight, but their efforts were too late.

According to the witness, the lifeless body of Peter Gonzales lay on the floor.

Martyn Alex Contreras, 25, and Zackary Thomas Sandeno, 21, both of Vacaville, were the first of six men arrested in connection to the death of Mr. Gonzales. On September 23, 2015, their arraignment was postponed.

Within a few days, Carlos Biviescas, Anthony Daniel Rivera and Victor Manuel Vergara were also arrested in connection to the nightclub slaying.  A sixth suspect, Joseph Gregory Sandeno, was taken into custody after weeks of eluding authorities.

Yolo County Supervising Deputy District Attorney Garrett Hamilton formally charged the six men with murder, alleging the crime was committed to benefit the criminal street gang, “Nortenos.”

In May of 2016, a secret grand jury hearing was held and all six suspects were indicted for first-degree murder, along with the gang-related enhancements.

Nineteen witnesses within the Davis community testified in the grand jury hearing.

A ruling on motions made by defense attorneys was postponed, along with vacating the November 7 trial date.

The Honorable Dave Rosenberg explained, “The court has read many papers concerning 995 Motions [to dismiss one or more counts of the indictment] but my concern is Mr. Rivera doesn’t have an attorney present. I have digested arguments. I’ve gotten more briefs on these motions than I have ever heard on any other case.”

“If the court entertains a continuance on ruling of 995 Motions,  it should vacate the trial date and status conference until Mr. Granucci returns, your honor,” asserted Defense Attorney Jeff Raven.

Defense Attorney James Granucci has been appointed to represent one of the defendants but is on vacation until October.  The continuance was granted and a ruling on the defense’s motions are expected to be heard on November 4, 2016, at 1:30 pm in Department 14.

Supervising Deputy DA Hamilton stated, “This case is obviously not going to trial in November, but that’s an awful long time doing nothing with the case.”

Families of the six defendants filled the courtroom.

Attorneys estimated that it will be at least three more months before the case proceeds to trial.

The post KetMoRee Killing Trial Date Vacated Again appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

by Jade Wolansky

The case of the People v. Darnell Dorsey resumed on September 23, 2016, in Department 13 with Judge Paul Richardson presiding. Pursuant to Cal. Penal Code sections 273a and 273ab, Mr. Dorsey is charged with assaulting and inflicting deadly injury upon his girlfriend’s 20-month-old child, Cameron Morrison. Deputy District Attorney Michelle Serafin is representing the prosecution.

The first witness to take the stand was “VR,” Cameron Morrison’s mother. She appeared emotional, distraught and exasperated when she was testifying.

Ms. Serafin asked about Mr. Dorsey’s relationship with both Cameron and “J” (VR’s child with Dorsey, and Cameron Morrison’s older half-brother). VR stated that it was fatherly and playful.

The DDA asked if Mr. Dorsey was ever impatient with the children. VR stated that he would express these feelings with her, but not with the children. VR believed that Dorsey was still adjusting to parenthood.

Next, Ms. Serafin asked if Mr. Dorsey treated J and Cameron differently. VR replied that Dorsey was closer to J, but he cared for them equally.

The prosecution then asked about certain injuries and bruises on January 11, 2014, the day of J’s birthday party, and on January 27, 2014. VR stated that J was in good overall health, except for a hard cast on his arm, and that Cameron did not have bruises or cuts on his body.

Ms. Serafin inquired how Mr. Dorsey disciplined the boys. VR replied that it consisted of time outs, talking to the children and, very irregularly, spanking. The DDA asked if Mr. Dorsey ever used excessive force or left markings on J or Cameron. VR replied that he did not.

Next, the prosecution questioned VR about her relationship with the defendant. She asked if he was controlling or had a bad temperament. VR answered that controlling was too broad of a term. She explained that Mr. Dorsey had plans for their lives, such as improving their situation, taking care of the children or having more, and that he wanted VR to be on the same page as him. In respect to Mr. Dorsey’s temper, VR replied that she and Dorsey argued about finances, but he never blew up.

Ms. Serafin then asked VR about the family’s daily routine. VR stated that she would normally prepare dinner. However, if she returned late, Mr. Dorsey would cook and put the children to bed.

At this point, Ms. Serafin presented to the court several People’s exhibits. They consisted of photographs and a layout of VR’s living room and kitchen.

The DDA proceeded to ask VR about the events of January 22, 2014. VR stated that earlier that day, her aunts, niece and sons were playing in the living room area. Mr. Dorsey was in their bedroom resting. After leaving for the gym with her aunts and niece, VR realized she had forgotten her keys and gym membership. She went back quickly and retrieved the gym membership. She stated she had her cell phone with her.

Ms. Serafin asked if VR remembered telling Davis Police Department Officer Scott Allen that she had left her phone with Mr. Dorsey. VR replied: “I hate Scott Allen.” When pressed for her reasons, VR explained that she disliked Officer Allen because she felt that his report on the case was inaccurate.

The prosecution inquired if a transcript of her conversation with Officer Allen would help her memory. VR replied that she could read the document, but that would not mean she would remember the conversation.

After looking over the transcript, VR stated that the document reminded her of how frantic she was that day, and that she does not recall if she had actually had taken her cell phone with her or not.

Ms. Serafin had VR describe what had happened when she returned from the gym the night of January 22, 2014.

VR testified that she had returned close to midnight. When she arrived, she saw a flash of Mr. Dorsey rushing. She did not recall whether Mr. Dorsey was wearing clothes. She stated that Dorsey usually wore pants and no shirt at home.  At the front doorway, Mr. Dorsey shouted that Cameron was not breathing.

VR took Cameron from Mr. Dorsey’s arms and went to her aunt’s vehicle. She stated that she was shouting at her aunts to drive, while she performed CPR on Cameron. VR informed the court that her aunts were medical assistants.

At this point, Ms. Serafin asked how VR had performed CPR. VR replied that she had laid her left hand flat and used her right hand clenched in a fist to pump Cameron’s chest.

Ms. Serafin inquired if her aunts had instructed her to only use two fingers. (It is suggested by medical professionals that only two fingers are used when performing CPR on small children.) VR replied that they may have, or they had just informed her to pump his chest. They were facing forward and could not see VR and Cameron in the back seat. She stated that she did not recall how many pumps she had performed, only that she was breathing into his mouth as he was trying to gasp for air.

Once they had arrived at the Davis Dutch Bros. kiosk, the paramedics placed Cameron in the emergency vehicle. From there, they drove to Sutter Davis Hospital. He was then transferred to UC Davis Medical Center. VR stated she remained with him until Cameron passed away on January 25.

When asked about Officer Allen, VR explained that she did not want to speak with him since she did not want to leave the hospital and Cameron.

The prosecution halted questioning when the witness began to cry.

Next, Ms. Serafin continued her queries about the CPR that VR had performed. The Deputy DA asked if she had informed anyone that she had used her fist. VR answered that she had not, since no one had asked her about it – today in court would be the first day she had informed anyone.

The case is scheduled to reconvene on Monday, September 26, 2016, in Department 13.

The post Improper CPR Administered in Darnell Dorsey Case appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

Some Common Threads in the Wrongful Convictions Reviewed on Saturday

In my presentation this past weekend about three Yolo County cases, I went through some of the key causes of wrongful convictions, such as eyewitness misidentification, which played a huge hand in the Oscar Cervantes case.

But there are two things that are really striking to me about all three cases.

First, these three cases involve people essentially sentenced to life without parole.  But none of these three were what we would call hardened or career criminals.  Ajay Dev had no criminal record whatsoever.

Defense Attorney Rod Beede noted that, at the time, Oscar Cervantes had “virtually no criminal record” and “absolutely no record of violence.”

While Greg Zielesch had drug problems, he had no record of violence either.

It is not that it is impossible for someone without a criminal record to commit a crime and we do see cases of career criminals who were wrongly convicted, but their claim to innocence has to be bolstered by this.

The second common thread was that the criminal justice system failed all three.

In the case of Ajay Dev, Judge Fall blocked key evidence of a conviction in Nepal of the complaining witness that might have spoken to her motivation to lie in this case.  More egregiously, the judge, in what I believe to be a moment of lost patience, allowed the complaining witness herself to translate the key moment on the pretext phone call.

In the case of Greg Zielesch, he was assisted by ineffective counsel who was subsequently disbarred.  Key witnesses such as Rebecca Youngblood (now Rebecca Weinhardt) were not called, who could have debunked the claims by Rebecca Pina as to how the gun got to the shooter.  And key rebuttal witnesses were not allowed to present key evidence.

In the case of Oscar Cervantes, the defense was not allowed to call a memory expert.  They filed a motion to do that, retaining one of the most prominent eyewitness experts in the country to come and testify that the identification was false.  The judge denied the motion to put this expert on the stand.

Mr. Beede noted that “subsequent to that, the Supreme Court has held that failure to put an eyewitness identification expert on the stand is ineffective assistance of counsel.”  But they didn’t get that opportunity because the judge denied the motion.

“But the most outrageous thing that happened in the case, of all the outrageous things that happened in the case, was that Nate Easlon, purported to be an eyewitness to the shooting – he was arrested down in Solano County and they made a deal with him to testify.”

“Nate Easlon wrote a letter to my co-counsel and I, and said he not only fabricated the entire story but that his attorney and Jim Walker, who was trying the case with Jeff Reisig, had told him to fabricate.  Had gone down to Solano County, met with him, told him that he was going to get a life sentence or worse if he didn’t come through.”

Mr. Beede said that “he felt really bad about it.”  They went down to interview Easlon but, because he was represented by counsel, “we were referred to the California State Bar Association. The District Attorney’s Office of Yolo County searched my investigator’s home for notes of the interview.”  The fact that they interviewed him with an attorney present was allowed to become known to the jury.

That’s prosecutorial misconduct, and they couldn’t get that evidence to the jury either.

In short, in all three cases, the defense had evidence that would have allowed the jury to acquit the defendants and, in all three cases, the defense was barred from presenting the evidence – either due to technicalities or judicial error.

The Human Factor

When the Vanguard trains interns going into the courts, we set rules and we have lists and guidelines to follow.  One of the things we constantly tell the interns to remember is that this is real life.  It’s otherwise easy to get caught up in your own life’s bubble and think of this as another class or an academic exercise.

But these are in fact people, real people in the real world, whose lives are on the line.

Sometimes I fall victim to that too.

A couple of weeks ago, a woman came in.  Her son had been shot and killed in Woodland a few years ago by the police.  She was hurting and not getting answers.  We get caught up in the fight for social justice and sometimes it’s easy to forget there is a human being on the other side of that fight – someone you might not see.

For her, she just wanted to see the video of the shooting to put to rest a whole host of questions she had.  She kind of felt like this was suicide by cop, and wanted to see it for herself.  The police and the DAs were refusing to allow her to see the video.  They gave her legal responses under the Public Records Act, I read the letters.

So I thought, you know, let me just call the Woodland Police Chief, he’s always been a decent and reasonable guy.  What was interesting was he had already kind of reached the decision to let her watch the video.  He told me that his first instinct was “who would want to watch the video of their son getting killed,” but he realized he didn’t walk in the shoes of others – and if that’s what she really wanted, they were going to make it possible.

I got to call her and deliver that news, and she was just so grateful.  It was an unbelievable moment.

This weekend we had an event on local Wrongful Convictions.  I really believe that we have put people into prison who do not belong there.  When we got to Oscar Cervantes, his sister delivered a presentation and ended up breaking down at the end.  Then his son broke down crying, a 13-year-old, who plays football and he never gets to see his father.

I know, for years in the Ajay Dev case as well, the kids are separated from their father due to the nature of the crime.  As a father myself, I have young kids and Ajay is missing the best part of the experience.  The human impacts here are so unimaginable.

These are the human terms in this struggle that humble you and get lost in the overall picture.

I’m very proud of the work we’ve done at the Vanguard, but I wish we could do more.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

The post Eye on the Courts: The Human Side of a Struggle appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

by Ryan Gonzales

In the afternoon of September 27, 2016, the case of the People v. Darnell Dorsey resumed with Judge Paul Richardson presiding. Pursuant to Cal. Penal Code sections 273a and 273ab, Darnell Dorsey is charged with assaulting and inflicting deadly injury upon his girlfriend’s 20-month-old child, Cameron Morrison.

Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira continued the cross-examination of “PC Sr.,” grandfather of Cameron. Ms. Sequeira examined the statements made by PC Sr. to detectives.

PC Sr. had explained to detectives that he had never witnessed abusive behavior by Dorsey toward Cameron or his older half-brother, “J.”  PC Sr. said that if there were any signs of abuse, he would have “done something about it.” He later explained that at no time during the interviews with the detectives did he change his opinion of Darnell Dorsey not being abusive.

Next, Ms. Sequeira questioned PC Sr. about the relationship between “VR” (the victim’s mother) and “M” (the victim’s biological father). He stated that “like most relationship they had problems,” and M had been abusive to VR when they were together. However, he explained that VR never approached him with concerns of abusive behavior by Mr. Dorsey.

Ms. Sequeira ended the cross-examination by raising the notion that there was a period of time that TR (the victim’s grandmother) was abusive to PC Sr.’s children and that she suffered from drug addiction.  He responded that he had once received a phone call from one of his daughters that there was no food in the house and that he believed that TR’s living standards were not suitable for children.

Deputy District Attorney Michelle Serafin began the redirect examination of PC Sr. Ms. Serafin asked if he knew that VR started taking J and Cameron to TR for babysitting when Mr. Dorsey started school. He responded in the negative. However, he opposed the times when he knew of VR taking the children to their grandmother’s place, because he did not know of TR’s “situation or condition.”

When asked about VR’s response to his objections, he stated that she said, “Don’t worry about it dad, everything is okay.”

Ms. Serafin questioned PC Sr.’s concerns regarding TR. At that point, PC Sr. was overwhelmed with emotions, stating that he became prejudiced against TR from their past experiences that involved his children, and that he was just being “overprotective” of his grandchildren. Yet, when questioned about VR’s arrangements to take the children to their grandmother, he stated that he trusted her decision.

Next, the prosecution began to show PC Sr. a series of photographs, which he described as bruises on J’s back. As PC Sr. began to grieve over the photos, Ms. Serafin queried whether he had a different opinion about Darnell Dorsey. He answered no, and that he just regretted not being more active in the children’s lives. Ms. Serafin concluded the redirect examination of PC Sr.

Ms. Sequeira began the re-cross examination. She questioned PC Sr. about whether he knew how the bruises ended up on J’s body, and if he believed that they were inflicted by abusive treatment. PC Sr. responded no to both questions. Ms. Sequeira followed up with the notion that he simply was crying because he was the children’s grandfather and had an emotional attachment to them.  He answered yes, as well as stating, “I wish I had more time with them.”

Ms. Sequeira ended the re-cross with the statement that Ms. Serafin had shown the photographs to PC Sr. before, thus it was not surprising that he had such an emotional reaction. PC Sr. responded that it was not surprising.

PC Sr. was dismissed, subject to recall.

The second witness to testify was AC, the daughter of PC Sr. and TR. The prosecution began the direct examination of AC by inquiring about her whereabouts during the night that Cameron Morrison was admitted to the hospital.  AC stated that she was living with her parents, but she had snuck out of the house on the night of January 22, 2014. When questioned about where she went, AC stated that she went to a hot tub with her boyfriend, but returned when she received a phone call from her mother that Cameron was not breathing. AC later stated that she went to bed when her father called her, saying, “Things are looking better.” The prosecution ended their examination.

Deputy Public Defender Joseph Gocke conducted a very brief cross-examination of AC. He asked AC if she had spoken to the Davis Police Department on January 23, 2014, to which she answered yes. Also, he asked if she saw any signs of an abusive relationship between Mr. Dorsey and the children, to which she answered no.

The defense concluded the cross-exam and AC was dismissed.

