After a lengthy meeting in chambers, Mr. Morales announced he would plead to a probation charge, a single count of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, which would not carry either a prison sentence or count as a strike. He would be required to pay $15,000 in restitution to the victim.
Mr. Ramirez was facing up to 26 years in prison if he were convicted of crimes that included assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury and a hate crime enhancement. Mr. Morales was facing up to 15 years for his accused crimes.
Following a meeting with his attorney, Mr. Ramirez announced he would take the plea offer of 13 years, cutting in half his exposure to potential sentencing. In addition to the assault charge, he had the enhancement for a hate crime, as well as one for infliction of great bodily injury, and he also had a prior strike – a 1989 assault with a firearm charge.
The two will be sentenced by Judge Fall on April 1.
According to a press release from the DA, “This prosecution arose from the attack on Harbhajan Singh on November 28, 2010. Mr. Singh, a cab driver, was driving the defendants and their wives home from Harlow’s Bar in Sacramento. Mr. Singh was wearing a traditional Sikh turban and beard. During the cab drive, Ramirez shouted racial epithets and accused Mr. Singh of being Muslim. Ramirez punched Mr. Singh in the face approximately ten times while Morales punched him from behind.”
The release continued, “The ongoing attack continued causing Mr. Singh to suffer multiple lacerations, a fracture of the orbital bone in his face and a spinal fracture. Ramirez also attempted to pull Mr. Singh from the car but was prevented by Mr. Singh’s seatbelt. Ultimately, the wife of Ramirez stopped the beating by throwing her body between Mr. Singh and her husband. Morales and Ramirez then pulled Ramirez’s wife from the car, allowing Mr. Singh to escape in his cab.”
Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig credited the detectives and crime scene investigators of the West Sacramento Police Department with bringing the two men to justice, the release went on to say. Crime scene investigators found a fingerprint in the victim’s blood from the car, which the California Department of Justice identified as belonging to Ramirez. A series of interviews conducted by detectives established the roles of Ramirez and Morales in the attack.
“Mr. Singh did nothing to provoke this vicious attack except to be from a different culture,” commented District Attorney Reisig. “Attacking someone because of their race, religion or other protected basis,” continued Reisig, “is not only heinous, but against the ideals we hold as Americans, and must not be tolerated.”
Deputy District Attorney Ryan Couzens prosecuted the case. Mr. Couzens stated, “Mr. Singh suffered horrific physical and emotional injuries. The Sikh community has also suffered. The victim advocate on this case has been instrumental in helping the Singh family throughout this ordeal.”
Amar Shergill, attorney for victim Harbhajan Singh, issued a statement following the plea agreements.
“Mr. Singh is pleased that his assailants have admitted their crimes and will serve an appropriate sentence,” said Amar Shergill. “He continues to have physical and mental symptoms related to the assault, however, he looks forward to returning to work and supporting his family. In light of the recent shooting of two elderly Sikh men in Elk Grove, the Sikh community takes some solace in the fact that law enforcement authorities aggressively prosecute these crimes and that the greater community has been so supportive.”
The Facts of the Case
According to Mr. Singh’s testimoney, as Mr. Ramirez punched Mr. Singh, he shouted profanity strung together with racial epithets, at one point calling the victim Osama Bin Laden and at another point calling him an Iranian.
Mr. Singh, who was wearing a turban at the time of the assault, responded by saying, “I’m from India. I’m not a Muslim.”
According to Mr. Singh, Mr. Ramirez started or attempted to choke Mr. Singh and told Mr. Singh “that he was going to kill him.”
Laura Sanchez, who is the wife of Mr. Ramirez, then interceded, yelling for Mr. Ramirez “to stop, stop,” and leaned over [Mr. Singh] and tried to get in between them and in the way. She said, “Stop beating him. You’ll go to jail.”
After that, Mrs. Sanchez was pulled from the car by both males.
Officer Bowers took the initial police report after Mr. Singh drove away to an apartment complex.
Officer Bowers stated that Mr. Singh had said that the passengers in the cab had demanded money from him. When Officer Hensley, later, asked Mr. Singh about his initial statements to Officer Bowers, Mr. Singh told Officer Hensley that he didn’t remember making those statements.
Critically, Officer Hensley also indicated that although Officer Bowers had spoken to Mr. Singh at least twice, Officer Bowers’ reports do not indicate that Mr. Singh ever mentioned to Officer Bowers that any comments regarding ethnicity or race were made to him during the assault.
Mr. Singh did not tell the officer that the man from the backseat – Mr. Morales – threatened him or said anything about his ethnicity or race. Moreover, Mr. Singh said that prior to the attack, no passenger had made any ethnic or racial comments to him.
Ms. Sanchez testified that her husband had leaned over and started punching Mr. Singh in the face about ten times. She then leaned over Mr. Singh in an effort to protect him and yelled at her husband to stop. She heard Mr. Singh saying “I’m not a Muslim,” and “I’m not a Hindu.”
Mrs. Sanchez told the officer multiple times that she never saw Mr. Morales hit Mr. Singh. She also denied that anyone had pulled her from the cab, and there were no injuries to her consistent with being pulled from a cab.
