Officer Jerry Watson of the West Sacramento Police Department described arriving on the seen in the late afternoon of June 1. Mr. Hernandez, the alleged victim, was covered in blood on his head and shirt. He stated that he had arrived home from work with his boss, John Spurgin, and in the adjacent yard, an African-American male was yelling names and profanities at the boss.
Mr. Hernandez told Officer Watson that the black male swung the stick, Hernandez tried to grab it, but was struck in the head twice. A six to seven inch laceration from the back to the front of the head of Mr. Hernandez was visible to Officer Watson.
The defense argued, apparently successfully and represented by Public Defender Sally Frederickson, that this was a case of self-defense. Mr. Hunter went to visit a Christine Spurgin. He did not know the other people involved. In the pick-up truck there was an exchange between Mr. Hernandez and Mr. Spurgin, the father of Ms. Spurgin. Mr. Hunter tried to intervene but was told by Mr. Hernandez to “get out of here, nigger. This has nothing to do with you boy.”
According to the defense, Mr. Hernandez then went to the truck and got an axe handle. Mr. Hernandez hit Mr. Hunter, then Mr. Hunter grabbed the axe handle and hit Mr. Hernandez. Mr. Hernandez went back to the truck, pulled out a shovel and threatened to grab his 45.
As might be expected, there were a variety of different stories as to what happened. Mr. Spurgin owns Master Tree Care and Mr. Hernandez has worked for him for six to seven years. As he describes it, his daughter came out and called Mr. Hernandez some names. Mr. Spurgin told her to go away. Mr. Hunter then jumped over the fence, chasing Mr. Hernandez. Mr. Hernandez swung the axe handle to keep Mr. Hunter away, and Mr. Hunter grabbed the handle and hit Mr. Hernandez.
Another witness, Jason Goldstein, who also works for Mr. Spurgin, saw the exchange and described Mr. Hunter as the one yelling racial slurs. He was prodding, “Do you want to fight me, I’ll do it” and “I’ll kill you, I’ll kill your family.”
Christine Spurgin described her father and Mr. Herndez as threatening to cut the phone line and starting an argument. She claims Mr. Hunter never jumped the fence, that he simply walked around the fence with her.
She says that Mr. Hernandez said, “come on nigger” which prompted him to approach. Mr. Hernandez then grabbed for the axe handle, and swung at Mr. Hunter like a baseball bat and struck towards Mr. Hunter’s head. That blow was blocked. He struck towards Mr. Hunter again, this time Mr. Hunter grabbed the handle and hit Mr. Hernandez. After Mr. Hernandez was hurt, he kept screaming racial slurs at Hunter.
The DA countered that Mr. Hunter could have left the scene, but instead he approached Mr. Hernandez.
Mr. Hunter took the stand in his own defense. Apparently Mr. Spurgin and his daughter were having some family issues. He had come over to Mr. Spurgin’s house with Ms. Spurgin. Mr. Spurgin told his daughter that he wanted her and that “f—–g nigger off my property.” This provoked Mr. Hunter and they got into an exchange. He said he felt threatened, he tried to go over the gate but Mr. Spurgin pushed him off and Mr. Hernandez threatened him and ran to truck to get something, which turned out to be the axe.
According to Mr. Hunter’s testimony, both sides landed blows. Mr. Hunter, suffered from some medical conditions from an incident ten years prior, and went to the hospital after the encounter. At one point, Mr. Hernandez turned and ran, saying he was going to get his gun. Mr. Hunter believed that if he did not hit Mr. Hernandez, he himself would have been harmed.
Mr. Hunter did not have a clean record. He had numerous charges and convictions, including a felony evasion of an officer in 1998 and a felony for possession of cocaine in 2009.
In closing, Deputy District Attorney Sarah Jacobson argued that in the assault with a deadly weapon, Mr. Hunter did act with a deadly weapon, the axe handle. It resulted in an application of force on someone. It was a willful act, not an accident. And he was aware of what he was doing.
She claimed that Mr. Hernandez was very credible and that his testimony was supported by Jason Goldstein, whom she claimed was the least biased person (albeit an employee of Mr. Spurgin). However, she herself acknowledged that Mr. Hernandez behaved like a 12-year-old, and tends to exaggerate. But some points cannot be exaggerated, such as that he was afraid, that Mr. Hunter’s size and build scared him and that he was hit on the head.
She questioned Mr. Hunter’s credibility, arguing that, while he claimed he was hit and disoriented, he was able to cause such severe injuries to Hernandez. She said in order for it to be self-defense he had to believe he was in danger, believe his use of force was necessary to prevent danger and use no more force than necessary. Ms. Jacobson argued that Mr. Hunter used way too much force and that there was no imminent danger. They had a fence between them. If Mr. Hunter was so afraid, why did he run to Mr. Hernandez’s side of fence?