The final witness was PC Jr., son of PC Sr. and TR. Ms. Serafin began by examining the family relationships of PC Jr. When asked about his relationship with VR, PC Jr. stated that he was “very close with both his sisters.” Additionally, PC Jr. testified that his relationship with his nephews (J and Cameron) were also close, that he loved them.

Next, Ms. Serafin questioned PC Jr. on how he would describe the parental interactions between Darnell Dorsey and the boys,  J and Cameron. PC Jr. said, “He was a good father, he treated Cameron and J equally.” However, the prosecution asked if PC Jr. remembered telling an officer that “he (Darnell Dorsey) wasn’t a nurturing father towards Cameron.” PC Jr. responded that the statement may have been made out of anger and he meant that Darnell Dorsey didn’t have a biological tie or connection to Cameron (whereas J is Mr. Dorsey’s biological son).

At the time Cameron went to the hospital, PC Jr. stated that he was sleeping when he woke up to a phone call from his mother, TR. Then he described that he tried to wake up his sister, but she was a “heavy sleeper” and wouldn’t move, so he went downstairs to get in the car with his mother and her friend to drive to Sutter Davis Hospital

As they arrived at the hospital, PC Jr. testified that he went straight to J and brought him to a hallway, where they talked for about 30 seconds. PC Jr. said that, after talking to J, he went outside to his father and mother, who were talking to a detective. No more than 30 seconds after that, he walked back into the emergency room.

Ms. Serafin prompted PC Jr. to describe what he saw when he entered the emergency room. PC Jr. stated that he saw a “shut off” Darnell Dorsey and an “agitated” TR in a conversation. When the prosecution asked what he did then, PC Jr. stated that he “went up to them and gave them my two cents.”

Ms. Serafin asked PC Jr. to describe the situation that unfolded after he confronted Dorsey and TR. PC Jr. stated that they got into a “finger pointing” argument and that he said something to Dorsey, and Dorsey responded and began walking toward him. However, he stated that there was no physical altercation because PC Sr. and police officers prevented anything physical from occurring.

Ms. Serafin inquired what occurred after Cameron had passed. PC Jr. stated that he was at the UCD Med Center in Sacramento when Cameron died, but took the advice of his stepmother to go clean VR’s house, in an effort to help his sister. Ms. Serafin asked what happened when he went to go clean the house. PC Jr. responded that he found a child-sized bloody shirt under a pile of clothes in the master bedroom. When asked what he did then, PC Jr. stated that he called his mother then the police, and proceeded to put the shirt in a plastic bag to take to the police station.

Next, PC Jr. testified that he took the bloody shirt to a female police officer and explained his situation. Ms. Serafin asked PC Jr. if there was a second shirt, and he stated that no there was no second shirt.

After these statements, Ms. Serafin showed the witness People’s Exhibit 65, and asked him if he recognized the shirt in the photograph. PC Jr. had difficulty identifying the shirt because it was crumpled up. Then Serafin ask PC Jr. to identify the People’s Exhibit 52A, however, he was unable to recognize it. As to why he could not identify the shirt, PC Jr. explained that the shirt was a grown adult shirt, and the one he found in VR’s house was a child’s size shirt.

Ms. Serafin asked PC Jr. if he could recall giving a second shirt, described as Darnell Dorsey’s, to the police officer. PC Jr. responded negatively. However, after Ms. Serafin gave the transcripts of police statements to PC Jr. to review, he concluded that the period of time between finding the shirt and going to the police station was so short that the transcripts are truthful.

During the re-cross examination, Ms. Sequeira opened with the statement that PC Jr. is accustomed to lying to the police. PC Jr. responded, stating that he “doesn’t think that he has lied to a police officer.” However, Ms. Sequeira brought forth the notion that, during an investigation of PC Jr.’s 1^st degree robbery charge, for which he currently is on probation, he claimed that he did not commit the crime.

Then, Ms. Sequeira questioned PC Jr.’s memory of the night that Cameron Morrison was admitted into the hospital. She stated that, from PC Jr.’s testimony, he ran into his sister’s room while talking on the phone and shook her repeatedly for 30 seconds, but had no success in waking her. Ms. Sequeira then asked, “Did you think she was dead?” PC Jr. responded that she was just a heavy sleeper.

The session ended with PC Jr. stating that, if there had been any suspicion of an abusive relationship between Darnell and the two children, he would have done something.

The post Family Members of Cameron Morrison Testify in Dorsey Trial appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Julienne Correa and Mariel Barbadillo

In the morning of September 28, 2016, Judge Paul Richardson presided over the resumption of the trial of the People vs. Darnell Dorsey. In accordance with Penal Codes sections 273a and 273ab, Mr. Dorsey is charged with assaulting and inflicting deadly injury on his girlfriend’s 20-month-old son, Cameron Morrison. Michelle Serafin, Deputy District Attorney, is representing the prosecution. Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira began the cross-examination of the mother’s brother, “PC Jr.”

The day started off with Ms. Sequeira asking the witness to describe the interview he took part in at the District Attorney’s office. PC Jr. then described the state of the trailer (home of Cameron Morrison, his older half brother, his mother and Mr. Dorsey) when he went to clean it. He mentioned that the living room was trashed, with holes in the wall and the carpet. The state of the kitchen was a mess, as well. He said he opened the bedroom door and found a pile of clothes on top of the carpet, including a shirt, which he later brought to the police as evidence. The witness cleaned by putting trash in the bags and putting clothes in the dresser.

According to Ms. Sequeira, the Davis Police Department, upon taped initial entry, missed the shirt that the witness found, and examined the home by tearing holes, searching for more evidence. In another note, Ms. Sequeira questioned PC Jr.’s feelings towards Mr. Dorsey, and he answered by saying he was once angry at Mr. Dorsey, but not anymore.

PC Jr. struggled to remember talking to the Davis Police Department, saying, “I do not remember the Davis Police Department talking to me,” and “feeling I should not the meet the Davis Police Department.” He believed that the person who contacted him was part of the defense attorney’s office.

With Ms. Sequeira’s frustration due to the witness’ insufficient answers, the prosecution was given the floor. Deputy DA Michelle Serafin started by asking about the testimony the witness gave to police when bringing in the shirts for evidence. According to PC Jr., he did not remember taking two shirts and only remembered taking one. In addition, he barely recognized his own or his mom’s voice in the recording of the interview, and did not remember the conversation much. The shirt was a button up style, and he brought it in believing that it had something to do with the crime because of the stain. The prosecution asked if the witness was lying about finding clothing at the scene of the crime, and he said, “No ma’am.” PC Jr. mentioned that he found the shirt underneath the pile of clothes on a dark colored rug. However, his recollection was subjective and both prosecution and defense struggled to elicit useful answers. The morning recess break was then called.

After the break, Ms. Serafin asked the court if they could show photographs of where the witness may have found the shirt. However, the defense was adamant not to excuse any leading questions that may bring bias to the witness’ answers. PC Jr. said that the pile of clothes was in the middle of the bedroom belonging to Dorsey and the victim’s mother, between the bed and the wall. He pointed to the area and was then asked whether he “manipulated” the pile of clothes in any way, to which he answered, “No.”

The prosecution proceeded to another topic, asking if PC Jr. ever gave the kids a bath. The witness answered negatively, but mentioned that he found dark spots (on the boys), but no alarming bruises, scars or suspicious injury. Ms. Serafin then asked if the witness was lying to get something on Mr. Dorsey or if he had any animosity toward the defendant, to which the witness answered no. The defense then proceeded to ask questions. Ms. Sequeira took note of PC Jr.’s prior charge, six counts of first-degree burglary, and his being out on bail for a different felony. The witness responded, “I never went to jail more than once,” while Sequeira responded with, “Lying in a court is a crime,” as well as, “Planted and fixed evidence is a crime.”  The prosecution took over by questioning the witness regarding his previous crimes, then asking if he had changed in any way. PC Jr. responded by saying he was not hanging out with the same group and was working maintenance for his grandfather at their property. The defense closed the questioning of PC Jr. by asking him how other people convinced him to steal other people’s stuff, also implying that he was a “lying thief.”

The People then called in another witness, “EC,” at 10:25 am. She has been married to PC Sr. for four years and they have six kids altogether – three are her stepchildren (the previously testifying AC, PC Jr., and VR – mother of Cameron) and three are her biological children. She works as the property management at the same facility where PC Jr. works, being that it is a family business. She mentioned that VR lived with the family until she moved out, then four months later she returned with Cameron’s father, “M,” and lived at the trailer park. It was not clarified, but VR apparently continued living at the trailer park, then with Mr. Dorsey, father of her eldest son.

The prosecution then continued to question the witness about the property, in accordance with the diagram. EC explained her familiarity with the property and the accuracy of the photo taken during January of 2014. The witness mentioned that she saw VR’s children almost daily and she worked at the office down the street. However, she was mostly gone from the park during the day. VR would bring the kids to play and say hello, and would let them spend the night a few times. EC mentioned that the children were well behaved. However, the older child, “J,” did have allergies causing congestion. The victim, Cameron, did not have any known health problems. The boys fought with each other in a usual manner, as brothers do.

The prosecution then asked if EC ever saw any bruises or scars on the children, and she mentioned that the older brother had a broken arm while Cameron had a black eye. However, they did not have any more bruises or scrapes than an average child. Ms. Serafin asked about Cameron’s black eye during his older brother’s birthday party and then showed a photograph of Cameron from that day. The photograph depicted Cameron with his aunt, AC. EC then pointed to where the black eye was located, but she said that the injury was more apparent in person. She then explained that Cameron was happy, but upset at the party. He was crying when others would come into the bouncy house or went down the slide. The witness then indicated that this might be related to the broken ribs/other injuries. However, EC mentioned that Cameron’s mother, VR, could tell if he was hurting or not.

Ms. Serafin continued to question EC about the incident of Cameron on the front porch at Thanksgiving in 2013. The boys were playing on the porch, PC Sr. and Mr. Dorsey were greeting each other, and EC was at the door. To her surprise, she heard a loud scream and found that Cameron had fallen and scraped his face. However, there were no complaints of broken ribs after the fall. EC then proceeded to answer the questions about there being any other significant falls or accidents, to which she answered no.

On the Thursday prior to January 22, 2014, the boys slept over at EC and PC Sr.’s house, and EC mentioned that one of the boys had a runny nose. Cameron was happy and did not display any pain. Friday morning, the couple left town and did not come back until Sunday night. EC described not being able to see the boys because she was told that they were sick.

The prosecution then asked about VR and Mr. Dorsey’s life with the kids. She mentioned that VR worked full time while Dorsey cared for the children. On the night of the incident, her husband received a phone call from Cameron’s mother, VR, that they were at the hospital and Cameron wasn’t breathing. EC and PC Sr. then went to Sutter Davis Hospital. VR was of course already there, but EC could not recall any others who were also there. The prosecution then asked the witness about the location of her home.

At the hospital, EC checked the child’s status with VR, the nurse, and the doctor. The witness could not recall details and described the scene as filled with “fervent activity.” She then proceeded to mention that she took the older child, J, and noticed that he had a black eye. A picture from the hospital of the witness with J was then shown to the jury, indicating the area of the bruise. EC said that the child could not have inflicted the injury on himself because of his cast. The prosecution asked if the witness asked the child how the black eye came to be. EC believed that the child felt unsure, because he bowed his head down as if “he did something wrong.”

EC said that, in the hospital, there was an argument involving Mr. Dorsey, VR’s aunt, and PC Jr., but there was no physical altercation. However, the police officer and PC Sr. came in to quiet the fight. At the end of the night, EC and PC Sr. took the older child with them to the police department for further questioning, a short 30 minutes, then went home. Mr. Dorsey was arrested and the mother stayed at the hospital until Cameron was transferred to UCD Med Center in Sacramento. At this point in the testimony, the court took a lunch break.

Registered Nurse Shares Observations of Dorsey and Family in Emergency Room

By Mariel Barbadillo

After the lunch break, “EC” (wife of the victim’s grandfather, “PC Sr.”) returned to complete her testimony.

The prosecution asked EC about a conversation she had with Mr. Dorsey regarding his discipline of Cameron and the older boy, “J”. Specifically, Ms. Serafin asked if something happened that made EC tell Mr. Dorsey to not shake his children. EC said she had seen something about “shaken baby syndrome.”

Deputy Public Defender Joseph Gocke then cross-examined the witness. He began by stating that, in January 2014, Cameron was barely 20 months old and thus was unable to speak fully, communicating mainly through body language. He asked if Cameron ever exhibited body language that suggested he was fearful around Mr. Dorsey. EC answered in the negative.

The defense went on to ask about the night of January 22, 2014. EC’s husband, PC Sr., received a call from Cameron’s mother, “VR,” around midnight. Over the phone, EC heard VR yelling, “Help! Help! My son’s not breathing!” EC presumed the call occurred when Cameron and VR were in the ambulance on the way to Sutter Davis Hospital.

EC said she did not observe any issues of concern regarding Mr. Dorsey’s interactions with Cameron and J (Cameron’s older half-brother and Dorsey’s biological son). She confirmed that Mr. Dorsey had asked her questions about parenting in order to better care for his children.

On the topic of J’s persistent health issues, EC said she had insisted J get tested for allergies. Through the tests, the family discovered J was allergic to oak trees, which EC has in her backyard. Mr. Gocke asked if the witness observed puffiness or irritation in J’s eyes as a result of the allergy. She said she did not notice those symptoms, but that he would often cough.

The topic then shifted to J’s birthday party at the bounce house in West Sacramento. The defense asked about a statement EC gave regarding Cameron’s discomfort when she picked him up by his ribs, causing him to cry. Upon reading the police report to refresh her memory, she said it was a mistake and she did not make that statement.

Looking back, EC said she thinks Cameron’s ribs were injured.

During redirect examination, Ms. Serafin asked EC if losing her grandson was traumatic. EC confirmed this, and attributed her inability to remember specific conversations with police to the trauma.

When asked if she thought J’s black eye could have resulted from his oak allergy, EC answered, “Absolutely not.”

The prosecution’s next witness was “AF,” a registered nurse at Sutter Davis Hospital. She was a triage nurse the night of January 22, 2014, when Cameron arrived at the emergency room.

AF observed Emergency Medical Service (EMS) personnel administering cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) to Cameron as he was being brought into the hospital. She does not recall the CPR being done incorrectly.

The witness recalled Cameron’s mother arriving in the ambulance as well. AF described VR as “very upset,” crying loudly, pacing back and forth, and going to her knees at times.

The next person to arrive, according to AF’s recollection, was Cameron’s mother’s boyfriend (Mr. Dorsey). When asked if she saw that individual in the courtroom, she replied that she did not.

The witness said she saw the patient’s mother and her boyfriend sitting next to each other as they waited. From her memory of that night, she said she saw the boyfriend telling the mother not to be upset. He allegedly told her Cameron had respiratory problems, but assured her that Cameron was going to be fine.

The witness claimed the boyfriend did not show any emotion, describing him as having a “flat affect,” unlike Cameron’s other family members at the hospital that night.

Mr. Gocke began cross-examination by alluding to testimony from police officers, hospital personnel, and family members saying Mr. Dorsey was a “roller coaster of emotions” during the night in question. AF said those testimonies would differ from her own observations, at least for the time she was with Cameron’s family.

The defense then asked if, in her experience with other families, one family member might tamper down their own emotions to help other family members in emotional distress. AF said it is possible.

AF revealed that she gave her first statement for this case in August of 2016. Testifying about events that occurred approximately two and a half years ago, the witness acknowledged a person’s memory is much clearer when recalling events in the more recent past compared to years ago.

AF then disclosed that she is aware the patient’s mother’s boyfriend is being prosecuted for “shaken baby syndrome.”

During redirect examination, the witness said that, upon reviewing Cameron’s CT scans, the nurses and doctors at Sutter had a discussion about possible reasons for his injury. They supposed it was abusive head trauma, which would have been AF’s first experience with such a case.

