By Tiffany Yeh

Judge David Reed ruled that settlement negotiations were not admissible in the opening statements of the Lance Ornellas-Castro trial. Lyrics written by Mr. Ornellas-Castro (including the words “thug life”), mentioned in a text he sent to Jorge Garcia, are admissible in opening statements. Mr Garcia was a co-defendant in the case and pled out last month.

Assistant Chief Deputy District Attorney Melinda Aiello was not planning to include references to gang tattoos in her opening statement, so the admissibility of the tattoos for the opening statements was not discussed at length.

Deputy Public Defender Dan Hutchinson requested that the judge allow him to include information about the negotiations on behalf of Mr. Garcia between Attorney Rod Beede and Ms. Aiello.

Mr. Hutchinson stated that Mr. Beede asked Ms. Aiello if an offer could be made, with his client willing to testify, but stating that there was no robbery, in exchange for a determinate sentence. Ms. Aiello rejected Mr. Beede’s offer, but they continued to negotiate.

Mr. Hutchinson emphasized that Mr. Garcia was promised things by Ms. Aiello, such as a determinate offer of 7 to 14 years at half time, and an outside chance of (…). “Much more was offered…”, Hutchinson stated. Then the contract that was written up ignored the promises made to Mr. Garcia.

But on the actual contract written up, it stated that Mr. Garcia only needed to testify to the truth (this was after Mr. Garcia changed his story and stated that the event was a robbery.)

Because of the day of severance, no determinate sentence was given. Mr. Beede told Mr. Garcia what he had to testify to.

Mr. Garcia had maintained that there was no robbery up until a point, and it appears that Mr. Hutchinson is arguing that the settlement negotiation had an impact on Mr. Garcia’s change of story. Mr. Garcia then changed his story to that the incident was a robbery.

Judge Reed stated that he has not known the discussion of settlement negotiations to be allowed in a trial in a courtroom, ever. He stated that he needed authority (meaning past cases) on the discussion of settlement negotiations allowed in trial.

When questioned by Judge Reed about why the negotiations between the two attorneys should be allowed in opening statements, Mr. Hutchinson stated that it goes to the effect on Mr. Garcia and is relevant to motive.

Mr. Hutchinson requested a continuance of a week to gather authority on the subject and also to seek some method of relief. Judge Reed denied the continuance and rejected the admission of a discussion of settlement negotiations between Mr. Beede and Ms. Aiello in opening statements. However, discussion of the formal contract between the client (referring to Mr. Beede’s client) and Ms. Aiello is allowed.

Mr. Hutchinson, if having Mr. Ornellas-Castro testify and answer questions, can discuss to an extent the settlement negotiations but not Ms. Aiello’s response to those negotiations. Mr. Hutchinson is allowed to mention the written contract between Mr. Beede and Ms. Aiello.

Mr. Hutchinson stated that he has proof (including proof that will not trod on the attorney-client privilege) of the negotiations between the two attorneys.

The most striking part of the issue is that Mr. Hutchinson stated that the formal contract made between Mr. Beede and Ms. Aiello was not what they agreed to beforehand.

The post Judge Rules on Admissibility of Negotiations in Opening Statements of Murder Trial appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Carla Arango

On the morning of February 8, 2016, in the case of the People v. Lance Richard Ornellas-Castro, the prosecution and defense provided opening statements, marking the beginning of the trial. Mr. Ornellas-Castro is charged with murder, attempted second degree robbery, and conspiracy to commit a felony.

On December 11, 2015, Andrew Phaouthoum died from a single gunshot wound to the head after Ornellas-Castro allegedly shot him from the back seat of Jorge Garcia’s minivan. Mr. Garcia, the previous co-defendant, accepted a plea agreement in the case.

“I need a come up n—-, got anything we can hit?”

“We can hit the one we want with the van”

“If there’s no evidence, there’s no crime”

Those were some of the text messages Chief Assistant Deputy District Attorney Melinda Aiello read to the jury as she began her opening statement.

Ms. Aiello explained that the text messages were exchanged between the defendant, Mr. Ornellas-Castro, and Mr. Garcia in November 2015, just a few weeks before Andrew Phaouthoum went missing and was later found dead on December 12, 2015. Aiello proceeded to play a recording of Ornellas-Castro talking about the shooting.

In the recording Ornellas-Castro states he and Garcia had pulled over somewhere (attempting to get rid of the body), when he saw Phaouthoum move so he shot him a second time. However, there is no evidence of a second injury to the victim.

According to Ms. Aiello, Ornellas-Castro and Garcia met about three years ago when they worked together at a Taco Bell in Rio Vista.

A week before the incident Garcia and his friend “R” went to the house of another person, “W,” trying to buy marijuana from him. W didn’t have any, but he set them up with Phaouthoum. Phaouthoum sold Garcia marijuana and they exchanged numbers for future business arrangements. That was the first time they met.

On December 11, 2015, Garcia wanted to buy more marijuana, and Ornellas-Castro suggested they keep the weed and the money and rob the victim, Aiello said. That same day, Andrew Phaouthoum met them at a Bel Air market in Sacramento.

Phaouthoum arrived at the Bel Air parking lot with his younger brother, Mitchell Phaouthoum, who went inside the store while his brother waited for Ornellas-Castro and Garcia. When Mitchell went back outside looking for his brother, he was nowhere to be found.

Mitchell went through Andrew’s phone and found the last contact was with a man by the name of Jorge, Ms. Aiello said. A search warrant for Garcia’s house was issued and police found marijuana and a new cell phone box and receipt dated December 12, 2015. Inside the minivan were blood drops and what looked like an attempt to clean up the minivan, Aiello said.

“No evidence, no crime,” Aiello said, quoting Ornellas-Castro’s text message.

Police also found a work I.D. The name on the I.D. card was Lance Ornellas-Castro. A search warrant was executed for Ornellas-Castro’s home, where they found a receipt for a five-shot revolver purchased in October 2015.

Aiello said Ornellas-Castro downplayed knowing Garcia, but admitted to being with him on December 11, 2015. Ornellas-Castro also said he always carries a five-shot revolver with him, according to Aiello.

Ornellas-Castro allegedly said there was a dispute over the amount of the marijuana, then he saw Mr. Phaouthoum messing with his pocket, which caused him to fear for his life and so he shot Mr. Phaouthoum. Ornellas-Castro and Garcia dragged the body and dumped it in a slough.

Aiello said Ornellas-Castro threw the gun away because, according to him, he was afraid of what he would do with it.

Aiello concluded her opening statement by telling the jury they will hear from Jorge Garcia and how he was desperate to get out of the consequences he faced. “You will apply the law according to the evidence and I’m confident you will find the defendant guilty.”

The defense then provided their opening statement. “This is a terribly, terribly sad case,” Deputy Public Defender Dan Hutchinson said.

“There is no dispute that Lance Ornellas-Castro fired a shot, but it wasn’t during a robbery. Although Mr. Ornellas-Castro took a life, it wasn’t a murder,” Hutchinson said.

Hutchinson told the jury that Ornellas-Castro honestly thought Phaouthoum had a gun and he instinctively shot him.

“Our reactions are shaped by our experiences,” Hutchinson said.

Hutchinson told the story of how 18-year-old Ornellas-Castro enrolled in the U.S. Marine Corps. as a Combat Engineer, the most dangerous position there, Hutchinson said. On January 13, 2011, during his first combat patrol Ornellas-Castro witnessed the death of his best friend from an IED explosion. The following week he witnessed two more explosions that killed two people.

Hutchinson told the jury they will be seeing text messages, but those text messages were never acted on, they were just talk.

Hutchinson said there was no discussion of the defendant and Garcia robbing anyone and that all the text messages ended on November 20, 2015. Garcia didn’t meet Phaouthoum until November 30, 2015.

Hutchinson also said the victim was not some random kid, this was a person associated with drug dealing. He said Phaouthoum and Garcia had made a deal, half a pound of marijuana for $500.

When they met up, Phaouthoum only offered them six ounces, Garcia argued that wasn’t the correct amount, but Phaouthoum disagreed, Hutchinson said.

Ornellas-Castro allegedly said “give us our f—ing money and we’ll go.” Phaouthoum looked toward Ornellas-Castro and reached for his pocket, and that’s when the defendant shot the victim.

When Phaouthoum’s body was found, he still had the money in his pocket. “This was no robbery,” Hutchinson said.

Ornellas-Castro was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) by a Stanford therapist while he was in custody. Ornellas-Castro’s PTSD is not an excuse, but rather an explanation for his behavior, Hutchinson said.

Hutchinson told the jury that Garcia wanted to give a statement ever since the moment he was arrested. Garcia’s previous statement did not include a robbery, so the district attorney didn’t make a deal.

“[Eventually] Garcia cuts a deal to tell a lie that he knows doesn’t happen, but his life depends on it,” Hutchinson said.

Hutchinson warned the jury that Garcia’s statement is full of inconsistencies. “You’re going to hear a lot of information, wait until you hear everything. You will see two facts, this was never an attempted robbery or a robbery. Based on those facts alone, he is not guilty of murder,” Hutchinson said.

Mitchell Phaouthoum, Andrew’s brother, and Alexander Wagstaff, a patrol officer at the Sacramento Police Department, were the first two witnesses called by the prosecution.

The third witness, Deputy Harball from the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office, first took the stand before the trial broke for lunch.

Jury Trial Resumes for Suspected Murder Case

By Setarah Jahid

On the afternoon of February 8, 2017, a murder case reconvened with the prosecution calling witnesses to the stand. The body of Andrew Phaouthoum, the victim, was found near an embankment in Sacramento on December 12, 2015.  The victim’s family was present, sitting in the court room, with a tissue box at arm’s length.

Deputy District Attorney Matt De Moura recalled the People’s witness from the morning session, Deputy Harball, to finish direct examination. Mr. De Moura resumed his line of questioning by showing Exhibits 1-3 to the court, which were maps of the area where the body of the victim, Andrew Phaouthoum, was found. Harball recounted the crime scene. There were two puddles of blood, 12 inches in diameter, found 25-30 feet away from the body. During cross-examination, Deputy Public Defender Dan Hutchinson had no questions for Deputy Harball.

The second witness of the day was “CT,” 23, from South Sacramento. His best friend of six years, meeting in college, was the victim. De Moura asked if CT had ever met Jorge Garcia, to which his response was, “Yes. I met him the day before Andrew went missing.”

According to CT, when he realized that Mr. Phaoutoum was missing, he tied it to Garcia. A week prior to Andrew going missing, he and CT met Jorge Garcia and a girl named “R” at the house of CT’s friend, “W.” CT and Andrew were playing video games and smoking weed. CT shared that Garcia had asked where the good weed was, and Andrew, as a friendly gesture, told Garcia that he could provide him with some. A week later, after Andrew went missing, CT found out that the last person Andrew called was Garcia.

During cross-examination, Mr. Hutchinson asked CT about text conversations from W’s cellphone. One text message read, “There are 20 mu—s looking for this guy.” Hutchinson proceeded to ask CT if he knew who those 20 people might possibly be. “I don’t know,” responded CT.

Mr. Hutchinson ended his cross-examination by asking if there was anything else besides a phone call that proved Jorge Garcia was responsible for Andrew going missing.

The next witness, Nancy Stone, Deputy Coroner at the Yolo County Sheriff’s Office, gave testimony on her preliminary examination of Andrew Phaouthoum’s body. She noted that a gunshot wound to the left of Andrew’s temple is what killed him. She also stated that when Andrew was found, the decomposition process had not yet begun – meaning that he had died fairly recently to the finding of the body.

The final witness, Sergeant Samuel Machado of the Yolo County Sheriff’s Office gave testimony, similar to that of prior witnesses, describing the crime scene and the victim’s body.

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

by Setarah Jahid

On February 9, 2017, the Lance Ornellas-Castro trial resumed with a substantial amount of evidence presented from the prosecution. Mr Ornellas-Castro is charged with murder in the shooting death of Andrew Phaouthoum in December of 2015.

The testimony of Officer Gill continued from the morning session, introducing clear plastic protective googles, fragments of a bullet from the crime scene, and pictures of the crime scene. Officer Gill confirmed that she had documented all evidence.

Gill was then asked about what she had collected when she searched former co-defendant Jorge Garcia’s house. She collected shoes, a Metro PC receipt, SIM cards, paperwork, and a Metro PC cellphone box. She also collected a phone from the kitchen counter.

Outside the house, she searched the Honda Accord that belonged to Mr. Garcia. Inside, she found two bags of “shake” (the leftover from harvested marijuana) and an envelope with Jorge Garcia’s name on it.

Moving on to the garage, Gill said that she found multiple bags of marijuana and a scale, and she said, “I was informed later that there was a tub …” At this point, Deputy Pubic Defender Dan Hutchinson interceded with, “Objection. Hearsay.” Judge Reed sustained.

The baggies of marijuana were tested for fingerprints, but to no avail.

Officer Gill then proceeded to check the car for blood, swabbing areas, and the car tested positive.

Gill also made reference to a Pepsi can that was found in the car, which tested positive for Jorge Garcia’s fingerprints. Again, Mr. Hutchinson objected, citing hearsay. Judge Reed sustained, and asked for the answer to be stricken.

Officer Gill also searched a Lexus on December 10, 2015, which belonged to the victim. She retrieved the keys to this Lexus from the crime scene. Inside, she found two phones – a Verizon flip phone, and an iPhone.

Officer Gill was then asked about her findings at Ornellas-Castro’s residence, and she shared that she found indicia with his name. More strikingly, she found paperwork from Lodi Guns & Engraving, and a receipt from Lodi Guns dated September 28, 2015.

During cross-examination, Mr. Hutchinson asked if Ornellas-Castro’s car had marijuana retrieved from it, to which Gill responded yes.

Officer Gill was then released, but is subject to recall.

