By Joshua Lian

A preliminary hearing is underway for Holly Ford, who is charged with breaking and entering a Woodland residence with the intent to rob.

According to witnesses’ testimonies and footage taken from security cameras on the night of July 29, 2019, the defendant had entered the home via the garage. Once inside, Ms. Ford then began combing the home, room by room, with an almost familiar sense of efficiency. After locating approximately seventy-five hundred dollars’ worth of heirlooms, the suspect then left with no suspicion being aroused until later that morning, when broken glass and the stolen property were noticed by the residents.

The first to take the stand, a Woodland peace officer who had served since April of 2019, declared himself a recipient of police academy training regarding hearsay. On the morning of July 29 at approximately 11:00 AM, the witness had just concluded an unrelated pursuit. He had not been alone, as a fresh recruit still in field training and partnered with Field Training Officer Simeon MeKenzie. Both men had received a report of a suspected burglary on Monte Vista Drive and responded to the scene.

Upon arriving at the scene, the Woodland police officers reportedly made contact with an on-site witness. That witness claimed she had been watching the house for her grandparents who were out of town. The witness led both officers around the house, showcasing a break-in at the front door as well as a broken sliding glass panel. The officer on the stand testified that the housing unit had been nothing out of the ordinary, a single-story building with a pool in the backyard and a front door facing north. Broken glass from the shattered front door was found as well, scattered over the living room carpet.

The officer reported that he had spoken with the on-site witness about the state of the house the last time she had been in the residence. The witness replied that the house had been, in fact, in pristine condition and had none of the damage that was now being reported.

The officer was then given a chance to review the security camera footage taken from the night of the incident, with the camera in the garage being the only one that captured the intruder. The time mark of the intruder’s appearance in the garage had been at around 1:40 in the morning. The witness reported to the officers that, during the intrusion into the garage, the intruder had been in full view of the children.

“How did you come to the conclusion that the (individual) on-screen was the suspect?” the officer was asked. The officer replied that upon the first viewing of the morning’s footage, the witness had reported to him with certainty that the figure inside the garage had been her own mother, who is the defendant.

The officer stated that he had never actually come into direct contact with the defendant.

Upon questioning the witness’ brother, the officers heard that he had gone out swimming the day before but the house had been left intact. The brother led the officers throughout the house, surveying the damage.

It was around this time that the brother then made contact with his father, who began talking with the officers over the phone. Identifying himself as the homeowner, the father informed officers that his wife had stolen thousands of dollars’ worth of jewelry and baseball cards before making off with the stolen property.

Upon reviewing the sequence of events, another one of the defendant’s daughters reported that she had returned to the house that morning after driving her grandparents to the airport around 3:00 AM. She had entered through the garage using a PIN code, with the break-in going unnoticed a few hours later.

The officers questioned the suspect, and Ms. Ford had reportedly been eager to assist law enforcement, admitting that she had stowed the stolen property into a manila envelope in her pickup truck parked on North Street. Her behavior had been described as remorseful and embarrassed, citing her desperation to avoid living out on the street, after being kicked out of her previous residence, as motivation for the burglary. Officers stated that the suspect had been willing to write a formal apology letter. When asked by the defense if at any point during the investigation did the officers suspect that there might have been a fallout between Ms. Ford and her family, the defense received a stern “no” as an answer.

The defense then reiterated that the suspect had no previous criminal history and recommended a no-contact order be filed between the defendant and her family.

The court ruled that there were grounds for an official own recognizance report to be filed. The schedule for the report has been put for August 16, 2019, in Department 7 at Yolo County Superior Court.

The post Burglarized Family Recognizes Suspect in CCTV Footage appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Nathan Yáñez and Sindy Lim

Woodland – Despite some discrepancies in witnesses’ testimonies, Judge Sonia Cortés concluded there was enough evidence for defendant Akash Chandra to stand trial for a charge of battery causing serious injury.

The alleged battery occurred on July 26, 2018, when Chandra, his friend Mr. E, and two women they met at District 30—a club—went to a home in West Sacramento for an after-party. The two women—Ms. C and Ms. F—were related, a mother and a daughter. According to their testimonies, when the intoxicated defendant saw Mr. E and Ms. F smoking together outside, he became jealous and got violent. He allegedly hit Ms. F and even pushed Ms. C to the ground, resulting in her broken hip.

During direct examination, Ms. C, the prosecution’s first witness, stated Chandra kept claiming Ms. F was his girlfriend. Feeling uncomfortable, Ms. C asked Mr. E to call an Uber for her and her daughter.

While they were waiting for the Uber, Mr. E and Ms. F went outside to smoke cigarettes. Chandra stayed inside drinking, but he became angry waiting for them. He brought them inside and tried to fight Mr. E, who refused.

Angry, Chandra left the house. While Ms. F went back outside to smoke a cigarette, Ms. C and Mr. E stayed inside. However, when Ms. C saw the defendant try to punch her daughter, she ran outside. She stood in front of Ms. F, trying to stop the fight. However, the defendant allegedly pushed Ms. C in the chest and knocked her onto the ground.

When Ms. C tried to get up, she could not. Her daughter and Mr. E picked her up and helped her into the Uber. The defendant allegedly ran off to his car and drove away even before Ms. C got up.

The prosecution questioned Ms. C more on her fall and the pain she felt. Ms. C said she initially thought the discomfort was due to soreness from the fall. Yet, when she couldn’t get up the next day, she went to the emergency room and learned she had broken her hip.

Although she had surgery and has recovered, she said it is still hard for her to walk up and down stairs. She also has a limp.

In cross-examination, the defense attorney referred back to a police report in which the witness said “somehow we got tangled up” and ended on the ground. Ms. C said she didn’t remember saying that and declared she was completely certain the defendant pushed her.

The prosecution’s second witness, Mr. E, said he was in the bathroom when the altercation happened. When he came out, he saw Ms. C on the ground in the street. He also witnessed the defendant fighting with Ms. C’s daughters. In contrast to the other three witnesses, Mr. E stated another one of Ms. C’s daughters was also at the party.

During the defense’s cross-examination, Mr. E stated he did not see Chandra push the mother.

The third witness to be called to the stand was Ms. F. In her testimony, she confirmed that it was just the defendant, Ms. C, and Mr. E with her at the residence. They had all been drinking alcohol.

Ms. F said after a few shots of alcohol, the defendant began drinking straight from the bottle and ripped off his shirt. The defendant was also aggressive and called her derogatory terms. He also tried to fight with Mr. E and even slapped her about five times and punched her.

Outside the residence, Ms. F recalled the defendant tried to punch her mother and eventually pushed her to the ground. The defendant got in his car and drove away.

In cross-examination, the defense asked about the possibility of a second sister being present. Ms. F explained there was not another sister, but she had met another girl at the club. The girl did not accompany them to the residence in West Sacramento.

The defense asked if she ever felt as if her life were threatened. She said while she wasn’t scared for her life, she certainly felt in danger.

The final witness, Officer Samuel Gee, took the police reports from the women at the hospital the next morning. Officer Gee explained Ms. F said the defendant had made sexual comments, which made her want to leave the residence. He also confirmed that Ms. F said she had been kicked by the defendant and sustained minor scrapes and bruises.

The defense had nothing further in its cross.

The court found that there was sufficient evidence to move forward with an arraignment. The arraignment is scheduled for Friday, August 29, at 8:30 am in Department 10.

The post Judge Sets Arraignment Despite Minor Inconsistencies in Witness Testimonies appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Michelle Lagos

Woodland – The alleged victim of a battery with serious injury case provided an expansive testimony on the stand, including claiming “street law” made him a target when the defendant was charged and telling the defense attorney on the stand to stop his “stupid questions.”

On Aug. 22, 2018, the defendant and his apparent girlfriend, who was seen holding a baby, were standing outside of a Walmart asking for money. As a homeless man, the alleged victim (the AV) was entering the store, the defendant asked him for a dollar, the AV responded by telling him not to beg but to work for it. After exiting the store, the AV claims that the defendant punched him on the left side of his face and fled the scene.

The AV, the only witness for the morning session, claimed on Aug. 22, 2018, he was attempting to go to Walmart to purchase new work shoes. The witness claimed that as part of his job he would go around collecting the recycling for different companies, stating that he only carries his belongings in a white grocery cart and carries no cash.

As the alleged victim was entering the Walmart, he claimed that the defendant was standing outside with his the girlfriend and a baby, begging for money. The defendant had asked the AV for a dollar, and the AV responded to the defendant by saying, “He shouldn’t be begging.”

The AV claimed he went back into Walmart to tell the security guard that the defendant was begging outside the store, but the guard told him to “deal with it.”

Upon exiting the store the AV, who claims to be almost entirely blind in his right eye and partially blind in his left eye, stated that the defendant approached him from his right side and punched him on the left side of his face.

During cross-examination by the defendant’s attorney, the AV, who claimed he had “blacked out,” stated he did not actually “black out” but rather admitted that he just “closed his eyes tightly.” The AV also refused to go to the hospital but claimed his injury was so severe that his face was swollen and he was unable to open his jaw for weeks.