When asked by the defense about the CPR Cameron received, the witness could not recall if she had performed CPR on Cameron herself. If she had, it would have been her first time performing CPR on a child as young as 20 months old.

The defense also questioned AF about her note of “respiratory distress” on Cameron’s chart. Mr. Gocke asked if it is possible Mr. Dorsey overheard that statement about Cameron’s respiratory problem and proceeded to tell VR about it. The witness said it is possible, but she has no recollection of other nurses or doctors saying Cameron had respiratory distress.

The trial is scheduled to resume on September 29, 2016.

The post Testimony of Family Members Continues in Dorsey Case appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

by Sarah Leann, Samantha Brill, and Carla Arango

The morning of September 29, the case of the People v. Dorsey resumed with Judge Paul Richardson presiding. Pursuant to  Cal. Penal Code sections 273a and 273ab, Darnell Dorsey is charged with assaulting and inflicting deadly injury upon his girlfriend’s 20-month-old child, Cameron Morrison, on January 22, 2014.

The first witness of the morning was Janell Bestpitch, currently a detective with the Davis Police Department. Her job often consists of writing narrative reports, and she often records the people being questioned in order to write such reports.

Deputy District Attorney Michelle Serafin asked Det. Bestpitch what her role was on January 25 of 2014. Det. Bestpitch stated that her role at the time was that of a patrol officer, to handle calls for security. She stated that on January 25, 2014, at approximately 5:55 pm, she came in contact with “PC Jr.” and “TR.” PC Jr. is the brother of the victim’s mother (“VR”), and TR is their mother (and the victim’s grandmother). PC Jr. and TR had brought to the police two items of clothing, inside what appeared to be “new plastic bags.”

Ms. Serafin asked Det. Bestpitch where the shirts had been found. The detective explained that she was told that that the adult-sized white T-shirt was found in the master bedroom on the floor. She also stated that a child-sized shirt was found on the kitchen floor. She continued to describe the condition under which the shirts were brought in, and that they were found on January 25 between 12-1 pm.

Next, photos of the articles of clothing were presented by Ms. Serafin. People’s Exhibit 56 was shown first and Det. Bestpitch was asked to identify it. She described it as an “adult size T-shirt.” People’s Exhibit 64 was also presented and identified as another T-shirt. People’s Exhibit 65 was a closer picture of the adult T-shirt. Exhibit 118 was a long-sleeved child’s shirt. Exhibit 120 appeared to be the front of the top area of the child’s shirt, with brown staining.

After the photos were presented, cross-examination was conducted by Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira. Ms. Sequeira asked Det. Bestpitch if she had previous knowledge of the case. The detective responded, saying she had heard about the case in the office, about 48 hours or less after Mr. Dorsey had been arrested.

Ms. Sequeira asked Det. Bestpitch if she knew that PC Jr. was facing a 1st degree robbery charge and that he is currently on probation. Bestpitch explained that she was unaware of that. Ms. Sequeira continued her questioning, indicating that Bestpitch’s role as a detective is to gather facts – however, it is unclear whether those facts that were gathered are true or not. For instance, the adult size T-shirt is said to be a male’s T-shirt. However, Ms. Sequeira presented documentation off the T-shirt’s website, printed on the spot, and it was concluded that the shirts are unisex and there was no way in knowing whether the shirt was for a male or female.

Next, the second witness, Dr. Nicole Glaser, was brought in to testify. Dr. Glaser is a pediatric endocrinologist. Ms. Serafin questioned her about rickets disease. Dr. Glaser explains that rickets are a “bone disease that relates to hormones.” It is the softening and weakening of bones in children, usually relating to vitamin D deficiency. Dr. Glaser continued to describe that there are different types, but they all have a similar clinical presentation. She stated that the results can be interpreted by an X-ray.

Dr. Glaser was asked to look at Cameron Morrison’s lab results in the pediatric intensive care unit. She explained that, after looking at a variety of different results for vitamin D levels, Cameron Morrison did not have rickets.

Cross-examination was then conducted by Deputy Pubic Defender Joseph Gocke. Mr. Gocke asked for more clarification on the different levels measured. He also asked what an average child’s vitamin D levels would be. Dr. Glaser said that at age one to two, typical levels would be 150-350 nanomoles/liter. She said that Cameron Morrison was at the 162 nmol/L level, which was reassuring for his bone health.

Next was the redirect examination by Ms. Serafin. Ms. Serafin asked Dr. Glaser if she was able to look at the results prior to coming to court and whether her opinion had changed. Dr. Glaser stated that she had, and that she still holds the same evaluations to be true. The conclusion made by Dr. Glaser was that Cameron Morrison did not have rickets or any other bone disease.

The third witness of the day, “SS,” was brought in to testify for the defense. She was asked by Ms. Sequeira if she knew Mr. Dorsey. SS responded that she did. When asked how, she stated that her boyfriend, “DB,” is Mr. Dorsey’s friend. After questioning, it was revealed that SS and DB are parents to three children, aged six, five and one currently.

Next, SS was asked by the defense if she had ever lived with Mr. Dorsey. SS stated that she and DB lived with Mr. Dorsey for a month in 2012. In that month, Mr. Dorsey never lost patience with anyone, never over-disciplined, and never made SS feel uncomfortable. She would often leave her children with him, for short periods of times, while she was running errands, such as grocery runs.

Previous Neighbor of Mr. Dorsey Shares Observation of Dorsey’s Character and Interactions with Her Children

By Samantha Brill

After the lunch break, SS returned to complete her testimony on behalf of the defense.

The prosecution asked SS how often she saw Mr. Dorsey in the months prior to the date in question, January 22, 2014. The witness was also asked if, within that time period, she knew that Mr. Dorsey had a child. SS responded by explaining that she would see Mr. Dorsey about three to four times a month, but she did not know he had a son until 2014, when she met both his son, “J,” and his child’s mother, “VR,” also the mother of Cameron.

Ms. Serafin then went on to make it clear that the witness did not know about Cameron’s previous injuries in the months prior to January of 2014. SS also had never witnessed Dorsey being violent to his or to any children before.

The defense briefly continued with a their examination of SS, determining that she in fact does not believe that Mr. Dorsey is guilty of the crimes he is accused of on January 22, 2014.

Ms. Serafin, on cross-examination for the prosecution, determined that, other than the bias SS brings with her, she had not done any extensive research or investigation on Mr. Dorsey’s case. The witness confirmed her lack of research and attributed her knowledge of the case to conversations she had with Cameron’s mother in the months closely following the January of 2014 incident.

The defense had no further questions and SS was dismissed without a pending recall.

Next the defense called to the stand Mr. Dorsey’s old neighbor “Ms. W,” to testify on Mr. Dorsey’s character and interactions with her three children prior to his moving to Davis.

Ms. W lived near Mr. Dorsey in an apartment complex in Sacramento for about two and a half years. This is where Mr. Dorsey babysat her three children, at the time aged eleven, six and two. Ms. W explained to the court that her two youngest children are disabled – the two-year-old has recently been diagnosed with autism and the six-year-old is deaf – and that Mr. Dorsey was able to effectively care for them, given their challenges.

The defense questioned Ms. W on whether she had ever had any reason to be concerned about Mr. Dorsey watching her children. She explained that he always exhibited a calm temperament around her children and she had never witnessed any marks or scratches on her children after they had been in his care.

The prosecution then cross-examined the witness, asking about Dorsey’s living situation in his apartment and for details on her knowledge about his personal life. Ms. W went on to explain that she knew about Mr. Dorsey’s child but had only met the child once or twice in passing, when the child was very young, and she had never witnessed any women living in his residence. The witness knew of two other men living in the apartment with Mr. Dorsey at the time, however, she had never been inside the apartment.

 Ms. Serafin then went on to read two statements made by Mr. Dorsey, describing stressful situations when caring for his son J and for Cameron, and she asked Ms. W to characterize then. Responding, Ms. W explained that they just sounded like a parent who was frustrated with the children, but it was nothing out of the ordinary or overly aggressive, and she stated that “it’s hard to be patient with your own kids all the time.”

by Carla Arango

The last witness to testify was Dr. Daniel Ichel, a pediatric radiologist at Sutter Health in Sacramento. Dr. Ichel read CT (computerized tomography, a series of X-rays from differing angles) scans of the brain and body of Cameron Morrison in January 2014.

Ms. Serafin established that the CT scans are images used to diagnose the cause of injury of patients. Dr. Ichel agreed and said he looks at images, as well as reports of what he sees, and gives his best interpretation as to the cause of the injury.

Ms. Serafin presented screenshots of Cameron’s CT scans and proceeded to ask questions.

Dr. Ichel was allowed to leave his seat and he stood at the podium to better observe the images and give an explanation of what he saw.

Dr. Ichel said he observed a “subtle loss of gray-white matter differentiation.” A healthy person’s brain should display distinct differentiation between gray and white matter..

Next, he looked at CT scans of the abdomen, specifically the rib cage.

Dr. Ichel said he perceived prior injuries when he looked at the images. He said he saw injuries to different organs and bones.

Dr. Ichel explained that he could tell if the bone fractures we acute, sub-acute, or healing by looking for evidence in callus formation. Signs of callus healing are not visible until 10-14 days after the injury took place.

Dr. Ichel saw a total of 13 fractured ribs, most of them acute and healing fractures.

Dr. Ichel also said the CT scans displayed evidence of liver laceration. He explained that linear areas of low density suggest injuries to liver.

The trial is scheduled to resume on September 30, 2016, at 9 a.m. and Dr. Ichel is expected to return.

The post Testimony Continues in Davis Child Death Case appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

Testimonies of Pediatric Radiologists at University of California, Davis, Med Center in Sacramento

By Samantha Brill

Deputy DA Michelle Serafin asked Dr. Chirag Patel, pediatric radiologist and musculoskeletal radiologist with UCD Med Center in Sacramento, to define his line of work. He explained that, although he has never done specific research involving child abuse, such cases are a part of his daily practice. Also, through many years of schooling he has learned to examine X-rays, ultrasounds and MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scans, and learned how to use them to diagnose injuries to the bones and detect possible diseases/injuries in organs. Darnell Dorsey is being prosecuted for allegedly assaulting and inflicting deadly injury upon his girlfriend’s 20-month-old son, Cameron Morrison, on January 22, 2014.

The prosecution continued to elicit more specifics about January 23, 2014, the day Dr. Patel examined a series of X-rays of Cameron Morrison’s skeletal structure. While looking at People’s Exhibit 13, which were images of the exams that had been conducted of Cameron on the 23^rd of January, Dr. Patel explained his findings. He observed several rib fractures that showed up in the X-rays, and he noted a suspected fracture in the lower bone of the upper right arm.

Based on what he reviewed he was able to decide that Cameron did not have rickets, in his professional opinion.

The defense cross-examined the witness, asking how long Dr. Patel had reviewed Cameron’s scans, but he did not recall. Dr. Patel also clarified that there were no injuries to the thoracic or the lumbar spine and, in order for such an injury to appear it would have to be caused by a motor vehicle accident. He added that motor vehicles tend to be more powerful than people.

The defense had no further questions, and Ms. Serafin resumed her questioning for the prosecution.

She asked Dr. Patel how many times he reviewed exams, and he explained that he reviewed them more than once to make sure that he wouldn’t duplicate anything in future scans, in order to avoid excessive radiation exposure to Cameron.

Dr. Patel continued to explain that he would not exclude accidental injury from a child with multiple rib fractures of varying ages, but that Cameron’s scans rose suspicion of non-accidental child abuse trauma.

The prosecution had no further questions and the court excused Dr. Patel.

The prosecution called Dr. Thomas Sanchez, a pediatric radiologist with the Children’s Hospital at the UCD Med Center in Sacramento. She asked Dr. Thomas to explain his background in the field of pediatric radiology. He explained that he has been in his field for eight years and is certified in diagnostics and pediatric radiology to diagnose injuries in CT (computerized tomography) scans. He has also done research in child abuse and childhood trauma that resulted in the publication of several articles and book chapters.

Ms. Serafin established People’s Exhibit 128 to determine some medical terms involving different kinds of rib fractures.  First, acute fractures are defined as a rib fracture that has just happened within one to four days. Next, subacute fractures was defined as a fracture that happened from one to eight weeks prior, identified with the visibility of a callus. Finally, the term chronic fracture was defined as a bone that has started to remold and is pretty much healed, after eight to 12 weeks.

In his expert opinion, Dr. Sanchez explained that, according to his research, 48 percent of posterior rib fractures are caused by child abuse. He has only experienced one case where a 3-month-old patient had two fractured ribs as a result of CPR, and those ribs were not posterior rib fractures, as seen in Cameron’s scans.

Ms. Serafin confirmed that Dr. Sanchez was working the day of January 23, 2014, and did in fact review Cameron’s chest CT scans, as well as the child’s skeletal survey. But he did not review scans from any outside hospitals.

Reviewing the scans in court, Dr. Sanchez identified that there were 18 rib fractures shown on Cameron’s scans, nine of which were identified as acute and nine subacute. Further, eight of those were posterior and 10 of those were lateral.

He explained that all of these injuries were consistent of the potential squeezing of a child – which could have also resulted in the puncturing of the lungs, which was identified in the scans as Cameron suffering from pulmonary contusions with suspected hemorrhaging.

There were also lacerations inside the liver, resulting in hematoma (blood escaping from the liver and collecting at the top of the liver).  Dr. Sanchez strongly believed that all these injuries were a result of the fractured ribs, which also caused damage to Cameron’s kidneys.

The prosecution then moved to create People’s Exhibit 127, and has the doctor label a diagram of the rib structure to match the injuries that he observed on Cameron the day of January 23, 2014.

Dr. Sanchez then told the court that he did not observe any injuries to Cameron’s spine.

Ms. Serafin rested and Deputy Public Defender Joseph Gocke proceeded with the defense’s questioning.

The defense had Dr. Sanchez make it clear to the court that Cameron was older than the children in the studies he referred to earlier in his testimony, and explained that those studies excluded children with vitamin D deficiencies.

Mr. Gocke asked Dr. Sanchez to clarify to the court that, even though Cameron’s injuries do indicate abuse, there is no way that the scans can determine who the abuser may have been.

Darnell Dorsey Trial Resumes

By Ryan Gonzales

Following the afternoon break, Deputy District Attorney Michelle Serafin began redirect examination of Dr. Thomas Sanchez, a pediatric radiologist at the UC Davis Medical Center.

Ms. Serafin asked multiple questions regarding Dr. Sanchez’s professional history. In response to the prosecution’s question of whether or not Dr. Sanchez had read 8,000 hours of medical journals, the doctor stated that he engaged in many hours of research, and had also published his own paper in 2010 that examined “pseudo fractures.”

Then, the prosecution inquired if the research articles that Dr. Sanchez had studied were related to child abuse incidents. Dr. Sanchez explained that the articles involved general research of pediatric radiology.

Continuing with the evaluation of Dr. Sanchez’s profession, Ms. Serafin questioned if Dr. Sanchez considered himself a specialist in child abuse and accidental fractures. He stated that “well, compared to my colleagues, I’ve published more work” in those fields of research.

Next, the prosecution discussed Dr. Sanchez’s research study of rib fractures. Ms. Serafin inquired why Dr. Sanchez excluded patients who were diagnosed with rickets. He explained the disease affected the durability of bones and the levels of vitamin D, thus would delay or lengthen the healing process. However, when the prosecution questioned if he was aware of to what extent a vitamin D deficiency disease would delay the process, Dr. Sanchez was unsure.

In the case of Cameron Morrison, Dr. Sanchez testified that he did not see any signs of rickets in the victim’s scans and that indications would be visible if a patient did have the vitamin D deficiency disease.

Ms. Serafin questioned more about vitamin D deficiency and whether or not it increases the probability of fractures. Dr. Sanchez stated that it is possible, if the fractures are located near extremities, such as the wrist, that fractures can be secondary to the rickets disease.

