by Vanessa Guerrero –
I have been following the California Superior Courthouse in Yolo County for three months, and may I say, my eyes are wide open. The courthouse is found in Woodland and where I thought not much happened.
Next to the quiet, lonely downtown streets of Woodland, there is a tall building that stands, looking like our nation’s White House on Court Street.
Inside you can be swallowed whole.
The marble walls and antique look give it a “we provide justice” look, but many have been fed (what I consider) unjustly to our prison system.
Let me narrow it down a little bit.
What I mean by “following” your county’s courthouse, I don’t mean the building itself, I mean following the criminal trials prosecuted by your county District Attorney’s Office.
Your DA will prosecute your county’s criminal trials, in your county courthouse, no duh, right? And I have noticed it to be their altar.
Praise to the divine county Judges! Or your DA probably says, “let’s kiss their behind hard, to get our way.”
I’m not saying all counties’ DA’s are corrupt or misleading or money-driven, but keeping good tabs on them will not hurt.
Monitoring the criminal trials was not something that simply occurred to me out of the blue. Prior to this, Woodland did not seem exciting enough for me to get involved. My priority was to GET OUT!
I graduated college in fall of 2009 and was offered a great job opportunity in a law firm, hence, I want to be a lawyer.
The deal went raw and I left the firm. I filed for unemployment and eventually won.
Unemployed and desperately monitoring craigslist posts in Sacramento for jobs, I came across an internship posting from the City of Davis. I sent my resume.
David Greenwald was the only one interested in my resume and replied with an e-mail to meet him at a local Woodland Starbucks.
I had nothing to lose and took the risk. Keeping in mind though, there are a lot of predators and fake jobs on that website.
David was insightful and friendly. He provided great information on a project he put together for his online newspaper, The People’s Vanguard of Davis.
The internship is a Legal Research internship. The main point is to sit through criminal trials from beginning to end and take extensive notes. It is a bit more complex, but that pretty much sums it up for you.
The focus is mainly for alleged gang members and their alleged crimes.
During the interview, David advised me he began in January and had noticed extensive discrepancies with excessive felony charges pinned on the alleged crimes.
For example, you can steal an apple at the local Nugget and get a Felony charge for theft. You would think it to result in a misdemeanor right? NOT in Yolo County, and that also depends, were you validated as a gang member prior to the theft? Do you have previous felonies?
They can stack them up like a delicious pancake and tie it to Criminal Street Gang Activity, and that is another enhancement added to your felony charge.
If the DA gets a conviction, it can result in a long prison term.
You still following me?
This is an exaggerated example I created to show you how the DA works in Yolo County, but David has followed criminal trials that have resulted in excessive charges that really do not represent the crime.
You can follow the stories at davisvanguard.org.
I personally like to follow corruption stories and really wanted to see things firsthand. I joined and was impressed, to say the least.
I was assigned to different criminal trials and all have gotten a conviction. But it kept me thinking, they should have never gone to trial.
Most of the trials I followed were a mocking of our justice system and provided justice to no one. They only wasted Yolo County taxpayer dollars. Okay, I understand not all the trials are the same, but pretty close.
What upsets me the most is the majority of these alleged criminals are Latino.
The trials I’ve sat in have the Latino defendant considered a “gang member.”
This apparent gang member is being charged with “criminal street gang activity” and whatever crime he committed, if any.
They either have a mediocre public defender or a good one, rarely do they have a private attorney.
The DA assigned to the case paints the monster to the jury, the jury buys the story, without the evidence connecting the defendant to the crime, may I add. And it is mostly police witness testimony – these are considered experts, so they are validated highly by the jury.
A guilty verdict results at the end.
Poor defendant seems like the good guy, but time for prison, buddy.
The notes I take, I forward them to David and a story is born. People in the community have been alarmed and follow it quite closely.
The DA hates the idea and has commented, but by them not accepting criticism, it says a lot about them and their so-called public work.
So, I urge you to take a look in your county courthouse, it is very scary, but enlightening.
Editor’s Note: For those who have liked our coverage of the Gang Injunction since September, Vanessa has been the person behind the scenes that has made it possible. She’ll be leaving us after this week, but she has a bright future in law school. She had written this on her own, and I asked her if I could use it to promote the project. I wish her the best of luck.
[quote]The DA assigned to the case paints the monster to the jury, the jury buys the story, without the evidence connecting the defendant to the crime, may I add. [/quote]
Ok… looks like you believe that jurors, asked to serve at random, winnowed down by the defense attorneys, the DA, and the judge are just too stupid to carry out their assigned role… am I correct in my assessment of your belief? if so, do you have an alternative system?