Throughout the cross-examination by the defendant’s attorney, the witness became visibly upset, calling the defendant and his attorney “rats” and refusing to answer multiple questions regarding his past and his identity.

When the defendant’s attorney asked the AV to repeat his full name in court, the AV refused, stating that it was “none of his business.” The defendant’s attorney also asked the witness about why he lied about his date of birth. The AV stated that his actual date of birth was an unlucky number for him.

The AV continued to become visually upset by the questions asked from the defendant’s attorney, threatening several times to leave if the attorney did not stop his “stupid questions.”

The witness went on to claim that he did not have a stable home but floated around the United States. He traveled from Oregon, where he allegedly raced cars for money, and also traveled to Colorado where he was born.

The alleged victim also claimed he was diagnosed with colon cancer “caused by people smoking around him,” which resulted in him having his “whole bowel” removed as a teenager. He also claimed that as a young man he was diagnosed with polio in both of his arms, which was why he did not fight back. The AV claimed that he had never been in an altercation before because of his disabilities, which left him unable to use his arms properly.

However, when the defendant’s attorney attempted to question the AV on the assault charges he had acquired in Oregon, and on the domestic violence charges in Washington, the witness threatened to leave the courtroom. He stated that he was no rat, and he does not lie, unlike the defendant.

After the AV was punched, he refused to go to the hospital but did go to a clinic the next day. There, he was told his left eye had a piece of metal and was also diagnosed with cataracts. He went on to claim that he would be receiving surgery soon to fix both problems.

The defendant’s attorney questioned the AV on the severity of his pain after the attack. The AV claimed that his pain was a “10 out of 10,” and he was slowly losing his vision in his left eye. However, right after the incident, the AV stated to the EMT on site that his pain was about a “3 out of 10.”

The AV refused to take any medication because it goes against his beliefs. Instead, the AV claimed he traveled to “Spirit Mountain” in Oregon to seek spiritual treatment. The AV also claimed he had previously received treatment for his colon cancer at “Spirit Mountain” as well.

The AV mentioned that the defendant’s friends had threatened him a few weeks before he was set to testify. He explained that according to the “street law” he would be seen as a rat, which made him a target.

Allegedly, at about 3 am, while the AV was on his bike crossing a bridge, the defendant’s friends, who the AV claimed were standing about 16 feet or so away from him, had shown him a photo of the defendant and threatened him if he testified.

However, when the defendant’s attorney asked the AV if he could clearly see him, the AV stated that he could not see clearly and that the defendant appeared to be “blurry.” When measured, the defendant’s attorney was standing approximately the same distance the AV had claimed the defendant’s friends were standing when he was threatened.

The AV went on to state that his nephew in Canada was attempting to have the defendant brought over to Canada to be prosecuted there. The AV claimed that his nephew told him he could receive up to a quarter of a million dollars in restitution and that the defendant would receive 25 to life for his alleged crime.

However, when the defendant’s attorney asked the AV for the names of the lawyers who were supposedly working on the case in Canada, the AV refused to answer any questions.

Upon exiting the courtroom, the alleged victim stated toward the defendant and his attorney, “I will get you.”

The post Alleged Victim Claims to Take Defendant to Canadian Court after Allegedly Being Punched appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Nathan Yanez

Woodland – Serena Moreno is charged with one count of mayhem, two counts of assault with a deadly weapon and one count of stalking after allegedly using her car to hit two other women on July 22, 2019. Public Defender Tracie Olson represented Ms. Moreno, with only one witness being called to the stand to testify by Deputy District Attorney Deanna Hays.

The first and only witness to be called to testify was the alleged victim in the case, “AJ.” AJ revealed that she didn’t know the defendant prior to the events of the last few months. AJ stated that she had begun a romantic relationship with the father of the defendant’s twins in April 2019. That same month, she allegedly began receiving messages from the defendant. The messages came mostly from Instagram and at one point in the form of texts to the alleged victim’s personal phone. The messages were unkind in nature and referred to AJ in vulgar terms.

Around April or May, the witness said that the defendant drove by her apartment complex’s pool and shouted vulgar words to the victim before driving off. It was also revealed that the defendant allegedly broke AJ’s car windows. Shortly after the incidents, AJ filed a restraining order with the Yolo County Sheriff’s Office.

On July 22, 2019, at around 7 p.m., AJ, her nephew, a friend, and the friend’s child went for a walk in a park near AJ’s apartment complex. They arrived back from the park around 9 o’clock and went into the apartment. AJ went to go walk her friend and her child out to their car. While buckling the child into the carseat, AJ saw a car quickly pass by and park directly in front of her friend’s car. The witness stated the woman yelling from the car was the defendant, Ms. Moreno. At this moment the witness and the defendant allegedly engaged in a physical altercation, which AJ says the defendant provoked. The women at one point stopped fighting to talk but still retained their grasp on each others’ hair.

During the talk, AJ’s younger sister also rushed out to the street and indicated to the defendant to let go of AJ or she would also get involved. Ms. Moreno allegedly did not let go, which caused AJ and her sister to push the defendant to the ground and run across the street to contact law enforcement.

The two women were standing in a car driveway when the defendant got back into her car and allegedly backed up the vehicle and drove into the driveway the two women were occupying. The witness and her sister allegedly were violently hit and pinned between a car already in the driveway and the defendant’s car. The defendant then drove off. AJ’s sister sustained no injuries while AJ herself sustained the loss of her left leg below the knee.

When asked by the defense if the messages and texts stopped after the restraining order, AJ indicated that they indeed stopped. AJ also marked on a diagram of the street where the cars were located. In the ambulance ride to the hospital, AJ refused to speak to the officer as she claimed that this officer helped her with previous incidents from the defendant and wasn’t that helpful. Instead, AJ was interviewed by Officer Mathew Jameson in the hospital two weeks after the incident.

Ms. Olson argued that there was no strong evidence for the count of stalking or for the second count of assault with a deadly weapon, as the victim’s sister sustained no injuries. The court disagreed and found that there was sufficient evidence to try Ms. Moreno on all four counts.

Ms. Olson also then argued for lower bail or for an alternative program like an ankle bracelet. Olson’s argument was that if Ms. Moreno was rich she wouldn’t be in custody and that since bail has already been set, her threat to society already has a price on it. The victims AJ and her sister gave testimonies on why there should be either no bail or a higher bail, as they feared for their lives if Ms. Moreno were to be out of custody. The judge kept the bail at the current amount.

The arraignment is set for Sept. 4, 2019, at 9 am in Department 9.

The post Assault with a Deadly Weapon Case Allegedly Leads to the Partial Loss of a Leg appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Miles Davis

Woodland – A homeless parolee was arrested in a park in Woodland for allegedly rendering his GPS device inoperable by not charging the device.

In August of 2019, Jeramie Allen Newby was found asleep in Woodland Memorial Park and arrested due to his GPS device’s battery being run down. His parole officer, Officer Jenkins, testified on the events using information from a Veriprox Monitoring System phone call following the event. His testimony received continuing objections from the defense that the testimony was double hearsay, lacked foundation, and lacked personal knowledge about the events, which the court overruled at the moment.

“I was informed that Mr. [Jeramie] Newby’s location device had gone to low battery,” Officer Jenkins claimed, receiving objections that this statement was hearsay.

Officer Jenkins claimed the defendant’s last known whereabouts corresponded with his known transient location at the memorial park in Woodland. From 7:15 a.m. to 5:23 p.m., the GPS device was allegedly low battery. He testified Fair Tracks Monitoring system indicated a loss of battery life at his last known location at the park after he returned from a nearby Walmart. When the officers arrived on the scene at 5:23 p.m. to arrest the defendant, Mr. Newby was found asleep where his device was last recorded.

The prosecution shared with the court the conditions of parole, which begged the question of whether or not the defendant knowingly rendered his location device inoperable by failing to charge his device. Mr. Newby’s last charge on Aug. 2, 2019, was shown in his Fair Tracks Monitoring Enrollee Event report.

According to Officer Jenkins, however, any person required to have an affixed-GPS device as part of parole should not “knowingly” circumvent the operation of the device. The defense also made the argument that homeless parolees are instructed to charge their GPS device through public spaces like Starbucks, Taco Bell, or the Woodland Public Library. Instructions like these, the defense emphasized, were unrealistic and often reach beyond the parolee’s capabilities, creating extenuating circumstances.

The defense pointed out the impediment on homeless parolees’ ability to find establishments that allow them to charge their devices based on the limited hours, difficulties for transient individuals in professional environments, and, most importantly, the multiple reports of 911 calls from the public establishments listed by the defense requesting that the homeless be removed from their establishment because of transients presenting a threatening or discouraging nature to customers.

The judge acknowledged the defense’s argument that charging options for homeless individuals are non-existent outside of normal business hours, meaning that if a homeless individual whose battery went out during the middle of the night would have no access to facilities or the ability to charge his device. Among many other clear and compelling indications of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, namely his lack of a registered address as a transient, the court instructed to end the hearing for the day until further supporting documents of due process precedence are retrieved from the prosecution.