There appears to be little evidence that Mr. Morales was involved in the assault, other than a statement from Mr. Singh indicating that Mr. Morales hit him from behind while both were seated in the cab. But Mr. Singh never [later] described Mr. Morales hitting him. Also, there was quite a bit of blood at the scene, but when Officer Hensley and other officers went to Mr. Morales’ home to seize clothing, Officer Hensley testified that he didn’t see any bloodstains on the clothing seized.
Officer Hensley also observed Mr. Morales’ hands when the CSI was photographing them for injury, and the officer testified that he saw no cuts, no bruises, no red discoloration, no scratches and no injuries to his hands.
Based on the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing, it would appear there would be a reasonable chance that Mr. Morales would have been acquitted on all charges, but given his exposure to sentencing possibilities and the testimony from Mr. Singh, it was likely the right move to accept the plea that avoided prison time altogether.
It is equally clear that Mr. Ramirez was the primary perpetrator of this crime, which appears to have arisen over a dispute in the amount of fare.
Hate Crime?
For Mr. Ramirez, given the severity of the attack and Mr. Ramirez’ exposure to sentencing, pleading to charges that amounts to half the maximum time he faced was likely a wise move. However, the evidence in this case did not really support a hate crime charge.
As Defense Attorney Tracie Olson argued in a 995 motion to dismiss following the preliminary examination, “Even if it is assumed that Mr. Ramirez made the inflammatory statements to Mr. Singh – namely, “F- you, Osama Bin Laden” and “F- you, Iranian” – all witnesses agree that the statements were made contemporaneously with the assault and after the issue or disagreement regarding the money occurred.” Penal Code 995 allows for moving to dismiss if the preliminary exam produces insufficient evidence to be held to answer for the alleged crimes.
As she argued, “The law does not criminalize intolerant or bigoted language.”
Instead, “The law criminalizes actions that are motivated by intolerance or bigotry.”
“While Mr. Ramirez’s statements are circumstantial evidence of his motivation, this is the only evidence of a biased motivation that exists,” she continued.
Importantly she argued, “Mr. Singh never said that any passenger had made a racist comment to him during the cab ride. He never said that Mr. Morales made any racist comments to him at all.”
She therefore concluded, “To find, on the evidence presented at preliminary hearing, that a bias motivation was a substantial factor in bringing about the offenses would be to make a finding based on an inference that ‘derive[s] [its] substance from guesswork, speculation, or conjecture.’ “
There is a misperception that a hate crime simply emanates from the use of racial slurs in an attack. That largely ignores the nature of an attack which is based on an escalated conflict. Often in anger, people will find the most convenient line of insult, in this case, given the man’s ethnicity and religious attire, his ethnicity formed that basis.
But the law suggests that the motivation needs to be intolerance and bigotry. It may be that those slurs are an indication of intolerance and bigotry, but if that is all the evidence that exists, it is too thin to lead to a conviction.
In the end, Mr. Ramirez took the most convenient settlement he could get. Frankly, given the brutal nature of the attack – with or without a hate crime – he got about the right sentence, as did Mr. Morales, based on the evidence that came forth during the preliminary hearing.
However, I think it is a stretch of the available evidence to call this a hate crime. Mr. Singh probably would have been harmed just as much had he been white or Hispanic, given the nature of the dispute that arose and the actions of the chief defendant in this case.
Again, “Mr. Singh did nothing to provoke this vicious attack except to be from a different culture,” commented District Attorney Reisig. “Attacking someone because of their race, religion or other protected basis,” continued Reisig, “is not only heinous, but against the ideals we hold as Americans, and must not be tolerated.”
I would argue that Mr. Reisig, along with his Deputy DA Ryan Couzens, are misreading the evidence that came out during the preliminary hearing. Mr. Singh was not attacked because of his race or ethnicity. He was attacked for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and getting into a dispute over money with an unstable individual who will rightly spend the next 13 years behind bars. In the end, this was not an attack on the Sikh community or the Muslim community, it was an attack by an individual on an individual.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
But David, you miss the point, how can DA Reisig promote his big rough tough crime image if he just does his job like he should? You miss that this plea raised the crime stats for hate crimes, it will justify more grant money, it will up the numbers of cases that went to court and justify all kinds of things. And Reisig got his name in the paper with his false and misleading press releases and he will be able to use this tough prosecution to help raise money for his next campaign from the Muslin community by saying “See what I did for you?”
David you need to stop just focusing on the abuse and misuse of the criminal justice system, so what if a few will go to prison unjustly or for ridiculous sentences, keep your eye on the ball and support the DA blindly.
I have long had mixed feelings about whether there should be such a thing as a hate crime separate and distinct from the underlying crime. In other words, if John Doe who is white murders Jim Roe who is black, is that crime worse if Doe was motivated by his hatred of blacks in general than it would be if Doe was simply motivated by his hatred of Roe? I also suspect that there is racism involved in who gets charged with hate crimes and who does not, depending on the race or ethnicity of the victim.