[quote]She’ll be leaving us after this week, but she has a bright future in law school.[/quote]
David… if you believe that she has a bight future not only as a student but as an attorney, that is a very sobering thought… unless her world view that jurors are sheep changes…
This article is long on accusations and very short on specifics. I have a feeling this author will learn a good deal in law school (if she even survives the ordeal), and perhaps have a much different world view of the court system. To the average lay person, the court system can seem confusing, unfair, arcane, autocratic. I can remember when going through my divorce, which had criminal law elements by the way, feeling extremely frustrated at having to defend myself when I had done nothing wrong – I was the innocent party. But as the plaintiff filing for divorce, the burden was on me to prove my case; and the defense was permitted to grill me on the stand to the point of bringing me to tears. It is a grueling system full of imperfections. But after attending law school I understood the rules and the purpose for them far better that I had when going through my 3 1/2 year divorce (which I won by the way). Much of what I had not understood while going through my divorce became clear once I graduated law school. Best of luck Vanessa – law school is a very grueling experience in and of itself…
To hpierce: You make a very astute observation. Vanessa needs a bit of seasoning in law school…
h pierce: I totally disagree with you. Vanessa has spent five days a week following trials for the last few months. She is a witness to what is happening in the Yolo Courts. You may not like her interpretation, but can you say the same….that you have watched cases from beginning to end. Or are you assuming that your interpretation is how jurors react, and you know this because?
I think it is commendable that Vanessa still wants to become a lawyer after what she has witnessed. Maybe she is the kind of lawywer we need to address some of the injustices that have been happening in this community.
I think the comment “The DA assigned to the case paints the monster to the jury, the jury buys the story, without the evidence connecting the defendant to the crime, may I add. And it is mostly police witness testimony – these are considered experts, so they are validated highly by the jury.” has bristled feathers for some who have made comments. Based on the opinion of these, this interns prospect of becoming a lawyer is all but a dead deal. Wow, talk about arrogant! More than anything else, it feels like the article has hit a nerve!
From my perspective, as having once been a juror on a trial at the Yolo Court House, which had the sidebar of gang membership attached to it, and where I personally saw the strongly argued attempt made by a show of force of deputies and investigative personnel sitting together in the trial room, there was no doubt this added their weight of support to the argument made by the “Expert” on gangs. The theatrics clearly made it apparent the County was trying too hard to pin this rap on the defendant. Assumptions, without evidence was the only thing they offered. It was an arrogant show of force, I might add, who’s intent was to come across as very authoritative, and it did so, successfully, for some on the jury. The young man was lucky a couple of us were not among them, and although other things stuck that were made to seem more than they were, they could not make the gang connection work.
Ms. Gurerro,
“For example, you can steal an apple at the local Nugget and get a Felony charge for theft. You would think it to result in a misdemeanor right? NOT in Yolo County, and that also depends, were you validated as a gang member prior to the theft? Do you have previous felonies?”
It’s called petty theft with a prior (Felony Petty Theft), which is a statute that can be found in the CA penal code. I’m not disagreeing with you in that it may be a “bad” statute, particularly when FPT is used as the defendant’s third strike, but this “injustice” is not something unique to Yolo County or even California for that matter.
“They either have a mediocre public defender or a good one”
What is the basis for this determination: good, so-so and poor defense attorney?
“The DA assigned to the case paints the monster to the jury”
When you assert that the DDA paints the defendant as a monster do you mean the DDA is informing the jury as to what the defendant’s criminal history is comprised of or what crimes the defendant is alleged to have committed in the case you’re observing? In such cases, have the defense attorneys not had the opportunity to refute or perforate the DDA’s characterization of the defendant/events?
The DDA is obligated to present his or her case to the jury on the behalf of the public and if they so choose to present the defendant as the biggest POS to have lived in the process…they can. In some cases, the defendants have been convicted of pretty heinous crimes and perhaps being labeled a “monster” is appropriate.
“the jury buys the story, without the evidence connecting the defendant to the crime, may I add.”
I’m not going to suggest that what you describe here has never happened, but can you substantiate a bit? It sounds like you’re claiming the DDA’s are erroneously demonizing defendants without any support at all and the defense does not interject or refute.
“The DA hates the idea and has commented, but by them not accepting criticism, it says a lot about them and their so called-public work.”
I feel that it’s not a matter of the DA “accepting criticism” as much as it is them disagreeing with the coverage and presentation of facts as presented by the Vanguard.
FAI,
“Vanessa has spent five days a week following trials for the last few months. She is a witness to what is happening in the Yolo Courts. You may not like her interpretation, but can you say the same….that you have watched cases from beginning to end.”