Ms. Serafin then asked Dr. Sanchez to explain the statements made, in examination by Deputy Public Defender Joseph Gocke, that he (the doctor) would not review records or previous diagnoses because he wanted to remained unbiased. Dr. Sanchez stated that in some cases, such as vitamin D deficiency, diagnoses can be subjective and he did not want those diagnoses to influence his observation. When Ms. Serafin asked if he maintained an unbiased observation when reviewing Cameron Morrison’s radiology scans, he stated, “Yes, I reported objectively on what I saw and did not look at history.”

Mr. Gocke conducted a rather short re-cross examination of Dr. Sanchez. Mr. Gocke inquired whether a child, who suffered from a vitamin D deficiency, had fallen without preparing for impact could possibly cause harm to bones other than at the extremities. Dr. Sanchez responded affirmatively. Mr. Gocke ended the re-cross exam with, if this hypothetical situation should occur, it could possibly cause liver damage,  secondary to damage caused by a displaced rib. Dr. Sanchez responded affirmatively.

Ms. Serafin, on final redirect, asked Dr, Sanchez if he had seen any loss of bone density on Cameron Morrison, to which he answered no.

Dr. Sanchez was excused from the court.

The prosecution’s next witness was Dr. Rachel Hight, a trauma surgeon. Dr. Hight, who is actively serving in the United States Air Force, was part of the trauma response team that received Cameron Morrison in the early hours of January 23, 2014. Dr. Hight testified that her main job as a trauma surgeon was to assess and operate on any life-threatening injuries. Ms. Serafin inquired whether Dr. Hight found any life-threatening injuries on Cameron Morrison. The doctor said no, that there was only a moderate concern for head trauma.

Ms. Serafin then questioned if the witness suspected abuse. Dr. Hight stated yes, however, she also stated that it was not an independent analysis, as she was part of a trauma response team.

Mr. Gocke conducted a short cross-examination of Dr. Hight and inquired about the inconsistency of reports from Sutter Medical Hospital and the UC Davis Medical Center. However, Dr. Hight was unaware of any inconsistencies.

Ms. Serafin ended her re-cross examination by questioning Dr. Hight about whether Cameron Morrison illustrated symptoms or injuries of abuse. Dr. Sanchez stated that he showed both abuse and accidental injuries.

Dr. Hight was excused and the trial is set to resume on October 3, 2016

The post More Medical Testimony in Dorsey Case appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Julienne Correa and Carla Arango

During the morning of October 3, 2016, the case of the People v. Darnell Dorsey resumed, presided over by Judge Paul Richardson. Pursuant to Cal. Penal Code sections 273a and 273ab, Darnell Dorsey is charged with assaulting and causing fatal injury to his girlfriend’s 20-month-old child, Cameron Morrison, in January of 2014. Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira represented Darnell Dorsey, while Deputy District Attorney Michelle Serafin represented the prosecution.

The first witness called to the stand was a fifth-year resident from the UC Davis Medical Center, “Dr. AE.” She worked Cameron Morrison’s case two years ago as a second year resident during her pediatric service. She explained how she performed a tertiary examination, which occurs when the patient is mostly stable and serious injuries have been taken care of. She noted that the child had coarse and abnormal breathing sounds, as well as some indication of fluid in the lungs.

The prosecution continued to ask Dr. AE questions such as when she performed the exam. The doctor mentioned that Cameron was brought to the UCDMC emergency room at 3:03 am, but she did not see him until a few hours later, at the Pediatric ICU. Dr. AE noted that Cameron’s condition was the lowest number on the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). This test measure’s an individual’s movement, voice, and eye movement to assess the impairment to consciousness. In addition, he was intubated and, when performing a head-to-toe visual exam, the doctor noticed “darkened skinned coloration” on the child’s posterior. She also reviewed imaging from radiology results and noted her findings for further examination. In addition, his blood count was stable and there were few unexplained injuries.

The next witness, accepted by the court as an expert witness for the defense, was Dr. Roland Auer, a scientist and neuropathologist from the University of Saskatchewan in Canada. He has studied the brain, living and dead, as well as performed biopsies on matter such as tumors. He has studied mechanisms of damage in the brain, such as nerve cells being excited to death, called excitotoxicity. Low blood sugar can lead to positive death of neurons, by events such as strokes, trauma and epilepsy. Other medical terms he mentioned were hypoxia (low blood oxygen) and ischemia (lack of blood flow). These conditions can lead to enlargement of an area that may trick doctors into diagnosing a fracture.

His knowledge of shaken baby syndrome is published in his book of forensic neuropathology. The diagnosis may include retinal hemorrhages and subdural hematoma, both of which can be caused by various factors. The doctor then explained the process of blood flow to the brain and the process of using glucose for energy.

After the morning recess, the defense showed images of brain development into adulthood. Dr. Auer mentioned that over half of the blood is commonly in the brain in children around the age of two years. If the pressure increases on the brain, blood goes into the eye. If a blood clot develops, hemorrhage occurs and can have catastrophic consequences. The doctor then explained the mechanisms of pneumonia as a failure of the immune system to keep viruses and bacteria from the lungs. Puss then develops, generated by white blood cells. Pneumonia can result in respiratory distress, leading to cardiac arrest. Other organs can become affected and infarct appears, a localized area of dead tissue resulting from failed blood supply, thus, ischemia creating necrosis.

According to the doctor, he reviewed all the information in regard to the case, however he “can’t look at the slide, need the global picture,” for providing reasonable certainty. He also mentioned abnormal lab values when Cameron Morrison was first admitted, such as increased lactate and glucose levels. Within two minutes, one or two neurons are lost, and at four minutes, a number of neurons are lost. Cameron’s condition on the day seemed to be consistent with respiratory arrest, according to the doctor.

Both parents’ actions did not cause serious injury to the child, as they did what they could. However, the absent gag reflex and the child’s gasps for air indicate that his brain was in trouble and losing consciousness. The day before, there were indications that Cameron had a flu-like illness, and images of his lung tissue indicated instances of pneumonia.

Defense Direct Examination Of Neuropathologist

By Carla Arango

On October 3, in People v. Darnell Dorsey, the defense called to the stand Dr. Roland Auer, a neuropathologist with expertise in adult and pediatric brain damage. Deputy Public Defender Joseph Gocke began his direct examination of Dr. Auer, who confirmed he looked at different tissue samples, lab levels, and observed vitamin D levels as they pertained to Cameron Morrison. Mr. Dorsey is charged with assault on a child resulting in death, after Cameron Morrison, who was under Mr. Dorsey’s care, was pronounced dead on January 25, 2014, at the age of nearly 20 months.

Dr. Auer has more than 30 years of experience in his field and worked at the Sainte-Justine children’s hospital in Montreal, Canada, for almost five years, where he examined children’s tissue from biopsies and autopsies to determine disease.

Mr. Gocke presented scans that depicted Cameron’s optic nerve and brain hemorrhages. During the examination, Dr. Auer said it would indeed be difficult to have a hemorrhage in the optic nerve due to trauma. Mr. Gocke asked Dr. Auer to explain what he saw, and Auer responded that there was a massive amount of hemorrhaging in the retina behind the eye. The doctor said Cameron had a “perfectly normal retina with minimal lesion.”

Mr. Gocke asked Dr. Auer what can cause hemorrhaging in the retina behind the eye. Auer explained that an increase in spinal fluid increases pressure which can cause retinal hemorrhage.

Next, Mr. Gocke showed images of Cameron Morrison’s neurons. Dr. Auer pointed at dead brain cells in the cerebral cortex and explained they can be recognized by their pink color. Dr. Auer confirmed that the brain stem, cerebellum, and spinal cord all contained dead brain cells and hemorrhaging. When he was asked about the significance of having dead brain cells in so many areas, the doctor said it’s not a result of trauma.

Mr. Gocke then proceeded to show spinal cord images. Dr. Auer identified a reperfusion hemorrhage, which may have occurred after cardiac arrest and which is a sign of something that happened to the whole body. The doctor said it was likely to have been produced from leaking blood vessels after efforts to revive the child increased pressure on the vessels. A reperfusion (reoxygenation) hemorrhage occurs when  blood supply normalizes after a period of ischemia (oxygen deprivation), causing inflammation and tissue damage instead of restoring normal function. Dr. Auer said this happened when the child’s heart was restarted.

Global cerebral ischemia occurs due to lack of blood flow to different areas of the central nervous system.

In addition, Mr. Gocke questioned Dr. Auer about Cameron Morrison’s vitamin D level. Dr. Auer said Cameron’s vitamin D level was 14 nanograms/milliter. A healthy vitamin D level ranges from 30 ng/mL to 100 ng/mL.

A level of 20 ng/mL to 29 ng/mL is considered Vitamin D insufficiency, and anything under 12 ng/mL is vitamin D deficiency. Vitamin D is essential to strong bones because it helps retain calcium.

Mr. Gocke also asked Dr. Auer if Cameron’s scans revealed indications of rib fractures at different stages of healing, and Dr. Auer concurred.

When Mr. Gocke asked if that meant with certainty that the fractures were a result of trauma or abuse, Dr. Auer said it did not. Dr. Auer made it clear that, depending on how brittle the bones are, fractures can occur while a child’s diaper is being changed or by hitting a table.

Dr. Auer continued to explain that human beings produce vitamin D from their exposure to sunlight and, as a result, vitamin D levels vary throughout the year. Dr. Auer emphasized that it is common for people to have low levels of vitamin D. Dr. Auer also agreed that, during the cold winter months, vitamin D levels are lower than usual. “We tend to cover up everything except our faces in the winter,” Dr. Auer stated.

Dr. Auer said kids have undiagnosed rickets, a softening or weakening of bones as a result vitamin D deficiency. The medical records of “JC,” Cameron’s older brother also revealed vitamin D deficiency.

“It doesn’t matter what I believe. The vitamin D levels are low, those kids get lots of fractures,” Dr. Auer said in response to the defense’s inquiry. Mr. Gocke asked Dr. Auer to confirm if similar fractures can result from playfully tossing a child into the air and catching the child. Dr. Auer said yes.

Mr. Gocke asked Dr. Auer if performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on a person can result in broken ribs. Dr. Auer responded that “CPR often breaks bones.”

Dr. Auer confirmed that there is a higher likelihood of CPR resulting in rib fractures in people with rickets, which Cameron Morrison was diagnosed with. He continued to explain that, when people are desperate to save a person’s life, like at the scene of a car accident, CPR is performed outside of a hospital. Dr. Auer said rib fractures are common among people who receive CPR before coming into the hospital.

Mr. Gocke asked Dr. Auer if CPR injuries are more or less common in children. Dr. Auer said kids’ bones are more flexible, therefore severe fractures are less common in children. Dr. Auer described children’s injuries as “greenstick fractures,” where a bone is bent rather than completely broken.

Judge Richardson announced that the trial would reconvene on October 4, 2016, at 9 a.m.

The post Continuation of Medical Testimony in the Case of Cameron Morrison appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

Dahvie James with Phil Watt (right) gets animated during his presentation to the board on September 13

Back in mid-September, following a long and contentious meeting, the Board of Supervisors agreed to a compromise, allowing Field & Pond to hold 20 events on their site.  The facility is a bed-and-breakfast and event center located on rural County Road 29. However, due to a staff error by the county, the item will have to be revisited.

An email on Friday, from Taro Echiburu, Director of the Department of Community services indicated, “I am writing to inform you that the Field & Pond use permit will need to be reheard by the Board of Supervisors due to an inadvertent error in the CEQA documents presented to the Board.”

He wrote, “The CEQA document in question was an earlier draft version of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (‘MND’), not the final version which was circulated to the public.  While the Conditions of Approval and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan approved by the Board were based on the final version of the MND, the MND itself had some differences.”

Mr. Echiburu writes, “The differences between the final MND and the 9/13 hearing version affect only a small amount of text, but the resulting inconsistencies support a rehearing. County Staff want to ensure that the Board’s decision is based on the same materials as those vetted by the public.”

The rehearing will be on October 11, 2016, at 1:00 p.m. in the Board Chambers at 625 Court Street in Woodland.

“Any public comment, testimony or other evidence already submitted as part of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors’ hearings is part of the record, and members of the public are not required to resubmit them for the re-hearing.  Of course, any member of the public is free to offer additional comments or evidence in advance or at the hearing,” he writes.

He offered an apology for the error, “I want to personally apologize to everyone about this error.”

At this point, it is not clear if the Board could simply approve the correction via the consent calendar, or if they would have to do it all again.  It would be hard to imagine that this would end up changing anything.

At the September 13 hearing, the approval got four votes, with only Supervisor Duane Chamberlain offering a vehement opposition.

After much discussion, Supervisor Matt Rexroad eventually put forth the motion with the assistance of County Counsel Phil Pogledich which, among other things, allowed for 20 events, four of them as large as 300 people. Shuttles would be required, the blackout dates from July 15 to September 15 would stand, the scheduling would be limited to Saturdays, they added an end time of 11 pm, with music cut at 10 pm, and security would be mandatory with the Yolo County Sheriff’s Office notified of the event.

Supervisor Jim Provenza would second the motion.

Supervisor Duane Chamberlain was the lone opponent of the project altogether, arguing that, without the spray buffer, “you can’t farm at all, that’s for damn sure.”  He said that the smell of the spray leads people to believe they have been exposed to toxic air even when they haven’t.  “Winds change, things change, it’s ridiculous to think that you can draw a line on a map.”

He added, “I don’t want to take any land out of the Williamson Act.”  He agreed with the opponents to the project that city people on the road are a problem waiting to happen.  And he finally argued that weddings and an event center “are not agritourism.”

Supervisor Rexroad noted that, looking at this as a bed and breakfast site, “Even if that is every night, I don’t think eight trips on a road is all that many, so when I look at that I would think that that would be the type of thing that we would encourage – certainly that is what I took from our general plan discussion many years ago in terms of the types of things we were looking for.”  He said that “we wanted people to come out and do that.”

“The only real question we have … is how these events fit in,” he said.  “At what point do they become a nuisance – I think that’s really the question we have before us today.”  He said, in terms of the B&B, even if they want to have it 365 days a year, “it’s hard for me to understand how that truly has a negative impact.”

Supervisor Oscar Villegas said that the “county owns some of this mess,” as they wanted to have the flexibility to see this type of business without seeing it too narrowly defined.  He noted that, after all he had heard, “I don’t think we are that far away to find a way to make it a win-win, co-existing, compromise.”

He said, “Really, it’s down to very few questions.  I would love to figure out a way to get to that point now.  I don’t think it’s a perfect situation.”

He added that he could understand the concerns of the neighbors, but also that of the applicants, who he felt they were led to believe they were playing one game, only to have the goalposts moved.

Most likely this is just a technicality, with the county opting to make sure it has all the legalities tied down in case the neighbors or other opponents wish to legally challenge it.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

The post Technicality Sends Field & Pond Back to the BOS appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Samantha Brill

Drew Evan Frey was cited on April 2, 2016, for a traffic violation, pursuant to Vehicle Code section 22450, for failure to stop at a stop sign in Davis, then was taken into custody on a DUI charge. After posting bail, Mr. Frey on June 22 entered a plea of not guilty for his traffic violation. This hearing on October 4 was regarding a defense motion to suppress evidence, pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5.

The defense opened up with motioning for the court to suppress Exhibit A, a police car video of Mr. Frey going through a four-way stop sign at a speed that the People say would demonstrate that the defendant did not stop at the stop sign prior to entering the intersection.

The People called Officer Ariel Pinedo to the stand as a key witness, as he was the officer who pulled Mr. Frey over. Officer Pinedo testified that he did not witness Mr. Frey actually run the stop sign. However, according to his professional experience and training, he said that the speed at which he witnessed the defendant’s car going through the intersection was too fast to have just previously been stopped before entering the intersection.