The defense, on the other hand, questioned Mr. Hernandez’ credibility. She pointed to Mr. Hernandez’ contradictory testimony, telling the officers one thing but conforming his testimony to Mr. Spurgin’s in court, after they had had time to talk about the incident. She cited his confrontational manner in court toward counsel. Mr. Hernandez never mentioned swinging the handle or striking Mr. Hunter, but all the other witnesses mentioned that Mr. Hernandez either swung the handle or had struck Mr. Hunter. Moreover, Mr. Hernandez wasn’t afraid of Mr. Hunter like he had testified. In fact, he was laughing in Mr. Hunter’s face during the entire incident.
Ms. Frederickson argued that Mr. Hunter had previous head trauma, and therefore feared severe consequences if he were struck. He tried to nudge Mr. Hernandez away. When that did not work, Mr. Hunter then had to strike Mr. Hernandez on the head as a last resort.
This is yet another case in which the jury had to sort out competing versions of what happened. Some juries in this position have acquitted, others have convicted. No one here looks clean. Probably Mr. Hernandez’s conduct in court played a large role in cementing the jury’s view of what happened.
Mr. Hunter believes that he was the victim in this incident. He insists that he was repeatedly called racial epithets by both Mr. Spurgin and Mr. Hernandez. He wrote the judge on August 3, “it is my honest belief that I am the victim of a serious hate crime. It was first ignored by the West Sacramento Police Department, despite my many pleas to that effect.”
He continued, “I am now being subject to a biased prosecution. Not only is the prosecution violating my rights to a fair trial, they are also, I believe, violating their code of professional conduct, to wit: It is the sworn duty of a prosecutor to not simply prosecute for the sake of prosecution; but rather, to seek and represent justice. Further, her position towards me may have been inaccurately slanted by the relatives of my co-defendant during that prosecution.”
How much truth there is in those charges, we will never know. What we do know is that a jury found Mr. Hunter not guilty of the assault charge, likely based on the notion of self-defense and more likely due to the simple contradictory nature of all of the testimony they heard from the various witnesses.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Sounds like a typical Yolo DA response – ignore the facts and go all out for the big kill. The approach results in no justice regardless of the jury decision.
Both parties should have been charged with disorderly conduct and mutual combat. Both stuck their noses in someone else’s dispute and acted like idiots. A proper evaluation of the facts could have resulted justice for all. Instead, the two parties have not been held accountable for their misbehavior.
The lesson learned – the Yolo DA’s office is not interested in Justice. I hope potential jurors are paying attention.
dmg: “Officer Jerry Watson of the West Sacramento Police Department described arriving on the seen in the late afternoon of June 1. Mr. Hernandez, the alleged victim, was covered in blood on his head and shirt. He stated that he had arrived home from work with his boss, John Spurgin, and in the adjacent yard, an African-American male was yelling names and profanities at the boss.”
Now why would the defendant start yelling profanities at Spurgin for no reason? This part of the story just doesn’t make sense.
dmg: “The defense argued, apparently successfully and represented by Public Defender Sally Frederickson, that this was a case of self-defense. Mr. Hunter went to visit a Christine Spurgin. He did not know the other people involved. In the pick-up truck there was an exchange between Mr. Hernandez and Mr. Spurgin, the father of Ms. Spurgin. Mr. Hunter tried to intervene but was told by Mr. Hernandez to “get out of here, nigger. This has nothing to do with you boy.”
Why would Mr. Hunter intervene in an exchange between Mr. Spurgin and Mr. Hernandez? This makes no sense either.
dmg: “Mr. Hunter believes that he was the victim in this incident. He insists that he was repeatedly called racial epithets by both Mr. Spurgin and Mr. Hernandez.”
Because someone is calling you names does not then give you the right to go beat them over the head with an ax handle, nor is it a hate crime in CA –
California Hate Crimes Statutes
Felonies
P.C. 422.7 – Commission of a crime for the purpose of interfering with another’s exercise of civil rights.
P.C. 594.3 – Vandalism of place of worship based on racial or religious bias.
P.C. 11412 – Threats obstructing exercise of religion.
P.C. 11413 – Use of destructive device or explosive or commission of arson in certain places.
Misdemeanors
P.C. 302 – Disorderly conduct during an assemblage of people gathered for religious worship at a tax-exempt place of worship.
P.C. 422.6 – Use of force, threats or destruction of property to interfere with another’s exercise of civil rights.
P.C. 422.9 – Violation of civil order (Bane Act) protecting the exercise of civil rights.
P.C. 538(c) – Unauthorized insertion of advertisements in newspapers and redistribution to the public.
P.C. 640.2 – Placing handbill, notice or advertisement on a consumer product or product package without authorization.
P.C. 11411 – Terrorism of owner or occupant of real property. Placement or display of sign, symbol or other physical impression without authorization, engagement in pattern of conduct, or burning or desecration of religious symbols.
Not sure if everyone understands the difference between a conviction, acquittal and mistrial-
-Conviction=All 12 jurors agree and all vote guilty, You will see and hear DA Reisig say he got a conviction from all but 2 jurors, his cheap lawyer spin tricks to confuse, mislead and lie about facts. No such thing as a conviction with less than 12 jurors voting guilty.