Yet in the case of these attacks against Sikhs–the worst of which recently took place in Elk Grove ([url]http://www.sacbee.com/2011/03/08/3457180/sikh-leaders-offer-30000-reward.html[/url]), costing the life of one old man and jeopardizing the life of his friend–it’s hard not to think that there is a significant reason to think that these attacks also are victimizing the Sikh community as a community and not just the few who were killed or seriously assaulted by people who were motivated by some sort of crazed xenophobia. That is, because of these attacks, all Sikhs have reason to fear being attacked just because they look the way they do. For such crimes, I believe it is appropriate to use hate crime legislation.
A distinct question from such a prosecution, however, is this: does charging the individuals who are attacking Sikhs (or likely anyone they perceive, rightly or wrongly, to be a Muslim) make it less likely in the future that other idiots won’t engage in such attacks? Will the added prison time for committing a hate crime discourage hate crimes?
I suspect the answer is: with very serious crimes, like murder and attempted murder, it won’t. However, if the underlying crime, such as spraypainting hate language on a Sikh temple or Muslim mosque, does not carry much of a penalty if it is simply charged as vandalism, a stiff penalty from charging it also as a hate crime will have the desired effect.
Very thoughtful comments.
dmg: “”While Mr. Ramirez’s statements are circumstantial evidence of his motivation, this is the only evidence of a biased motivation that exists,” she continued.”
However, the jury is free to draw its own conclusions based on that circumstantial evidence, are they not?
dmg: “However, I think it is a stretch of the available evidence to call this a hate crime. Mr. Singh probably would have been harmed just as much had he been white or Hispanic, given the nature of the dispute that arose and the actions of the chief defendant in this case.”
This is sheer speculation on your part. My guess is that Mr. Singh would not have been as brutally attacked had he been white. So who is right? No one will ever know… so speculation of this sort is completely useless and irrelevant.
dmg: “Frankly, given the brutal nature of the attack – with or without a hate crime – he got about the right sentence, as did Mr. Morales, based on the evidence that came forth during the preliminary hearing.”
Yet you fault the DA and a jury of 12…
dmg: “I would argue that Mr. Reisig, along with his Deputy DA Ryan Couzens, are misreading the evidence that came out during the preliminary hearing. Mr. Singh was not attacked because of his race or ethnicity. He was attacked for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and getting into a dispute over money with an unstable individual who will rightly spend the next 13 years behind bars. In the end, this was not an attack on the Sikh community or the Muslim community, it was an attack by an individual on an individual.”
It was up to the jury to decide whether they agreed w the prosecution’s position on the hate crime part of the case, and they did agree with the prosecution. You are free to disagree w the jury’s assessment and decision, as is your right. But I’m not really seeing a point here – you agreed the sentence was perfectly appropriate. Yet you somehow are finding “fault” with both the DA and the 12 jurors on one small issue in the case…
ERM, thank you for your cogent comments. Evidently, the host may believe his preconceived notions are “settled?”
A point: no jury of 12…they both took pleas.
NEWS FLASH…………. NO JURY for Plea Deals……. But by bringing in the jury card I guess it takes away from your bias to protect the DA at all cost and deflect this issue from him.
Thanks for pointing out there was no jury – my bad. Too tired this morning after long day yesterday…
To Roger Rabbit: I’m perfectly willing to criticize DA if I think he is deserving of it. This case is not one of them… to my mind it is mere nitpicking…
Elaine: There is no jury (sorry couldn’t resist).
I’m fine with the sentence as I said for both defendants, it seems about right based on the evidence. I don’t think this was a hate crime. I suspect a jury would have convicted on the attempted murder charge but not the hate crime charge. As such, my only problem was the statements talking about the fact that they attacked him only for his religion, I don’t think the evidence that emerged shows that. Is that nitpicking? Yeah. The sentence was right, so I suppose it doesn’t matter how they got there and what they said about it after the fact.
DMG: this is not nitpicking. When people get complacent and accept things “just because it happen to turn out right” that allows power to be abused more and tells politicians that it is OK to NOT do the right thing as long as it turns out good.
With this theory, if a cop beats up only guys that deserve it, then that is OK and no one should nitpick. If someone is unethical but he is only unethical with bad guys, than that is OK. I say BS.
This is the typical over charging, playing to the hate angle, putting out false and misleading press releases and the lack of fair and ethical behavior from the DA. Lowering your standards, beliefs or integrity “just because it turned out right” is a cop out IMHO.
dmg: ” Yeah. The sentence was right, so I suppose it doesn’t matter how they got there and what they said about it after the fact.”
Perfection at trial is an impossibility, a standard that can never be met… bc humans are involved!
I don’t need perfection, however I would like honesty. Do you think the facts of the case, as I have reported them, support a hate crimes conviction or the statement made by the DA?
dmg: “I don’t need perfection, however I would like honesty from public officials. Do you think the facts of the case, as I have reported them, support a hate crimes conviction or the statement made by the DA?”
Yes. But I’m not a big proponent of the “hate crimes” designation…
So in your thinking all someone has to do is use a racial epithet in the commission of the crime, motivation matters not?