Then, because of Mr. Frey’s speed, after the officer turned on his lights to indicate to the defendant to pull over, the defendant was unable to park into the parking spot evenly and within the white lines.

Defense attorney John Campanella cross-examined the witness by asking Officer Pinedo to confirm that he pulled Mr. Frey over for a stop sign violation and not a speeding violation, even though Officer Pinedo did not witness the defendant’s alleged running of the stop sign. Officer Pinedo went on to explain that he did not use radar nor has he been specifically trained in visual speed estimation. And, solely based on previous experience, he inferred that Mr. Frey did not stop at the stop sign on April 2 at 3:45am.

The judge then took a brief break to go into his chambers to view the police car videotape of that night.

After reviewing the tape no less than five times and going through it frame by frame, he returned from his chambers and asked the People to continue with their redirect examination of the witness.

The People gave Officer Pinedo the opportunity to clarify anything he needed to about that video and he stated that the car may seem, on the video, to be going slower that it was in real time.

The People then made their argument to the court that an experienced officer such as Officer Pinedo can make experienced assumptions with an experienced eye.

Mr. Campanella, for the defense, made his argument that, because there is no explicit evidence of Mr. Frey running the stop sign, the video and the officer’s testimony should be insufficient evidence.

The court took both arguments into consideration, and concluded that, because the car appears to be going at the same speed throughout the intersection, without obvious acceleration, it would be reasonable to assume that he had not stopped at the stop sign. Therefore, the motion to suppress was denied.

The case will next be heard January 17, 2107, at 9:00am in Department 7

The post Davis DUI Case Motion to Suppress Heard appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

by Sarah Senan and Ryan Gonzales

On the morning of October 4, 2016, the case of the People v. Darnell Dorsey  resumed, with Judge Paul Richardson presiding. Pursuant to Cal. Penal Code sections 273a and 273ab, Darnell Dorsey is being charged with assaulting and causing fatal injury to his girlfriend’s 20-month-old child, Cameron Morrison, in January of 2014. Deputy Public Defenders Martha Sequeira and Joseph Gocke represent Darnell Dorsey, while Deputy District Attorney Michelle Serafin represents the prosecution.

The defense previously called to the stand Dr. Roland Auer, a neuropathologist with expertise in adult and pediatric brain damage. Mr. Gocke resumed his direct examination of Dr. Auer, who has confirmed he looked at different tissue samples and lab levels, and observed vitamin D levels as they pertained to Cameron Morrison.

Mr. Gocke began questioning Dr. Auer on additional information regarding lab results. Dr. Auer explained that higher white blood cell counts are significant because it indicates infection. Additionally, he explained the importance of an endotracheal tube being placed improperly. If the tube is placed too high or too low, then an individual suffers from breathing troubles as only one lung is able to be reached. Although both lungs receive blood, trouble still occurs. He explained that “hypoxia,” a deficiency in the amount of oxygen reaching tissue, also becomes apparent and can result in a  leakage in the brain.

Shortly after, the defense revealed autopsy photos on the screen to the courtroom. Mr. Gocke presented various defense exhibits that Dr. Auer recognized as rib fractures. Dr. Auer claimed that the autopsy revealed the liver to be congested from the surface as well as traumatized.

After being asked what some of the autopsy images depicted, Dr. Auer explained that Cameron’s scalp appeared to be bruised, which is associated with “trauma.” Dr. Auer later explained that he believes that head injury, resulting from a shaking movement, has to go through the neck.

The defense had no further questions.

The prosecution then went on to cross-examine Dr. Auer. Ms. Serafin began by asking Dr. Auer how many times he has testified in court, to which he answered over 45 times. She then asked him to define the word “trauma.” He explained it as what occurs from a motor vehicle accident, a bicyclist hit, an assault, etc. Ms. Serafin also asked whether or not he gets paid to testify and review such cases. Dr. Auer responded, saying that he gets paid by the hour – 400 dollars an hour.

Next, Ms. Serafin asked for more clarification on Dr. Auer’s experience.  Dr. Auer has worked at the Sainte-Justine children’s hospital in Montreal, Canada, for five years, where he examines children’s tissue from biopsies and autopsies to determine disease. He also looked at the brains of all babies who passed away, as it is the law to examine a baby’s autopsy. Prior to that, he had 25 years’ experience at the University of Calgary, where he was both a professor and a neuropathologist. However, at the hospital at Calgary, he did not perform the same tasks. He looked at adults, focusing on spinal cords, muscle, brain and nerves. He also did not conduct an entire autopsy there, but he took part in many and was always watching, which is why he stated that he has examined over 1,000 total autopsies. Furthermore, he stated that he has seen many of hundreds of brains of children under the age of two.

Ms. Serafin continued to question the specifics of Dr. Auer’s experience in regard to baby cases. She questioned whether he has seen only one shaken baby case in Montreal.  However, Dr. Auer later commented that he has seen several such cases.

Next, Ms. Serafin questioned Dr. Auer’s statement regarding rickets disease. Dr. Auer claimed that Cameron has rickets because of the low vitamin D and pathological fractures. He continued to explain that, because of rickets, when CPR is being performed, too much pressure on any bone will break it. However, Serafin later demonstrated that Dr. Auer did not see whether the values provided by the hospital were for a child or an adult.

The final topic of the morning was that of administering CPR. Dr. Auer stated that he has experience seeing CPR efforts cause rib fractures, as it is common when the procedure is forceful. He has seen rib fractures in the chest bone caused by CPR and  the damages have been lateral – on the sides. He has also seen rib fractures in children caused by CPR under the age of two. Dr. Auer stood by his belief that Cameron had a case of rickets.

Testimony Continues in Afternoon

By Ryan Gonzales

In the afternoon of October 4, 2016, the People v. Darnell Dorsey trial resumed, with Judge Paul Richardson presiding.

Deputy District Attorney Michelle Serafin continued the cross-examination of neuropathologist Dr. Ronald Auer, who openly argues against “shaken-baby syndrome” in this case.

She questioned the validity of Dr. Auer’s statements that rib fractures are a common occurrence when CPR is administered. Dr. Auer testified that, through observations and autopsies, he has been able to come to such a conclusion.

Although Dr. Auer stated that he was present during the autopsy of Cameron Morrison, when Ms. Serafin questioned if he conducted the documentation of the rib fractures and if he specifically paid attention to the location of the fractures, he answered no to both. Next, Ms. Serafin questioned how common rib fractures are in children under the age of two, and Dr. Auer had no knowledge of such data.

Considering these statements, Ms. Serafin inquired of Dr. Auer if he would agree that he was not the best person to be drawing such conclusions about the frequency of rib fractures in children. Dr. Auer responded by stating, “There is only one person that is the best.”

The prosecutor retorted by asking, “Are you second best?” Dr. Auer quickly responded, “I don’t know if you are being smart with me, but that question pertains to a specialty in pathology.”

Thus, Ms. Serafin questioned if a radiologist would provide a more educated assessment of rib fractures. Although Dr. Auer responded that sometimes radiologists have trouble diagnosing diseases, he agreed that, in the instance of rib fractures, a radiologist would be the best person to provide expertise.

Next, the prosecution transitioned into the topic of child abuse and shaken-baby syndrome. When Serafin inquired if Dr. Auer had any experience in dealing with child abuse, he testified that his experience with child abuse has been after a child has died. Furthermore, Ms. Serafin asked Dr. Auer to confirm whether he believes that shaken-baby syndrome is not a reliable diagnosis, to which he answered yes.

Following these responses, Ms. Serafin asked if an adult human can inflict damage to a child’s brain. Dr. Auer agreed, and shared that he testified in a case where a father stroked his daughter in the head that resulted in her death. Thus, he stated, “I’ve seen abuse and this case [People v. Dorsey] is not it.”

After this statement, Ms. Serafin asked if they could talk about shaking and impact, but Dr. Auer quickly reacted to the phrasing of the question, stating that he could not discuss the topic because shaking and impact are different and are not the same as suggested by the prosecution’s question (a compound question). He stated, “The g-force of an object hitting the brain is 1000 times great than the force of shaking.”

Ms. Serafin inquired about the doctor’s logic in considering shaking vs. impact. She questioned whether an adult male, who violently shakes his child, can cause trauma to the child’s brain. Dr. Auer testified that there would be damage to the neck if there was damage to the brain. Ms. Serafin responded that she is not investigating the possibility of neck injury, and she repeated the question. However, Dr. Auer responded with the same point that a person or child cannot suffer brain damage from shaking without also suffering neck or spinal cord injury.

At this point of the cross-examination, Ms. Serafin became agitated with the witness and sternly repeated that she did not want to examine the possibility of a neck injury. Dr. Auer explained that the brain and neck are connected, so he must be insistent about also talking about the neck.

Dr. Auer testified that Cameron Morrison did not suffer from trauma or inflicted injury caused by shaken-baby syndrome, but suffered ischemia, defined by Dr. Auer as the lack of blood flow to the brain. Furthermore, he stated that it was cardiac arrest that caused the ischemia to occur.

Additionally, Dr. Auer stated that the cardiac arrest was the direct result of hypoxia, which Dr. Auer explained as not enough oxygen going to an organ or heart – in this case, that was caused by pneumonia.

Then the prosecution examined the notion of pneumonia in Cameron Morrison. Ms. Serafin inquired what was the best way to diagnose pneumonia. Dr. Auer testified that chest X-rays were the best method, besides blood test and MRIs. However, he later testified that he did not look any any scans. Ms. Serafin asked if Dr. Auer was comfortable making such a conclusion without looking at the chest X-rays and he stated, “Yes, because of the autopsy – there was puss in the lungs.”

“This wasn’t pneumonia that developed overnight, this was a sick child,” stated Dr. Auer.

Ms. Serafin then questioned where Dr. Auer saw pneumonia in the medical records of Cameron Morrison prior to his arrival at the UC Davis Medical Center. He stated that it had not been recorded, but that pneumonia diagnosis is “classically missed,” that it can easily be mistaken as a common flu. Following these statements, Ms. Serafin asked if Dr. Auer was aware that all doctors and residents who treated Cameron Morrison noted that he did not have pneumonia when he arrived at UC Davis Medical Center, to which he responded that he was aware.

Ms. Serafin ended the cross-examination of Dr. Auer, asking if he took into consideration the possibility that Cameron Morrison was abused. Dr. Auer responded that he did consider the possibility. Therefore, Ms. Serafin presented a hypothetical situation to Dr. Auer where the notion of pneumonia being present in the victim’s body didn’t exist. He quickly responded that this was not the case. However, Ms. Serafin became extremely adamant that this was a hypothetical situation, and for Dr. Auer just to consider the case of Cameron Morrison without pneumonia, and could could it lead to the assumption of child abuse. Dr. Auer responded, “I have never seen or heard of any case that you just made up.”

The post Neuropathologist Contests Child Abuse Claims in Dorsey Case appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

by Julienne Correa and Mariel Barbadillo

On the morning of October 5, 2016, the case of the People vs. Darnell Dorsey resumed with Judge Paul Richardson presiding. Mr. Dorsey was represented by Deputy Public Defenders Martha Sequeira and Joseph Gocke, and Deputy District Attorney Michelle Serafin represented the prosecution. Dorsey is accused under Penal Code sections 273a and 273ab of assault causing fatal injury to his girlfriend’s 20-month-old child, Cameron Morrison.

Medical testimony was given on this day by a pediatric forensic pathologist, a witness for the defense. Most of the doctor’s experience came from examining children under the age of two and she has 30-plus years of work under her belt. She also helped developed a child abuse program by coordinating and bringing physicians together.

The defense asked her about medical terms, and her experience working as a forensic pathologist to educate law officials about the meaning of the manner of death and interpretations of medical findings. She evaluates past medical history, details of the event, paramedic information, ER and lab reports, and the details of the postmortem.

According to her observation of Cameron Morrison’s history, there was an indication that the child had been sick for two to three days due to fever and vomiting. Through X-rays, it was determined that there was mucus and puss all around the lungs. Records from Sutter Davis showed results of pneumonia as well as tan secretions with  mucus plugs, material in the airway leading to respiratory failure. In addition, evidence of dehydration appeared and contributed to the lack of oxygen exchange.

Lab results showed that Cameron had elevated creatinine which indicated loss of circulation and impaired kidney function, and dehydration indicated underlying sickness. Tests showed gram-positive cocci (bacteria like Staphylococcus which give a positive result in a gram stain test), with more evidence of Staphylococcus aureus because of an abundant culture. The doctor reviewed tissue samples and slides, as well as taking pictures on her own. The picture of the lungs showed the plugs and neutrophils, white blood cells that are a first line of defense but cause a lot of destruction in the tissue. As a result, this can interfere with vital functions such as breathing.

Pneumonia is a lethal condition that affects children and the elderly more than the average adult. However, it stops and starts depending on the progression of the disease in the individual. Respiratory arrest can contribute to no longer having the ability to circulate blood within the body. A progressive process and multiple system consequences affect the quality of oxygen, and a system of oxygenic failure results in cell death and failure of the capillary refill.

In this instance, Cameron Morrison had pneumonia before he got to the hospital, per test results. According to the doctor, Cameron had bacterial pneumonia with a history of illness. The defense offered hypotheticals similar to this case, asking questions, and the doctor answered that there was abundant evidence that the child was ill with pneumonia and his health was diminishing. The doctor also suggested that Cameron had vitamin D deficient bone disease, which weakened the bones and made him more susceptible to fractures. There is also strong possibility, with weakened or damaged bones, that the child’s rib fractures were a result of CPR administered.

Medical Expert Testifies Child’s Ribs Fractured during CPR in Dorsey Trial

By Mariel Barbadillo

After the lunch break, the pediatric forensic pathologist returned to complete her testimony regarding the death of Cameron Morrison.

Deputy District Attorney Michelle Serafin began cross-examination by asking the witness about her process of reviewing Cameron’s case. The witness said she capped her review at 13 paid hours, but the entire review lasted approximately 30 hours in total.

The witness examined audiotapes of conversations as well as medical records, including as Cameron’s MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) and CT (computerized tomography) scans. Ms. Serafin asked the witness if she used any information other than the material provided to her. The witness said she only used what was given to her; she did not interview Cameron’s family members or consult with other medical experts.

The prosecution then asked about the witness’ findings concerning Cameron’s blood work. The pathologist said Cameron had a metabolic bone disease, which she said is a general consideration of abnormal bones that could be attributed to a variety of causes. Specifically, Cameron had a metabolic bone disease related to vitamin D deficiency, which meant he was not absorbing adequate amounts of calcium. The witness said low levels of vitamin D have become common among children in recent years.

Based on the evidence, the witness said she could not assume Cameron had normal bones at the time of his death. She could not exclude the possibility that Cameron had abnormal bones and, therefore, she could not conclude with reasonable certainty that Cameron’s rib fractures resulted from child abuse.

Ms. Serafin turned the discussion to a book in which the witness had written a chapter about skeletal injury. In the chapter, the witness had said that fractured ribs in young children are diagnostic of child abuse. The witness admitted that is what she believed in the 1990s, but that is not what she believes now. When she had written the piece, medical practitioners at the time would assume such injuries were the result of child abuse without pondering further explanations. Nowadays, doctors are more likely to consider other reasons for bone injuries in young children, such as metabolic bone disease.

The witness said she has seen 10 or more babies with rib fractures due to metabolic bone disease. She described a case of triplets who were found to have rib fractures. The parents were accused of child abuse, but it was later found that the children, as well as the mother, were deficient in vitamin D, which caused them to have fragile bones more susceptible to fractures.

The prosecution asked if the witness had seen the X-ray of Cameron’s ribs. The witness said she had, but she could not recall how many fractures were present in the X-ray. The prosecution stated there were 18 fractures in total, some of which were healing and some of which were more recent.

The pathologist said she has treated children with displaced rib fractures and, in her experience, some children are unaware of their injuries. Patients have gotten X-rays for other reasons and discovered the rib fractures by chance.