The final witness of the afternoon was Conrad Del Castillo, a District Asset Protection Supervisor for Raley’s Family of Stores, who had access to surveillance footage of the Bel Air on Florin Road, in Sacramento. He confirmed that on the evening of the victim’s death, there was one camera outside, in a fixed position and recording.

Mr. Castillo was excused, and the court was adjourned. The case will reconvene on February 10, at 9 a.m.

The post Evidence Presented in Murder Trial appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Ruby Zapien

On February 10, 2017, in Department 9, the trial of the People v. Lance Ornellas-Castro reconvened.  With the jury, defendant, and all counsel present, the People showed a series of surveillance video clips.

The clips were mute, and the court sat in silence as the videos played. These clips showed what appeared to be a busy convenience store parking lot. In the videos, one could clearly see a young man walk out of a vehicle and enter the store. This young man is later seen walking out of the store and wandering around the lot as if he is looking for something or someone.  In the following clips, we saw this young man pacing the front of the store with his phone in hand, occasionally with his phone to his face as if he were on a phone call. The following fourteen clips were the various instances where the young man was seen walking in and out of the store from an inside camera. At one point, the videos showed what looked like the back of the store and two individuals walking along a fence, also looking for something or someone. Finally, the last two clips showed the original young man walking in and out of the store, this time with a companion.

At the conclusion of the final video, the People called Lisa Langford, a criminalist at the California Department of Justice in Sacramento, to the stand. On behalf of the People, Assistant Chief Deputy District Attorney Melinda Aiello questioned Ms. Langford on DNA and the process for analyzing it. Ms. Langford explained that approximately 99% of DNA for everyone is the same and it is about 1% of DNA which differs from person to person. She then went into detail on the four-step process of analyzing DNA: 1.Extraction; 2.Quantitation; 3.PCR, or making copies; and 4.Analyzing and interpreting results.

This was the process Ms. Langford used in December of 2015 to analyze the data on certain items in this given case. These items consisted of a pair of Banana Republic jeans, a Red Bull can, a bag containing possible blood, possible hair and possible brain matter, and a swab of possible blood from the center console of a car.

Ms. Langford continually used the terms “included and excluded.” Ms. Aiello then asked what the difference was between a match and being included. Ms. Langford replied, “They’re the same.”

Ms. Aiello then asked who was included or excluded from the items in this case. From the Red Bull can, both Jorge Garcia and Andrew Phaouthoum were excluded. Ms. Langford described her process for swabbing the Banana Republic jeans, and the six locations swabbed were the ankles, front and back, and the back of the knees.

When questioned on her methods, Ms. Langford reasoned, “Trying to, based on case scenario, see if there was any DNA of anyone who touched or dragged the jeans.” Based on these six swabs, five out of six were a presumptive positive for blood. However, the blood held a mixture of three samples, and the mixture was too difficult to interpret. Deputy Public Defender Dan Hutchinson, on behalf of the defense, asked to approach the bench. The Honorable David W. Reed and counsel spoke for a brief moment, and Judge Reed gave Mr. Hutchinson some time to research. Judge Reed read to the jury from a book written by John Wooden while the court waited. Finally, Ms. Aiello, in agreement with Mr. Hutchinson, brought the court back to the original matter at hand and jokingly said, “Maybe this is more interesting than DNA, but I don’t know.”

The People continued talking about the additional items examined in January of 2016, including a pair of safety glasses and a buccal swab from Mr. Ornellas-Castro.  On the safety glasses, the results showed a low-level mixture of at least two individuals, and Ms. Langford was not able to include or exclude anyone.

Questions followed from Mr. Hutchinson.

“When you performed tests on the Red Bull can and brain matter, that was in December of 2015?”

“I believe so…yes.”

“You didn’t have a sample from Lance Ornellas-Castro in December of 2015, but you did develop a profile from the Red Bull can?” asked Mr. Hutchinson. To that, Ms. Langford affirmed, and reaffirmed she could not exclude Andrew Phaouthoum or Jorge Garcia from the can.

After confirming that Ms. Langford developed a profile from Mr. Ornellas-Castro, Mr. Hutchinson asked about his profile in comparison to that from the Red Bull can. Ms. Langford answered, “He was not a match.”

With no further questions for Ms. Langford, Deputy District Attorney Matt De Moura, on behalf of the People, called Angela Stroman to the stand. Ms. Stroman is also employed as a criminalist for the Department of Justice for Sacramento County.

Mr. De Moura asked, “What is it called when trying to match bullets to a firearm?”

“Firearm and tool mark identification and examination,” answered Ms. Stroman.

“What if a gun was not recovered, can you liken the bullet to a gun type?” asked Mr. De Moura. Ms. Stroman briefly talked about a General Rifling Characteristics Database that could give a list of firearms that match the characteristics of the bullet.

Mr. De Moura then asked if Ms. Stroman did any analysis on two recovered bullets about this case and whether or not they were the same type of bullet, same caliber.

“They appeared to be, yes.” answered Ms. Stroman.

Ms. Stroman then went on to describe the list of guns from which the bullets could have been fired. Based on the results from the General Rifling Characteristics Database, they could have been fired from a .38 Special, a .38 Smith and Wesson or a .37 Magnum. Ms. Stroman also clarified that this list is not all-inclusive. Although the FBI frequently updates the list, it is not updated daily.

Mr. De Moura then asked Ms. Stroman about her familiarity with the gun brand Taurus, and if the bullets she analyzed could have been fired from one of that brand’s guns. Ms. Stroman confirmed that this was possible.

The next witness called by the People was Lauren Doane a Crime Scene Investigator for the Yolo County Sheriff’s Office. Ms. Doane is an expert in fingerprint analysis.

Ms. Doane stood and showed the jury a chart depicting three general types of fingerprints: loops, whirls, and arches, claiming these are the “beginning phases of identifications.”

Mr. De Moura asked if everyone has all of these characteristics.

“You may have some. None. Everyone is different,” answered Ms. Doane.

Mr. De Moura then asked what a “usable print” is. To that, Ms. Doane replied that a usable print has enough detail to recognize, but not enough to make an identification.

Moving on to the six fingerprints in exhibits marked Prints A-E, Mr. De Moura asked Ms. Doane what her findings were.

Print A was identified to the right middle finger of Jorge Garcia. Print B was usable, and eliminated Andrew Phaouthoum but could not eliminate Jorge Garcia. Print C was another usable print, but had not enough detail to eliminate Andrew Phaouthoum or Jorge Garcia. Print D was identified as Jorge Garcia’s left middle finger. Finally, Print E was identified as Jorge Garcia’s left middle finger.

The defense then cross-examined and questioned Ms Doane about Print C, asking her to confirm that she could not eliminate Jorge Garcia and Andrew Phaouthoum because they had a similar pattern. Ms. Doane simply answered, “Yes.”

“How common is that?” asked Mr. Hutchinson.

“In that case, a loop, 60% of the population has that characteristic.”

The next witness was Mr. John Sadlowski, a Yolo County District Attorney’s Office investigator in the High Tech Unit.

Mr. Sadlowski was asked about phones pertaining to this case. Mr. Sadlowski mentioned an LG phone, a Samsung Galaxy, and an iPhone 5C. Mr. Sadlowski was able to extract data from all of these.

Mr. De Moura asked if any other phones were collected and examined related to this case.

“Yes, five other phones,” answered Mr. Sadlowski.

Mr. Hutchinson, for the defense, asked to go over the five additional phones that were examined, slowly. Mr. Sadlowski mentioned another iPhone 5C that could not be extracted because it was remotely reset. Following that iPhone 5C was an Alcatel One Touch 505, a different Samsung, an iPhone 4, and a Motorola 360.

The final witness for the day was a sibling of Mr. Jorge Garcia, hereinafter referred to as “JG.” JG is a senior in high school with the hopes of attending college to study architecture and graphic design.

Ms. Aiello asked about Jorge Garcia’s working hours.

“He would leave around five-ish and be back around five-ish or four-ish,” answered JG.

Regarding the night of December 11, 2015, “Did something wake you up?” asked Ms. Aiello.

“Like a car,” said JG.

“Did you assume it to be your brother?” Ms. Aiello continued.

“Yes.”

“Why?”

“Because the dogs didn’t bark,” said JG.

The following line of questions was regarding Jorge Garcia and whether or not he obtained a new phone. JG claimed he did not know, that his brother never mentioned it. However, when JG was asked if he received a text from Jorge Garcia, saying “this is my new number,” JG said he did receive such text.

Mr. Hutchinson then questioned JG on which cars his brother Jorge Garcia regularly drove and whether JG had a driver’s license at the time. JG answered, “No, I still don’t.” Finally, Mr. Hutchinson asked if Jorge Garcia has a nickname.

“Yeah, he calls himself Solo,” replied JG.

When the jury was released for lunch, Judge Reed explained to both counsel that the scope of inquiry to Jorge Garcia would be limited to whether or not he had any knowledge of Mr. Rod Beede, Garcia’s attorney, talking to others. Content and details of what happened in this case were not to be an open inquiry. Finally, Judge Reed planned to inform Mr. Beede that he will not be in the courtroom during Mr. Garcia’s testimony.

Upon return from lunch, Judge Reed instructed the jury that the court would be watching a video of the interview on January 19, 2016, shortly after Mr. Ornellas-Castro’s arrest. Detective Young, who conducted the interview, will be called to testify at a later date.

The video began with Mr. Ornellas-Castro with a shaved head, wearing a red 49ers shirt and red shorts, sitting alone in handcuffs and fidgety before Detective Young entered the room.

Detective Young advised Mr. Ornellas-Castro of his rights and continued to tell Ornellas-Castro, “We’ve been talking to Jorge, this is your chance to tell us your side of the story… do you know what I’m talking about?” Mr. Ornellas-Castro was seen shaking his head.

Detective Young proceeded to ask Ornellas-Castro about his relationship with Jorge Garcia.

“Ever know Jorge to smoke weed with Asian guys? Ever pretend to buy and then rob?” inquired Detective Young.

Mr. Ornellas-Castro responded, “I wouldn’t know. Don’t think we’re tight like that.”

Detective Young brought up text exchanges between Jorge Garcia and Mr. Ornellas-Castro about being paranoid. “Why would he text you this?” asked Det. Young.

“I don’t think he would text me that,” answered Mr. Ornellas-Castro. At this point in the video, Ornellas-Castro appeared defensive and asked, “So I’m being charged or something?”

“Yeah, you’re being charged with murder,” responded Detective Young.

Mr. Ornellas-Castro then said, “I don’t see how this is pointing to me.”

After discussing the text messages again, Mr. Ornellas-Castro reaffirmed they could not have been from him, due to his phone being cut off. Detective Young asked Ornellas-Castro about his work glasses and badge.

“He has them. I never take them home. I always leave them in his van… If I didn’t leave it with him, I’d probably forget it,” answered Ornellas-Castro.

“Any idea why your glasses would be at a crime scene?”

“Nah,” responded Mr. Ornellas-Castro.

“Everything is there,” stated Det. Young.

Mr. Ornellas-Castro raised his voice, “I don’t see how everything is there, but if he’s saying it, what am I supposed to do?”

Det. Young continued to push on the topic of the text messages found on Mr. Garcia’s phone. However, after Mr. Ornellas-Castro was told he was being booked, he asked for a phone call to contact his family for an attorney.

Detective Young re-entered the room, alone. He wanted to talk to Mr. Ornellas-Castro about waiving his rights and discussing some items found in his home, particularly a receipt for a Taurus gun.

Mr. Ornellas-Castro began to give his rendition of the night of the incident.

“We went to pick up weed… he didn’t give us the right amount, and he flipped like he was going to pull something out,” Ornellas-Castro said as he gestured his hand toward his hip. “I’m trained to do this… That’s what happened, and that’s what happened. I just reacted. I didn’t have time.”

When asked what Jorge Garcia’s reaction was, Mr. Ornellas-Castro said, “He panicked, he drove off.”

“You pulled out your pistol and shot him twice?” asked Detective Young.

“I shot once, so we pulled over, pulled him out of the car and he started moving.”

“So you shot him again? Where did you shoot him the second time?” inquired Det. Young.

“In the head,” recalled Ornellas-Castro.

The family of the victim, at this point, could not hold back their emotions, and tears began to run down their faces as they listened to how Andrew Phaouthoum was murdered.

After telling Det. Young that the murder weapon was thrown in a river, Young said to Ornellas-Castro, “Here’s the thing, you’re coming out and being honest. People understand you were in Afghanistan… you’re not going to be judged the same as anyone else.”

“I just feel like I am, Jorge didn’t really do it, it’s really me looking at the time,” responded Mr. Ornellas-Castro.

Detective Young asked about the gun again. “I didn’t want to do anything ever again, so I threw it in the river,” stated Ornellas-Castro. Det. Young then tried to review the event.

“If you never robbed before and you go out to buy marijuana from this guy. You don’t even know this guy. You guys had money/cash.”

Mr. Ornellas-Castro interrupted to mention that he had fronted Mr. Garcia the money in order to turn around and sell the weed because he needed the money for rent.

Detective Young continued, “You said [Andrew Phaouthoum] was talking smack?”

Ornellas-Castro answered, describing what the victim had said,“’Nah… What the F—… Nah that’s what you got.’ When we told him to give us back the money, he said ‘Nah F— that.’”

“Basically you felt like Jorge’s life, and your life was in danger?” asked Det. Young.

“Yeah.”

Detective Young continued, “You were in war as a combat engineer, maybe that’s where all of that was coming from.”

“Yeah,” said Ornellas-Castro.

The two then spoke more about Mr. Ornellas-Castro’s experiences at war and his upcoming appointment for a mental evaluation.

Judge Reed ordered to stop the video at 4:00 P.M. and advised the jury not to return on Monday, February 20, due to the court holiday.