The court therefore ruled that the violation of parole hearing will resume at 10:30 a.m. the following morning in Department 10, considering whether a violation of rendering a GPS inoperable requires a “state of mind” that knowingly disabled the device.

The post Homeless Parolee Arrested for Allegedly Making GPS Device Inoperable by Not Charging It appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Joshua Liang

Woodland – A man charged with allegedly driving under the influence faces the possibility of a misdemeanor charge upgraded to a felony.

On August 10, 2019, the defendant allegedly was intoxicated in the Woodland area, with a Blood Alcohol Count far above the normal parameters for operating a motor vehicle.

The first witness in the hearing, Woodland Officer Ted Ruiz, recounted responding to a public disturbance reported at a Woodland supermarket at around midnight on August 10. Upon arrival, the witness became suspicious of a vehicle parked in front of him in the southern half of the parking lot.

While intending to investigate the vehicle as a possible source of the noise interference, Officer Ruiz spotted a Chrysler that drove up to and then stopped between both vehicles. Upon making contact with the Chrysler, the witness inspected the vehicle from the passenger side window, noting that it had occupants in the driver and passenger seats. The officer then identified the defendant in the courtroom.

The officer claimed he had simply said, “Hi,” when making contact with the passenger seat occupant. While conversing with the occupant, he testified that both the driver and the passenger exhibited watery bloodshot eyes and “relaxed facial expressions” that were indicative of alcohol intoxication. The passenger side occupant had stated something to the effect of, “I don’t know what we’re doing here. I don’t know what we’re doing.” Upon circling the vehicle to talk with the defendant on the driver’s side, Officer Ruiz noted that the defendant had repeatedly covered his mouth with either his arm or his shoulder.

While conducting a search of the suspect’s vehicle, Officer Ruiz located multiple “containers” in the vehicle after having asked both occupants to step out. One of these containers was still filled with a liquid which matched the aroma of beer.

Based on all these previous observations, the witness concluded that that the defendant had been under the influence of an alcoholic beverage on the night of Aug. 10, 2019.

Officer Ruiz stated that he has conducted no less than a hundred DUI investigations throughout his career as a Woodland police officer. He has also received more than 40 hours of sobriety and narcotics training, as well as providing field sobriety test training himself. In addition, another officer was present to provide Spanish translation for the defendant.

The deputy then reiterated that the incident occurred in a parking lot and he had turned the lights of his police car off directly prior to the encounter. After witnessing the strange behavior of the Chrysler, he had then turned on his body camera before making contact with the defendant’s vehicle.

Officer Alma Rosas next testified before the court, sharing she had provided translation from the defendant on the night of August 10.

Officer Rosas stated that her grasp of the Spanish language stemmed from growing up with the language. She then stated it was her belief that she spoke the language with a sufficient amount of fluency. While speaking with the defendant, the witness stated that they had understood each other throughout the duration of the questioning. The defendant had allegedly admitted consuming alcohol that night and stated he did not believe it had impaired his ability to drive.

Officer Rosas was then dismissed.

The defense argued the charge should be a misdemeanor instead of a felony, as the officer had simply said that he recognized drug intoxication symptoms and stated “please believe me.” The prosecution rebutted, stating that for a preliminary hearing the standard was probable cause – which had been met through Officer Ruiz’s actions.

The first witness was called back to the stand. The officer described a series of tests he had asked the suspect to complete, ranging from walking tests to asking the suspect to touch his nose. The defendant had reportedly failed to meet the officer’s instructions on more than one occasion, with Officer Ruiz noting that the suspect walked with some slight “sway” during the tests. He went on to state that he was not aware of any tests aside from a breathalyzer or a blood test that would positively identify a specific Blood Alcohol Count.

The court found that there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the defendant had in fact driven under the influence. The date for the next hearing was marked for Sep. 12, 2019, at 9 am in Department 7 with the defendant being held on a felony charge.

The post DUI Case Balances between a Felony and Misdemeanor Charge appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Joshua Liang

Woodland – A preliminary hearing was held in Department 10 for Alex Ibarra, a man suspected of breaking and entering a Woodland residence.

Compiled from available testimonies, the night of August 3, 2019, had begun with the defendant’s ex-girlfriend at her home with multiple friends. The group had been preparing to go out and promptly left. At around 3 AM, the ex-girlfriend had reportedly received a call from an unidentified friend who told her that she had left her front door unlocked. At the time of returning, the girlfriend found her apartment intact with no visible damage or signs of forced entry. Approximately three hours later at around 6 AM in the morning after leaving for a second time, the complaining witness returned to find the front door damaged, her couch defaced, and several of her personal items missing. The alleged victim also reported that she had been receiving various phone calls and texts from Mr. Ibarra prior to the break-in. Approximately an hour after police were notified, the victim dialed 911 but the call was disconnected. A responding officer to the victim’s apartment found the suspect less than a hundred yards from the apartment.

The preliminary hearing began with the court calling forth the first and only witness – James Olson, a Woodland peace officer of more than four years. The officer testified that he had received POST (Peace Officer Standards and Training) Certified Academy training in writing reports and testimonies. Officer Olsen stated that at approximately 5:55 AM, he had responded to a 911 call at a residence near Kentucky Street.

Upon arrival, the witness made contact with the alleged victim at her apartment on the second floor of the complex. The officer testified that the front door had been broken with visible signs of forced entry with wood scattered all around the floor of the apartment. The couch in particular had noticeable tears on the cushion and the backrest.

The witness then spoke to the victim, who described having been at the apartment in the night before with several friends. She also told the officer that she had been getting phone calls and texts from the defendant. At some point in the evening, her friends left the residence with the victim following shortly after.

At 3 AM as stated above, the victim received a call from a friend informing her that she had left the door to her apartment unlocked. She promptly returned to her apartment. At this point there had been nothing visibly changed in her apartment.

When the victim returned again at approximately 6 AM to the apartment, she found her residence in the state encountered by Officer Olsen when he first arrived on the scene. She then swiftly called 911.

The officer then identified two photos he had taken of the apartment. The witness proceeded to identify the first as a kitchen knife lying on the floor. The second had been of the victim’s couch with a visibly torn cushion.

Officer Olsen then noted that the victim reported a missing Apple laptop as well as some high-end makeup. The price of the laptop was estimated to be around $1000 while the makeup had been around $500. The damage to the couch was put around $1300 and the door to the apartment had been $150.

The witness stated that he had had a suspect by the name of Alex Ibarra from the victim’s statement. He also stated that at the time he had no evidence to support this. The officer then left the residence.

About an hour later, at 6:54 AM, Officer Olson returned, responding to another 911 call made by the victim which had disconnected. Upon arriving at the scene he noted the victim shouting something indiscernible while pointing to the east. The officer then drove in that direction and found the suspect. He then described the defendant, sitting next at the defense table dressed in black and white.

The complaining witness had stated that she wished the defendant be charged for his violations. She stated that Alex had arrived at her apartment and confronted her about a possible pregnancy as well as her relationships with other men. The suspect became increasingly belligerent and requested access to her phone. The victim denied him.

The officer stated that the defendant and the victim had been in a relationship for three years previous to the incident. Mr. Ibarra had also thrown a lamp at the victim, and Officer Olson confirmed it was lying broken on the floor. The victim then requested for the defendant to leave, but Mr. Ibarra had refused.

The defendant had cut two holes into the couch, which Officer Olson concluded were distinct from any previous damage done to the piece of furniture. Mr. Ibarra allegedly stated that he was going to kill her, then left the apartment.

The victim had initially denied being scared of the defendant, but then stated that she was in fact fearful. The officer noted that she had been shaking and appeared nervous. The witness also reported her being angrier upon responding to her house for a second time.

Mr. Ibarra had claimed he was on his way home from somewhere in Yolo County where he had been helping a friend with vehicle issues. He then detoured through the residential area in which the victim lived. The officer reported that, upon searching the defendant’s phone, there were four calls made in the previous eight minutes. He was unable to locate the victim’s missing items on Mr. Ibarra’s person.

The court declared that there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the defendant had been guilty of the actions described by the officer and the victim. There will be a follow up hearing on September 19, 2019, at 8:30 AM in Department 14.

The post 911 Call Disconnects during Confrontation appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

It is really too bad that they don’t allow cameras into courtrooms – I think the public needs to see Deputy DA Ryan Couzens in action in order to have a proper perspective on him.  He was Jeff Reisig’s henchman in the last DA election.  But he is best known for all sorts of weird antics in court – sometimes disappearing down strange rabbit holes, always being thorough and combative.

I first got to know his work during the Gang Injunction Trial in 2010.  My most vivid memory of Mr. Couzens was way back in 2011, there was a trial in Yolo County in which Mr. Couzens brought in multiple jurisdictions, organized a SWAT raid, with helicopters and the works and they busted into this compound which was supposed to be an Asian Gang drug operation.

The result of the raid was caffeine pills, powder that turned out to be ibuprofen, and the kicker – 1.4 grams of methamphetamine.  Far from an operation to support a gang – the value of the meth packaged was about $40.