The witness asserted she is “one hundred percent” certain Cameron’s ribs were fractured due to CPR. There was no blood found in Cameron’s chest or abdomen during the autopsy, so the rib fracturing must have occurred when he no longer had a heartbeat. If the ribs had been fractured while his heart was still beating, there would have been blood leaking into his pleural cavity, the space between the membranes that line and surround the lungs.

When asked if the fractures could also have been caused by child abuse, the witness said that was possible, but she does not believe that happened in this case.

Ms. Serafin then asked if contusions and hemorrhaging on Cameron’s lungs could be attributed to child abuse. The witness disputed that, saying the appearance of contusions and hemorrhaging on Cameron’s lungs in the X-ray was actually pus from pneumonia, not blood.

Ms. Serafin stated that none of the nurses or doctors at Sutter Davis diagnosed Cameron with pneumonia. The witness countered that they were wrong. When Cameron arrived at the emergency room, he had Staphylococcus aureus bacteria and mucus plugs, accumulations of mucus blocking the airways, in his lungs.

Analyzing the tissue under the microscope was the “final test” and when the witness did that, she found that the substance in Cameron’s lungs was pus, not blood.

The witness went on to say there is no evidence of traumatic brain injury occurring as a separate event from Cameron’s pneumonia and cardiac arrest. She said that both global cerebral ischemia (insufficient blood flow to the brain) and subdural hematoma (bleeding between the brain and the dura mater, the membranes that cover the brain) found in Cameron’s brain could have been caused by cardiac arrest.

The prosecution then questioned if the constellation of Cameron’s injuries (new and old rib fractures, brain injury, liver laceration) could be attributed to child abuse. The witness responded that it could be, and she said it is understandable why child abuse was assumed to be the cause of the injuries.

However, she said her job is not to “make a story” and go back to make the evidence fit that story. Rather, she meticulously studied the evidence prior to coming to a conclusion about the reason behind Cameron’s injuries. She said that she, too, would have jumped to the conclusion of child abuse if she had not taken into consideration the mucus plugs in Cameron’s lungs indicating pneumonia, the vomiting, the dehydration, and the vitamin D deficiency.

Moreover, the witness said that it is often more obvious when children die of blunt force trauma because the region where the force was applied is typically visible.

Ms. Serafin questioned the witness about the bruise behind Cameron’s ear and if that could be considered a sign of child abuse.  The witness said pressing the area behind the ear is a common method to test a child’s response to pain and it can bruise easily if a child is susceptible to bleeding. Therefore, she did not consider bruising behind the ear to be indicative of child abuse.

The post More Medical Testimony about Child Rib Fractures in Dorsey Trial appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

by Sarah Senan and Carla Arango

The morning of October 6, 2016, brought the resumption of the case of the People v. Darnell Dorsey, Judge Paul Richardson presiding. Pursuant to Cal. Penal Code sections 273a and 273ab, Mr. Dorsey is being charged with assaulting and causing fatal injury to his girlfriend’s 20-month-old child, Cameron Morrison, in January of 2014. Deputy Public Defenders Martha Sequeira and Joseph Gocke represent Darnell Dorsey, while Deputy District Attorney Michelle Serafin represents the prosecution.

The People called to the stand Ryan Crow. Mr. Crow is currently employed as a firefighter with the city of San Francisco. He has been a firefighter for 11 years and has received medical and fire-related training. Each training varies in length, however, most trainings at an academy last for a semester. Before serving in San Francisco, he worked as a firefighter in the city of Davis from 2006-2014.

Mr. Crow was on duty the night of January 22, 2014, at around 11:30/11:45 pm. Mr. Crow explained that a dispatcher called the fire station in Davis. Three officers were on duty that night. They arrived on the scene, parked the first truck, and rushed to the ambulance parked in the Dutch Bros.’ parking lot on Olive Drive. Mr. Crow explained that when he and the other firefighters arrived, CPR was already being performed by a paramedic. Mr. Crow explained that, since paramedics are usually more experienced with other duties that need to be done in such emergencies, he was aware that he would be taking over the CPR on Cameron Morrison.

As Deputy DDA Serafin continued to question Firefighter Crow, she asked him to explain his specific task that night. Mr. Crow explained that, during any medical emergency, the fire department is called. Mr. Crow’s task that night was to perform CPR on the child. He did this using a BVM (bag valve mask), which he states helps provide ventilation and oxygen. While doing this, he watched Cameron’s chest and squeezed the oxygen bag while tracking the chest movement to indicate the entrance of the oxygen. He explained that he is familiar with the CPR procedure and has had training on the proper way to perform CPR on both adults and children.

When Ms. Serafin asked Mr. Crow if he had ever broken any ribs while performing CPR, Crow explained that he had, but on older patients. Ms. Serafin continued to ask how Mr. Crow knew that the ribs were broken. Crow indicated that a broken rib can be heard or felt.

Next, Ms. Sequeira began the cross-examination of Firefighter Crow. Ms. Sequeira began by asking Mr. Crow about what the standard compression depth is, to which he answered 1 ½ to 2 inches for an adult. Ms. Sequeira then continued to ask Crow about his experience with performing CPR on someone with broken ribs. Crow explained that he would know if the ribs were previously broken, depending on the location of the ribs. However, it would depend on the rib fractures’ placement.

Ms. Sequeira then asked Mr. Crow about his experience with CPR on children.  Crow explained that he had never done CPR on a child before that night, but he had had training. Crow explained that the ambulance is equipped with proper equipment and different sized BVM bags.  He continued to explain that Cameron had no reflexes and was unresponsive.

After Ms. Sequeira’s questioning, the witness was re-directed to the prosecution.

Ms. Serafin asked Mr. Crow to explain the position of the baby. He responded by saying that the baby was lying on the gurney. Then, Ms. Serafin asked Crow if he believed the paramedics to be performing CPR correctly, to which he responded yes. Mr. Crow explained that he never saw anything wrong and that everything  aligned properly with his training.

The second witness of the morning was Mr. Adam Price. Mr. Price is also a firefighter and has been since 2003. Firefighter Price is currently employed with the city of Davis. His tasks include taking blood pressure, measuring pulse, administering oxygen, and performing CPR. He has training with both children and adults. He explained it is mandatory that every two years there is a mandatory re-training to update the CPR certification. When asked, Price explained that CPR is indeed different for adults and children.

Firefighter Price explained details of the night in January.  Ryan Crow was driving the fire engine and Bob Weist was the captain. It took  them a few minutes to arrive at the scene. They were to continue CPR, as they became aware that the paramedics had already started the resuscitation efforts. He observed the paramedic performing the same CPR that aligns with his training. Price explained that he has done CPR at least 100 times on adults.

When asked about broken ribs, Mr. Price explained that ribs can break while doing CPR. He stated that you can feel the broken ribs, depending on where they are. If a rib breaks, however, one is to continue performing CPR until the average heartbeat is reached.

Firefighter Price recalled Cameron’s heart barely beating, at 20 beats per minute.

The defense then began cross-examination, with Ms. Sequeira asking Mr. Price more questions regarding Cameron’s heart rate. Price explained that Cameron’s heart rate was still around 20 bpm when CPR was paused. He explained that, normally, the average  heartbeat for a child of 19 to 20 months is 100 to 120 bpm. Price stated that the ride to Sutter Hospital took roughly 5 minutes and CPR was being done the entire time.

The third witness of the morning was Corporal Eric Labbe. Cpl. Labbe is a city of Davis supervisor police officer. He has been employed since 2002. His assignments vary, but he is mostly on patrol. Labbe’s shifts are 9pm-7am and he was on call the night of January 22, 2014. As an officer, he usually has trainees alongside him. When he went to the scene, he was headed to Dutch Bros., however he got a call that Cameron was being transferred to Sutter Davis Hospital. Therefore, he went straight to the emergency room, where he spoke with both Darnell Dorsey and Cameron’s mother.

The prosecution then asked the witness about Cameron’s mother’s demeanor. Mr. Labbe explained that she was upset, screaming, “My baby,” and crying. When asked about Mr. Dorsey, Labbe described him in this way: “stoic, calm, said little.” Cpl. Labbe also explained that Dorsey argued with the baby’s grandmother. Dorsey was described as someone who showed “lack of emotion and chuckled when described something violent.”

Labbe spent approximately one hour at the hospital and remained in close proximity to Dorsey and Cameron’s family members.

Davis Police Officers Testify about the Scene at the Hospital and Causes that Led to Mr. Dorsey’s Arrest

by Carla Arango

The court reconvened in the afternoon of October 6, 2016, for the trial of the People v. Darnell Dorsey. Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira, on behalf of the defense, continued her cross-examination of Corporal Eric Labbe, who works for the Davis Police Department.

Ms. Sequeira questioned Cpl. Labbe about his conversation with the victim’s mother, “VR,” and Mr. Dorsey.

According to Cpl. Labbe, he asked Mr. Dorsey if he would mind stepping outside of the emergency room to answer some questions about what had happened. Labbe agreed that he directed Mr. Dorsey’s movements by determining the location where he would speak with him.

Ms. Sequeira  established that Dorsey did not want to leave Cameron and step outside the ER, but he did so at the officer’s request. “He didn’t want to leave Cameron and you didn’t give him a choice,” Sequeira said.

Cpl. Labbe stated that he didn’t recall Mr. Dorsey asking to stay inside or not cooperating with him.

Labbe said the reason he wanted to step outside of the emergency room was because the scene was chaotic – there were doctors and nurses working on Cameron, the mother, VR, was screaming and crying, and he thought it was appropriate to talk to Mr. Dorsey away from the activity.

Cpl. Labbe’s purpose in speaking with Mr. Dorsey was to gain understanding about the incident and to conduct his preliminary investigation.

Ms. Sequeira had no further questions and DDA Michelle Serafin began her redirect examination of Cpl. Labbe.

Ms. Serafin asked if VR was in the same room and asked what she was doing. Labbe stated that VR was indeed there, and she was sitting down crying. Labbe also confirmed that Mr. Dorsey was with her.

Cpl. Labbe said he questioned VR and Mr. Dorsey as part of his investigation, in order to find out anything that could help the child and to make sense of the situation.

During his conversation with VR, she said Cameron had been sick with flu-like symptoms, had a 100-degree fever, but nothing too crazy. VR said Cameron’s fever would go down with Tylenol, and had been going on for about three days.

On the evening of January 22, 2016, VR had gone to the gym with her aunt. According to Cpl. Labbe, VR told him that, when she got home, Mr. Dorsey (who was watching the child) said Cameron was not breathing. She grabbed Cameron immediately, got back into her aunt’s car and they drove toward the hospital.

Labbe said that during his conversation with VR he asked her if she had performed CPR, and she replied, “Yeah.” Cpl. Labbe said she told him she blew some air into his mouth and that, at this point (in the aunt’s car on the way to the hospital), Cameron still had a heartbeat.

“VR, while in route to the hospital, realized he had a heartbeat, but was not breathing,” said Officer Labbe after looking at his report.

Approximately five minutes later, Cpl. Labbe spoke to Mr. Dorsey. He said he wanted to know what led to the incident, to see if there was any negligence on the side of the parents. Labbe confirmed he recorded conversations and other portions of his time at the hospital.

Ms. Serafin then presented People’s Exhibit 141, a recording of Cpl. Labbe’s conversation with Mr. Dorsey. The jury was provided with transcripts of the conversation, but Judge Richardson instructed them that the transcripts were not considered to be evidence, and were only meant to assist them.

The recording was approximately eight minutes long. Different voices were heard, as well as beeping sounds from medical equipment. In the recording, Mr. Dorsey told Labbe he was in the room putting his son “J” to bed and when he returned to the living room he saw Cameron lying flat on the floor. Mr. Dorsey admitted he yelled at Cameron, but he didn’t receive a response.

In the recording, Mr. Dorsey explained that, moments later VR showed up and he told her there was something wrong with Cameron.

When Cpl. Labbe asked Mr. Dorsey for his phone number, Dorsey revealed he didn’t have a phone. Labbe then asked what the children were doing before Cameron became unresponsive.

Mr. Dorsey said they were eating and that, at one point, he thought Cameron could have been choking. During the recorded conversation, Cpl. Labbe asked Dorsey if he checked Cameron’s mouth to see if there was any food he could have been choking on.

Mr. Dorsey replied with, “I was scared, I shook the shit out of him, I’m not going to lie.”

When the recording was over, Ms. Serafin asked Cpl. Labbe to demonstrate how Mr. Dorsey said he shook Cameron. Labbe raised his arms at shoulder-length and said Mr. Dorsey had clenched his fists and did a shaking motion about four or five times.

Labbe said, “[Mr. Dorsey] appeared angry, more angry than concerned.”

Ms. Sequeira began her re-cross examination and asked Cpl. Labbe what his foundations were for saying that Mr. Dorsey appeared angry.

Labbe said he observed a change in Dorsey’s facial expressions and that Dorsey clenched his teeth when he demonstrated the way in which he shook Cameron. Ms Sequeira asked Cpl. Labbe how Mr. Dorsey was able to clench his teeth and still manage to speak to him without a change in his tone of voice, which was heard in the recording.

Ms. Sequeira accused Cpl. Labbe of making assumptions about Mr. Dorsey’s emotions and facial expressions, despite having known him for less than one hour.

“How did you know he wasn’t scared?,” Sequeira asked Labbe.

Ms. Sequeira asked Labbe if Mr. Dorsey seemed like someone who was trying to prevent him from conducting his investigation. She pointed out that Mr. Dorsey responded to his questions pretty quickly, and that he would not have had time to fabricate a false story.

Sequeira suggested that perhaps “Mr. Dorsey was trying to be calm for Cameron’s mom, who was dying watching her son die.”

About 30 minutes after his conversations with the mother and the defendant, Mr. Dorsey was arrested while he was at the hospital. Ms. Sequeira made it clear that Mr. Dorsey had been arrested before detectives spoke to anybody else who had the baby on the day of the incident, and Cpl. Labbe confirmed her statements.

Labbe said authorities had probable cause to believe Mr. Dorsey was responsible for Cameron’s injuries. According to Cpl. Labbe, Cameron’s bleeding brain and the fact that Mr. Dorsey admitted to shaking him violently were enough to arrest him.

Ms. Sequeira finished re-cross and Ms. Serafin began the her final redirect examination of Cpl. Labbe.

John Evans, another corporal from the Davis Police Department, was then called to testify. Cpl. Evans has worked with the department for almost 12 years. He served as a detective for four years and has completed a 40-hour child abuse course as part of his ongoing training.

Cpl. Evans described the scene at Sutter Davis Hospital as chaotic when he first arrived. Before he arrived, he had spoken to Corporal Scott Allen who informed him about some of Cameron’s injuries.

Cpl. Evans described VR as being hysterical, and said Mr. Dorsey seemed angry and loud. He attempted to speak with VR outside of the emergency room, but she was sobbing uncontrollably and didn’t want to leave.

Evans stated his preference to speak with Mr. Dorsey at the police department, but Mr. Dorsey was not willing to go. Cpl. Evans said he felt his hands were tied a little bit.

“It wasn’t my intent to arrest him at that moment in time,” Evans said about Mr. Dorsey’s arrest. “If I didn’t arrest him, my concern was that if he knew he was a suspect in a serious crime, he would flee or go back to the scene and destroy evidence,” Evans said.

Cpl. Evans explained that the basis for the arrest was the fact that Mr. Dorsey had been alone with the children, the types of injuries apparently inflicted on Cameron are common in shaken-baby cases, and Mr. Dorsey had admitted to Cpl. Labbe that he shook and slapped Cameron.

Judge Richardson ordered the trial to resume the next morning, and Corporal Evan’s testimony will continue.

The post Firefighters and Police Testify in Dorsey Trial appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Samantha Brill

Emmanuel Ryan is charged with several counts – kidnapping, rape, attempted rape, sexual battery, and assault with a deadly weapon, along with others, for a crime allegedly committed on September 19, 2016. Mr. Ryan is still being held in custody.