The trial will resume Tuesday, February 21, 2017, in Department 8.

The post Interrogation Video Leaves Victim’s Family in Tears During Murder Trial appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Ryan Gonzales

On February 15, 2017, Judge Paul K. Richardson presided over the preliminary hearing conference for the People v. Benjamin Prowell. Mr. Prowell, who was in the United States Navy for nine years, is being charged with a felony count of stalking his ex-girlfriend, from April 2016 to January 2017.

“V,” who is the ex-girlfriend of the defendant and the complaining witness in this case, testified that she was in a relatively short casual relationship with Mr. Prowell, that they met only a couple times a week and mostly contacted each other through phone.

However, Mr. Prowell had a different understanding of their relationship.

V told the court that the relationship “ran its course,” thus she broke up with Mr. Prowell in the month of February 2016. Although at first Mr. Prowell seemed to handle the breakup well, V stated that the following week after the breakup, he refused to accept it, which led to the nine months during which V said he harassed her.

During this period, Mr. Prowell had sent 150 emails to V’s work email, 57 to her personal email, and 33 Facebook messages. V described these emails to contain uneasy descriptions of their relationship, and stated that some of the messages made her fearful. For instance, V testified that one email had Mr. Prowell stating that he had friends coming into town and hoped that they didn’t run into her. Another contained the message that if V had seen Mr. Prowell’s car in her neighborhood, it was because he was dating someone who lived close by.

In one instance, Mr. Prowell had sent a box to V’s workplace that contained a cologne-soaked journal, which contained a variety of statements about why he felt wronged and other narratives, such as original poems.

In response to this constant bombardment of emails and the journal, V testified that she changed the access code to her work, blocked Mr. Prowell on all social media outlets, and covered up her house windows with black sheets. As the emails continued, V eventually felt that she couldn’t protect herself anymore and she feared for her life, thus she sought to involve law enforcement.

However, during cross-examination, Deputy Public Defender Peter Borruso inquired whether the emails explicitly showed threatening language, and if Mr. Prowell had ever physically assaulted V during their relationship, causing her to fear for her life. V responded no, not explicitly.

Furthermore, Mr. Borruso inquired as to why V took all these steps of blocking him and contacting the police, but never filed for a restraining order or protective order. V responded that she took the advice of the investigating officer, Joshua Helton of the Davis Police Department, who said that if she were to serve such orders, it could exacerbate the situation.

As the examinations concluded, Mr. Borruso began his argument as to why the charges should not stand, and/or should be reduced. Mr. Borruso believed that no credible threat was ever made within the emails, thus V’s fearfulness is not an element to be considered for the felony charge of Penal Code section 646.9(a). Simply, he believed that Mr. Prowell was emotional over the breakup and sent intoxicated messages that had no threatening intent, thus if the court found sufficient evidence to hold the defendant to answer, it should consider reduction to a misdemeanor charge.

“I’m not saying this should be the way to treat someone, but it is not criminal action,” concluded Mr. Borruso.

However, the prosecution rebutted that the complaining witness was targeted and became fearful. Since fear stems from a threat and V’s emotion was subjective to her, the prosecution moved to deny the motion to suppress.

Although Judge Richardson took into consideration Mr. Prowell’s military background toward his credibility, the judge concluded that, due to the volume and variety of ways Mr. Prowell contacted V and the content of certain emails – such as Mr. Prowell being in V’s neighborhood, he believed that her fear was credible. Therefore, the court held the felony count.

Judge Richardson set Mr. Prowell’s arraignment date to March 1, 2017, in Department 13.

The post Complaining Witness Testifies in Stalking Incident appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Gloria Ho

On the afternoon of February 15, 2017, testimony continued in the jury trial of the People v. Jared Daniel Boles at Yolo County Superior Court. Criminal Defense Attorney David R. Nelson represents Mr. Boles. Deputy District Attorney Michael Vroman is representing the People.

Defendant Jared Daniel Boles, 32, is currently charged with multiple counts in this case. They include Health and Safety Code section 11377(a), possession of methamphetamine; Health and Safety Code section 11364, possession of drug paraphernalia; Health and Safety Code section 11359, possession of marijuana for sale; Penal Code section 273a(a), felony child endangerment; Penal Code section 273.5(a), inflicting corporal injury on cohabitant; possession of firearms; and possession of ammunitions.

On June 20, 2016, Mr. Boles was arrested on 19100 County Road 86A in Esparto, with methamphetamine and marijuana found in his truck. Mr. Bole’s female cohabitant, “WK,” also met with Detective Brian Young of the Yolo County Sheriff’s Office and handed over an unloaded handgun alongside a duct-taped loaded magazine with ammunition rounds.

Testimonies continued with the People’s witnesses in Department 11 with Judge Timothy Fall presiding.

Crime Scene Investigator Lauren Hartfield took the witness stand and then answered Deputy DA Vroman’s questions about her expertise. CSI Harfield has seven years of experience. Ms. Hartfield said that her responsibilities as a CSI were to investigate, take photographs, go through phones and extract information by the use of software at the sheriff’s department, and examine fingerprints for analysis.

Mr. Vroman asked further questions about extracting data from a cellphone and about the process. CSI Hartfield told the court that she would obtain the information from the phone, get a report about it in a Word document-like format, and send the information to whomever requested the work.

The People showed CSI Hartfield two cellphones in a zip lock bag and asked if she could identify them. She testified that those were the two phones she extracted information from for Detective Young.

The People then switched the discussion over to fingerprints examination. CSI Hartfield testified that she is an expert in fingerprint analysis. She’s had 100 certified hours in fingerprints analysis and over 200 positive identifications in her tenure.

On July 12, 2016, CSI Hartfield made an identification of the defendant’s right middle fingerprint from the duct tape on the loaded magazine Det. Young obtained from WK. A yellow toolbox, an AR-15 rifle, three magazines with fire ammunition rounds, and a freezer zip lock bag were also searched for fingerprints.

“Were you able to find any usable and identifiable fingerprints on the evidence?” the People questioned.

“Yes,” the People’s witness testified.

From CSI Hartfield’s report, the only usable and identifiable fingerprint on any of the items in evidence was on the magazine with a loaded magazine that Det. Young received from WK. The fingerprint was on the adhesive side of the tape on the magazine.

“When I watch for example, CSI, they always find the fingerprint, is that always the case?” Mr. Vroman asked.

“No,” CSI Hartfield responded. She said that statistically there is only a 30 percent chance to find fingerprints in reality.

Mr. Vroman showed People’s Exhibit 49, which consisted of a photograph of the duct tape removed from the magazine and processed. The fingerprint showed on the upper left region on the sticky side of the duct tape. The People also showed Exhibit 50, which was the results of the identification made to the known print of Jared Daniel Boles.

The defense began to cross-examine CSI Hartfield and asked if she knew who put the duct tape on the handgun. She testified that she didn’t know.

“Are there other prints on the tape?” Mr. Nelson asked.

“Yes, there were partial prints,” CSI Hartfield testified.

“You couldn’t identify that Mr. Boles loaded the magazine, is that a fair statement?” the defense asked.

“Yes,” the witness answered.

“You couldn’t identify that Mr. Boles handled that gun, is that a fair statement?” Mr. Nelson asked.

“Yes,” the People’s witness responded. CSI Hartfield found two prints but couldn’t use them for comparison because they were not usable or identifiable. The witness was then excused when there were no further questions.

The People called Detective Brian Young to the stand. He has been working for 13 years and has been a detective for six to seven years.

Mr. Vroman, wearing gloves, uncovered a handgun from a brown paper bag and asked Detective Young if he could identify People’s Exhibit 31. Detective Young confirmed that it was the handgun he retrieved from WK and testified that he sent the evidence to CSI Hartfield to examine.

The People began to ask questions about the two cellphones that were seized from Mr. Boles. One was a Samsung phone and the other was an LG phone.

On June 15, 2016, the defendant sent a text message to a person in his contacts named “Kid” on his LG phone. Detective Young was asked to read the messages out loud that CSI Hartfield had extracted from the LG phone’s report.

“I’ve been going through Vallejo selling narcotics. That’s all I know,” Detective Young read on page 12 from People’s Exhibit 1.

On June 19, 2016, “Kid” sent Mr. Boles a message that said, “Bring a scale so I can make sure she go both pounds for me please.”

On June 20, 2016, at 7:14am, he sent “Kid” a text saying, “I’m sorry about last night. Kinda got crazy.” Two minutes later he sent another text, “I’m in Vallejo now working.”

Mr. Vroman then proceeded to show People’s Exhibit 2 and 3, which consisted of photos from the LG phone with a lot of cash in $50 and $100 bills on a distinguishable patterned tablecloth. The pictures were uploaded to the phone on June 19, 2016. Deputy DA Vroman asked if Detective Young could estimate how much cash were in the photos.

“I believe it was just over $5,300,” Det. Young testified.

Next, Mr. Vroman began to introduce People’s Exhibit 25, a video found on the LG phone. The People then played the video in court for the jury to see.

In the video, the defendant was riding an ATV with a really loud engine and there was a lot of tall green grass nearby. The camera focused on a turkey from faraway and a loud gunshot went off. The defendant was moving his phone around, and the freezer zip lock bag and a brown sling were in sight. Then a second gunshot went off and the defendant yelled out “Woohoo!” repeatedly. Mr. Boles, who then turned the camera to face himself, said, “Sorry for the violent content. Parental discretion advised.” The engine of the ATV made loud whirring sounds and the camera moved in various directions as Mr. Boles drove over to the turkey. “Oh, that one got ‘em!” he said as he grabbed the turkey by the neck and filmed his hand doing so. Mr. Boles shouted a “Yeah!” right before the video ended.

Detective Young identified the man in the video as the defendant sitting in a grey suit in court.

Mr. Vroman then presented People’s Exhibit 30, the AR-15 rifle in its physical form, and asked the witness if he could tell if, in the video, Mr. Boles was using the rifle or the handgun. Det. Young was not able to distinguish the two just by listening to the gunshots in the video.

The People moved to show Exhibit 40A, which was a packet of 8 photos taken from the Samsung phone. The first picture showed a pistol. The second displayed Jared Daniel Boles holding the AR-15 rifle. The third revealed the revolver. The fourth photo exhibited a bunch of cash in 50 and 100-dollar bills. The sixth photo was that of the AR-15 rifle. The seventh picture showed a truck tire, the pistol, and the AR-15 rifle. The last photograph displayed a tablecloth with recognizable pattern and two .22 pistols.

Mr. Nelson began to cross-examine the People’s witness.

“These were cellphones that were turned over to you by patrols?” the defense questioned.

“No. Deputies booked them into evidence,” the witness testified. He then explained that the cellphones were retrieved from the evidence room and he had them sent to CSI Hartfield to analyze.

Mr. Nelson went on to ask some drug trade questions and Det. Young revealed that he hadn’t seen any messages in the report that people owed Mr. Boles money. However, there were messages of money going back and forth.

“Did you have any training in drug trafficking?” Mr. Nelson asked. The witness said that he had basic training in it, but he commented that it was unusual to see such a large amount of cash for a person selling in increments at the street level.

Detective Young was then excused from the witness stand when no further questions were put forward.

Next, YONET Agent Gary Richter from the Yolo Narcotic Enforcement Team took the stand. He’s worked at Yolo County Sheriff’s Office for six years. He was verified as an expert after testifying that he had training in narcotics beyond the deputy position, where he has dealt with firearms, narcotics, possession and possession to sell.

The People’s witness was asked various questions by Mr. Vroman about the type of drugs he’s familiar with and requested that  Agent Richter distinguish how to know what’s for personal use and what’s for sale.

Agent Richter explained that the standard quantity on the street for personal use was 1.00 to 1.75 grams, however, the upper limit could be 3.5 grams at most, depending on the street price. The standard dosage to get high was estimated at two-tenths of a gram.

“If I were to tell you that someone possess 163.3 grams of meth, would you say they were for personal use or for sale?” Mr. Vroman asked.

“For sale,” Agent Richter answered.

The People asked more hypothetical questions. If that same person had a syringe, photos of cash, carried around large amount of money, and carried mostly 50 and 100 dollar bills, Mr. Vroman asked Agent Richter if he thought the controlled substance was for personal use or for sale.

“The denominations you’ve given me will strengthen my belief [that it was for sale].” Agent Richter responded.

According to Agent Richter, the going rate for the 163.3 grams of methamphetamine would be more than $1,200. Mr. Vroman also revealed that there were two samples of methamphetamine, one was 3.9 grams and the other was 5.2 grams, in the defendant’s car in the yellow toolbox when he was arrested. The quantity of the two amounted to 9.1 grams.

Agent Richter indicated that the two samples were individual weights that were weighed ahead of time. He also commented that if the scale was necessary for a meeting, then they’re doing it to make sure they get what they paid for. Also, if someone possesses drug for sale, it is common to use a cellphone to keep records and communicate by text message.

“It’s commonly known as short stage traffic… You show up, you go in, come outside, and then leave,” Richter testified.

Mr. Vroman then went on to discuss the 1.25 pounds of marijuana they found as well in the defendant’s truck when they arrested him on June 20, 2016. The People’s witness testified that, standardly, a “joint” consists of one gram of marijuana. With 1.25 pounds, that’s about 567 grams, which equates to hundreds of dosages.

“In the drug world, how much was marijuana last year [in June]?” Mr. Vroman questioned.

“Around $3,000 to $3,500.” Agent Richter responded. After Mr. Vroman revealed that 172.4 grams of methamphetamine were found alongside 567 grams of marijuana, cash, and text messages about a scale, Agent Richter asserted that he believed the possession of marijuana was for sale as well.

Mr. Nelson cross-examined Agent Richter with a few questions. He asked whether the witness knew about the case before coming in. Agent Richter replied that he was just an expert asked to come in and answer questions, given his expertise in narcotics.