But Ryan Couzens, not backing down to the jury, doubled down in his closing arguments.

He told the jury that this was a gang, selling drugs.  He said that it is irrelevant that Sacramento or Stockton would charge this crime as a misdemeanor.  He said that it is on them, and it’s their problem.  He said this is Yolo County and we do things differently here.

He told the jury he was a very aggressive attorney especially about gangs and crimes – he said the same for his office.  He said that if he allows “specks of methamphetamine” to go unchecked, if we allow a fledgling gang to go unchecked, just because it is a fledgling operation, that “that’s throwing in the towel.”

The jury didn’t buy it.  At times Ryan Couzens can be very effective and persuasive.  At times he can be his own worst enemy.  On Thursday, he was both.

Mr. Couzens took a hearing that had a single witness, and figured to last at most an hour or two, and dragged it out for nearly six hours in the Habeas case for Ajay Dev.  Talking to some others, I heard that if he had stopped at noon, he probably would have made his point and been reasonably effective.  He didn’t know when to stop – even when the judge said she had heard enough.

There are all sorts of variables here. As he explained it, this was going to be his only opportunity to question this witness, Bahvendra Yadev, a retired schoolmaster from the Village of Boria.

Mr. Yadev definitely gave him some openings to attempt to exploit – and to varying degrees, he succeeded.

Mr. Yadev, for instance, made the mistake of attempting to insert his opinion on rape leading to “soil” the family’s reputation, which Mr. Couzens dutifully exploited into a question about that being a motivation for the alleged victim to deny the crime against her.

Mr. Yadev gave him an opening by opining that rape victims wouldn’t “hold their head up” or “talk so proudly.”

Mr. Couzens also tried to insinuate that Mr. Yadev telling the girl to stay in Nepal and get married was an effort to dissuade a witness, just as he claimed that Ajay Dev had done.

He attempted to suggest the fact that Sanjay Dev had paid for the witness’ flight to the US to testify and money donated to his school were financial incentives to play ball with the Dev family.

But how much of a dent does this really make on the core contention that, in 2004, the alleged victim denied that there was a crime, and admitted to being angry about the passport snafu she blamed on the family?  Furthermore, there was tension between Ajay and the alleged victim because of how she was conducting herself – she was drinking, partying, and sleeping around with young men when the family clearly wanted her going to school.

There were clear cultural differences between the American view of sexual assault and Nepali views that Mr. Couzens tried to exploit, but Mr. Yadev never really wavered in his core claims.

Had this been in front of a jury, I think the petitioners, led by Ed Swanson and Britt Evangelist, would be more concerned.  But a judge is less likely to buy into the insinuations that ended up largely unproven.

At one point the judge allowed the repetitive questions by Mr. Couzens, saying that she would allow him to keep asking until he gets what he thinks he wants to hear. Later she was done with the line of questioning trying to insinuate pressure from Sanjay Dev and the family on the witness. Mr. Couzens continued anyway, not reading the judge’s body language.

It is also important to situate Mr. Yadev’s testimony because, while he left himself open to cross-examination, Mr. Couzens really never touched on the core contention – he simply muddied the water.

The question is going to be – whether the petitioners here can get all six of their witnesses in to testify that the alleged victim admitted in real time that she was making this up as a way to get back at the Devs because she felt they were overbearing and because of her legal troubles in Nepal – issues that were not allowed to be raised at trial.

Mr. Couzens attempted to argue that Mr. Yadev was close to Ajay Dev and his family, but, as was pointed out on re-direct, he is actually closer to the complaining witness and hers.

Moreover, while Mr. Couzens might have planted some questions in the judge’s mind, he never really discredited the man’s story.

Moreover, perhaps the most important witness would be the sister of the alleged victim, who sent a Facebook message to Sanjay Dev in January 2018.

She said:  “[AV] want to take revenge and get to Amrika [sic]. . . . The only way to come to Amrika [sic] was to come testify against Ajay uncle. We did not know that he will be put in jail long time. Now AV say that if she helps she will go to jail and get deported. . . . AV has lied many times in the past. She had no choice. Police say to her they will help if AV testify for rape. . . . We know that she was not raped. . . . We also tell AV to tell the truth that this never happen but she scared now.”

The real key for Judge Janene Beronio is going to be the ability of the petitioner to put together the patchwork of testimony into a coherent story that is compelling enough to make her throw out the conviction from 2009.

That is going to be a tough task – particularly with Ryan Couzens there for hours trying to throw mud at the witnesses.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

The post My View: Ajay Dev Meets the Notorious Yolo County Deputy District Attorney Ryan J. Couzens appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Joshua Liang

Woodland – The jury trial of Martin Arturo Rios, a Davis resident charged with indecent exposure in a public area, resumed in Department 13.

According to eyewitness reports, the defendant had been openly masturbating in front of different women over the course of both 2017 and 2018, with more than one witness only noticing Mr. Rios after he had been staring at them for an unknown period of time.

The trial resumed with the court dismissing one of the jurors for the remainder of the trial. The remaining jurors were told not to speculate while an alternate was sworn in to fill the empty seat.

The first witness was then called forth. After being sworn in she told the court she was a resident of Davis, having worked as a realtor in the city for more than eight years.

On the morning of April 19, 2017, the witness reported to the jury that she had made the 911 call at around 9 AM. She had been sitting in her car parked at the parking lot of Whole Foods on 2nd Street. The witness had reported she had been talking with her husband and was dressed in fitness attire as she had been planning on going jogging.

During the conversation, the witness began noticing a vehicle parked around eight spaces to her left. The driver’s side door had been open and a man with his pants down around his legs was situated out of the door frame. When asked what the individual was doing, she replied that he had been masturbating in broad view of the witness. The defendant’s car was described as a sedan of a dark color.

The witness stated that the defendant had been the only occupant of the sedan, which had been parked perpendicular to her own vehicle. She reiterated that the defendant’s legs had been situated out of the driver’s door at the time of the incident, giving her a clear view of the defendant’s penis.

The witness clarified that during the brief time she had been exposed to the defendant’s genitals, it appeared that his penis had been erect and it was clear what his intentions were as his hand could be seen moving up and down the shaft. Based on the above information, the witness concluded that the defendant had been masturbating.

At the time of the incident, there had been other cars in the parking lot, although the witness confided that she had not given a thorough glance to determine if any of the vehicles had been occupied. The witness went on to describe the defendant as wearing a hat at the time of the incident and identified him in the courtroom as wearing a black T-shirt. The witness recalled that she had been in the parking lot for about 15 minutes while the defendant purportedly masturbated. She went on to state that, throughout the ordeal, she was unable to ascertain any facial expressions by the defendant. She surmised that she did not know whether the defendant ejaculated at any point. Trying not to draw attention to herself, she called the police and, shortly thereafter, the defendant left the scene in his sedan. Sometime after the police responded, the witness made a positive identification at the police station. The witness surmised that the account was a fair reflection of what had occurred in the parking lot.

The witness stated that her description of the defendant at the time of the incident was that of a white male in his early twenties. She made it clear that prior to April 19 of 2017, she had had no prior contact with the defendant and had no previous knowledge of his living conditions or whereabouts. The court dismissed her from the stand.

The defense then called their own witness to the stand. Identified as a painting contractor, the second witness stated that he had never given testimony in court. Having run his own painting business for more than 14 years, the witness stated that he used his check book to keep track of his business.

After reviewing his notes for the day of June 15, 2018, the witness testified that he had been working two jobs at the time. Stating that his business mainly serviced the greater Sacramento area and he was aware that the city’s expansions had made morning traffic more hectic. The witness was unsure when he started work that day, stating that he was not “an early bird.”

The witness stated that he had the defendant under his employ during that time. He testified that the defendant’s attire during work sessions consisted of white pants, as they primarily handled white paint on jobs. He stated that Mr. Rios had facial markings and a lip ring, stating that he personally disliked the ring as he believed in maintaining some semblance of professionalism when on jobs. The witness stated that the defendant had already had the lip ring when he had first been hired. Mr. Rios and the witness had done hundreds of jobs together.

He also stated that he had worked with contractors on painting jobs other than with the defendant. The witness stated there was a realm of possibility that they had begun work at 9 am on June 15, although it remained highly unlikely as the witness preferred to start work before then. He stated that Mr. Rios would always arrive before him and never afterwards. The witness also confirmed that he believed the defendant to be a reliable worker and believed it was safe to assume he did not want anything bad to happen to Mr. Rios. He also affirmed that his beliefs about the defendant were based primarily on his own previous experiences with Mr. Rios.

The court then dismissed the jury for a break and planned to reconvene on September 18 at 1:30 PM.

The post Case Against Serial Masturbator Continues to Build appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

by Michelle Lagos

Woodland – Judge Paul K. Richardson declared a mistrial in the suspected Slide Hill Park serial masturbator case after the jury was deadlocked on all counts.