At the preliminary hearing, the People brought forward their first witness, “KP,” the alleged victim. The People asked KP several questions, walking through the events of the night of September 19, starting from 8:00pm and ending with her escape from the defendant around 10:00pm.

KP is the roommate of Mr. Ryan’s ex-girlfriend, “T.” Mr. Ryan lived at the apartment town home with T and KP for nine months and two weeks prior to the night in question. KP explained that T and Mr. Ryan fought quite often while they were dating, and that their relationship did not end on good terms.

She went on to explain that Mr. Ryan entered her apartment town home in West Sacramento that night, after he was banned from the home by her landlord. He entered with an old key code that had not yet been deleted from the automatic unlocking device which KP installed herself.

KP was home alone with her four-month-old son on the night in question. Upon entry, Mr. Ryan entered KP’s bedroom with a bottle of whiskey and a pack of beer. Without permission he made his first advance toward KP, and then abruptly ran upstairs and then back down into KP’s room, when he continued touching her upper leg without her consent.

Mr. Ryan became more aggressive when he allegedly pulled KP down on the bed and tried to force himself on her by ripping off her shorts. KP stated that, during this time, Mr. Ryan threatened multiple times to sexually assault her. Also he pulled out a screwdriver and pointed it at both her and her son.

After she reasoned with him, Mr. Ryan backed down before he had the opportunity to sexually assault her. He apologized and then they went into the living room where he stopped KP from running out the back door to call for help. KP continued her testimony by explaining how, during their altercation in the living room, Mr. Ryan called T and threatened he would kill KP and her son if T did not come home.

KP explained that T arrived within five minutes of their phone call and, when she arrived, Mr. Ryan forced her into KP’s bedroom where he demanded that she undress. He continued to sexually assault T, with KP and her son in the room, all while continuing to threaten them with the screwdriver.

KP stated that Mr. Ryan then allowed her to go into the kitchen to fix her son a bottle of formula. Mr. Ryan and T followed. This is when Mr. Ryan found a knife and threatened to hurt himself, and then turned the knife on T while holding it against her neck. Mr. Ryan was asking for the “truth” about whether T had cheated on him.  KP also explained that Mr. Ryan stated that “only one of us is going to make it through the night.”

KP then expressed to Mr. Ryan that she felt sick and needed to lie down. He then moved all of them to KP’s room so she could lie down. That is when KP made her escape with her son out the front door to her landlord’s house, where she then called the police.

Deputy Public Defender Lisa Lance then cross-examined the witness, and started off by asking how much T pays for rent and if her rent was increased during the time Mr. Ryan was living there. KP stated that T pays $400 a month and was paying $600 when Mr. Ryan was there.

Also, KP pointed out that T had a separate lock to her bedroom door, to which Mr. Ryan had access.

The defense then continued the questioning by asking if KP remembered what happened to the whiskey once she and Mr. Ryan first left her room. She testified that she remembered he left it on her TV stand and that it appeared to be almost empty.

Mrs. Lance then asked whether the police found the screwdriver in the apartment that night. KP responded by saying that it was hidden in a dirty pot in the sink so they overlooked it. However, she did find it and told the detective about it when she went in for questioning last week.

The defense then asked KP why she did not leave after Mr. Ryan made his first advance at her, right before going upstairs. She said that at the time she did not feel the need to leave. She said that Mr. Ryan had always made her feel uncomfortable, so it was no different when he first came into the apartment – yes, it was weird but she had always felt that way about him. It was not a feeling that was out of the ordinary.

The People then asked KP to draw a layout of the bottom floor of her apartment town home, and entered it as People’s Exhibit 1.

The post Preliminary Hearing for a Case of Sexual Assault appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

People’s Witnesses: Detective John Evans, Officer Alex Torres and, Officer Tony Dias

By Samantha Brill

The morning of October 7, 2016, brought the resumption of the case of the People v. Darnell Dorsey, Judge Paul Richardson presiding. Pursuant to Cal. Penal Code sections 273a and 273ab, Mr. Dorsey is being charged with assaulting and causing fatal injury to his girlfriend’s 20-month-old child, Cameron Morrison, in January of 2014. Deputy Public Defenders Martha Sequeira and Joseph Gocke represent Darnell Dorsey, while Deputy District Attorney Michelle Serafin represents the People.

The People started the morning off with calling Detective John Evans to the stand. Detective Evans was the officer who first interviewed Dorsey on January 23, 2014, at 7:20am. Det. Evans was working on this case for several months, along with the entire detective unit at Davis Police Department. During the duration of the investigation, the department would receive daily briefings on the progression of the case.

Detective Evans explained how, prior to the interview with Dorsey, he did background research on the defendant and on others involved in the case, such as Cameron’s mother. Det. Evans stated that, after the interview, he did interview other residents at the trailer park where Dorsey resided during the time of the event, but he never searched Dorsey’s residence.

Ms. Sequeira began the cross-examination for the defense. She questioned Det. Evans about his ICI (Institute of Criminal Investigation) 40-hour child abuse training from POST (Peace Officer Standards and Training) that he had completed two weeks prior to the day in question.

This training program included training in child abuse, shaken baby syndrome, and sexual assault to minors. Giving examples of injuries to look for, going over previous cases, and giving the participants the tools to handle these scenarios helped Evans and fellow officers be better prepared for cases involving child abuse.

Det. Evans explained that this training focused four hours specifically on shaken baby situations. This also provided him with training on how to testify in court and how to interview suspects, along with ways to identify shaken baby – for example, bruising under the eyes. However, he had trouble remembering who the instructor of this course was and whether the instructor was a medical professional – but he assured the court that the instructor most likely was.

The defense continued to question the detective on whether or not the Davis PD had investigated any other leads other than Dorsey – such as why Cameron’s grandmother was never investigated, after finding out about her abusive history with Cameron’s mother when the latter was a young child. Detective Evans explained that he would have looked into other leads if anything ever presented itself, but nothing ever did.

The People conducted redirect with their witness by having Detective Evans make it clear to the court that he had been open to the possibility that someone else could be guilty of the charges Dorsey is accused of – however, Dorsey was their only suspect.

The People rested and Detective Evans was excused. The People then called Officer Alex Torres to the stand.

Officer Alex Torres has been an officer with the Davis PD for four years and was on patrol the night of January 22, 2014, when he was called to Cameron’s case and arrived at the Dutch Bros. coffee kiosk in Davis at 11:57pm where he met up with Corporal Pheng Ly.

Officer Torres laid out the events of that night by explaining that, after joining Cpl. Ly, they both went to the trailer where Dorsey was living to watch over it to make sure no one entered – because it was a potential crime scene. While there, they talked to the neighbors on either side of the trailer.

They were watching over the trailer until 4:30am on the 23^rd of January, until Torres was relieved for about an hour, returning at 5:30am. Officer Torres continued his surveillance until around 7:30am, when he was relieved once again. He explained to the court that while he was watching over the trailer, no one left or came to the residence.

The People rested and the defense had nothing more to ask Officer Torres, so he was excused.

The People’s next witness, Officer Tony Dias, was then called to the stand.

Officer Dias has worked for the Davis PD for five years and was called to Davis Sutter Hospital in response to Cameron’s case the morning of the 23^rd at 1:45am. While there, he took three photos of Cameron’s older brother (Dorsey’s son), who had bruising around his eye and his arm was in a cast.

The People showed Officer Dias the three photos, People’s Exhibits 25, 130, and 93 for identification and then showed the court.

Dias then explained how he was also a part of the evidence response team that searched the trailer at 9am that same day. While there, he was responsible for measuring the trailer and measuring the pieces of evidence that were found.

About a month later, he then used these measurements to make three diagrams of the trailer’s layout. These drawings, People’s Exhibit 11, 20, and 132 were shown to the witness for identification and then shown to the court. Officer Dias then went on to explain these drawings in more detail as the court was viewing them.

Friday Testimony Continues

By Mariel Barbadillo

After the morning recess, Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira cross-examined Officer Tony Dias. She asked the officer how many people investigated Mr. Dorsey’s home and how many of those officers were trained in crime scene investigation. Officer Dias said there were six or seven officers investigating the scene, two of whom had attended CSI school.

Because of the nature of this case being one of suspected child abuse, Officer Dias and the other officers searched the home specifically for items used to hurt a child, evidence of blood, or signs of neglect.

Ms. Sequeira then prompted Officer Dias to write a list of the evidence taken from Mr. Dorsey’s home. The list began with the category of “Instrumentation,” referring to potential instruments of child abuse. The only items in this category were Mr. Dorsey’s shoes, which the officer later said were found to be irrelevant to the case.

The second category was “Evidence of Injury,” which could include items with blood, cerebral fluid, or other bodily fluid. The officers took a blanket and a pair of children’s sweatpants, neither of which were found to be indicatory of child abuse. The officers also took a closet door with a dent and a potential fiber identified as human hair. However, the hair was not tested.

The defense asked about the appearance of the strand of hair. Officer Dias said the hair did not look like it belonged to Mr. Dorsey. He could not recall what Mr. Dorsey’s son’s hair looked like, and he had never seen Cameron’s hair, so he could not definitively say the hair did not belong to the children. Ms. Sequeira, however, pointed out the hair was long and most likely belonged to a woman.

The prosecution’s next witness was Detective Joshua Helton from the Davis Police Department. In 2014, he was an officer in the department’s Evidence Response Team (ERT). The ERT was created in 2013 to improve the department’s response to major crimes.

On January 23, 2014, Det. Helton received a call at seven in the morning to prepare for an investigation with the ERT. This was the first major case for the ERT since its inception.

Det. Helton arrived at Mr. Dorsey’s home at nine in the morning, and he approximated that the search lasted about 10 to 12 hours. Before carrying out the search warrant, the detective did a protective sweep, which he recorded with a GoPro camera. The prosecution proceeded to play footage of Mr. Dorsey’s home, captured from Det. Helton’s camera.

After the lunch break, Det. Helton continued his testimony. He said he could not recall if he collected evidence from the home himself, but he recalled that segments of walls were collected due to apparent damages.

The prosecution then presented photographs of those damages. One was found in the children’s bedroom, on the wall next to a mattress on floor. The other was on the closet door, which was also taken from the scene. The detective said the officers also removed the doors for the master bedroom and bathroom, though there were no defects on them.

During cross-examination, Deputy Public Defender Joseph Gocke presented the witness with a picture in which a bottle of NyQuil is visible on the kitchen counter in Mr. Dorsey’s home. Another image was a screenshot from the detective’s body camera, which appeared to show a tissue box and used tissues on the floor of the master bedroom.

With the doors gone, Mr. Gocke asked if it would be inaccurate for someone to say they later found new evidence because opening the door disturbed the scene. Det. Helton said he could not answer because he does not know what happened after he and the other officers left. He told Cameron’s grandfather’s wife, “EC,” that the house needed repair because portions of the walls were taken out and a power line was hit.

When asked about a bloody white T-shirt, Det. Helton said the officers did not remove such an item from the scene. It was two or three days later when the department was made aware of the shirt. However, after the shirt was found, they did not conduct a secondary search of the home or investigate the homes of any of Cameron’s family.

Mr. Gocke’s final question was whether or not any of the investigating officers were disciplined for overlooking evidence during their search of the crime scene. The detective said they were not, marking the conclusion of his testimony.

The post Police Give Account of Day of Arrest of Dorsey appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Ryan Gonzales

Following the afternoon break on October 7, 2016, the prosecution began the direct examination of their final witness, Deputy Sheriff Jesse Dacanay, in the case of the People v. Darnell Dorsey with Judge Paul Richardson presiding.

Mr. Dorsey is being charged with assaulting and causing fatal injury to his girlfriend’s 20-month-old child, Cameron Morrison, in January of 2014. Deputy Public Defenders Martha Sequeira and Joseph Gocke represent Darnell Dorsey, while Deputy District Attorney Michelle Serafin represents the People.

Before the deputy’s testimony, Judge Richardson wanted to make it clear to the jury that the prosecution and the defending council had come to a stipulation agreement, which is a fact or set of facts that are deemed true and not to be contested. Judge Richardson described the fact that police officers from the Davis Police Department secured the victim’s residence from January 22, 2014, at 11:59 pm to January 23, 2014 9:18 am. During this investigation no one had entered or exited the trailer.

The prosecution inquired if the deputy sheriff was present at the residence on January 23. Deputy Dacanay testified that he was there to process a possible crime that occurred in the Slatters Court and Davis Trailer Park residence. Furthermore, Dacanay testified that, once the protective sweep of the scene was concluded, he was in charge of photographing and video recording the trailer to show the state and structure of the residence.

The prosecution proceeded to show the court the recordings taken on January 23, 2014. These recordings, labeled People’s Exhibit 94, were four separate clips ranging from 30 seconds to about four minutes long.

At the end of the final clip, the prosecution inquired about the article of clothing located at the bottom of a bedroom door. Dacanay described this clothing as a child’s blue sweatpants. The prosecution then brought out People’s Exhibits 105 and 106, which were images of the blue pants.

Dacanay testified that, on the close-up image, there was a dark and dry spot that he assumed to be blood due to its consistency, so he collected it as evidence. Once the item was placed in an evidence bag, Dacanay testified that he gave the bag to Officer Tony Dias to seal the bag, securing the item.

Next, the prosecution inquired about the removal of two pieces of carpet, one located underneath the blue sweatpants and the other located underneath the television. Dacanay testified that he removed those pieces of carpet because they seemed to hold “evidential value.”

The prosecution then asked if there were any other items removed from the master bedroom that suggested evidentiary value. Dacanay stated that two cell phones were removed.

After the discussion of methods of removal of evidence concluded, the prosecution brought out pictures of the main and master bathrooms. In People’s Exhibit 96, which was a still of the main bathroom sink, the prosecution questioned whether Dacanay had the lights off when he took the picture. Dacanay testified that, in order to identify any particles, he had to use a technique with a flashlight to gain an “oblique angle” of the sink, thus requiring the lights to be turned off.

Dacanay stated that this technique was used in the other photographs, such as the still of the master bathroom tub. The prosecution questioned if Dacanay was able to detect anything significant, and he stated that he found droplets of water in the master bathroom tub.

Mr. Gocke, for the defense, conducted a very short cross-examination of Dep. Dacanay. Mr. Gocke asked if the two cell phones found in the master bedroom were in “working order,” to which Dacanay responded no. The cross-examination ended and Dep. Dacanay was excused, subject to recall.

Due to the Columbus Day holiday, the trial will resume on October 11, 2016.

The post Sheriff’s Deputy Gives Account in Dorsey Trial appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Samantha Brill

Scott Eugene George is being tried for an alleged misdemeanor violation of Fish and Game Code section 2006(a), driving a motor vehicle on a public road with a loaded firearm. On the morning of September 13, 2015, around 10am, Mr. George was given a citation for being found driving on County Road 40 in Yolo County with a loaded bolt-action Remington rifle. The defendant has pled not guilty to these charges.

Before getting started with witness testimonies, the prosecution and the defense presented their opening statements. Deputy District Attorney Elizabeth Morgan opened for the People by going over the charges for the jury. She then introduced Fish and Game Warden Jesse Keiser as the officer who wrote Mr. George the citation, stating that the gun was in fact found loaded while Mr. George was driving on this county road.

The defense then gave their opening statement by presenting to the court that the scenario that Ms. Morgan put forth was not the full story and that the defense hoped the jury would keep an open mind when listening to this case.

The People then called Warden Jesse Keiser to the stand. Warden Keiser has been in his line of work, patrolling areas of Solano, Yolo and Sacramento counties, for 18 years with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and has taught many firearm instruction courses.