I greatly appreciate her willingness to attend and gather info, so we can all read and comment on what transpires within the CJS. That said, what is her background? If she has no prior understanding of or experience with the CJS (particularly the litigation facet of the CJS) she may be confused by what she observes and that confusion could develop into a cloudy understanding of what’s taking place or a biased perspective on a case or the CJS in general. What may be perceived as an unfair process to the untrained eye may be a perfectly normal and just component to the CJS.
I don’t know that that is the case here, though. Just saying…
FAI,
“Vanessa has spent five days a week following trials for the last few months”
Was that mentioned in the story?
FAI: “h pierce: I totally disagree with you. Vanessa has spent five days a week following trials for the last few months. She is a witness to what is happening in the Yolo Courts.”
And she is going to be shocked when she learns the rules of the court room that all lawyers are bound by bc of their ethical canons, both defense and prosecution. I can remember in law school a particular issue that illustrates this point.
A defense attorney was told by his client (a serial killer) where the victim’s body was hidden. The victim’s family was in anguish as to what had happened to their daughter. The defense attorney could not reveal where the body was buried, or even that he knew the victim was dead. The defense attorney took extreme heat for his stubborn stance not to reveal what his client had told him in confidence – even from other lawyers in the defense bar. Yet the defense attorney was bound by his ethical canons not to reveal what he knew – attorney-client privilege.
The professor asked a student what she would do if she was the killer’s attorney. The student responded her sense of morality would force her to tell the prosecution/parents of the victim where the body was hidden, even if she had to make an anonymous call to do it. The professor’s comment to her was: “Perhaps you should choose a different profession, bc that is unethical.”
Ultimately the defense attorney was able to strike a plea bargain with the prosecution, to reveal where the body was hidden, in exchange for a more lenient sentence. The uproar was so loud at this “unfair” outcome (leniency for a serial killer so he would reveal the body’s whereabouts), the defense attorney ended up going into another line of work, even tho he was in the right.
Vanessa is only a witness as a lay person, without knowledge of the rules of evidence and the body of criminal law. Nor is she attuned to the theater of the courtroom – where drama is played out in high form every day. Both prosecution and defense use various tactics the public might consider unseemly but are perfectly legal. For instance, defendants are often cleaned up so they look completely different, in order to foil witness identification. Is this legal? Yes. Do plaintiffs and defendants play parts (appear docile, warm and friendly when often they are just the opposite)? Yes. Is it legal? Yes.
Is plea bargaining coercive? You bet. Is it legal? You bet! Is it fair? Many would argue heck no! But then these same critics offer no better solutions for keeping our court system unclogged and running smoothly.
In this article, Vanessa has strung together a series of vague accusations without naming specifics. In a court of law, she would lose her case for sure…
PegO,
“Based on the opinion of these, this interns prospect of becoming a lawyer is all but a dead deal. Wow, talk about arrogant!”
I don’t think it’s fair, based on this one article and no other pervious contact with Ms. Gurerro, to prognosticate her law school/legal career. Nevertheless, her piece here has left many holes for which to work, if one were inclined to counter her assertions point-by-point.
I wish her the best of luck.
Thanks for sharing some juror insight as well.
PegO: “The young man was lucky a couple of us were not among them, and although other things stuck that were made to seem more than they were, they could not make the gang connection work.”
Then the system worked, notwithstanding the theatrics, no? Just bc such tactics as theatrics are used, does not necessarily mean they will be successful. On the other hand, Johnny Cochran used theatics very successfully in the O.J. Simpson trial. However, IMHO, the jury had already decided the defendant was innocent – I doubt anything the prosection did would have made much difference. And IMHO, a great injustice was done to two innocent victims and their families.
The court system will never be perfect bc it is run by imperfect people. But it is the best system we have thus far. Can it be improved? Absolutely – there is ALWAYS room for improvement…
ERM,
There was an interesting story on 60 Minutes about two defense attorneys whose client had admitted to them that he had murdered a security guard, all the while another man (Alton Logan) had been convicted for that murder.
It wasn’t until their client passed, as did 26 years of the wrongly convicted man’s life, that the two attorneys revealed the truth, for they had an ethical obligation to keep that “secret” as it was privileged information.
Check it out: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24083675/
For those of you mocking Vanessa’s experience and ability to discern what is happening in the court, what would be her expertise versus a jurors? You are the same people that espouse the jury verdict as sacred. You can’t have it both ways. ERM – if you needed to go to law school to understand the court system, then by your arguments and hpeirce we should not have lay people as jurors. You both seem to just like to “hear” or read your own comments.