Agent Richter was then excused when no more questions were put forward.

Before court went into recess for the afternoon, Judge Fall commented to the jury that they should note that the defendant had a felony conviction prior to the beginning of 2016 and was not allowed to carry any firearms. The jury was then dismissed for the rest of the day.

The trial will resume with jury instructions at 9:00am on February 16, 2017, in Department 11, Judge Timothy Fall presiding.

The post Man Charged with Narcotics Trafficking and Possession of Firearms appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Jagjit Bath and Ruby Zapien

Testimony continued in the jury trial of the People v. Jared Daniel Boles, in Department 11 with Judge Timothy Fall on February 16, 2017. Defense Attorney David Nelson started the day’s questioning, with Mr. Boles on the stand to testify. Mr. Nelson asked Mr. Boles to recall and tell the jury what exactly happened on June 19, 2016, including why his girlfriend started hitting him while he was mowing the lawn. Mr. Boles said that he was sitting by the mower when his girlfriend came out of the house and started punching him and popped his blood vessels and gave him bruises on the left eye. He also stated that when his girlfriend yelled, “Who is she? Who is she?” he began to understand why she was punching him.

Mr. Nelson asked a follow-up question of Mr. Boles, about whether he talked to his girlfriend regarding what happened or what was going on. Mr. Boles said no, because she was not being calm about the situation, so he just suggested to his girlfriend that they just go to sleep because “I got work at 5am. We will talk about it tomorrow after my work.” He testified that they both went to sleep and did not get a chance to talk about it, because when he returned from work there were cops at his door waiting for him.

Mr. Nelson asked, “Did your girlfriend go to sleep as well? Did you prevent her from calling anyone that night?” Mr. Boles responded, “Yes, we both went to sleep. I did not prevent her from calling anyone. I asked her, I can leave the house if that’s comfortable for her but she said no.”

Next, Deputy District Attorney Michael Vroman confronted Mr. Boles regarding the charges of selling methamphetamine to underage students in 2010 for $3000 cash, along with questioning Mr. Boles by showing pictures seized from Mr. Boles’ phone. Mr. Vroman pointed out the picture of Boles holding an AR-15 and asked whose AR-15 that was. Mr. Boles claimed that they were not his guns, but Mr. Vroman then asked, “If they’re not your guns, then how did your fingerprint showed up on duct tape on the magazine?” Boles claimed that he used the duct tape to put a flashlight on his son’s bike, so someone might have just happened to use the same duct tape to wrap around the magazine. Then, Mr. Vroman insisted, “You didn’t mention anything about a jacket or latex glove in your truck (in) testimony regarding the day of your arrest, right?”

Mr. Boles responded, “Correct.” Mr. Vroman mentioned that a latex glove was filled with methamphetamine and was found in Boles’s truck. Mr. Vroman also said the police officer did not see bruises or any popped blood vessels when he arrested Mr. Boles on June 20, 2016. Mr. Boles testified, “Even (as) I pointed out, the police officer did not care about the bruises or anything, and he was just there to arrest me.”

Mr. Vroman kept questioning about how the police officer did not see or believe that Boles had bruises on his eye, when he was there with Boles for 45 minutes, arrested him, brought him from near his truck to the police car. “I was sitting on the back seat of the police car while the officer was standing outside on the passenger seat with the open door,” Mr. Boles responded.

Mr. Vroman then presented Mr. Rogelio Orozco as his next witness. Mr. Orozco works for the Yolo County District Attorney’s office as a investigator. After Mr. Orozco was sworn in, Mr. Vroman asked him whether he could recall one of his cases from May 2011, where Orozco acted as a client in a drug sale. Mr. Vroman then asked Mr. Orozco if he could recognize the seller in the courtroom, from the drug bust in May 2011.

Mr. Orozco pointed out that it was Mr. Boles. Mr. Vroman asked Mr. Orozco, “How did you make the deal with Mr. Boles?” While on the stand, Orozco told the court that he and one of the CIA agents contacted Boles via a phone call to sell him $3000 worth cash of methamphetamine. They then waited at the location where Boles was supposed to come and drop off 3 ounces of methamphetamine for the $3000 cash.

As Mr. Boles reached the meeting location and parked next to the undercover car, he reportedly asked them, “How do you want to do this?” Then Mr. Boles got into their car and sat in the back seat, and asked Orozco if he had the cash. As Orozco gave the signal for the process of the bust, “I purposely made a delay by counting the money.” Then the police came. To confirm, Mr. Vroman asked, “What did Mr. Boles do when he saw police cars?” Mr. Orozco answered, “Mr. Boles jumped out of my car,” and they were arrested.

Then Mr. Nelson asked some questions of Mr. Orozco in cross-examination, for clarification. “Was there anybody else in the car with Mr. Boles when he came to make the deal?” Mr. Orozco responded, “Yes, but I do not know who she was except that it was a female.” Mr. Nelson asked Mr. Orozco if he could describe the female, but he said, “I could not see her, since I was being arrested and put (in the) back seat in the police car as a bust process to cover my identity.” Mr. Nelson asked Mr. Orozco if he knew that there was female in the car, while he was on the phone making a deal with Mr. Boles before meeting up with him. And Mr. Orozco responded with no.

Judge Fall asked the jury to leave the courtroom for a short period of time because he needed to talk to the lawyers regarding further jury instructions. After the break, Judge Fall went over the instructions with the jury.

After the morning recess, Mr. Vroman pointed out all the charges in his closing argument. He stated that it was not right for Mr. Boles to possess methamphetamine, marijuana, firearms such as an AR-15, and even ammunition.

In his closing argument, Mr. Nelson thanked the jury for donating their valuable time to find justice for the community. Before Mr. Nelson could proceed further with statements in defense of Mr. Boles, it was lunch time. Judge Fall asked Mr. Nelson to continue with his argument at 1:30pm in Department 11.

Closing Arguments in Case Involving Narcotics Trafficking, Possession of Firearms, and Child Endangerment

By Ruby Zapien

On the afternoon of February 16, 2017, the Honorable Timothy L. Fall presided over the closing arguments in the case of the People v. Jared Daniel Boles. With all jurors, counsel, and defendant present, Attorney David. R. Nelson resumed his closing argument.

Mr. Nelson expressed his concern for the lack of evidence in this case. He advised the jury, “You have to make your decision rationally, without passion and without a reasonable doubt.”

He continued to state that anyone had access to the shed and reminded the jury of the testimony of the deputy sheriff who claimed he searched the home for weapons. Mr. Nelson then raised the question of how weapons showed up a day later.

Deputy District Attorney Michael Vroman followed with his rebuttal argument, stating that “Jared Boles is not a chivalrous drug dealer who took the rap for his girlfriend.” Mr. Vroman argued that there is no evidence showing that Mr. Boles’ cohabitant, “WK,” was involved.

Regarding the issue of evidence and doubt, Mr. Vroman proceeded to read from the jury instructions on circumstantial evidence, CALCRIM No. 224.  As he read, he held up a hand and counted off the five of times the word “reasonable” appeared.

“If it is not reasonable, not only do you not consider it, but reject it,” stated Mr. Vroman.

He followed by attacking the credibility of Mr. Boles. Mr. Vroman did this by declaring that Boles has used meth, has the motive to lie, has been convicted, has cheated on his pregnant girlfriend, and has said he has never held guns – when there are images of him that say otherwise.

Addressing the issue of the gun not being located in the first search of the home, Mr. Vroman reminded the jury that Officer Ariel Pineda said he did not look behind the curtain or in the oven where the weapons were located.

Mr. Vroman also addressed the idea of WK “setting Mr. Boles up” by planting the guns in the home the following day of the search. He gave a hypothetical situation and told the jury, “When you hear hoof beats, don’t think zebras.”

Reminding the jury of the pistol found with duct tape and Mr. Boles’ fingerprints – and no other fingerprints, Mr. Vroman said, “Don’t think zebras.” Moreover, he told the jury that guns were obtained, there were photos on Boles’ cell phone of him holding one of those guns, and a video of him shooting one of the guns. “There is no other explanation,” stated Mr. Vroman.

Finally, Mr. Vroman spoke on the charges of child endangerment and infliction of corporal injury – by giving another hypothetical scenario describing Mr. Boles throwing his son across the kitchen floor, followed by the confrontation with WK regarding their son and Mr. Boles’ actions.

The jury was sent to deliberate and will continue deliberations on Friday, February 17, 2017, at 9:00 A.M.

The post Narcotics Trafficking Trial Wraps Up appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Setarah Jahid

On February 16, 2017, Lauren Kirk-Coehlo’s arraignment, for the crime of vandalizing the Islamic Center of Davis, commenced. The two defense attorneys on this case began by entering Ms. Kirk-Coehlo’s plea of “not guilty.” It was then asked by the defense team of Steven Sabbadini and David Dratman to have the setting of bail delayed until Thursday of next week.

Deputy District Attorney Ryan Couzens for the People asked for bail to be set now, reasoning that there are “certain junctures where you set bail” – even during an arraignment.

In Mr. Couzens’ motion to deny bail altogether, he wrote, “Here, the risk to public safety is palpable and alarming. It is one thing to harbor hateful thoughts.”  He cited Ms. Kirk-Coehlo’s use of racial epithets, praise for mass killers like Dylann Roof and Alexandre Bissonnette and online searches using terms such as “throw jew down the well,” “gas jews,” “bomb vest” and “hate is good.”

“Ms. Coehlo has shown she is willing to act on her racist and hateful beliefs, that she sees herself as a ‘hero’ doing it, that she harbors a desire to ‘kill many people,’ that she is collaborating with like-minded people and she is at least looking for information on devices used to cause mass damage,” Mr. Couzens wrote.

For their part, after Ms. Kirk-Coehlo pleaded not guilty, Steven Sabbadini requested a bail hearing to reduce the bail or even to go to supervised own recognizance (OR).

Mr. Couzens asked for an immediate bail hearing, but Commissioner Kent O’Mara instructed him to raise the issue when the case came to Judge Daniel P. Maguire.

Commissoner O’Mara made it clear to both sides that he was not going to change what Judge McAdam had set the bail to be, at $1 million. O’Mara then proceeded to schedule the dates of the preliminary hearing and bail hearing. He also assigned the case to Judge Maguire.

The date of the preliminary hearing was determined to be on March 6, 2017, in Department 10 at 1:30. The bail hearing will be held sooner, on February 23, at 1:30 p.m.

On Tuesday, Davis Police, along with the FBI and Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig, announced the arrest of Lauren Kirk-Coehlo, a 30-year-old Davis resident, in connection with the January 22 incident that occurred just before 4 am.  The suspect allegedly vandalized the Islamic Center of Davis, smashing several large windows, then vandalized two bicycles and wrapped pork bacon around the door handles of the mosque. The repair costs exceeded $7,000.

The suspect is facing one count of felony vandalism under California Penal Code section 594(a)(b)(1) with a hate crime count enhancement for a hate crime under Penal Code section 422.75(a).  The second felony vandalism count is under PC section 594.3(b), vandalism to a place of religious worship “which is shown to have been a hate crime and committed for the purpose of intimidating and deterring persons from freely exercising their religious beliefs.”

Judge Samuel McAdam on Tuesday morning “set bail in this matter at $1 million.” If convicted, the defendant faces up to six years in prison.

In an affidavit filed by Davis Police Detective Daniel La Fond he wrote, “The investigation into the suspect, Kirk-Coehlo has raised many public concerns. During the service of a search warrant at her residence by the FBI and, Davis Police, Kirk-Coehlo’s wireless telephone was seized.”

A search into her Twitter account showed her praising Dylann Roof, who was sentenced to death after being convicted of killing nine people in 2015 in the Charleston, South Carolina, African American church.

“While glorifying Roof” she allegedly posted “‘3 cheers for Dylan Roof’ then post(ed) how intelligent Roof was in interviews.”  Det. La Fond wrote, “The party she is sending private messages back and forth with on Twitter asks her if she had ever killed anything. Kirk-Coehlo replied, ‘No but I have dreams and aspirations’ ‘I would like to kill’ ‘many people.’ Sent in 3 separate messages.”

A search of Ms. Kirk-Coehlo’s cell showed her “making derogatory remarks using the terms ‘Jews, Mexicans and N—s’ on a regular basis.”

She also reportedly conversed “via text with her mother about her ‘mental problems’ and made several searches about the Davis Mosque, Woodland Mosque and other Mosques in the country.”

Defense attorney Steven Sabbadini declined comment about the case to the Vanguard.

David M. Greenwald contributed to this report.

The post Suspect Accused Of Vandalizing Islamic Center of Davis is Arraigned appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

The infamous Davis MRAP

A little over two years after the acquisition of an MRAP (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle) by the Davis Police Department – which caused a huge outpouring of criticism of them for acquiring the vehicle, unbeknownst to the council, and ultimately led to not one but two votes to return the vehicle in the fall of 2014 – the Yolo County Sheriff is making the request to acquire its own vehicle.

Unlike the situation in Davis, this will be done with a full discussion of the County Board of Supervisors and transparency.

The item will come before the board next week at their Tuesday meeting.  The staff report notes, “The National Defense Authorization Act of 1997 allows for the transfer of excess Department of Defense property, that might otherwise be destroyed, to law enforcement agencies across the United States and its territories for use in counter drug and terrorism activities.

“Through the LESO (Law Enforcement Support Office) Program, local law enforcement agencies (LEAs) can search and request excess equipment online through the Defense Logistics Agency’s property search application,” the report notes. “No equipment is purchased through LESO, all items are held as reserve stocks by the Federal government until no longer needed. The LEA’s ability to participate is certified by a state coordinator at the Office of Emergency Services. Permission to apply for this certification is now being requested.