-Acquittal= NOT one juror could be convinced that the person was guilty – this is a serious failure by the DA and shows real lack of judgment on his part to even try the case since it was so weak and no chance of conviction – an acquittal sends a strong message to the DA since it takes away his power to re-file and charge the person again. This also happens more when the people have lost faith and trust in the DA so more and more jurors refuse to vote guilty since they know what tricks and unethical games the DA is capable of.
– Mistrial= One of more jurors could not be convinced to vote guilty, the DA will use this as an excuse to re-file the charges and waste tax payer money to try and get a conviction again, when a DA files again after his failure to get a conviction, the DA is basically saying the jury did not know what they were doing, so he is going to over-ride the mistrial and file charges again, this game can on forever at a high cost to taxpayers, but the DA gets to spin press releases into he is tough on crime and knows the person is guilty, this is another DA trick to get enough people to read about how guilty a person is in the hopes of getting jurors who keep reading about the same trial over and over.
This acquittal sends a strong message to the DA, not only did you waste tax payers time and money and waste the courts time and the jurors time, now the jury told him you can’t file again and continue to waste. More acquittals will continue to send this message.
At what point do people stop supporting this DA and realize he is all about his political goals and his high conviction rate and his crazy prison terms? The last thing DA Jeff Reisig cares about is justice or doing the right thing. He is such a black-eye to criminal justice system.
It sounds to me like what happened is that Mr. Spurgin and his daughter had a dispute, Mr. Hunter tried to intervene, then Mr. Hernandez jumped in, and a dispute erupted between Mr. Hunter and Mr. Hernandez. That’s how I interpreted what happened.
[i]”this is a serious failure by the DA and shows real lack of judgment on his part to even try the case since it was so weak and no chance of conviction”[/i]
You don’t know that there was “no chance of conviction.”
That might be true in this particular case. I don’t know. However, I don’t agree with the notion that an acquittal is always reason to conclude that the DA showed “real lack of judgment on his part to even try the case.”
If that were true, then you would want a justice system with 100% conviction rates. That means either dismissing all marginal cases or having a system which is much more biased in favor of the prosecution (as they have in Japan).
It’s entirely possible that the DA thought they had a good case, but A) they were wrong; or B) that the defense was more effective/capable in trial than they expected; or C) some rulings during trial by the judge went against them; or D) the jury reached the wrong conclusion for whatever reason.
Roger Rabbit: “Conviction=All 12 jurors agree and all vote guilty”
In some jurisdictions, convictions in criminal trials can occur if less than 12 jurors agree. In CA –
“Unanimous: Twelve jurors serve on a jury trial, except when the parties in civil or misdemeanor cases agree that there may be fewer than 12. A decision is unanimous when the full jury in a criminal case or three-quarters of the jury in a civil case have agreed upon the verdict.”
Roger Rabbit: “Acquittal= NOT one juror could be convinced that the person was guilty…”
This is not accurate. An acquittal means that the jurors mutually agreed the person should be found not guilty, yet some may still believe the defendant is guilty but are not willing to hold out for conviction – because for instance, the evidence presented was not beyond a reasonable doubt; too many were against conviction; they want to go home.
Roger Rabbit: “Mistrial= One of more jurors could not be convinced to vote guilty…”
Mistrials are awarded for all sorts of reasons, many of which have nothing to do with whether the jury could be convinced to vote guilty.
dmg: “It sounds to me like what happened is that Mr. Spurgin and his daughter had a dispute, Mr. Hunter tried to intervene, then Mr. Hernandez jumped in, and a dispute erupted between Mr. Hunter and Mr. Hernandez. That’s how I interpreted what happened.”
Sounds like a plausible scenario of what really happened, but it wasn’t clear from your description. Although it probably wasn’t clear from watching the trial either. Which is of course pretty typical in trials. Also, I would point out, that DA’s may think they have a good case, but it may not hold up under scrutiny once defense counsel puts the DA’s evidence to the test, i.e. cross examines witnesses. That does not necessarily mean the DA used poor judgment in bringing the case in the first place. Trials are all about sifting through the evidence and finding the truth.
Well let’s not forget the “Ace in the Hole”, the real truth is the Judge can change the jury verdict if s/he wants. So since the judge gets to hear all the behind the scenes evidence, he sees and hears lots of things the jury never gets to know about, like misconduct by the DA, he knows the case better than the jury and if a guilty person is set free by a jury, the Judge can override and find the person guilty. So the jury is really not the final say.
We all have seen DA’s dismiss cases that are politically hot or file cases for political reasons even thou they know they will not get a conviction. In fact one case that comes to mind is the case where West Sac PD officers got in a fight with two suspects and one was hit in the head with a baton. The DA has filed the case three times and can’t get a conviction, but these continuous filings stop the people from using this info in their civil trial. Another little trick by the DA to prevent the City Gov from paying out big money.
According to people in the DA’s office, they did not want to file and know they can’t get a conviction, but they keep filing to help (back door deals) the West Sac City from getting beat up in a civil trial. Where is the truth and honesty in that, how is this continued waste of tax payer money justify? Simple, the DA can do what he wants and it is not his money, it is the tax payers.