On June 25, 2018, between the hours of 7 am and 7:15 am, while jogging through Slide Hill Park in Davis the alleged victim claimed that the defendant, Martin Arturo Rios, said “good morning” to her as she ran by him. In her attempt to reciprocate his greeting, she directed her gaze toward him. The alleged victim claimed to have then seen Mr. Rios with his pants below his knees, masturbating while staring directly at her with a grin on his face. Fearing that Mr. Rios may attempt to follow her or cause harm to her, she proceeded to leave the scene. The following day the alleged victim reported the incident to Officer Keirith Briesenick of the Davis Police Department.

In the closing statements, the prosecution argued that Mr. Rios has “his pension for a certain sexual thrill, masturbating in public.”

According to the prosecution, Mr. Rios “willfully exposed his genitals in the presence of another person or persons who might be offended or annoyed by (his) actions.” Also when exposing himself, Mr. Rios “acted lewdly by intending to direct public attention to his genitals for the purpose to sexually arose or gratify himself.” The prosecution argued that Mr. Rios knowingly acknowledged his victim by saying “good morning” and directly offended her with his actions by drawing attention to himself in a public area.

The alleged victim was so offended by Mr. Rios that she feared for her safety and reported the incident to the police. When testifying in court, over a year after the alleged incident took place, the alleged victim was so disturbed that she “broke down crying” on the stand and could hardly stomach looking at the defendant. The prosecution argued that Mr. Rios’ actions were the direct cause of her emotional outburst.

The prosecution went on to explain that, in a similar incident on April 19, 2017, Mr. Rios “willfully and purposefully” exposed his genitals to another alleged victim, in the parking lot of a Whole Foods Market on First Street in Davis. Similar to the incident in Slide Hill Park, Mr. Rios was seen by the alleged victim with “his pants down to his thighs, his penis out, and staring” directly at her. The victim immediately called the police and when Officer Mathew Muscardini arrived on the scene, he proceeded to contact a CSI technician who discovered semen at the scene.

Due to this past offense in the Whole Foods parking lot, the prosecution argued that, because Mr. Rios has engaged in this type of behavior before, it was more likely that he would do it again.

In response to the prosecution, Deputy Public Defender Joseph Gocke argued that the officers who were in charge of the case failed to conduct further investigation and failed to create a creditable line up.

Mr. Gocke argued that the initial description given by the alleged victim of the Slide Hill Park incident was vague. She described him as being light skinned with dark hair and trimmed facial hair. The alleged victim did not provide any description of the defendant’s height or weight. Mr. Gocke also pointed out that both victims failed to mention Mr. Rios’ lip piercing when giving their description to police.

In response, the prosecution showed the defendant’s driver’s license to indicate to the jury that, while both witnesses failed to describe the piercing on Mr. Rios’ lip, their descriptions of the defendant were similar. And even in the photo the prosecution showed to the jury the lip piercing was almost unnoticeable.

Furthermore, Mr. Gocke stated that, while Officer Briesenick is a “calm” and “good” police officer, she was simply not ready for this type of situation. He pointed out that Officer Briesenick could have called the alleged victims for further descriptions of the defendant but chose not to. Officer Briesenick could have also obtained Mr. Rios’ cell phone’s GPS coordinates but did not.

During the photo line up, Mr. Gocke argued that the officers used a non-blind six-pack line up instead of a blind sequential line up. This, according to their expert witness Dr. Eisen, can at times lead to false identifications. Mr. Gocke also acknowledged that the practice of a non-blind six-pack line up will soon be an out-of-date practice in roughly 100 days. Starting January 1, the blind sequential line up will be the preferred method used during a photo line up because it does not allow for victims to “do a comparative determination.”

However, the prosecution argued that Dr. Eisen was not able to directly give his expert opinion in this case because he did not interview the victims. Dr. Eisen was only able to give a general idea of how the line up could have an impact on the identification of the defendant but he also stated that it would not always apply in every case.

Mr. Gocke also pointed out that, after the photo line up, through Officer Briesenick’s body cam, she could be heard indicating to the alleged victim that she had “credible evidence” and believed that the person the alleged victim had identified “(had) done it on two or three other occasions.” Officer Briesenick went on to say, “Thank you for calling. Even a vague description helps because we know who the bad guys are.”

Mr. Gocke argued that Officer Briesenick’s feedback had a significant impact on the alleged victim. Even after all this time, the alleged victim remembered Officer Briesenick’s statement to her, but could not remember pointing out Mr. Rios in the lineup or even signing her name on the official documents indicating Mr. Rios as the attacker.

The prosecution proceeded to argue that, even though the alleged victim of the Slide Hill Park incident could not remember those exact details; she never changed her description of Mr. Rios. Even when Officer Briesenick indicated that the DA’s office would be conducting an investigation, the alleged victim never changed her description of the defendant.

After a few hours of deliberation, the jury found themselves unable to agree on the charges. The jury found themselves deadlocked, 10 to two for a guilty verdict. With the jury being unable to come to an agreement, Judge Richardson declared a mistrial.

The post Jury Deadlocked in Suspected Slide Hill Park Serial Masturbator Case appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

(From Press Release – Yolo DA) – On September 19, 2019, a Board of Parole Hearings panel granted parole to convicted murderer Timothy Wilson.  At the hearing, which took place at California State Prison, Solano, Commissioner Michael Ruff and Deputy Commissioner Daniel Blake unanimously agreed that Wilson no longer was a public safety risk and was ready to be released to the community.

A Yolo County Jury convicted Wilson of Second Degree Murder in 1994 and Wilson was sentenced to 20 years-to-life in state prison.  Wilson, then age 23, savagely beat to death 46-year-old John O’Friel, a Bay Area software salesman, at a Davis park on July 8, 1993.  After the murder, O’Friel was so unrecognizable, due to the beating, that his funeral was closed casket.  Wilson has claimed that he beat O’Friel because O’Friel made sexual advances towards him.   After the murder, Wilson dumped O’Friel’s body in a rural part of Yolo County and took the O’Friel’s car and personal property to the San Francisco area where Wilson lived.   Wilson was not arrested until almost a month later.   The jury convicted Wilson’s 17-year-old accomplice, Josh Coleman, of involuntary manslaughter.

This was Wilson’s third parole hearing.  At each hearing, and in interviews with psychologists who prepared Comprehensive Risk Assessments, Wilson has claimed that he was physically and sexually abused as a child.  He has claimed that as a result of this childhood trauma, he was triggered by O’Friel trying to touch him so he “drew a line in the sand” and decided to teach O’Friel a lesson.  The California Department of Corrections psychologist who conducted the current Comprehensive Risk Assessment in May 2019, rated Wilson a “low risk” for future violence but stated on five occasions in her 18-page report that Wilson would benefit from future counseling and treatment associated with his early trauma history.  In prior reports, psychologists have stated that Wilson was dishonest, lacked credibility, had an anti-social personality disorder, was narcissistic, and had psychopathic features.

Chief Deputy District Attorney Jonathan Raven appeared at the hearing on behalf of the Yolo County District’s Attorney’s Office.  Raven argued against Wilson’s release stating “If Mr. Wilson’s trauma is his excuse for the murder, then clearly he should resolve this trauma before being allowed back out.  He has made progress but has more work to do.”

Commissioner Ruff read the panel’s decision stating that Mr. Wilson was now suitable for parole due to the “low risk” rating by the psychologist, the fact that he was under 26 making him a “youthful offender,” as well as other factors discussed during the hearing.  Ruff said that after listening to Wilson that “some of his remorse was genuine” and it’s not necessary for the panel to find that Wilson’s remorse was fully genuine.

The widow of the victim, Carol O’Friel, and three of their seven children attended the hearing.  After the hearing, she expressed her disappointment.  “Of course we are disappointed by today’s verdict.  Wilson admitted he is a master manipulator.  He has now admitted he faked mental illness during his first seven years in prison, then, for the next seven years, he faked needing a wheelchair.  When he would explain about his long history of assaults and many restraining orders against him, he would say how the victims triggered his rage.  I still don’t hear culpability.  I just hear excuses.  He has more work to do on his trigger issues.”

This decision will go to the Board of Parole Hearings for approval and then Governor Gavin Newsom will determine whether or not to reverse the panel’s decision.  Ms. O’Friel stated that she and her family will be making a strong case to the Governor for him to reverse the panel’s decision.  “I don’t want another family losing a loved one at Wilson’s hands and then coming to me and asking me why we didn’t fight harder to keep Wilson in prison,” said O’Friel.

The post Parole Board Grants Parole to Davis Killer Over Objections of Yolo DA appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

Paul Fullerton poses with some of his fire gear in his shop

By Danielle Silva

The motion to terminate Fullerton’s formal misdemeanor probation early was continued due to the sentencing judge being unavailable.

The hearing originally had been scheduled with Judge David Reed. However, as Judge Reed was currently handling another case, the Fullerton hearing was transferred to another courtroom.

Judge Sonia Cortés, who presided over the hearing, stated that this motion pertained to a sentence from Judge Reed so he should hear the motion instead.

His attorney, Ashley Bargenquast of the Tully & Weiss law firm, shared they were ready to move forward with the motion, but could continue if the court preferred.

The motion for early termination of formal probation was continued to October 21, 2019.