“If approved, the Sheriff’s Office is interested in acquiring a MRAP vehicle,” the county notes. “This will be used to safely respond to scenes where approach in a vehicle that can withstand explosive devices is necessary. These situations can include active shooters, hostage rescue, bomb threats, natural disasters, and other critical incidents.”

They explain, “Main use of the vehicle would be by the Yolo County Sheriff’s Office SWAT Team, but would also be available to support the multi-jurisdictional Explosive Ordinance Disposal Team as well as any other incorporated cities and outlying agencies upon request. Board approval to accept this vehicle, if awarded, is also being sought at this time.”

During a community discussion held in November 2014, then-Assistant Police Chief Darren Pytel explained, “The MRAP is a mine resistant armored vehicle, basically it’s ambush protection. So it’s rated to stop rifle rounds, high powered weaponry and explosives.”

For the Davis Police, if they had to use a SWAT team or do a raid, they would have armor protection. The soft-body armor that they have does not protect them from some of the rounds that they see.

The vehicle is about 20 feet long and 9 feet high and can fit a SWAT team of eight, which can quickly deploy out of the rear of the vehicle. “Our plan was to do rapid exit from the vehicle when we needed to get close to a situation where we wanted to deploy our SWAT team.”

The city police ended up bringing in two MRAPs from other jurisdictions (one being the one transferred from Davis to Woodland, the other from West Sacramento) in March 2015 in response to what they thought was a potential hostage situation, but turned out to be a murder-suicide.

According to the staff report from the county, “There  is no cost to the Sheriff’s Office to apply for certification in the LESO Program, and no equipment will be purchased through the LESO Program. Should the Sheriff’s Office be awarded an MRAP vehicle, any outfitting or repair costs will be built into the regular budget cycle. The Sheriff’s Office will return for Board approval if any equipment associated with the MRAP vehicle over the fixed asset threshold needs to be purchased.”

This request comes at a time when the new Trump administration may be looking to beef up the deployment of militarized police forces.  Following the over-response at Ferguson, Obama issued Executive Order 13688 which greatly restricted the provision of military equipment to local police departments as well as creating oversight mechanisms for its use.

However, following shootings in San Bernardino and Dallas, Republican House Members and local sheriffs criticized the mandate, believing it put security and local law enforcement at a disadvantage.

Donald Trump as a candidate pledged to remove these barriers.  However, to date, President Trump has not issued an executive order rescinding the Obama policy.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

The post Yolo County Sheriff Requests Its Own MRAP appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Matt Williams

The Yolo County Sheriff’s office is seeking authorization from the Yolo County Board of Supervisors to acquire excess equipment from the Department of Defense, including a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle. Read the staff report here.

I have sent the following personal e-mail to all five Supervisors sharing my thoughts about why they should unanimously vote “No” on this authorization.  If democracy is to work well, the citizens need to communicate with their elected officials on important issues, and I believe this is one of those important issues.

Regardless of what your position is on this issue, please take a moment and share your opinion with the Supervisors, who can be reached at:

Jim Provenza <jim.provenza@yolocounty.org>

Don Saylor <don.saylor@yolocounty.org>

Matt Rexroad <matt.rexroad@yolocounty.org>

Duane Chamberlain <duane.chamberlain@yolocounty.org>

Oscar Villegas <oscar.villegas@yolocounty.org>

Supervisor Provenza and Deputy Supervisor Reed,

Consent-Law & Justice Services Item #16 on the February 21st Yolo County Supervisors Meeting agenda concerns Permission to Apply for Certification in the Law Enforcement Support Office Program and Receive MRAP Vehicle.  I strongly urge a unanimous “No” vote on any consideration of the “receive MRAP vehicle” portion of the item.

The reasons for my recommendation are simple and straightforward.  Specifically the Yolo County Sheriff’s SWAT Team already has one MRAP in its arsenal, why does it need a second one?

The Staff Report for this item is misleading at best.  It does not disclose the fact that the Yolo County SWAT Team is a combined unit with the City of Woodland.  The staff report also does not disclose the fact that since 2015 the combined Yolo County/Woodland SWAT team equipment includes a shiny new MRAP procured through the same Federal Government LESO military surplus program that Sheriff Prieto is asking for permission to participate in.

To balance out this failure of the Staff Report to fully disclose the facts regarding the Yolo County SWAT team’s current MRAP, I suggest the Supervisors direct  Sheriff Prieto to park the existing MRAP in front of the Administration Building on the morning of February 21st and have it remain there all day.

A decision by the Supervisors to proceed with receiving an MRAP vehicle would be fiscally irresponsible.  The statement in the Staff Report that a “Yes” decision would have “No Fiscal Impact” is 100% incorrect.  There will be costs not currently in the County Budget associated with the delivery of the vehicle to Woodland if it is procured through the LESO Program.  There will be costs not currently in the County Budget associated with the specialized training of operators and/or maintainers of the vehicle.  There will be costs not currently in the County Budget associated with the periodic maintenance of the vehicle.  There will be costs not currently in the County Budget associated with the storage of the vehicle. The Staff Report attempts to play a game of “Hide the Pea” when it says “Should the Sheriff’s Office be awarded an MRAP vehicle, any outfitting or repair costs will be built into the regular budget cycle. The Sheriff’s Office will return for Board approval if any equipment associated with the MRAP vehicle over the fixed asset threshold needs to be purchased.”  An informative Staff Report would have performed the due diligence necessary to provide clear estimates of what the costs are.

Bottom-line, the Yolo County SWAT Team does not need this second MRAP and a decision by the Supervisors to reicive one from the LESO program would be an irresponsible waste of taxpayer money.  Please exercise your fiduciary duty to the taxpayers, citizens and residents of Yolo County and vote “No” on this item.

Respectfully submitted,

Matt Williams

Yolo County Resident

The post Call to Action Regarding Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicle appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Ruby Zapien

The tension was high in the courtroom as the complaining witness and her family sat on the opposite end of the room from the defendant’s family.

On February 17, 2017, the Honorable Paul K. Richardson presided over the continuation of the preliminary hearing of People v. Dathion Cardenas-Ruiz. Chief Deputy Public Defender Allison Zuvela is representing Mr. Cardenas-Ruiz and Deputy District Attorney Deanna Hays represents the People.

The People resumed their direct examination of the alleged victim. Ms. Hays asked “VC” to describe the incident that occurred at the Bell Air parking lot. VC described an altercation between Mr. Cardenas-Ruiz and two gentlemen who appeared to be concerned with the safety of VC. Finally, Mr. Cardenas-Ruiz entered his vehicle as he begged VC to go home with him.

“I was worried about him killing himself or hurting himself,” stated VC.

The People then asked if VC noticed any markings on her body. Before the police showed up, VC saw a bruise on her temple that lasted about a week and, after that, she noticed bruises on her arm and abrasions on her neck.

After giving the police a statement, Mr. Cardenas-Ruiz returned to the scene. VC described Cardenas-Ruiz as erratic, screaming and braking his vehicle quickly and hard.

“I was scared for him and scared for what was going to happen next,” said VC when Ms. Hays asked if she felt scared that day.

VC was full of emotion as she explained why she wanted to continue to have contact with Mr. Cardenas-Ruiz after he was arrested.

Tears rolled down her face as she explained, “I felt bad, I felt like it was my fault.”

Just recently, VC had requested to change the protective order to no contact. She reasoned, “I need to get away from him and his family.”

Ms. Hays asked VC if anyone ever told her not to testify.

VC claimed Mr. Cardenas-Ruiz told her several times not to testify, that “this was going to ruin his life, if I cared about him, I wouldn’t do this.”

“Do you care about Dathion?” asked Ms. Hays.

“Yes I do,” answered VC.

With no further questions from the People, Ms. Zuvela began her cross-examination by asking VC how her relationship with Mr. Cardenas-Ruiz started. They had met when they were both sophomores in high school, but did not begin dating until June 6, 2015, after the two had both graduated. They initially lived together until their first break up and decided not to move back in with each other when they got back together.

On the day of the incident, VC and Cardenas-Ruiz were at his grandmother’s house, where he had been living. An argument arose over the internet. Ms. Zuvela asked VC if she was worried and if that was because of her anxiety.

VC affirmed that she was worried and that she has General Anxiety Disorder. When she is around someone who is angry about something that is out of his or her control, it tends to make her more anxious. The more upset the defendant became, the more anxious VC was and wanted to leave.

VC recalled attempting to leave twice. One of those times she stated, “I know for a fact that he pushed me to the bed, I don’t remember if it was the first or second attempt to the car.” Mr. Cardenas-Ruiz, at some point, mounted himself onto VC’s car by stepping on the running board and holding onto the handrail in an attempt to stop VC from leaving. He then continued to force her back into the house, where VC worried that he had become suicidal. He mentioned it inside the house, and it was not the first time he had done so.

Ms. Zuvela asked why VC had begun crying at the end of the questioning by the People.

“Having to testify, and the fact that any of this had to happen, to begin with,” said VC.

“What do you want to see happen?” asked Ms. Zuvela.

VC hesitantly responded, “I honesty think he needs help. I think he needs to go away to a psych ward. I think he really needs some kind of help.”

“Do you want him to go to prison?” Ms. Zuvela asked.

“I don’t want him to go to prison, but I don’t want to be in danger anymore, by him or his family.”

Suddenly, VC approached the judge. VC claimed to see the mother of the defendant signing “crazy” at VC in the middle of her testimony.

Judge Richardson was appalled and clarified, “ If I see that it’s happening again, I’m going to make you wait outside.”

VC and her family were permitted to leave the court soon after VC’s testimony.

The court found Dathion Cardenas-Ruiz liable to answer on both counts of infliction of corporal injury and false imprisonment.

Mr. Cardenas-Ruiz’s next hearing will be on March 2, 2017, at 10:00 A.M. in Department 13.

The post Victim is Fearful as She Testifies in Front of Defendant and His Family appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Cherie Goodenough

Item 16 on the Consent Agenda of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors meeting on Tuesday, February 21:

Authorize the Sheriff’s Office to apply for certification to participate in the Law Enforcement Support Office Program which allows local law enforcement agencies to access, request and acquire excess equipment from the Department of Defense; and consent to the Sheriff’s Department receiving a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle, if awarded, through this program. (No general fund impact) (Prieto).

Late afternoon last Thursday, the Yolo County Sheriff’s office added the above item to the Yolo County Board of Supervisors meeting agenda.  The Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle (MRAP) it mentions is the vehicle pictured above.  It would be the third such vehicle available for deployment locally, as both the Woodland and West Sacramento Police Departments already have one.  The Board should vote No on this vehicle, and here’s why:

The militarization of police sends a symbolic message to citizens of the divide between them and law enforcement.  With our communities already on edge with the recent ICE raids in southern CA – the Washington Post is reporting today on a new plan by the administration that includes deputizing local forces for immigration enforcement – and with a widespread, engaged citizenry regularly exercising their right to peaceful protest, the signal from law enforcement should be one of engagement, not armament.

Law enforcement will use the tools it has, which unfortunately often results in escalation.  Standing Rock, Ferguson and Baltimore stand out as recent examples where, agree or disagree with the politics of the movements, the police have responded with extreme aggression, surely in response to what they perceived the threat to be.  But here in Yolo County we need to look no further than the use of military grade pepper spray on a bunch of kneeling students at UC Davis to see the risks inherent in arming our police as if they are an offensive force.  Did any of the officers involved in that incident wake up that morning and think, “Today is the day I finally get to use the pepper spray!”  Of course not.

A leading reason for the misuse of a militarized police force is the lack of oversight that often accompanies the acquisition of surplus military equipment.  What is true nationally is true with the Yolo County Sheriff.  While Sheriff Prieto says the MRAP would not be used for crowd control, the list of examples listed for reasons to deploy is vague, and there has been no plan for oversight and deployment made public.  When does a demonstration at the airport become a “critical incident” that would bring out the MRAP?  The presence of these vehicles in our community presents a risk to public safety.

It is conceivable that an argument could be made to tolerate this militarization if there were a compelling public or officer safety need. There have been two Yolo County Sheriff officers killed in the line of duty since 1943, and neither would have been prevented by an MRAP.   Recent flooding demonstrates a need for specialized, all-terrain vehicles for response, but vehicles specifically suited for this purpose are available through the same Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO) program that would bring the MRAP, and don’t have a gun turret.  Sheriff Prieto himself angered concealed carry advocates when he said applicants need to “provide us with a reasonable need for it.” Surely the Sheriff’s department should be held to the same standard.

Cherie Goodenough is a systems engineer and sole proprietor of Crux Consulting Solutions.  She is a Woodland resident, who has also lived in Davis and Capay.

The post Guest Commentary: Say No to Militarization of Police in Yolo County appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Colin Walsh

(This was originally sent as a letter to the County Board of Supervisors)

I am writing in regards to the agenda item “Authorize the Sheriff’s Office to apply for certification to participate in the Law Enforcement Support Office Program which allows local law enforcement agencies to access, request and acquire excess equipment from the Department of Defense; and consent to the Sheriff’s Department receiving a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle, if awarded, through this program. (No general fund impact) (Prieto).”

I believe there is insufficient justification for this heavy duty military equipment and the fiscal impact assessment of $0 is an under estimate of actual costs.

The staff report makes no mention of the other MRAP type vehicles already in the possession of the Woodland PD, the West Sac PD, or the regional FBI. Without first considering the availability of these vehicles to the Sheriff it is impossible to determine what if any need the Sheriff may have to bring a third MRAP to Yolo County. The actual need must be evaluated before a decision is made to acquire the MRAP.

The staff report further finds that there is $0 of Fiscal impact, but this only considers acquisition costs. The actual cost is not even identified in the report. The report notes, “Should the Sheriff’s Office be awarded an MRAP vehicle, any outfitting or repair costs will be built into the regular budget cycle.” Without identifying the actual outfitting, repair and training costs this item should not be approved. This MRAP is highly specialized heavy equipment and these costs could be significant. It would be fiscally irresponsible to commit to these costs without knowing what they are.

