As a general matter of speaking, trials are set for a given date, but can be granted continuances based on a notion of good cause. What constitutes good cause may seem somewhat nebulous, but it generally is reserved for matters of logistics – the unavailability of a key witness, the failure to receive evidence with sufficient time to review it, delays caused by reports or tests from other agencies, etc.
Last week the case of Kenneth Woodall was confirmed for trial to begin on Monday. That means both parties – represented by the Deputy DA Ryan Couzens and Deputy Public Defender Dan Hutchinson – agreed they were ready to proceed.
The stated reason: Mr. Couzens is in the middle of a multi-defendant gang trial, the Kalah trial, which is one week “on” and this was to be its week “off,” and he did not “feel” like trying this case (again, despite the fact that last week he confirmed it).
Public Defender Dan Hutchinson was angry about the late notice on the continuance and opposed it, based on a lack of good cause, and asked for sanctions for the failure to comply with the PC 1050 (which controls continuances) notice requirements.
On Monday, when the case was called, it became very clear that the DA’s office was expecting to get their continuance. Deputy DA Ryan Couzens, in fact, did not even show up. He was given the day off.
In his place was his supervisor, Garrett Hamilton.
Even before the hearing, Mr. Hamilton was releasing witnesses that promised to appear and told them that they probably will not have to come back until the week of July 5.
Once in court, apparently no declaration was filed from Mr. Couzens, though Mr. Hamilton believed he had filed one.
Mr. Hamilton stated that the basis for the continuance was that this week is sandwiched in between a trial that was five days last week, and will be going on next week, and if he were to go forward on this trial “he would not be able to give 100% on either trial.”
Moreover, the people argued that they do not think the court needs to find good cause, since it is still within the 60-day period in which the defendant is entitled to a trial unless they give a time waiver. July 5 would be the 60th day.
Mr. Hamilton told the court, “I think that he is optimistic that that case will conclude by next week,” referencing the four defendant gang case.
Mr. Hutchinson angrily objected, stating that this case had already been set for trial and confirmed just last week. He said that he has a plastic surgeon who has rearranged surgeries to be able to testify, and defense also entered into stipulation with people in order to guarantee that the surgeon could testify at a specific time.
He argued that if having to go to trial on back-to-back weeks is “good cause,” then defense attorneys would have” good cause” all the time.
Despite the DA arguing that they did not need good cause, indeed, conceding that this was not good cause, Judge Janet Gaard found for good cause. She set the trial for July 5.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
My intern who covered this hearing made an interesting comment that Judge Gaard granted the motion without even a good deal of consideration. He wondered how this might have been different had they tried to pull this in Department 2 with Judge Fall. I suspect they would not have tried because he would have nailed them to the wall.
A friend had a similar experience last year. My friend (who is in a wheelchair) showed up with family and me (who had taken unpaid days off work both times) and the prisoner/defendant who had travel to Woodland twice discovered we had come to the court for nothing. A last moment continuance had been granted. My friend is disabled and it’s a multi-person job to get her to the courthouse at 8 AM.
I sought out the ADA and made my feelings known loudly, causing some lobby attention. The excuse was the same, a “big trial” happening that afternoon. But it was at that point 8:40 AM.
We were fortunate that Judge Rosenberg was located and we did have the hearing that day. The defendant was remanded, which was the correct outcome. Had the continuance been granted, he would have bailed out.
My experience with Yolo Court has been frustrating at best. Without going into details, the multiple continuances and bails resulted in another attempted attack in violation of a protective order. The guy is in prison now and the victim is recovering at home, but is often afraid to go outside.
Thank you David for keeping these guys on the hot seat It’s a needed job and I am glad you are doing it.
1) Wide latitude is given for continuances;
2) Would you have preferred the trial go on even if the circumstances were such that it needed to be put off? Isn’t a fair trial more important than inconvenience?
[quote]”What constitutes good cause may seem somewhat nebulous, but it generally is reserved for matters of logistics….”[/quote]One of the most common logistics problems offered (and approved) is conflict that develops when attorneys are juggling more than one trial at a time.
This episode seems like an over-reaction, first from Mr. Hutchinson if the anger he displayed in court is accurately portrayed by this report. Sometimes it’s a little difficult to determine just how much real anger is being expressed (vs. making an objection to the opposition’s actions).
Also, choosing to do a [u]Vanguard[/u] story on such seemingly minor courtroom theatrics again makes it seem that even the tiniest episode is adequate fodder for another piece critical of the DA’s office.
We have to wait to the final paragraph to find that the headline is inaccurate. Yes, Mr. Hutchinson (maybe) was angry, but the judge determined there [u]is[/u] good cause and delayed the trial as the DA’s office requested.
David, thank you for letting us know that this story evolved from an intern’s assignment. Have you considered allowing interns to do the initial write-up and get byline credit? It would be a good practice for several reasons, I think.
It seems more than a little unfair that DDA Couzens agreed to go forward with the trial, then DPD Hutchinson scheduled and paid for an expert witness to come out, only to have everything cancelled. Will the DA’s office or the Court reimburse DPD Hutchinson? If not, it certainly seems like they are penalizing the Public Defender’s office for no good reason.
[quote]Also, choosing to do a Vanguard story on such seemingly minor courtroom theatrics again makes it seem that even the tiniest episode is adequate fodder for another piece critical of the DA’s office. [/quote]
I agree…