Last December, Paul Fullerton signed a plea agreement for a 90-day jail sentence and three years of formal probation service after the police raided his home and business for marijuana.

Fullerton, who had been growing medical marijuana, had given “two small amounts of cannabis on two occasions to an undercover officer without first checking his card,” Fullerton’s other attorney, Joseph Tully, explained. The undercover Yolo County Narcotic Enforcement Team, or YONET, member “had been in (his business) and given him a sob story about his wife having cancer.” The second time Fullerton gave the marijuana, he accepted a small amount of money “because the man was insistent.”

Tully stated that the police had been “overly aggressive” in investigating Fullerton’s case. According to Fullerton, the case had 23 officers for a $300 sale. Fullerton also had no prior criminal record before the raid.

Fullerton was charged with misdemeanor counts of marijuana possession for sale and felony counts of child endangerment and a weapon charge. His wife, Maricel, also received these charges. Since Fullerton signed the plea agreement, the charges against Mrs. Fullerton were dismissed.

Despite the charge being related to possession and sale of marijuana, the plea agreement noted that Mr. Fullerton could still use marijuana. He uses marijuana for various medical ailments, including a spinal injury which led to his retirement from the UC Davis Fire Department, with numerous back surgeries and screws in the back of his neck.

In an interview with the Vanguard, Fullerton shared that formal probation should be given to those who need to be checked in with. He personally knows many UC Davis officers and half the personnel of the UC Davis fire department.

“People say I’m anti-law enforcement. I’m not,” Fullerton stated.

In previous litigation over which type of probation Fullerton should be sentenced to, the court received six witnesses and a long list of letter writers which Tully argued reflected “good character testimony” gathered “over the course of decades.” The list included several former fire captains and a woman who claimed Mr. Fullerton saved her daughter’s life by having a fundraiser to raise money to treat her brain cancer. The defense argued for informal probation.

While Deputy DA Kyle Hasapes shared that the People “don’t dispute the good service record of Mr. Fullerton,” he continued to argue for misdemeanor formal probation as the “law is binding regarding status.” Hasapes argued since 22 pounds of marijuana had been raided from Fullerton’s home and seven pounds at his business, probation should check on Mr. Fullerton to make sure he is in compliance.

Fullerton also shared the influence the probation has done on his career as a firefighter instructor. Outside the courtroom, he stated he wanted to start teaching firefighting classes again. Even after his spinal injury, firefighter programs in Davis and Woodland requested Fullerton to teach auto-extrication, a skill that teaches how to safely remove individuals from cars. Fullerton shares he’s an expert in that field but has not been contacted once since the raid of his home. He believes the misdemeanor formal probation is a factor.

The post Motion for Early Termination of Misdemeanor Probation in the Fullerton Case Continued Due to an Unavailable Judge appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

Paul Fullerton poses with some of his fire gear in his shop

By Danielle Silva

A retired UC Davis firefighter who runs a gardening supplies business named Lil’ Shop of Growers, Paul Fullerton still finds himself dumbfounded that he is able to smoke a joint while on formal misdemeanor probation for possession of marijuana for sale.

On Feb. 29, 2016, Fullerton’s home and business were raided by the police after he gave a small quantity of marijuana to an undercover officer on two separate occasions. In the case of “sale,” Fullerton had finally accepted money after the officer had insisted. The case, headed by the Yolo Narcotic Enforcement Team, or YONET, had 23 officers seize marijuana which Fullerton used for medical conditions, including a spinal cord injury and back surgeries.

Following the raid, Fullerton would become charged with possession of marijuana for sale, child endangerment, and a weapons charge. In the light of Prop. 64, the possession of marijuana for sale became a misdemeanor charge. After his wife, Maricel, also received charges, Fullerton signed a plea agreement that dropped the charges against his wife and sentenced him to 90 days house arrest and probation.

The court received multiple letters which talked about Fullerton’s goodwill and character, including several letters from former fire captains and a woman who states Fullerton ran a fundraiser for her daughter who was suffering from brain cancer. Fullerton also had no criminal history prior to this case. Attorney Joseph Tully of the Tully & Weiss law firm noted that the money given by the undercover officer went to “a boot (Fullerton) collects for charity all year long.” Fullerton, however, received formal misdemeanor probation with an exception that allowed him to use medical marijuana.

The case, however, is not over. Fullerton stated that the civil case had already been settled, with Reason Magazine writing, “The Yolo County District Attorney finalized a settlement on Monday to return $53,000 that the Yolo Narcotics Enforcement Team (YONET) seized from the Fullertons.” Fullerton and his attorneys are also currently filing a motion to terminate the formal misdemeanor probation early, though the hearing has been continued to Oct. 21.

“There’s a stigma that comes from this,” Fullerton stated. “People say put it behind me and I say, ‘I’m trying to put it behind me, they just won’t let me!’”

Fullerton expressed his interest in teaching at firefighter schools again, something he used to get calls for even after he had a spinal injury. For his whole 20 years at the UC Davis Fire Department, Fullerton stated he always ran the auto-extrication unit, a skill taught to firefighters to remove people safely from cars.

“There’s no car I can’t get into,” Fullerton stated. “I know every aspect of it.”

Following the raids, Fullerton reports that he hasn’t received a single request to teach an auto extrication class.

“I just want to teach people how to save people,” Fullerton stated. “I want to exercise this need to serve.”

While Fullerton hasn’t been invited to teach in fire classes, he and his screenplay and book writer, Matthew Breno, believe another opportunity to teach has opened up.

“It’s like the angels paved the way themselves,” Breno stated as he and Fullerton headed down to LA to meet with Hollywood executives.

Last year, Fullerton had been approached by a fellow marijuana grower who found the retired firefighter’s story compelling. Fullerton had then been introduced to a producer which led to talks of a feature film.

“(This story) had everything Hollywood loved – corruption, cops with a bone to pick, firefighters, cannabis,” Fullerton stated. “They called it ‘the perfect storm.’”

Fullerton reached out to Breno after discovering the other worked as a freelance writer. In addition to the screenplay for the feature film, Breno is working on Fullerton’s book. In his viewpoint of his general approach, Breno noted he wanted to take an objective angle to maintain honesty and integrity – the film was taking a documentary route while the book would focus on the information as is.

“Nothing needs to be tilted,” Breno stated. “We want a solid objective eye on what’s going on.”

In his general focuses for the film, Breno listed themes of corruption and nepotism, cannabis and its effect on cancer, as well as other effects on fields like academics and a lesson to “accept the consequences of your choices.” He specifically noted consideration to the culture that comes with cannabis, describing it as “not homogenized, but harmonized.”

“It’s not about me,” Fullerton stated, regarding the story as a whole. “It’s about getting the story out. I have a whole industry on my shoulders. It’s about us.”

The post The Fullerton Case: Hollywood’s “Perfect Storm” appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By  Citlalli Peralta

Woodland – A California Highway Patrol officer who investigated the collision of two cars on Westbound Interstate 80 on Sept. 17, 2018, took the stand in a DUI trial. The defendant, Rajesh Kumar Sundar, has been charged with the crime of driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol and causing injury.

The testimony of the CHP officer, the first witness of the day, detailed the events of the collision that occurred a little over a year ago in the early morning. A Hyundai, which the defendant was driving, rear-ended a Ford van and resulted in both cars losing control. Post-collision, the Hyundai had been extremely damaged and caught on fire with the defendant still inside. The collision also caused the two passengers of the Ford van to be minimally injured.

After surveying the scene of the collision, the officer left the scene for the UC Davis Medical Center. The defendant had been taken to the emergency room after breaking his leg in the collision. The officer then testified that the defendant admitted to drinking three Bud Light beers and stated the car had no mechanical issues and. The witness described Sundar having red and watery eyes, speaking slurred words, smelling of alcohol, and failing two different types of field sobriety tests. The defendant was then arrested and given his Miranda rights after a breathalyzer test estimated that the blood alcohol content was estimated to be at .26%, above the legal limit of .08%.

In cross-examination, the defense attorney asked the witness if he remembered the speed of the Hyundai, but the officer didn’t remember.

A second witness took the stand and testified he had been driving on the freeway when he saw two individuals attempting to pull a male out of a burning car. The witness testified that he tried to help and that the burning car was heavily damaged from the front end. The witness testimony suggested the collision was allegedly caused by the defendant. However, the defense attorney in cross-examination determined that the witness didn’t observe or hear the collision.

The next witness called by the prosecution was California Highway Patrol Officer Mike Simpson. Officer Simpson had a body camera on, which provided footage and audio of the Ford van’s passengers and their statements. The body camera footage showed the two passengers stating they quickly attempted to remove the defendant from the burning car after the collision. Officer Simpson’s body camera footage also showed that one of the two passengers felt pain in his lower back. The officer testified that the bruising and injuries the passengers received could have been inflicted by the collision.

During cross-examination, the defense attorney asked Officer Simpson if the bruising origin could be specifically placed, to which the officer admitted he had no way to determine if the bruising and injuries occurred because of the collision.

