|
| Defense Files Motion in Bank Blocking Case |
| Written by David Greenwald |
| Saturday, 14 July 2012 08:33 |
|
Pitchess Motion Revealing of Charges and Defense in Bank Blocking Case -
Defense for the 11 students and one professor charged with numerous misdemeanors for their alleged role in blocking the US Bank in UC Davis' Memorial Union in January and February this year filed a Pitchess motion on Friday. At a brief hearing they scheduled Judge David Reed to hear motions on August 24, 2012. While the case of bank blocking, which led to the US Bank closing its UC Davis branch, proceeds slowly through the court system, other matters surrounding the November 18 actions on the Quad have yet to resolve themselves.This week UC Davis Spokeperson Barry Shiller told the Vanguard that the internal investigation is nearing culmination of appeals and reviews. It is unclear to what extent the public will be informed on the outcome of the internal process. At the same time, the DA has yet to announce whether there will be criminal charges against Lt. John Pike and other police officers involved in the pepper spraying. A Pitchess motion is a request made by the defense in a criminal access which requests access to information in the personnel file of an arresting police officer. Pitchess refers to a Supreme Court decision from 1974 and is now codified into California's Evidence Code Sections 1043-47. In the Pitchess decision the court ruled: "Allowing an accused the right to discovery is based on the fundamental proposition that he [or she] is entitled to a fair trial and an intelligent defense in light of all relevant and reasonably accessible information." Such requests are routine in cases where the police officer's actions themselves are in question, under a theory that a defendant is entitled to information relevant to his or her defense. The agency that holds the records becomes the defending agency against the Pitchess motion rather than the district attorney. The unusual nature of this case, however, is that there was no arresting officer. Rather, there were a series of policies laid out by the UC Davis administration in conjunction with the police, but the defendants were not arrested. Instead, they were notified via mail from the DA's office. A number of police officers, however, wrote reports that are catalogued in the motions written by Attorneys Tony Serra and Alexis Briggs, with a substantial amount of the research performed by Attorney Maria Belyi. In a footnote in their motion, Attorneys Tony Serra and Alexis Briggs explain, "While Officers Abraham, Thomas, Swartwood, Green, and Davis did not write reports, they were either present on the scene, were reviewing officers, or case officer." Mr. Serra and Ms. Briggs write that on January 20, 2012, Officer Sheffield was called to the UC Davis Branch of US Bank because of reports of robbery, however, en route, he was instructed "that there were protesters gathering outside the business door of the bank, that the doors had been locked and no protesters were inside the bank." "When a bank employee told the protesters that they needed to leave, the protesters refused. The protesters also told other patrons that the bank was closed," the attorneys write. At around 1:05 pm, the bank closed for the day and Officer Sheffield advised the protesters that the employees were leaving. Write the attorneys, "Upon exiting, one of the employees asked the protesters to move their belongings out of the way because he had a heavy rolling bag. The protesters refused, and he rolled his bag through the items "so as not to hit the protesters." The protesters reportedly yelled at him and called him an "asshole" and a "mother -." Officer Sheffield reported that he recognized two of the protesters - Joshua Clover and Nathan Brown from previous contacts, but not the other protesters except that he noted they were in their twenties and a mix of gender and ethnicities. On February 2, 2012, Officer Sheffield was dispatched to the U.S. Bank because the protesters had allegedly pushed a patron of the bank in order to prevent him from entering. By February 8, Officer Sheffield noted "that the group of protesters was 'calm and cooperative,' that they had signs stating 'Yes, the bank is closed,' and 'We will let people out but nobody can go in.' However, the protesters let Officer Sheffield into the bank." He also noted that the size of the group fluctuated between six and ten. A week later, he was called back to the bank, witnessing "three patrons being turned away from the bank by the protesters." The bank employees would leave at 1:26 pm and "Officer Sheffield then approached the protesters and began to hand out Notices of Violations." Still later, Officer Sheffield observed, "A bank employee opened the door slightly and asked if the protesters will let the bank open for business. The protesters allegedly stated 'not now and not ever.' " In a report from Police Chief Matt Carmichael, he met with John Wellborn, a Senior Vice President with U.S. Bank who "expressed discontent that protesters were blocking the doors of the bank." He added that an employee of student affairs and a campus mediator have been meeting with the protesters, but "this attempt at dialogue has been met with very little communication from those blocking the door." There were numerous other reports from several other officers as well, depicting similar encounters. The defense also issued forth a number of counterclaims by the protesters. For example, Deanna Johnson, one of the protesters and defendants issued a counterclaim. The defense notes that Ms. Johnson argues, "The police contact with the protesters, including herself, began on November 18, 2011 when the students were