THANK YOU Vanessa for giving up your time to inform us what you have witnessed. I appreciate you doing a civic duty for all of us.
I agree whole heartedly that more people need to go sit in Yolo Superior Court and see what is happening for themselves. The local papers are not interested in the mundane happenings of court – however they are all very ready to print the DA’s press release. If you don’t want to believe David, Vanessa or anyone else who talks negatively of what is happening then go to court your self.
In response to ‘fight against injustice’… yes I have seen a couple of trials beginning to end… and sat in the jury room to hear how a decision is made… have you?
lyah: “ERM – if you needed to go to law school to understand the court system, then by your arguments and hpeirce we should not have lay people as jurors.”
That is what jury instructions are for… to educate jurors on how to come to a fair verdict. And according to PegO, in the case she was involved with, the jurors did seem to come up with a fair verdict according to her view of the proceedings.
Also, Vanessa should be knowledgeable enough to know throwing out unsubstantiated accusations does not win her claim that the Yolo justice system is unfair. Had she been more specific rather than just going on a rant, I might have more sympathy. If she is so dismissive and disgusted with our criminal justice system, I’m surprised she wants to go into law… she’s going to find it even rougher going when she finds out the odd rules that sometimes prevail in the courtroom. (See link provided by Superflous Man)
lyah: “If you don’t want to believe David, Vanessa or anyone else who talks negatively of what is happening then go to court your self.”
I have been to court – and been a plaintiff, defendant, and an attorney representing plaintiff’s and defendants. I have seen justice and and some injustice in two different states (VA and CA). What specific charge against the Yolo justice system has Vanessa made IN THIS ARTICLE that is backed by a shred of evidence HERE?
Frankly drivel like this: “Praise to the divine county Judges! Or your DA probably says, “let’s kiss their behind hard, to get our way.” is unprofessional, unseemly, and will not win her kudos if she is headed for law school… I would strongly advise her against using this article on her law school application…
To Superflous Man: Read with interest the article you provided the link for. What an awful outcome. It would seem there needs to be legislative reform in this area of law, but what? Generally the attorney-client privilege is sacrosanct so that a defendant can freely speak to his/her own lawyer without being afraid the attorney will break a confidence.
But as the article noted: “Lawyer-client privilege is not complete; most states allow attorneys to reveal confidences to prevent a death, serious bodily harm or criminal fraud.” I know it’s a stretch (pun intended) but why isn’t incarceration in a penal institution great bodily harm?
“Ok… looks like you believe that jurors, asked to serve at random, winnowed down by the defense attorneys, the DA, and the judge are just too stupid to carry out their assigned role… am I correct in my assessment of your belief? if so, do you have an alternative system?”
The problem is that most people who serve on a jury think the prosecutor needs to actually tell the truth during opening and closing statements. These statements do a lot of damage at trial and easily sway jurors even when there is vey little or no evidence.
@ E Roberts Musser, right, in this case the theatrics did not work. The trumped up charges of gang involvement via the expert witness siting statistics and generalizations, speaking on behalf of her strong-arm “brothers,” who were uniformed and sitting in the courtroom to watch her performance, had a negative effect on just enough jurors that the vote on the gang charges fell into the stage props box and were dismissed, but this took two extra days of deliberations to finally come to a vote where all agreed not enough proof was in the gang pudding. Clear to me was this actress of a expert had just finished her latest seminar on gang profiling and she was there for County window dressing. A big waste of time and money.
Themis: “The problem is that most people who serve on a jury think the prosecutor needs to actually tell the truth during opening and closing statements. These statements do a lot of damage at trial and easily sway jurors even when there is vey little or no evidence.”
The prosecution is ethically bound to tell the truth in their opening and closing statements.
PegO: “@ E Roberts Musser, right, in this case the theatrics did not work.”
Sounds like the prosecution overplayed its hand! But that is what jury’s are for – to see through the ploys to get at the truth…
[quote]”The main point is to sit through criminal trials from beginning to end and take extensive notes….I was assigned to different criminal trials and all have gotten a conviction. But it kept me thinking, they should have never gone to trial….They either have a mediocre public defender or a good one, rarely do they have a private attorney” [/quote] [quote]”For those who have liked our coverage of the Gang Injunction since September, Vanessa has been the person behind the scenes that has made it possible.”[/quote] How many (and which) trials did Vanessa Guerrero sit through as a [u]Vanguard[/u] intern?
I’d have to look back, and I lost my email before October. But the first month and a half she interned for us, the Gang Injunction trial was one week on, one week off. So during the off weeks she attended trials. Probably at least three or four. Since October though the gang injunction has been every week.