Moving on to talk about what happened that morning, he explained that he saw Mr. George on his ATV (all-terrain vehicle) and assumed the defendant was hunting, based on his attire. He then asked if Mr. George had caught anything that day, then followed with asking if his rifle was loaded. Getting responses of no to both questions, Warden Keiser then continued to search the ATV and firearm.

Demonstrating with his own similar style bolt-action rifle he brought to court, he showed the jury how loading the gun works and explained how he found the rifle that day. He explained that he did in fact find the rifle loaded with live ammunition. He also stated that this type of rifle was completely manual.

Continuing with the narrative of that morning’s events, he explained that when he brought it to the attention of Mr. George that the rifle was loaded, the defendant appeared shocked and concluded that it must have loaded itself. However, in Warden Keiser’s opinion, a rifle like this could not have loaded itself.

The People then moved to show the court pictures taken that day, People’s Exhibit 1,2 and 3, identified as pictures of Mr. George’s ATV, rifle, and the live ammunition found inside the gun. The People rested and turned over the witness to the defense.

The defense began by questioning Warden Keiser about the length of time it took him to write out the report and whether he recorded Mr. George’s statement on the morning of September 13, 2015. Warden Keiser said he wrote down the report about a week later, and Mr. George’s statement was never recorded.

The defense rested, and the People returned for a quick redirect, where they had Warden Keiser determine that he still independently recalled the events of the day in question.

The court then gave the jury time to write down any questions they had for the witness, which were then read and asked by Ms. Morgan. The jury asked if the witness remembered how many rounds were in the rifle’s magazine, and he did not. Warden Keiser also explained that it is not legal to have a loaded magazine in or attached to a vehicle, standing on or being driven on a county road.

The defense then called defendant Scott George to testify. Mr. George has been hunting for 50 years, complying with state regulations by having a hunting license, along with deer tag allowing him to hunt deer and other animals, in California. Mr. George then explained his version of the events that happened that day.

He stated that before getting onto the ATV he emptied the rifle’s chamber and put the round of ammunition into his pants pocket, which he pulled out and showed Warden Keiser once he was asked about the rifle being loaded. He also explained that he was about 20 feet away when the Warden called him over to look at the ammunition Warden Keiser had found in his rifle.

Mr. George then used the rifle in court to demonstrate what he was shown by Warden Keiser that day. He testified that there was a round of ammunition in the rifle, but it is a mystery to him how it got there. However, if it had been too lubricated, the magazine may have let a round into the chamber automatically.

Ms. Morgan cross-examined for the People by asking Mr. George how long he had been using bolt-action rifles in his experience with hunting. He explained that this was the only type of gun he used while hunting his whole adult life, and he had loaded this gun in particular about 1,000 times.

The jury was once again given the opportunity to ask questions, which were read and asked by the defense. The jury’s main question was whether Mr. George’s rifle was functioning properly that day. Mr. George assured the court that he kept that gun in tip-top shape and it was well-lubricated.

After the court dismissed Mr. George, the People recalled Warden Keiser to the stand, to testify that he has never witnessed a bolt-action rifle load automatically because of over-lubrication.

Both sides rested and Warden Keiser was excused. Court was then excused for the day and closing arguments and deliberation will take place in the morning.

The post Alleged Violation of the Fish and Game Code in Yolo County appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Sarah Senan and Ryan Gonzalez

The morning of October 7, 2016, brought the resumption of the case of the People v. Darnell Dorsey, Judge Paul Richardson presiding. Pursuant to Cal. Penal Code sections 273a and 273ab, Mr. Dorsey is being charged with assaulting and causing fatal injury to his girlfriend’s 20-month-old child, Cameron Morrison, in January of 2014. Deputy Public Defenders Martha Sequeira and Joseph Gocke represent Darnell Dorsey, while Deputy District Attorney Michelle Serafin represents the People

The prosecution recalled for questioning Dr. Daniel Ichel, a witness who testified earlier in September of 2016. Dr. Ichel is a current pediatric radiologist at Sutter Health in Sacramento. Dr. Ichel read CT (computerized tomography, a series of X-rays from differing angles) scans of the brain and body of Cameron Morrison in January 2014.

Dr. Ichel explained that when he reviews CT scans, he is usually trying to detect any abnormal findings. He stated that, after reviewing Cameron’s CT scans, he found direct injury to the kidney and a loss of blood flow. He continued to explain that a direct effect on one of these organs can cause damage to the adjacent organs.

Dr. Ichel testified repeatedly that there were many visible rib fractures. When Dr. Ichel was asked by the prosecution if he saw any cases of pneumonia, he stated that pneumonia is a clinical diagnosis. Dr. Ichel did find evident indications of non-accidental trauma. However, he did not find any visible bone disease.

Next, Ms. Serafin presented screenshots of Cameron’s CT scans and proceeded to ask questions. Dr. Ichel pointed out the irregular findings on Cameron’s body and flipped through the exhibit and described the visible abnormalities.

Next, Mr. Gocke began the cross-examination of Dr. Ichel. Mr. Gocke began by asking Dr. Ichel how much time he spent reviewing Cameron’s CT scan. Dr. Ichel answered that he roughly spent anywhere from 30 to 45 minutes reviewing the CT scan. He explained that he had no prior history or medical documentation on Cameron’s case, and he instantly reviewed the CT scans once he received them.

Mr. Gocke proceeded to ask Dr. Ichel various questions regarding Cameron’s status. First, Mr. Gocke asked Dr. Ichel whether or not he was aware of a misplaced plug, that contained bacteria, in Cameron’s lung. Dr. Ichel stated that he was unaware of this. Mr. Gocke then asked whether Dr. Ichel knew that Cameron was ill  and had a fever of 101/102 degrees. Dr. Ichel did not know this; he was also unaware that Cameron’s teeth were in poor condition. However, Dr. Ichel stated that the condition of Cameron’s teeth are not due to an underlying factor of bone disorder. Lastly, when asked about pneumonia, Dr. Ichel stated that the disease was not evident in the CT scans.

The questioning of Dr. Ichel was re-directed to Ms. Serafin. The prosecution began to ask questions about injury to the skull. Dr. Ichel explained that such a fracture is usually caused by “shaken baby syndrome.” Dr. Ichel explained that, even if Cameron had a staph infection, caused by germs commonly found in the skin, it would not change his original opinion. He explained that the hypothesis he made was because of the rib fractures and lung contusions.

The defense began the re-cross examination. Dr. Ichel was unable to answer questions pertaining specifically to the lungs because that is out of his scope.

The second witness of the morning was Dr. Nancy Laurence. Dr. Laurence is a pediatric radiologist. Her job consists of reviewing X-rays, CT and MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scans. She stated that she received Cameron’s X-rays in the morning. When Ms. Serafin presented a the X-ray images on the screen, Dr. Laurence recognized them and was able to explain that there were multiple rib fractures. She explained  that she was able to make the inference that some of the rib fractures were rather old, possibly more than a week old, and were in the process of healing. She also indicated that there were new bruises, that could be less than a week old.

Mr. Gocke, on cross-examination, asked Dr. Laurence if she had any prior history on Cameron’s case, to which she responded that she did not. She explained that she found findings of non-accidental trauma. When Mr. Gocke questioned how she knew they were related to trauma she responded that she has had one year of experience in this practice and has seen many scans of cases relating to trauma. Mr. Gocke asked if she was aware of the plug that had bacteria, and Cameron’s high fever. Dr. Laurence was unaware of these factors, but still stood by her initial statements.

During the re-direct by the prosecution, Dr. Laurence explained that there was no evidence, on the X-ray,  that there was pneumonia present. An indication of pneumonia is normally observant on an X-ray.

The third witness of the morning was Dr. Richard E. Latchaw. Dr. Latchaw is a current Professor of Radiology at the UC Davis Medical Center and has been a practicing physician since 1971. He reads CT and MRI scans daily and has many years of experience. He explained that CT scans are quite static and that, although they are fast, they are more limited. He explains that MRI scans take longer, but one is able to detect more specific information from such scans. Dr. Latchaw has seen over 8,000 scans a year, for 30 years. From his experience, approximately over 25 percent of what he has reviewed have been cases relating to trauma. Like the previous witnesses, he did not look at Cameron’s medical record prior to reviewing his X-rays. Before the recess, Dr. Latchaw was able to explain that the CT scan indicated the brain being a black color, which indicates the brain being dead.

People’s Expert Radiologist Continues Testimony

By Ryan Gonzales

The prosecution’s radiology expert, Dr. Richard Latchaw, testified that by looking at the SWAN (susceptibility-weighted angiography) images of Cameron Morrison’s brain, one can see that the victim suffered from “diffuse axonal injuries,” or brain injury in the form of extensive lesions in white matter of the brain.

Prior to Dr. Latchaw’s testimony of the Swan images, Deputy DA Michelle Serafin asked the witness multiple hypothetical questions. Ms. Serafin inquired if a person can go into cardiac arrest due to brain damage.

Dr. Latchaw explained that if there is significant damage to the medulla oblongata (part of the brain stem, regulating many autonomic processes), that causes hemorrhaging and then the heart and respiratory functions can fail, thus leading to death.

Following these statements, Ms. Serafin questioned if Dr. Latchaw ever witnessed a child go into cardiac arrest due to pneumonia. Dr. Latchaw responded no.

Ms. Serafin hypothetically asked if a child did die from cardiac arrest due to pneumonia, what the cause would be. Dr. Latchaw stated, in order for death to occur from cardiac arrest due to pneumonia, a “non-traumatic infectious case” had to be present, but it did not apply to this particular incident.

Additionally, Ms. Serafin inquired about the possibility of a child dying from cardiac arrest as a secondary effect of the pneumonia disease, and whether there would be any diffuse axonal injuries in the brain. Dr. Latchaw responded no.

However, Dr. Latchaw testified that he observed diffuse axonal injuries in Cameron Morrison’s brain.

In People’s Exhibit 16 SWAN image series 9, Dr. Latchaw described black areas within the ventricle of Cameron Morrison’s brain, showing the “small hemorrhages” that illustrate DAI (diffuse axonal injury). Dr. Latchaw simply stated that the blackened areas that occurred in the victim’s brain represented “blood that doesn’t belong in the white matter.”

Dr. Latchaw continued to show the jury multiple SWAN scans of Morrison’s brain, with examples of the blackened area or hemorrhages that indicated DAI.

Ms. Serafin inquired about reperfusion (the action of restoring the flow of blood to an organ or tissues) injuries in relation to diffuse axonal injuries. Dr. Latchaw testified that reperfusion injuries can occur in the restoration of blood flow into the brain after the patient has suffered “hypoxia” (lack of oxygen to organs) or “ischemia”(lack of blood flow to organs),  all of which he testified could occur from cardiac arrest.

Dr. Latchaw stated that the reperfusion starts allowing new blood to come into the brain, thus the brain swells and hemorrhages. However, he stated that the effect of reperfusion can be seen on the MRI, but not the reperfusion itself.

Ms. Serafin then asked the doctor if there were any reperfusion injuries to Cameron Morrison’s brain. Dr. Latchaw testified that there was no blood flow to the brain; thus, if the flow was never reestablished, Morrison could not suffer from reperfusion injury.

Dr. Latchaw concluded that it was not hypoxia or ischemia that caused the victim’s brain damage, but trauma-induced injury.

During the cross-examination, Deputy Public Defender Joseph Gocke questioned Dr. Latchaw’s knowledge of Cameron Morrison’s medical history prior to his investigation, as well as inquiring if he had an objective opinion about the case.

Mr. Gocke stated that Dr. Paul Lee, another professor of radiology at UCDMC, had testified to having had “significant” discussions about the case with Dr. Latchaw. Dr. Latchaw did not recall having any conversations about this particular case.

When Mr. Gocke asked if Dr. Latchaw had the victim’s medical record, the doctor testified that he only had the SWAN images and Dr. Lee’s reports.

After further questioning, Dr. Latchaw testified to not knowing that Sutter Davis Hospital indicated cardiac arrest and that CPR had occurred prior to Cameron Morrison being admitted to Sutter. Therefore, due to not knowing past medical records, Mr. Gocke stated that Dr. Latchaw would not have any way of knowing if a person was anemic based on the reports he received, to which the doctor agreed.

Next, on redirect, Ms. Serafin questioned the purpose of reviewing the victim’s MRIs. Dr. Latchaw stated that he researched the images and reported his findings and opinion. For this particular incident, Dr. Latchaw stated he found a “post traumatic issue and brain swelling that led to brain death.”

Ms. Serafin then listed all of the victim’s injuries, including fractured ribs, liver lacerations, brain and retinal hemorrhaging, and inquired if this was consistent with diffuse axonal injuries and hemorrhages.

Dr. Latchaw responded, “Yes.”

The post Prosecution Brings in Doctors to Testify on Cameron Morrison’s X-Ray Results appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Mariel Barbadillo

On October 12, 2016, Judge Samuel McAdam presided over a preliminary hearing in the case of the People v. Fabian Jessie Martinez. Mr. Martinez faces one count of battery resulting in serious bodily injury, after he allegedly beat a fellow inmate at the county jail.

Deputy District Attorney Robert Gorman appeared for the prosecution. His first witness was Yolo County Deputy Sheriff Xavier Feldon.

The deputy was on duty as a court bailiff on September 9, 2016, transporting and monitoring inmates from the county jail to Superior Court in Woodland. He could not recall how many inmates he monitored alongside Mr. Martinez, but he approximated that there were more than 10 and less than 50.

When asked to identify Mr. Martinez in court, Deputy Feldon said he noticed visible redness on the left side of the inmate’s eye as a result of the altercation.

Dep. Feldon said both Mr. Martinez and the victim, “AN,” were held in the same cell, because neither of them was classified as needing to be separated from other inmates.

Mr. Gorman presented the witness with a picture for identification. Deputy Feldon stated he took the picture of AN, who was depicted with blood running down his face.

The holding cells are monitored with surveillance cameras, and Deputy Feldon said he later watched footage of the altercation. According to the deputy’s description, the video showed Mr. Martinez and AN being put into the cell. They were unshackled before the cell was locked. The inmates were seen shaking hands, talking and laughing.

AN sat down while Mr. Martinez walked around the cell for a few moments. Then, Mr. Martinez began to punch AN.

Two or three minutes later, Deputy Feldon was alerted about the incident.

In a statement given to the deputy, the victim said he was sitting in the cell when Mr. Martinez punched him out of nowhere. There were several other inmates in the cell with Mr. Martinez and the victim, and they also said they were sitting in the cell talking to one another when Mr. Martinez randomly began to beat AN.

One inmate specifically said Mr. Martinez “started it and finished it,” referring to the altercation with AN.

Defense Attorney James Granucci represented Mr. Martinez. Mr. Granucci began his cross-examination of the witness by asking about the surveillance footage. Dep. Feldon said, from the video, the altercation seemed to last approximately five or six seconds from the first punch to the last.

After the altercation, American Medical Response (AMR) was called to provide medical treatment for the victim. He was transported to Woodland Memorial Hospital, where he received stitches on the area around his eye.

Medical records subpoenaed by the prosecution indicate that AN suffered an orbital fracture and a concussion without loss of consciousness. Mr. Gorman argued that this constitutes serious bodily injury because the victim had a five to ten day window to have his facial fractures surgically repaired, which did not happen.

The defense argued the altercation only lasted a matter of seconds. Moreover, the under-eye area is relatively more tender than other parts of the face and is thus more easily injured. Mr. Granucci questioned whether the injury resulting from the altercation was “more than moderate,” and he asked to have his client’s charges reduced.

Judge McAdam, however, believed the prosecution met the burden of proof necessary for a preliminary hearing. He went further to say that, based on the testimony and evidence presented so far, Mr. Martinez’s attack on AN appears to have been “cold-blooded.”

Judge McAdam ultimately held Mr. Martinez to answer for his charges. Mr. Martinez will be arraigned on October 27, 2016.

The post Preliminary Hearing for Inmate Fight Resulting in Serious Bodily Injury appeared first on Davis Vanguard.