Woman Acquitted of Attempting to Kidnap Toddler

Ms. Duffy, who admitted she was high on meth, had been facing charges of kidnapping, child abduction and resisting arrest.

Rather, she claimed that she had seen the mother walk away from the toddler and two other kids.  “I thought the lady had walked away from this child.”

Public Defender Amber Poston told the jury that, “Ms. Duffy is far from perfect,” but she was not attempting to kidnap the child.

According to the defense account, Ms. Duffy entered the unlocked iron gate, picked up the child and walked back towards the gate.  When approached by the child’s great-grandmother, she inquired where the mother was located.  Other witnesses said she spoke to no one and made no attempt to contact anyone in any of the apartments.

Following the confrontation with Ms. Duffy, the great-grandmother took the child, opened the gate, and told Ms. Duffy that she needed to leave.  Ms. Duffy exited the complex, picking up her things and walking away.

She was stopped by police, and she did stop when so instructed by officers according to Ms. Poston.

When the officer tried to cuff her, she turned around to face the officer and was pushed onto the hood of the police car.  She was transported to a hospital for a blood test by another officer.

The prosecution had a very different explanation of events.  They claimed that Ms. Duffy was attempting to abduct the 23-month-old child in order to replace the two children that had been taken away from her due to her history of alcohol and meth addiction.

They said the great-grandmother had to confront Ms. Duffy to take the baby back.  The baby’s aunt followed Ms. Duffy and pointed the police to where she was.

According to Woodland Police Officer MacKenzie, Ms. Duffy looked high.  When he tried to cuff her hands behind her back, she ripped her hands away.  Other officers came to help, she was arrested and blood-tested.

The DA mentioned that Ms. Duffy has had numerous incidents with her own mother and aunt.  She has two kids that were taken away from her in family court.  In 2004, her visitation rights were restricted and she has often attempted to visit the children inappropriately.

However, the DA’s story was not completely accurate and Judge Rosenberg had to point out that, while the DA indicated she had lost her kids in court, she in fact voluntarily gave custody to her mother and aunt, and access was later restricted by family court.

The baby’s mother testified that she went inside to get a paper towel to clean up the baby who was eating a Popsicle.  She came out and said that she saw Ms. Duffy holding her son at the gate, being confronted by the child’s great-grandmother.

The mother screamed at Ms. Duffy to, “put down my f-ing son!”  She testified that she was upset that some strange woman was trying to take her son.  She said that it seemed that she was trying to leave with her son, given she was messing with the gate and his great-grandmother had tried to take him back.

Under cross-examination, the great-grandmother acknowledged that Ms. Duffy did say she was going to find this child’s mother.  Then she told her that she was the child’s great-grandmother and took the child back.

The great-grandmother testified that Ms. Duffy didn’t resist, though the mother testified that the great-grandmother had tried to grab the child with one hand, lost her grip, then grabbed him with two hands. Due to her age, the great-grandmother had some difficulty moving and had limited agility.

Outside of the presence of the jury, Deputy Public Defender Amber Poston brought up the issue of the Woodland Police Department’s press release.  According to her, she was concerned that it was released before the investigation was complete and that this indicates bias at the outset by Woodland police.

As it turns out it was released just after the investigation was completed.  However, it contained a statement that turns out to be critical and incorrect, based on the testimony of the great-grandmother.

In it, the Woodland PD claimed that “Duffy was reluctant to hand over the child and the great-grandmother used physical force to pull the child away from Duffy.”

The DA’s Office apparently released a statement to the Davis Enterprise about the acquittal, and continued to promote their version of the events, suggesting that the conduct of Ms. Duffy was not something that could be “rationally explained.”

Chief Deputy DA Jonathan Raven argued that this is every parent’s nightmare.  “‘The district attorney is committed to doing everything within the law and reason to protect our kids from criminals. The jury’s decision in this case means that after hearing all of the evidence at trial, including the testimony of Ms. Duffy herself and the evidence of her drug use and mental condition, they did not find beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Duffy committed the crimes alleged,” Mr. Raven told the Enterprise.

“This is how the system works and we must all live with the verdict,” Mr. Raven added. “It will not, however, change our approach to protecting children in our communities.”

Mr. Raven failed to acknowledge deficiencies in the case that led the jury to reach the conclusion that it did.

The DA’s proferred motive for an attempted kidnapping did not make a whole lot of sense.  They argued that the mother was attempting to kidnap this baby to replace the two she had lost.  However, what evidence was there to show this?  They could not even prove that she had ever considered taking her own children.

The DA claimed that Ms. Duffy headed towards the gate and the great-grandmother stopped her.  The defense made an equally plausible argument that Duffy headed towards the gate to talk to the great-grandmother and inquire about the mother’s whereabouts.

Under direct examination, the great-grandmother said she asked Ms. Duffy what she was doing and Ms. Duffy replied she was looking for the child’s mother.  However, on cross examination she  admitted that Ms. Duffy addressed her first, asking where the child’s mother was.  Moreover, she testified that Ms. Duffy did not resist returning the child to her.

That was a huge problem for the prosecution, because if Ms. Duffy were trying to abduct the child, why not snatch and run, rather than pick up the child and walk towards an adult to inquire?

Ms. Duffy was under the influence of meth and undoubtedly not thinking clearly.  A clear-minded person would not enter an enclosure and attempt to pick up a child.  But that is not evidence of intent to kidnap.  The prosecution also tried to argue that moving the child 20 feet within the enclosure constituted a far enough distance for it to be considered kidnapping.

The other charge of resisting arrest did not hold either.  It it became apparent that she listened to the instructions given by the officer.  When she turned around, he still had control over one of her arms, and she didn’t do anything further to prevent him from detaining her.

The officer tried to argue that she tried to spin out of his grip and therefore that was resisting arrest, but that apparently was not accepted by the jury.

The Vanguard had  a brief email exchange with Public Defender Amber Poston.  She told the Vanguard she had not had an opportunity to speak with any of the jurors.  They deliberated for about 4.5 hours between Thursday afternoon and Friday morning.

—David M. Greenwald reporting