The last witness was Department of Justice Forensic Scientist Jahdi Malik. She testified that a blood sample is accurate in determining alcohol presence and that this process is widely accepted in the scientific community. In her testimony, Malik stated she tested the defendant’s blood sample two months after it was taken and the test concluded that the defendant’s blood alcohol content was at 0.24%.

In cross-examination, the defense attorney questioned the integrity of the blood sample results and questioned if the two-month pause would have altered the result. The witness then testified that the time gap wouldn’t have changed the results because the blood sample she tested was refrigerated and allowed the blood sample to remain the same as when it was first collected.

The trial will resume on Wednesday and is expected to end on Thursday.

The post Witnesses Questioned in DUI Case appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Ariana Camarena

Woodland – A preliminary hearing was held to determine if a man suspected of shoplifting video games from a West Sacramento Target should be brought to trial.

Cameron Hackett is charged with armed robbery and possession of a burglary tool. The only witness to testify during this preliminary hearing was a West Sacramento Target security officer, who allegedly saw the defendant taking the video games. The People were represented by Deputy DA Daniele Schlehofer and the defendant was represented by Deputy Public Defender Richard Van Zandt. Judge David Rosenberg presided over the case.

On April 12, 2019, at 9 p.m., the Target security officer, while conducting video surveillance, allegedly saw an individual, whom he identified as the defendant, taking video games inside the store. The video games were stored in heavy-duty cases and only accessible to individuals with the magnetic key or another magnetic device. In his testimony, the security officer shared he did not see what was inside the man’s hand but noticed an unlocking motion over the cases. The individual allegedly concealed the video games in a waste bin beneath a clothing rack as he removed them.

After removing several video games from the cases, the subject then proceeded past all points of sale in the store and toward the exit. The witness moved to the outside of the store past the dual set of doors to intercept the subject. He stopped the individual and asked him to return inside the store.

The subject allegedly said, “This is bull***t,” before turning and starting to walk inside of the store. After entering the first set of doors, the man turned back to the officer and attempted to rush past him.

The witness attempted to prevent the subject from leaving by spreading his arms while they were between the first and second set of doors. The subject then allegedly threatened the witness by stating, “I’m going to f***ing stab you.” The witness claimed to have feared for his safety and let the subject leave. The subject proceeded to exit the parking lot with seven stolen video games. The witness totaled the games at $419.93 after the altercation.

In elaborating on the altercation, the security officer shared that the defendant didn’t claim to have a knife, but the individual’s threat made him fear for his safety.

Judge Rosenberg declared that there was sufficient evidence to hold the defendant for both counts. Arraignment is scheduled to take place on October 10, 2019, at 9 a.m.

The post Man Charged with Stealing Video Games from Target appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Evan Chu

Woodland – After the preliminary hearing in Department 13, the judge found sufficient evidence to hold Marcus Tafoya over for trial on multiple charges, including car theft and possession of controlled substances.

Mr. Tafoya was accused of stealing a vehicle on July 25, 2019. He was stopped by police officers two days later, the police officers also finding a white powder that they identified to be methamphetamine, and a glass pipe.

According to Officer Parveen Lal, he was on patrol and handling an unrelated case on North Street in Woodland when he saw the stolen car pass by. He said that he recognized the vehicle to be the stolen car because he remembered seeing the car’s information on the board before he left for his shift that day. He also testified that the driver was indeed the defendant Mr. Tafoya.

When asked about the drugs, the officer explained that the drugs were found on the driver’s seat and, despite the officer finding powder and a pipe, Mr. Tafoya claimed that the items weren’t his. As a matter of fact, the officer mentioned that when the defendant was pulled over, a female passenger was also present in the vehicle. When asked about her identity, the officer stated that she was homeless and had only asked for a ride from Mr. Tafoya. Officer Lal said that they ran a warrant search on the woman and found nothing, so they released her not long afterward.

The officer stated that the defendant and his passenger were asked to put their hands in the air when they were pulled over. Even though Mr. Tafoya was asked to step out of the vehicle first, the passenger had no chance to put the drugs on the driver’s seat because the officers were constantly keeping their eyes on the hands of both individuals.

The court has the arraignment currently set for Oct. 11, 2019, at 10 a.m.

The post Stolen Car, White Powder, Glass Pipe – Man Going to Trial for Possession of All Three appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Danielle Silva

In light of Ajay Dev filing an Ineffective Assistance of Counsel claim, the prosecution’s request for all of Dev’s previous attorney’s trial transcripts was denied.

Since 2009, Ajay Dev has been serving a 378-year sentence after being convicted of raping his adopted daughter. In the last few months, the case has been undergoing evidentiary hearings with claims that six witnesses have testimonies concerning the truthfulness of the alleged victim. The alleged victim (AV) allegedly told these witnesses that the sexual allegations were not true. Dev is currently represented by attorney Edward Swanson. Dev has also argued he had Ineffective Assistance in Counsel (IAC) from his previous attorney, Michael Rothschild.

Deputy DA Ryan Couzens, in response to the IAC claim, argued that he should have access to all of Rothschild’s files used during the trial. He specifically requested communications between Dev and Rothschild since Dev “has now waived the attorney-client privilege.”

Judge Janene Beronio denied the request for all of Rothschild’s previous trial documents. The court did find that Couzens should be provided with documents directly related to the habeas case, such as documents about the alleged victim’s credibility. This included information regarding the AV’s legal proceedings in Nepal, the witness testimonies of the AV being untruthful, the witnesses’ statements (both oral and written), and the investigator’s notes while interviewing the witnesses.

Swanson shared that these related documents have already been provided to Couzens.

Couzens also requested the witness statement of Bahvendra Yadev, the retired schoolmaster from the village of Boria.

Yadev had testified for nearly six hours at the last evidentiary hearing about the AV’s actions in Nepal. In the first hour, he noted how the AV had denied the sexual allegations against Dev to her grandmother but, following the passport trouble, believed the Dev family to be behind the Nepali charges against her and stated she would “do anything including telling a lie, and renew (the rape) case she had withdrawn before” in order to get back at Ajay Dev.

During cross-examination, Couzens questioned Yadev about the school’s finances which he stated Dev did contribute to – but so did the rest of the village. Yadev also said he had mentioned to the AV once to stay in Nepal and get married but it was not at the request of the Dev family, with which  his family was not particularly close.

Couzens also attempted to delve into the Nepali culture and how it may relate to rape victims bringing shame to the family. This line of questioning included examining the witness at times without the interpreter and ending with Couzens asking if she would deny being raped even if she had been in order to prevent her family’s name from being soiled, which the court ruled to be a prejudicial question.

In a quick redirect, Yadev clarified that the AV’s family was related to the founder of the school and her family helped found the school.

Yadev is one of the six witnesses testifying in consideration of AV’s credibility on the sexual allegations.

The court shared that Yadev would be one of the witness testimonies that would be included in the materials provided to the Deputy DA.

The deputy DA also made a request for all communications regarding sexual relations related to the habeas corpus to be provided, which the court agreed should be provided to them.

The next evidentiary hearing is scheduled for Oct. 18, 2019.

The post Deputy DA’s Request for All of Dev’s Previous Attorney Files Denied appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Evan Chu and Julie Maruskin

Woodland – On Wednesday, Oct. 2, David Urias pleaded not guilty in a retrial at Department 10 of Yolo County Superior Court. The theft of a car and controlled substance possession charged back in 2013 were reopened in response to an appeal claiming that the defendant was unfairly represented to the jury in the previous trial. The judge presiding over the reopened case was Judge Janene Beronio.

The first witness was an officer who testified to identifying Mr. Urias as the man in possession of a stolen car. In 2013, a police officer had noticed the car looked unusual and decided to run the car’s license plates. The officer found that the plates had been stolen because they matched the name of a person that the officer knew had been detained at the time. When pulling over Mr. Urias, he noted that the ignition had been “punched” or damaged with a screwdriver, a common way to steal a car. He also noticed that Mr. Urias was wearing a glove on the hand that was visible.

Deputy DA Alex O. Kian questioned the first witness about the other person in the car, a woman, and whether she gave a statement to the officer. The officer responded that he had not received a statement from the woman. Following this, the prosecutor and defense attorney approached the stand and discussed with Judge Beronio privately for seven minutes.

The next expert witness, Kimberly Sand, was called to the stand. Her title was given as a Senior Criminologist who worked at the Department of Justice’s contracted lab. She stated she was qualified to report that the sample that was given to her was methamphetamine. She was asked if she was qualified to sample DNA evidence, and she responded that she did not perform those duties.

The third witness, Officer Joshua Shearer, had found the defendant in another person’s residence before he arrested him. Before the arrest, the officer had asked for identification from the defendant, and Mr. Urias allegedly gave the name, “David Ruiz.” Shearer could not find that name within the system and testified that he noticed Mr. Urias had his last name tattooed on his chest.

The officer also reported that the defendant showed symptoms of using methamphetamine when questioned at the residence. Officer Shearer conducted three tests to check if Mr. Urias was under the influence. The three tests he explained as an eye movement test, checking his pulse, and checking his multitasking abilities. The defending attorney, Mr. Bradford, responded that the officer was not qualified in his training to be a drug recognition expert.
Through cross-examination, the officer had determined the substance was methamphetamine and not other central nerve stimulants only because nearly 100 percent of drug cases he had interacted with before this particular case involved methamphetamine and not other similar drugs.