protesting tuition hikes and participating in Occupy U.C. Davis." Ms. Johnson, while sitting down, was pepper sprayed by Officer Pike, who "put his hand on the back of her neck to hold her head down." The defense writes, "As a result, Ms. Johnson had physical pain that lasted three days, and continuing anxiety, fear, and mistrust of police, especially the officers on the U.C. Davis campus." She reported, "The officers seemed to change their approach and demeanor with the protesters at the U.S. Bank branch at U.C. Davis. Officer Hunter and Officer Sheffield were courteous, and Officer Sheffield clearly made attempts at conversation with the students by uttering statements such as, 'I bank at a credit union,' and asking to use Ms. Johnson's lighter to smoke a cigarette." However, other officers she described as "rude" and "aggressive." "They used angry, hostile, and combative tones, and were often condescending," she reported. She counters that one of the alleged assaults was "exaggerated" and that the subject actually hit her repeatedly with the door, and "he seemed ready to extend his aggression on to the protesters." The defense argues that "it is important to note that the charged offenses are part of an ongoing protest known as Occupy U.C. Davis. Thus, it is of extreme importance that Officers Arias, Carmichael, Demuri, Henoch, Hunter, Sheffield, Sotelo, and Swartwood were on the roster for the November 18th, 2011, where the officers showed extreme excessive force in their handling and pepper spraying student protesters." "These officers violently attacked non-violent protesters on the campus of U.C. Davis," she said. "It is the defendants' position that the violent attitude of these officers toward the student protesters, evident and on display in November, did not simply subside in their dealings with the protesters the following semester." "Furthermore, the oppressive tactics from November 2011 still greatly affected the protesters. It is evidenced, for example, In the statements of the defendants, as well as in their meek behavior toward the police officers during the protests at the U.S. Bank." The November 18, 2011 incident, while not charged in this case, the defense argues to be extremely relevant. The defense argues that Officer Sheffield falsified his report when he mischaracterized an alleged assault, he also failed to report the battery against one of the protestors by a patron, and he "falsified his reports in his exaggeration of statements and actions by the protesters, and his de-emphasis of insults and physical attacks on the protesters by bank patrons." Other officers are alleged to have failed to properly identify themselves as officers as they wore plain clothing, and failed to investigate and pursue battery investigations into conduct by employees of the bank, thus falsifying reports and misclassify incidents. A Pitchess motion has a relatively low standard for burden of proof. The defense notes in their motion, "A showing that the defendant cannot readily obtain the information through his or her own efforts will ordinarily entitle the defendant to pretrial knowledge of any unprivileged evidence or information which might lead to the discovery of evidence "if it appears reasonable that such knowledge will assist him in preparing his defense."" In other words, the defense does not have to make any showing other than to argue that there is a reasonable possibility that such knowledge will assist him or her in preparing his or her defense. If the Pitchess motion is granted, the defense is not handed over the personnel file, but rather the judge goes to his chambers and reviews the file in camera in the presence of the custodian of the records and determines whether there is disclosable information - and even at that point only turns over names and numbers for relevant parties. ---David M. Greenwald reporting
Bookmark
Email this
Comments (30)
...
Where did you get all of the information quoted as being from the officers? What additional information could be obtained from them beyond the reports to which you and the public already have access?
...
" I think that underestimates the commitment of the students to their cause - agree or disagree with the cause itself."I have no doubt of the students' strong commitment to their cause--there's overwhelming evidence that they believed in the causes for which they were demonstrating. The students were misguided in believing that breaking laws is the best way to demonstrate, probably because they feel the cause is worthy. Being misled does not require naivety on the part of these young people. I figure you have very good contacts with the demonstrators, the ALCU and other supporters. This has allowed you to cover these events from an unequaled viewpoint. Therefore, I'm surprised you continue to argue that Professors Clover and Brown didn't play influential roles in both demonstrations and the followup events. Given their writings, speeches and other anarchist history, it is unconceivable that their leadership with these students isn't visible to you. After all, the rest of us can see it in the news coverage of the events. One of my concerns (in addition to young people starting adulthood with criminal records) is that Clover and Brown appear to be using the students' motivation and causes to contribute to their own personal, on-going objectives--the undermining of UCD as an institution. Regardless of the cause, illegal blockades help advance the Clover/Brown "administration and police off the campus" movement. I suspect the pair will show up whenever and wherever there's any dissatisfaction that has potential to turn violent or result in publicity or arrests, just as long as they're on the UCD payroll.
...