Finally, given the multiple MRAPs already available in the county, I contend there is no likely scenario that would require an additional MRAP. Further, the unknown expense of preparing for such an extremely unlikely scenario cannot be justified. If this money is available, it would be better spent on equipment and training for situations which are more likely, for more personnel or for other county programs.

I urge you to please pull this item from consent calendar and please vote no to authorizing the Sheriff’s office application for certification in the Law Enforcement Support Office program, or for the receipt of the MRAP vehicle.

The post Letter: MRAP Acquisition Is Not a Fiscally Sound Choice appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

Samantha Green has been sentenced to 15 to life for her role in the death of baby Justice Rees

On Thursday, Frank Rees will be arraigned on charges associated with the death of his son, Justice Rees.  Justice died at the age of 19 days after being exposed to cold and other environmental exposure.  The arraignment comes two years after the baby’s February 23, 2015, death.

According to relatives, Mr. Rees will be charged with involuntary manslaughter, child endangerment, and administration of methamphetamine.  Bail has been set at half a million dollars.

Back in September, Samantha Green was found guilty of second degree murder and sentenced to 15 years to life.

The DA’s case, under a theory of implied malice, was that Samantha Green had a duty to care for Baby Justice.  In the end, she took the baby out to the slough near Knights Landing with only a tiny layer of clothing.  She stayed out there in cold temperatures.  She should not have gone out there.  She should not have kept him out there and she should not have left him out there.  The baby died because of those actions.

Under the law, the defendant acted with implied malice if she intentionally committed an act.

The defense has argued that Ms. Green’s actions occurred due to a methamphetamine-induced psychosis. However, the prosecution has argued that Ms. Green’s venture into the slough with her baby was due to her methamphetamine-induced jealousy of her fiancé.

Public Defender Tracie Olson argued that the jury’s decision should be invalidated.  Ms. Olson stated, “This is the most unfounded jury verdict that I’ve seen.” She urged the court to to reweigh all the evidence and to form an opinion – as a judge is able to put aside the verdict if the evidence is lacking.

The prosecution argued that the evidence was sufficient to prove the judgment. Mr. Couzens also referred back to 1977 case law which states that, if a baby is found frozen to death, it is to be considered murder. Mr. Couzens said, “The child froze to death. In a manner of death that can only be described as slow and agonizing.”

Mr. Couzens argued that Ms. Green was  well acquainted with meth – as she had experienced the use of the drug herself and her parents both struggled from drug addiction. “She knew about every single possible consequence of using methamphetamine and decided to go on a bender,” said Mr. Couzens. He added that this was his second child homicide case linked to methamphetamine.  “It is disgraceful that in this state we appear to treat plastic bags as a greater evil than methamphetamine.”

Deputy DA Rob Gorman told the media, “We knew all along she committed 2nd degree murder… (Her) meth use showed she was aware of the risk of meth.”

During the course of the trial, many in the community wondered why Ms. Green was facing murder charges and Mr. Rees seemed to be getting off lightly.

That has now changed.

A social worker, Valerie Zeller, early in the trial testified that Child Protective Services was worried about the baby not being in the home very often, about the housing situation, and about Frank Rees’ unwillingness to use CalWORKS (cash aid) and food stamps.

The father of the baby was “using the (hospital) facilities like a hotel — sleeping more than the mother and even taking showers there,” Ms. Zeller would testify in court.

More information will come out later today at a press briefing at the Yolo County DA’s office.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

The post DA Announces Prosecution of Frank Rees in the Death of Baby Justice appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Gloria Ho

On December 11, 2015, defendant Lance Richard Ornellas-Castro allegedly shot a man in the head, killing him during the course of a robbery. The defendant had arranged to purchase marijuana from the victim, Andrew Phaouthoum. The defendant and his identified co-conspirator, Jorge Andres Torres Garcia, were accused of driving to a Bel Air parking lot in Sacramento County with the intent to rob the victim of marijuana. Garcia accepted a plea agreement.

Deputy Public Defender Daniel Hutchinson represents Mr. Ornellas-Castro and Chief Assistant Deputy District Attorney Melinda Aiello and Deputy District Attorney Matthew De Moura represent the People.

Mr. Ornellas-Castro faces multiple charges. They include Penal Code section 187(a), felony, murder; Penal Code section 12022.53(b), felony charge for personal use of firearm; and Penal Code section 182(a)(1), conspiracy to commit a felony. Additionally, it is alleged that the defendant and Garcia willfully and unlawfully conspired with one another to commit a felony violation of Penal Code section 211/212.5, robbery in the second degree.

The jury trial reconvened at 9:00am on February 22, 2017, in Department 8 with Judge David W. Reed presiding.

The People continued playing the interrogation video of Deputy Brian Young and Mr. Ornellas-Castro in the interview room at the Yolo County Sheriff’s Office on January 19, 2016. The video picked up at 2:33pm and ended 3:31pm. In the video, the defendant was wearing a red 49ers T-shirt, some matching red orange shorts, with slip-ons at his feet. He was cuffed at the wrist and sitting in a chair as Deputy Young spoke to him.

“I don’t know. I think it’s his parents’ van,” the defendant answered when Deputy Young questioned him.

“I can’t go to Mexico. I have kids here,” Mr. Ornellas-Castro told Dep. Young. He then requested to talk to Jorge Garcia, but Dep. Young sidestepped the question.

After some encouragement from Deputy Young, the defendant told the story of how he wanted to go to Metro PC to get a new number for his phone. However, he paused and didn’t say much after that. Deputy Young stepped out of the room and Mr. Ornellas-Castro was seen in the video walking back and forth looking nervous. He sat down and bent over in the chair. “Oh man,” he uttered as he looked at his handcuffs. He started to cry and wipe the tears from his face and began moaning and shaking his head into his hands. “Oh dude…” He then straightened up in his seat again and drank water from the bottle. He did not appear to be able to sit still, as he moved around a lot.

The defendant stood up and went to knock on the door. The officer was with him shortly, and he asked to use the bathroom. Deputy Young questioned him when he came back.

“All you have to do is tell me what happened,” Deputy Young said to him.

“I don’t want to die.” Mr. Ornellas-Castro said, as he started to explain to Dep. Young about his affiliation with a gang. Young asked him if he had any gang tattoos, and he pointed to a few parts of his body under his shirt where he said he had art of a pistol. The officer asked him again if any of the tattoos were gang-related and he didn’t answer as confidently about it. When asked if Jorge Garcia looked up to the defendant because of the gang affiliation, Ornellas-Castro said that he thought Mr. Garcia did, in some way.

The video went on to show that the defendant talked about his kids, dropping out of school, moving with not enough money saved, the Marine life, and how he can turn his life around. Deputy Young went and retrieved the defendant’s dark blue jeans so he could put his pants on before another officer came by at around 3:17pm to take a buccal swab, a non-invasive way to collect DNA. The video ended at 3:31pm after Dep. Young said to the defendant, as they both stood up, “I’m taking you over [to the jail]. I need you to put your hands behind your back.”

The People called Dorothy Pearson, a forensic investigator, to the stand. She’s worked with Woodland PD, Sacramento PD, and retired as a lieutenant at Davis PD. She then joined the Yolo County District Attorney’s office and has been with the office for six years. Her responsibilities were to go through hard drive and cellphone evidence, analyze the data, and use Cellebrite to extract information from these devices.

“Cellebrite is a hardware program?” Deputy DA Aiello asked the People’s witness.

“It’s a hardware and a software program, but in this case we used the software,” Ms. Pearson responded. Ms. Pearson extracted and downloaded the data for four different cellphones on December 18, 2015, to December 22, 2015, after she received a search warrant signed by a judge. Also, as the investigation went on, Ms. Pearson extracted data from five additional phones by October 12, 2016. People showed Exhibit 74, which consisted of an extraction report and asked the witness to identify it. Ms. Pearson identified the report.

Next, Deputy Public Defender Hutchinson cross-examined the People’s witness. He questioned the witness as to whether she examined four phones in December of 2015, and she gave an affirmative answer.

“Under the law, there was no time limitation at that period?” Mr. Hutchinson asked. Ms. Pearson gave a positive answer and Mr. Hutchinson added that she was able to go back as far as she wanted to extract the user data. After January 2016, there was a time limitation on what can be looked at in the user’s phone. Mr. Hutchinson explained that the limitation, the time range, is what an officer can look at in a report even though the extraction download shows everything. Therefore, the officer would have to look at the time period.

“There is no way to get the parameter,” Ms. Pearson testified.

“Can you tell if there are text messages that have been deleted and not reported?” the defense asked.

“I can’t you if it has been deleted and reported.” Ms. Pearson said. “It’s the officer’s job to limit their view on the date range,” the witness later continued. On October 12, 2016, Ms. Pearson was asked to do a second download of the Samsung Galaxy phone because a search warrant asked for the range to be widened. The defense questioned why the officer did not just look at the first download where there was already a full report of everything. Ms. Pearson said she was just following the instructions of the search warrant to conduct a second extraction download.

“Objection. Your honor, I think that misstates the law of what the officer can look at,” Ms. Aiello put forward. Judge Reed said that if the witness thinks it is the law or not, she can state it. Otherwise, Judge Reed said that the attorneys should not speculate that specific law in front of the jury.

When no further questions were put forward, the witness was excused but is subject to recall.

The People then called for Deputy Brian Young to take the witness stand. He has been an officer for 13 years and a detective in the last 6-7 years at the Yolo County Sheriff’s Office. However, he was recently assigned to marine patrol.

Deputy Young described what he was doing on December 12, 2015. He was working overtime and was on Jefferson Boulevard in Clarksburg. However, a medical aid had called about a body in the water found by a fisherman near the intersection of Jefferson Blvd. and Courtland Rd. He went to take a look and saw evidence, pools of blood, and began his investigation. He later came into contact with the victim’s family and spoke with them.

“As part of your involvement in this case, did you look in the phone?” the People asked.

“Yes,” the witness testified. Deputy Young said that he was looking for evidence in the phone or anything that could give him a lead on the case.

At 3:25am in the early morning of December 13, 2015, Deputy Young was parked outside of Mr. Garcia’s house when he stopped an SUV that was registered to Jorge Garcia’s mother. He asked Mr. Garcia to step out of the car and he patted him down. The officer found a cellphone on Garcia’s person. Deputy Young then took more notice of the car.

“Did you notice anything?” Ms. Aiello questioned.

“There was blood just inside the driver’s side of the door,” the witness testified. He said he took a closer look at the car when it was taken into evidence and further stated, “There was a bullet inside the van and additional blood on the center console.” Deputy Young also found Mr. Garcia’s I.D. and Mr. Ornellas-Castro’s work I.D. At the time, he found no relevance for that evidence. The witness had no idea there was another accomplice in the death of the victim.

With a search warrant, Deputy Young said he searched Mr. Garcia’s residence and found marijuana located in a barn. A CSI collected the evidence.

The People showed Exhibit 56, an extraction report from the Samsung phone collected from Mr. Garcia’s person when he was stopped on December 13, 2015.

The deputy noticed that there were calls and text messages in Mr. Garcia’s phone with a person named “Joker.”

“When you took a look at the report of the phone, what occurred to you?” Deputy DA Aiello asked.

“A second suspect,” Deputy Young responded.

Afternoon Session

by Setarah Jahid

During the afternoon of February 22, 2017, witness testimony continued for the Ornellas-Castro trial. Two witnesses were called by Assistant Chief Deputy DA Melinda Aiello, the prosecuting attorney on this case. The first witness was Dr. Greg Baluyt Pizzaro, a forensic pathologist. The second witness, Detective Brian Young, a sheriff’s deputy, was called to the stand earlier in the day, but had not finished his testimony.

Dr. Pizzaro was called first to testify. He was deemed an expert, given that he has testified in court as a forensic pathologist at least eight times, and he has performed over 700 autopsies.

In December of 2015, he worked for the Forensic Medical Group. On December 14, 2015, he performed an autopsy on what was initially a “John Doe,” but was later identified as the victim, Andrew Phaouthoum. Generally, Dr. Pizarro observed cutaneous injuries, linear injuries, an entry and exit gunshot wound to the left temple, and rigor mortis, fading.

Evidence labeled as People’s #66 shown by Ms. Aiello portrayed the head of the victim, with the skin pull backed, and a rod going through the entry and exit wound. This picture showed the trajectory of the gunshot, and, because the bullet crossed through two hemispheres of the brain, Dr. Pizzaro concluded that this injury to the temple was “fatal, and death in a matter of seconds.” Dr. Pizzaro further concluded that there was only one gunshot wound inflicted on the victim, and that the gunshot wound was also the cause of death.

During cross-examination, Deputy Public Defender Dan Hutchinson introduced two pieces of evidence, the first marked as Defense #316, and the second as Defense #315. Number 316 was a diagram of the brain, cut from anterior to posterior. Number 315 was a picture of the brain, and the general lobes within it.

Mr. Hutchinson pitched the point that to be dead legally has different definitions. One can be legally dead because they are brain dead, but technically still alive because of a ventilating machine. Dr. Pizzaro agreed, and stated that it is not his job, however, to state whether someone is legally dead.

Mr. Hutchinson followed up by asking if Dr. Pizzaro was aware that the decedent had THC (marijuana constituent) in his system. Aiello objected, claiming that Hutchinson’s comment was hearsay. Judge Reed sustained.

Dr. Pizzaro was dismissed, and is not subject to recall.

The final witness of the afternoon was Detective Young, resuming his earlier testimony. Ms. Aiella had him read aloud text messages between Castro and Garcia. The texts consisted of messages such as, “It’s gonna be cool bro, it will.” Message 160 in particular, stated, “[I] cleaned the car, burned the shit, because I’m scared.”