The trial is set to resume on Oct. 3, 2019, at 9am.

The post Man Pleads ‘Not Guilty’ in Retrial for Car Theft and Controlled Substance Possession appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Arianna Medina

Woodland – The defense claimed it was a mere bar brawl, but the police officer and witness testimony revealed critical details about the assault that led Judge Dave Rosenberg to officialize the charges against the defendant and bring forth a trial.

Daniel Patrick Archuleta, Jr., was charged on felony counts of assault by force and battery with serious bodily injury after an altercation at a West Sacramento bar. At the preliminary hearing, the prosecution called forth its first and only witness, Officer Dave Asaro. Officer Asaro has been with West Sacramento Police Department for five years and testified that on April 13, 2019, he was dispatched to Cheers Bar on West Capitol Avenue in West Sacramento, responding to a call about a fight. He testified that, upon arriving to the scene, West Sacramento Fire and emergency medical responders were treating the faces of the alleged victims.

According to Officer Asaro, the male alleged victim appeared dazed and intoxicated and had blood on his face. The alleged victim claimed he had been at the bar with his friend and that he was too drunk to drive, so he went and waited for his friend in the passenger side of the vehicle. His friend, the female alleged victim, had gotten into an altercation with someone outside the bar near the vehicle. According to the officer, the female claimed to have been leaving the bar and walking toward her vehicle when a man standing outside the bar “made a comment” about stealing the car. The alleged victim proceeded to call the man an “a**hole” and the perpetrator then “pushed her down twice.”

According to Officer Asaro, who had consulted with other officers on the scene who were interviewing witnesses outside the bar, two blonde, white female subjects approached the female victim and repeatedly punched and kicked her. The male alleged victim then “became aware” of this altercation when the male perpetrator came up to him, punched him repeatedly, and attempted to drag him out of the car. Officer Asaro further testified that the male victim had blood on his face, his face was swollen, and both alleged victims claimed to have broken noses.

The defense objected to the statement of these facts, asserting they had no discovery of these other injuries. They requested this evidence be struck from the record and excluded. The prosecutor claimed to have received news about these injuries just recently himself, and insisted he honestly forgot to file it in discovery and share it with the defense. The defense further argued that there was a delay at the beginning of the hearing, as they were waiting on the transfer of the defendant, in which ample time was provided for the prosecution to share this discovery with the defense, and claimed the prosecutor deliberately waited until oral arguments to present this information. The judge agreed with the defense and granted the objection.

The prosecution proceeded to question the officer and asked him to describe the scene again. Asaro’s account recollected the alleged victim being dazed and not fully alert, and also mentioned evidence the victim had vomited. Asaro also recounted that the female alleged victim sustained several injuries to her face, and there appeared to be a “lump on her eye,” which was swollen. Asaro was then questioned about the state of the vehicle, and he mentioned there was a fresh dent on the driver’s side of the vehicle. He described it to be a “medium-sized dent,” about six inches across.

When asked about the proceedings after these events, Officer Asaro testified that another officer had created a “six-pack line up” of suspects to show the female alleged victim. A photograph of the defendant, Daniel Archuleta, was included in the line-up and the female victim readily identified him. Asaro also testified that another interviewed witness claimed to have seen Archuleta instigate the attack, and the two females with him slammed the female victim’s head into the car and repeatedly punched and kicked her. The prosecution rested and the defense was allowed to cross-examine the witness.

The defense argued that even though Archuleta got into a fight with the male alleged victim, he never kicked or punched the female alleged victim, and therefore did not cause great bodily harm to the female. The defense further offered that the injury to the female victim’s eye could have been caused by the two females who were attacking her, one of which happens to be in a relationship with Archuleta. The prosecution had claimed the alleged victims did not place their hands on the defendant and that this was an unprovoked attack. The defense concluded by re-stating that it was not Archuleta who caused great bodily harm to the female victim, rather the two other females, and because he has no previous criminal record he should not be held on a felony count.

The judge ruled that this was not just a bar fight, but rather an unprovoked attack in which Archuleta and the two females were “acting in consort.” He reasoned the male alleged victim was attacked in an unprovoked way and the punches he received to the head were dangerous, as he was intoxicated, vulnerable, and could not defend himself. Furthermore, inference can be drawn that the dents in the female victim’s car were caused by the bashing of her head. The judge ruled Archuleta’s case should go to trial and and the defendant should answer both charges as felonies. However, because of his record, he was to be released on supervised O.R. with a G.P.S., ordered to stay away from bars, and is to have no contact with the other defendant or the alleged victims.

The arraignment will be on October 18, 2019, at 10am.

The post Woman’s Head Bashed into a Car, Dent in Vehicle Shows Enough Evidence for Trial appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

We are two weeks out from another evidentiary hearing for Ajay Dev, but perhaps the most telling part of the last one that occurred on September 12 is that DA Ryan Couzens was going to play hardball and attempt to insinuate impropriety by the Dev family in implied allegations that they might be swaying witnesses.

One of the allegations was that Mr. Yadev benefitted from the Dev family’s donations to his school.  However, it came out under re-direct that actually the founders of the school were more closely related to alleged victim than to close relatives of Ajay Dev.

However, the bigger insinuation by Mr. Couzens was that Sanjay Dev earned favorable treatment by paying for Mr. Yadev’s flight to America.

Mr. Couzens after lunch continued to push the idea that Sanjay Dev had financed the trip and tried to allege that the family had influenced the testimony of Mr. Yadev.  Here Mr. Yadev held firm – he had reached out to Sanjay Dev through the grandson of someone in the village to see if Mr. Dev would pay for his travel expenses, but he had not been in great contact with Mr. Dev’s family or talked to them about his testimony.

After repeated insinuations, Judge Beronio asked where Mr. Couzens was going with this – and he admitted that he was seeking to tie Mr. Yadev’s testimony to gaining benefits from Ajay Dev’s family.

The judge did not appear to buy into it, saying that she was done with the line of questioning, and questioned where he was going.  Even after the admonishment, Mr. Couzens continued to attempt to imply that Mr. Yadev was lying in order to fund his school (from which he is retired) or to get travel expenses to America.

Amplifying on this point, Patty Pursell, sister-in-law of Ajay Dev, recently posted on the Vanguard that it was Mr. Couzens’ and Deputy DA Steve Mount’s inflexibility that led to this arrangement.

The attorneys first asked if the witnesses from Nepal could do a video interview since they were having difficulty with visa issues, plus the cost for many of them was prohibitive.  This came out in several discussions in open court.

But the DA’s office was not willing to do that.

Ms. Pursell continued, “Then the DA’s office was asked if they would pay the costs for the witnesses to come to testify.  The DA’s office again said no.”

These are crucial witnesses, as they directly witnessed comments by the alleged victim that undermine the validity of her story.  She acknowledged to at least six people in real time, contemporaneous to the allegations and trial, that she was making up the allegations as a way to remain in America and a way to get back at Mr. Dev for supposedly being too strict.

Along with new evidence of the actual content of the pretext phone call, these are crucial to showing that Mr. Dev and his attorneys and supporters have been right all along about the actual motivation of the young woman that the Devs took into their home and adopted.

But it has become clear that the DA’s office has no interest whatsoever in learning the truth – they are more concern with attempting to protect their conviction, even if it means keeping an innocent man in prison.

Denied other ways to produce the testimony by the DA’s office, the family had little choice but to take matters into their own hands.

As Ms. Pursell points out, “ The witnesses from Nepal that were first-hand witnesses to the accuser saying she lied about the charges are from a poor village and cannot afford the costs of coming to testify.”

She said, “Therefore, Ajay’s family had to take upon themselves the cost of flying these very important witnesses to America to testify.”

She added, pointedly, “I find it very unnerving that DDA Couzens is now trying to say that because Ajay’s family beared the costs of getting the witness to America, that means that they have dissuaded/tampered with the witness.  You can’t have it both ways.  The DA’s office gave Ajay’s family no other choice to have the truth be heard.”

Patty Pursell is spot on here.  The DA’s office in typical Ryan Couzens fashion is dictating the rules here and then when they force a course of action, they are attempting to use it against him.

The petitioners made multiple efforts to get the witnesses to the US without Ajay Dev’s family having to pay for their airfare.  The DA and specifically Mr. Couzens and Mr. Mount thwarted each effort.  They then attempted to use that against them.

So far at least, Judge Beronio has not seemed to buy into it.  But Mr. Couzens is continuing with the kitchen sink approach, which is not only going to make it difficult for the Dev family but will increase their costs as it drags these hearings out.

It leads us again to conclude that the DA’s office is more concerned with preserving their conviction than they are making sure that an innocent man is not serving time in prison.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

You can listen to Ajay Dev speak on our podcast:

The post My View: DA Plays Hardball in Efforts to Free Ajay Dev appeared first on Davis Vanguard.