I figure you have very good contacts with the demonstrators, the ALCU and other supporters. This has allowed you to cover these events from an unequaled viewpoint. Therefore, I'm surprised you continue to argue that Professors Clover and Brown didn't play influential roles in both demonstrations and the followup events. Given their writings, speeches and other anarchist history, it is unconceivable that their leadership with these students isn't visible to you. After all, the rest of us can see it in the news coverage of the events. I found these two paragraphs to represent a very curious point of view. If you agree that David may have a unique insight because of his contacts with the demonstrators, ACLU and other supporters, perhaps his insight gives him more credibility than "what all the rest of us can see in the news coverage of the events" As we all know, news coverage is frequently in error ( Fox and CNN on the Supreme Court decision on ACA for example), and even when not factually in error can certainly be interpreted in varying ways. So what makes this more accurate than actual conversations and interactions with the principle players?
...
Curious, yes. Contradictory, no. My comments aren't aimed at comparing news source credibility.
...
The news coverage I'm citing includes, and is supported by, videos taken at the events--including the building takeover before "the walk of shame" and the various rallies during the past months at which Clover and Brown spoke. Even with the hours of videos that many of us watched, we still came to very different conclusions about the culpability of the students and the police. So whose view of these actions represents "the truth" ? The Vanguard's access to "The Accused" of Yolo society is admirable, and provides us lots of inside looks that more traditional media might not uncover. However, a credibility problem arises when this close relationship finds the Vanguard becoming an outspoken advocate for the people and causes being covered. After all, the rest of us can see it in the news coverage of the events. A credibility problem arises when ever one individual believes that their version of events is shared by the majority. I believe that David has a strong set of core beliefs and that these are frequently reflected in his writings. I feel that the best way to approach this unique ( at least within our community) approach to reporting the news is to appreciate his independence, judge the value of an article on the merits of the facts and opinions expressed, and strongly present ones own ideas when not in agreement. I would question attempts of any contributor, whether David, or any other blog participant to paint their version of reality as "what all the rest of us can see".
...
"I believe that David has a strong set of core beliefs and that these are frequently reflected in his writings. I feel that the best way to approach this unique ( at least within our community) approach to reporting the news is to appreciate his independence, judge the value of an article on the merits of the facts and opinions expressed, and strongly present ones own ideas when not in agreement. I would question attempts of any contributor, whether David, or any other blog participant to paint their version of reality as 'what all the rest of us can see'.
...
I have never seen any indication that the students were told to do things... The Vanguard is objective? The Vanguard clearly concedes a particular viewpoint/bias that many others do not share...
...
"When one announces, "we are the law here!" that certainly contributes to the impressions of where they fit into the scheme of things. But, if you just see us arguing about different points on a spectrum of actual influence, I may have gained an inaccurate understanding of whether you acknowledge any responsibility on Clover's and Brown's parts." As an experienced protester from "long,long ago and far,far away" I have a different perspective on what announcing "we are the law here" to a group fluctuating in numbers between a dozen and a half dozen may actually signify. I doubt that any of these protesters are sufficiently naive to believe that a dozen protesters on a single university campus truly represent anything more than that. I certainly do not believe that such an over the top, self congratulatory, rhetorical statement is likely to be a revolutionary rallying cry and certainly do not see it as the mark of "leadership" as some seem to. Now, the individuals behind the silent protest while Katehi walked to her car might be seen to be more capable of leadership and effective use of the numbers of protesters available. While I do see that the professors you site have played a role, and would probably enjoy seeing themselves as revolutionary leaders ( I don't know either, so can't say) I think that their role is probably more in line with David's interpretation than with more grandiose visions of their role whether held by themselves or their detractors.
...
To medwoman: I will repeat this wisdom of JustSaying: I'm not, in this case, attempting to "paint my version of reality" when I point out that video of these events and much other evidence make it obvious to even the casual observer that Brown and Clover have been playing a leadership role.
...
To medwoman: And as to the objectivity or lack thereof of the Vanguard, I would also repeat the wisdom of JustSaying: There are times that you slip, in my opinion, and the lack of objectivity shines through. Usually, someone points it out. Usually, you fail to accept the possibility. I think the Vanguard coverage of the bank blockade is one of these times.
...
"I post all of this to make the point, if you take the Clover quote in isolation, you end up concluding as you have that he is the leader."
...
JustSaying Given their writings, speeches and other anarchist history, it is unconceivable that their leadership with these students isn't visible to you. It may be that I misinterpreted your point, but it is the above statement that caused me to believe that you were supporting the claim of Clover's leadership.
...
Based on everything I've seen about the two professors, their views and their involvement in the recent sting of demonstrations, I conclude that they've been playing leadership roles. I've read and viewed reports here and news outlets, watched video of related events and considered the professors' writings in getting to this conclusion. It fits in with Clover's and Brown's intentions, seems logical given how teachers usually work with students and appears confirmed by videos of them exhorting the demonstrating crowds.
...
To continue (hit the Add Comment by mistake):
...
JustSaying |