The last text message read before the court adjourned for the day stated, “If there’s no evidence, there’s no crime bro.”

Detective Young’s testimony will resume tomorrow at 9 a.m.

The post Murder Trial Resumes in Yolo County appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

Press Conference photo/ Courtesy DA’s Office

By Antoinnette Borbon

It was exactly two years ago that authorities discovered the 19-day-old infant, Baby Justice, lying next to a tree along the embankment of a Knights Landing slough. The baby was found wearing only a wet diaper and a onesie. Baby Justice’s death, according to District Attorney Jeff Reisig, was “environmental exposure due to neglect.”

Samantha Green and the father, Frank T. Rees, were under the influence of methamphetamine the day Baby Justice died. According to Ms. Green, Frank had injected her with the drug, causing her to become delusional, fearful for herself and for Baby Justice’s life. Green told investigators that she held the baby in her arms as she crossed the slough, fleeing from another man who had tried to sexually abuse her. The weather grew colder as nighttime settled. Green says she fell asleep after setting her baby down. When she awoke she noticed the baby was cold and unresponsive and began looking for help.

Green was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to 15 years to life in state prison.

A motion by Public Defender Tracie Olson for a new trial was denied by Judge Dave Rosenberg.

During a press conference Wednesday morning, DA Reisig discussed the arrest and charges against Frank Rees. Rees has been formally charged with involuntary manslaughter, child endangerment and administering a controlled substance, felony charges.

“Based on the new charges, Judge David Rosenberg issued an arrest warrant to Frank Rees yesterday morning at approximately ten am,” Jeff Reisig said.  He was arrested and booked in the jail with bail set by the judge at $500,000 “based on facts provided to him in a sealed declaration by investigators.”

Mr. Reisig explained that, two years ago, Justice Rees was found dead in a slough in Yolo County.  He was only 19 days old at the time of his death.  He died of environmental exposure due to neglect.

Samantha Green, the baby’s mother, was arrested and ultimately charged with murder.  She was convicted in September of 2016.

“During that public trial, the following significant facts were elicited from testimony,” he explained.  “When Justice Rees was born he had methamphetamine in his system due to Samantha Green’s ingestion of methamphetamine during pregnancy including the day before he was born.”

She had been living with Frank Rees, the baby’s biological father, prior to the baby’s birth.

As the result of the meth in the baby’s system, “members of the Yolo County Child welfare system  met with Samantha Green and Frank Rees to evaluate whether it was safe for the baby to return home with the parents.  Ultimately, Baby Justice was released to Samantha Green and Frank Rees, as Child Welfare officials got them to agree not to use methamphetamine and to seek drug treatment among other things.”

Samantha Green and Frank Rees continued to ingest methamphetamine, with evidence at trial establishing that Frank Rees was directly administering the drug to Ms. Green “despite the circumstances of Baby Justice at his birth.”

“Frank Rees was not originally charged with Samantha Green in the case involving the death of baby Justice for legal reasons which I do not plan to discuss today,” Mr. Reisig told reporters.

However, it was a recent arrest that played a factor in the decision to charge him this week, stated the district attorney.

Two weeks ago, Mr. Rees was arrested by sheriff’s deputies at his home in Woodland, and they found him with meth and ammunition.  “During that arrest, he was with a 26-year-old female who was six months pregnant and living with Mr. Rees,” he explained.  She was also found in possession of the drug.

An involuntary manslaughter charge is all the evidence permits, asserted the district attorney, who explained to reporters he could only answer questions that were already public knowledge.

Chief Deputy District Attorneys Rob Gorman and Ryan Couzens will be prosecuting Rees.

Judge Dave Rosenberg issued the arrest warrant after an ongoing investigation into Rees’ connection to Baby Justice’s death.

The news of Frank Rees’ arrest was welcomed by Green’s father, who spoke briefly to reporters outside the district attorney’s office.

Randy Green expressed his disappointment with CPS workers for allowing the infant to go home with the couple after Green tested positive for drugs upon the infant’s birth. “He would be alive today,” said Mr. Green, “and my daughter wouldn’t be doing 15 years in prison.”

Yolo County Deputy Sheriffs made the arrest of Rees early Tuesday morning and he is scheduled for a Thursday arraignment on the charges at 1:30 p.m. in Department 1.

The post DA Announces New Charges for Frank Rees in Death of Baby appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

by Jagjit Bath and Ruby Zapien

Detective Brian Young’s testimony continued under Judge David W. Reed in Department 8. Deputy Public Defender Daniel Hutchinson questioned the witness regarding the interrogation video of the defendant, Lance Ornellas-Castro, by Young. Mr. Hutchinson also displayed a few pictures of Mr. Ornellas-Castro’s car. After Young identified the car, Mr. Hutchinson continued asking him what he found in the car.

“Did you find marijuana in Mr. Ornellas-Castro’s car?” Mr. Hutchinson asked Detective Young, a sheriff’s deputy.

Det. Young responded with yes.

Then Mr. Hutchinson continued asking Det. Young about what else he found or saw in the car, and in reply Young mentioned that he also saw blood on the side of a seat. After the morning recess, Mr. Hutchinson resumed the questioning, with Defense’s Exhibit 314,  regarding what conversation Det. Young had with the defendant on their way to the jail from his house. Det. Young said that he was just being open with the defendant and was trying to get to the truth. He wanted to know details from both parties. Mr. Hutchinson then asked Young when the last time was that he had reviewed the videos or seen the reports. Det. Young responded that the last time he reviewed the video was when he had to write a report, but that he had reviewed his notes recently.

Then Mr. Hutchinson asked Det. Young about the search warrant, whether he had looked for things related to the case, and Young answered yes. Hutchinson asked if he, for instance, was “looking into marijuana possession, evidence of sales of marijuana, etc…” Det. Young replied with another yes. Young was also asked, “Can you give me a rough estimate of hours you spent on reviewing the evidence?” But even Det. Young was not sure about how many exact hours he had spent on the evidence, so he gave an answer of “let’s say 20 hours.”

Moving on, Mr. Hutchinson asked Young if he had seen any other text messages before October 23 besides the conversation between Mr. Ornellas-Castro and Mr. Garcia (former co-defendant Jorge Garcia, who pled out). Young replied affirmatively. Hutchinson then asked Young if he had seen call logs and whether he noticed if there was any call made to Jorge’s phone number. Young said, “Yes, I did.”

Regarding People’s Exhibit 74, the cellphone extraction report, Mr. Hutchinson asked, “With this text message the best approach to know the answers regarding the conversation are Mr. Ornellas-Castro and Mr. Garcia, correct?” Young responded with a yes.

Murder Trial Presumed to Take Two More Weeks

by Ruby Zapien

In the afternoon of February 23, 2017, Department 8 reconvened the murder trial of the People v. Lance Ornellas-Castro. Before the jury was allowed in the courtroom, the court discussed the timeline for the remainder of the trial. It was suggested that the testimony of Mr. Jorge Garcia, the former co-defendant in this case, would take all day tomorrow, and the trial in its entirety would not resume until the second week of March.

The jury entered the courtroom, and the defense continued with their cross-examination of Sheriff’s Deputy Brian Young, a detective. Following his testimony, the People were to show a video of the ride from Mr. Ornellas-Castro’s home to the Yolo County Sheriff’s Office, where the county jail is located.

On the projector was a spreadsheet of text messages. Deputy Public Defender Dan Hutchinson read a few aloud. The texts mentioned “chopping ‘it’ up,” “it’s perfect fish food, don’t you know its part of their diet.” Another text read, “Let’s get this shit going…if there’s no evidence, there’s no crime bro.”

Mr. Hutchinson brought up the idea that context is important when reading text messages – without any context, these texts could be frightening, but they could be referring to the cutting and trimming of marijuana.

Chief Assistant DA Melinda Aiello approached Detective Young with the Defense’s Exhibit 319, as seen before the lunch break. She asked if he saw anything else in the image that was relevant. Det. Young pointed out the pack of Blacks [cigars], a pair of safety glasses and the orange lanyard from Mr. Ornellas-Castro’s work I.D. The People then showed the witness People’s Exhibit 85 and People’s Exhibit 86, both images extracted from Mr. Ornellas-Castro’s cellphone. The former image depicted an open palm holding marijuana and the latter depicted an open palm holding a revolver.

“We talked a lot about a ‘Lick,’” stated Ms. Aiello. She then asked if a “Lick” involved theft. “Always used in basic terms as a robbery,” answered Det. Young.

“A robbery is a form of theft?” followed Ms. Aiello. Det. Young affirmed.

Ms. Aiello finished her questioning by asking Det. Young if he “felt like [he] got everything that night.”

“No, I don’t believe so,” responded Det. Young.

Mr. Hutchinson cross-examined by asking Det. Young whether the amount of marijuana was similar to the amount that was found in the garage or the van. Det. Young confirmed that they were not the same amount.

Returning to Ms. Aiello’s last question. Mr. Hutchinson pointed out that, in the interrogation video, you could see that Mr. Ornellas-Castro was not tired, nor did he ever claim to be. “If you believed you didn’t have enough information, why didn’t you continue asking him questions… At the time of the interrogation, did you believe you had enough evidence?” Det. Young affirmed that he believed at the time that he had enough evidence.

Mr. Hutchinson then asked Det. Young about his knowledge at the date of the interrogation of a second bullet wound, and his methods of looking for the second bullet. Finally, Mr. Hutchinson asked whether or not it was uncommon for people who sell large amounts of drugs to carry guns. “No,” answered Det. Young. “Mr. Ornellas-Castro told you he believed Andrew Phaouthoum had a gun?” Det. Young answered, “Yes.”

“[Ornellas-Castro] could have told you [Andrew Phaouthoum] had a gun and thrown it in the river and never found one?”

“Correct,” replied Det. Young.

Det. Young was dismissed, and the People began a video of a camera recording of the transportation from the defendant’s house to the sheriff’s department. Mr. Hutchinson clarified to the court that portions of the video were edited out.

The video was clearly shot sometime in the night. It was very dark, and one could barely see a uniformed officer standing with another individual in front of a marked police vehicle. The audio was of a male speaking to a dispatch officer. The conversation discussed the care of Mr. Ornellas-Castro’s children and about informing the mother of the situation at hand. Mr. Ornellas-Castro was read his Miranda rights, and there was a brief silence. Ornellas-Castro then asked how long the ride was going to be due to the fact that he had to use the restroom. At one point, the defendant was heard complaining about the tightness of the cuffs and an officer attempted to loosen them for him. A few more vehicles appeared on the screen and, shortly after, the vehicle drove off.

For a period, the video only showed long, single-lane, unlit roads. The ride was not quiet. The detective and Mr. Ornellas-Castro had various conversations, ranging from the job he recently obtained, his educational background, his tour in Afghanistan, familial relationships, friendships, how he met his wife and stories of previously being pulled over. Ornellas-Castro showed no concern in his tone; he was chuckling and conversing in a normal fashion.

The defendant frequently asked about the whereabouts of his wife. He showed sincere concern for his children and wanted to make sure his wife arrived at the house to care for them. She had been at work at the Dixon Walmart.

“I was sleeping with my daughter, and I heard all the noise, I didn’t want you to throw gas in or something….” Mr. Ornellas-Castro began to tell the detective. However, at that point Mr. Hutchinson asked to pause the video and approach the bench. Judge Reed used this opportunity to release the jury for their afternoon break.

There appeared to be discrepancies between the video and the transcription of the video submitted into evidence. Sections that were to be omitted were omitted in the video, however, they still appeared in the transcript. Counselors attempted to come up with an unanticipated resolution to the problem, to no avail.

When the jury returned, Judge Reed explained how the video no longer reflected the transcript, and the court would resume the video at a later date.

With this unexpected technical difficulty, the People recalled Deputy Stephanie Gill, a CSI with the Yolo County Sheriff’s Office, to the stand. Ms. Aiello wanted to tie up some loose ends from her previous testimony. Ms. Aiello asked Dep. Gill to identify certain evidence items by their evidence number. Dep. Gill identified: the collected sample with possible tissue obtained from the back of the van; the swab from the van; a swab of Mr. Garcia; a DNA sample from the victim Andrew Phaouthoum; a pair of jeans; vehicle swabs from Mr. Ornellas-Castro’s home; and two cellphones located at the River Road residence.

The following line of questioning from Ms. Aiello was about the measurements Dep. Gill took of the Toyota Sienna van that belonged to Mr. Garcia. Dep. Gill referred to her record to describe the various measurements of the seats of the vehicle and the distance between the middle driver’s side seat and the passenger seat. Ms. Aiello then showed Dep. Gill People’s Exhibits 88-92, all of which Dep. Gill could identify as images she had taken of the van from multiple vantage points.

People’s Exhibit 88 was published and projected for the court to see. Dep. Gill used a laser pointer to demonstrate the distance measured between the right corners of the middle driver’s side seat to the left edge of the passenger seat. Dep. Gill described how measurements were taken with the seats pushed all the way back and all the way forward. Then, she moved the passenger seat to where she believed it aligned with the blood droplets found in the van.

Ms. Gill explained that moving the seats was necessary because, when they received the vehicle, the passenger seat was reclined all the way and the middle passenger side seat had been folded down and pushed against the driver’s seat. This seating arrangement did not correspond with the blood in the vehicle.

The clock hit 3:30 p.m. and Judge Reed dismissed the jury until the following morning at 9:00 a.m. in Department 8.

Once the final juror left the room, the court could discuss the attorney-client privilege issue between Mr. Garcia, who previously pled out, and Mr. Rod Beede, his attorney.

Mr. Beede took the stand and both parties were only permitted to ask about his representation of his client when the plea agreement was negotiated.

Mr. Hutchinson asked Mr. Beede about multiple conversations between Mr. Beede and Ms. Aiello between the dates of January 13, 2017, and January 15, 2017. However, Mr. Hutchinson began to question Mr. Beede on statements made by Mr. Garcia. Judge Reed interrupted.

“The issue is what he told Ms. Aiello.” The judge objected to Mr. Hutchinson’s question and ordered him to stay within the scope. Mr. Hutchinson then decided to read directly from a handwritten sheet of paper that contained Ms. Aiello’s notes of the discussions between her and Mr. Beede. Mr. Hutchinson would read segments and ask Mr. Beede to recall the exact conversation.

“I told Ms. Aiello precisely what is referenced in those notes,” said Mr. Beede. “[Garcia] did not expect Lance was going to kill. Mr. Ornellas-Castro was carrying a gun to scare Andy and take his dope.”

Mr. Hutchinson read a statement about “everything going smoothly.” Mr. Beede indicated that his client was prepared to report that what was going on between himself and the victim was going smoothly, there were no harsh gestures or language from Andrew Phaouthoum.

As they continued, Mr. Beede appeared to grow irritated with the line of questioning. He repeatedly mentioned Mr. Hutchinson’s previous appraisals of Mr. Beede’s long record as an attorney when he could not recall specific conversations between himself and Ms. Aiello.

Finally, Mr. Hutchinson brought up two voicemails from January 13 and 14. After showing Mr. Beede transcriptions of these voicemails, Mr. Beede said, “I looked at this the other day, and I’ve seen it now.”

The first voicemail was Mr. Beede on Ms. Aiello’s phone, stating that his client wanted to think about things overnight. Mr. Beede explained that the whole situation was very heavy on his client.

The voicemail from the 14th was also from Mr. Beede to Ms. Aiello, saying that “before I tell you specifically what he’s ready to say, I need to know how my client is going to fare out of this.”

Mr. Beede suggested that in this voicemail there are three key components. First, he needed to think about it. Next, Ms. Aiello was required to clear it with the victims, and finally she needed to clear it with the district attorney of Yolo County.

Finally, Mr. Hutchinson wanted to clarify that Mr. Garcia never got any assurance that he was going to get something reasonable for making his statement. Mr. Beede stated that his client understood he would get something determinant or his statement would not be usable.

Mr. Beede is ordered to return to the court on March 2, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 8.

Department 8 will resume the discussion of Mr. Garcia and Mr. Beede’s attorney-client privilege at 8:45 a.m. on February 24, 2017, in Department 8.

The post Murder Trial Resumes appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Setarah Jahid

On February 23, 2017, the preliminary hearing for Raymond Yabes, Jr.,  began. Deputy Public Defender Richard Van Zandt had filed a motion to suppress due to an alleged Miranda rights issue. Deputy District Attorney Rachel Resneck represented the People.

The main and sole witness called by Ms. Resneck was Officer Cody Coulter, who has worked with the West Sacramento Police Department for three years. Officer Coulter was on duty on August 31, 2016, at 11:50 p.m. He had received a call that there was a burglary of a shed in progress on B Street. He was given the description of two Hispanic adult males. He responded to the scene, and eventually had four other officers join him.

At the scene, officer Coulter located a nunchaku weapon (a Japanese martial arts weapon consisting of two sticks connected at one end by a short chain or rope) on the grass, and asked Mr. Yabes who the weapon belonged to. Yabes responded that it belonged to him. Coulter then pulled out a card and read Mr. Yabes his Miranda rights. After hearing his rights, Mr. Yabes gave an even longer statement. Ms. Resneck played the audio recording from that night – Mr. Yabes’s first statement to the officer was less than thirty seconds long, whereas his second statement was almost two minutes long.

Ms. Resneck asked Coulter, “Why did you ask whose nunchuks are these?”  Coulter responded that it was only an investigative question, and not intended to circumvent Miranda rights.

During cross-examination, Mr. Van Zandt argued that the issue comes down to whether Officer Coulter’s actions were deliberate, and whether or not there was a “curative process” for Miranda deficiencies. He also argued that the objective factors worked in Yabes’s favor.

Resneck rebutted with case law that showed curative measures are only needed if the action was deliberate, and according to her, it definitely was not deliberate.

Judge Maguire ruled that he did find the question “Who’s nunchuks are these?” to be interrogative. However, he also believed that Mr. Yabes’s first statement was voluntary. To him, it seems that the events unfolded quickly, and officer Coulter simply got ahead of himself, but not with the intention to circumvent Miranda. Thus, his final ruling was that the post-Miranda statement may be used, but not the first statement. He granted the motion to suppress in part.

The trial is set for next Monday.

The post Motion to Suppress Testimony Granted in Part appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

The barn or covered event portion

By James G. Fredericks

I want to clear up the reporting on Field & Pond, which was covered in an article published in the Winters Express, February 10, 2017.  A number of statements made by opponents were not accurate.  We all know the family that is driving these claims, but they have no basis.  They are simply attempting to create unfair bias in the county’s system, by wasting county resources, in order to apply financial pressure to force the owners of Field & Pond to lose their business and ranch.

Conveniently omitted from claims about hindrance of pesticide spraying is the fact that the owners of Field & Pond, have been cooperatively working with the walnut farmers across the road from them for almost three years now, without incident. Also, the 500 foot buffer being referenced is not applicable in this case.  Ground spraying, which is what is typically used for orchards, only requires 300 feet; and Field & Pond is well outside of that distance.  However, even the 300 foot buffer requirement is further reduced to 50 to 100 feet when the farmer is only working with NON-Class 1 pesticides, which are exactly what is being used in that orchard. As a farmer who has owned and operated a pesticide business for more than 40 years, I can confirm this.  The Ag Commissioner’s office also confirmed these facts during the Field & Pond permit hearing.

The Field & Pond ranch is also not zoned Ag-Intensive; it is zoned Ag-Extensive, and this zoning has been in place since before Field & Pond moved in.  This zoning supports the exact activities that they want to do on their property.  The property is an active ranch.  As a point of fact, they are, and have been,under my agricultural farming permit.  We already have small ag enterprises that we’ve gotten off the ground.  For a ranch that hadn’t seen any real farming activity in tens of years, I feel that this is a good thing.

As it relates to the environmental impact, one only need to visit the Field & Pond ranch to see that it is not only beautiful, but it is a sanctuary for wildlife and habitat.  I also happen to know that Dahvie has met with Tuleyome. My understanding is that he developed detailed landscape master plans by working cooperatively with them to incorporate their feedback and direction, and followed up with the county to make them aware of the changes, to make sure that all stakeholders had an opportunity to re-review it and give feedback.

It is unfortunate that anyone would have to go through this much trouble to legally do what so many others, including their neighbors, are already doing without permits.

 

The post Letter: True Facts about the Field & Pond Project appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

The case of Eric Lovett was already epic in Yolo County, with secondary charges of dissuading a witness arising out of purported hand gestures made in court that several jurors called ambiguous at best, combined with the defense’s unsuccessful efforts to call percipient witnesses – the sitting judge and court staff including the wife of the Yolo County District Attorney – leading to a 2016 conviction on the secondary charge but a hung jury on the original charge of accessory to felony shooting.

On June 30, 2016, a unanimous California Supreme Court in People v. Sanchez changed the way hearsay evidence could be admitted concerning a defendant’s gang membership.

The question before the court on Friday was whether the new hearsay rules would invalidate decisions to allow certain gang expert testimony during the trial.  The defense made a motion for a mistrial while the prosecuting attorney acknowledged that some testimony, which was admissible under the law at the time of the trial, would now have to be stricken under the Sanchez decision.

The prosecution countered that this was in fact harmless error and that there was lots of other evidence of gang membership that was admissible.  This included evidence of gang tattoos and photos.  Deputy DA Robin Johnson also noted that Sanchez was not the law at the time and therefore the People did not err.

However, Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira countered that the “facts of the case are so intertwined, harmless error cannot be made.”

The evidence, she argued, was contained within testimony that is now inappropriate hearsay and without the gang expert’s testimony, there is no evidence left of gang involvement.

In her motion, she argued, “The court admitted case-specific, testimonial hearsay without giving Mr. Lovett an opportunity to confront and cross-examine the out-of-court declarants.  Although the state of the law had permitted it, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in People v. Sanchez held that doing so constitutes error of Constitutional proportion.  Since the error is not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the court should order a mistrial and order a new trial.”

Judge Dan Maguire methodically laid out his ruling.  He made it clear that Deputy DA Robin Johnson acted in accordance with the law at the time.  The defense had made a motion to exclude certain evidence and, under existing evidence law, the judge had denied the motion and the evidence went forward.

He identified four critical incidents about which testimony was given and of which the gang expert had no direct knowledge and was testifying, relying simply on notes at the time.  This included a 2003 incident, a 2009 incident, a 2013 incident and a 2014 incident.

The judge went into a harmless error analysis and once again acknowledged that this was “a close case” that could have gone either way.  The video evidence of the finger gesture could have been fidgeting or it could have been more ominous.

The jury had to make a judgment call and they would have wanted to know the past.  Based on that, he found grounds to think that this evidence would have been a factor in the jury’s decision, and granted the motion for the mistrial.

The original charge of accessory to the shooting that started this trial cannot be brought back.  There may be an effort to resolve the case now or it could go to trial again in late August.

This ruling is the latest twist in what has been a long and eventful trial.

Eric Lovett in February of 2015 was facing charges for being an accessory to attempted murder for the November 2014 shooting by Michael Reyes, who has long since been convicted and sentenced to life in that shooting.

However, as Mr. Lovett was sitting in his preliminary hearing, law enforcement officers present in the court alleged that he made slicing motions with his finger across his throat as the victim testified.  The new allegations resulted ultimately in Mr. Lovett’s case being severed from the original trial (which resulted in convictions for all three co-defendants).

The lengthy trial brought a decision that stunned most people involved.  The jury hung 8-4 for acquittal on the main charge of accessory to murder after the fact, but convicted Mr. Lovett on the charge of dissuading a witness and committing that felony for the benefit of a criminal street gang.  The DA subsequently dismissed the accessory to commit attempted murder charge.

In the DA’s press release, they explained that Mr. Lovett is a three-striker, having been convicted of committing two prior strike offenses.  “In 2004 Lovett was convicted of Assault with a Deadly Weapon in Yolo County and in 2010 he was convicted of Criminal Street Gang Activity in San Joaquin County.  He also has served five prior prison sentences.”

Based on the conviction and his past crimes, Mr. Lovett faced 45 to life in state prison.

On the second day of the preliminary hearing, February 19, 2015, the complaining witness, Ernie Sotelo, testified for the prosecution. The next day of the preliminary hearing, which was on March 3, 2015, Officer Anthony Herrera testified that on February 19, 2015, he had witnessed Mr. Lovett make gestures toward Ernie Sotelo as Mr. Sotelo testified, and the officer interpreted the gestures as threatening.

Officer Herrera claimed he saw Mr. Lovett “do it over and over again.” He also testified that Deputy Gary Galvan told him that he, Dep. Galvan, saw Mr. Lovett “do it several times,” “the same thing, the same motion with the finger.”

Deputy Galvan reportedly saw Mr. Lovett make this motion “five or six more times, doing it very slow.”

Officer Herrera said, “[Dep. Galvan] said at first before Ernie Sotelo came in to testify that [Lovett] was jovial, laughing and joking, but as soon as Ernie Sotelo came up here to testify, he said that that’s when he said he paid particular attention, said that he was – looked to be very interested in looking at Sotelo, and would like grit his jaw to where you could like see the muscles clenching in his face. He said he wasn’t joking and jovial up to that point, after that point, excuse me, when he was testifying.”

The jury’s conviction was particularly stunning because several independent observers having seen the video believed the evidence that it was a threat was questionable at best.

In March 2016, when Judge Maguire agreed to quash a third subpoena for courtroom staff, he noted in his ruling that the existence of courtroom video was crucial.  He said that what the video shows is “subject to interpretation.”  He even acknowledged that the first time he watched the video, he didn’t see anything.

Rod Beede, a counsel for a co-defendant, at a trial setting conference in July 2015 said that it “would be hotly contested what, if anything, Mr. Lovett did when the witnesses (sic) was on the stand. My entire staff and I looked at the tape two or three times and it was confusing at best.”

Judge Rosenberg was similarly equivocal on the content of the video.

“I saw Mr. Lovett make certain movements with his hand, which frankly surprised the Court, took me aback,” the judge stated.

He held Mr. Lovett to answer to the charges on December 14, 2015, but reasoned that a jury “could readily determine that Mr. Lovett was just fidgeting, but I also believe that a jury could determine that he was making motions like a slashing of a neck to intimidate a witness that was on the stand.”

The case was always going to be interesting because there were separate decisions by a variety of judges to exclude testimony of Judge Paul Richardson, Deputy DA Amanda Zambor and Court Reporter Abby Waller-Reisig (wife of DA Jeff Reisig).

In his ruling last year, Judge Maguire ruled that Ms. Reisig, according to her declarations, had nothing to offer as to what happened, as she claimed not to have seen anything.

He offered the “dog that didn’t bark evidence” because she (Ms. Reisig) doesn’t remember seeing anything that is potentially probative. He said that that can be evidence, but he has no reason to think that the dog wouldn’t bark. He said the absence of the evidence isn’t relevant, stating there was nothing to take notice of.

On June 30, the California Supreme Court decided People v. Sanchez.  The unanimous decision held: “[t]hat the case-specific statements related by the prosecution expert concerning defendant’s gang membership constituted inadmissible hearsay under California law. They were recited by the expert, who presented them as true statements of fact, without the requisite independent proof. Some of those hearsay statements were also testimonial and therefore should have been excluded under Crawford. The error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”

—David M. Greenwald reporting

The post Judge Overturns 2016 Lovett Conviction Based on New Court Decision appeared first on Davis Vanguard.