Defendant Found Not Guilty Twice in Latest Couzens Saga

On the surface this should have been a straightforward case, whether Ken Woodall cut Bert Lok in the mouth with his knife.  However, by the time the jury came back for a second time with a not guilty verdict on all counts, this case became yet another chapter in the bizarro book being written in Yolo County by Deput  DA  Ryan Couzens.

Mr. Woodall, with a can of Natural Light in hand, went over to confront Bert about these accusations.  They got into an argument, Mr. Woodall called Bert a “retarded sumbitch,” spilled beer in his face, pulled out his beltbuckle knife and stabbed or sliced Bert in the chin. 

In the middle of this skirmish was Maria Guanara, Mr. Woodall’s then-girlfriend and an unofficial caretaker of Bert. She didn’t see the blow that resulted in the bleeding wound, but according to statement she gave to officers she heard the click. 

Officer Gray interviewed Bert Lok at the hospital, and he said that he did not see how he got stabbed because when Mr. Woodall pulled out the knife the reflection blinded him. 

Mr. Couzens admitted that Mr. Lok has a history of recounting things that did not happen.  DDA Couzens argued that, through the jail phone calls between Mr. Woodall and Ms. Guanara, it will become clear that Mr. Woodall tried to use threats to manipulate her to get him out of jail. 

Mr. Couzens said this was not the first time the defendant had tried to deflect the blame, that he assaulted his girlfriend in 2004 but convinced her to lie for him.  In 2007 he was put on trial for throwing a cell phone at his daughter that split her lip, and suggested to officers that it was self-inflicted.  [He was acquitted for that.]

The defense’s version of the story is that when Ken Woodall went to confront Bert Lok, Mr. Lok pushed Mr. Woodall.  Mr. Woodall pushed back, calling Mr. Lok a “stupid idiot.”

While Maria Guanara was trying to separate them, Mr. Lok threw a punch, Mr. Woodall  threw up his hand (with beer in it) to block the punch, and somewhere in the skirmish the beer can hit Bert in the chin. 

The defense said that Mr. Lok got it in his head that he must have been stabbed by the knife that he knows is attached to Mr. Woodall’s belt buckle. 

The key evidence is from Dr. McMenamin, who testified very credibly, holding up well under cross-examination from Mr. Couzens, that there is a greater than 99% probability that the wound was from a blunt object and not a knife.  He believed it was more likely created by the beer can than a knife.  He reasoned that the lack of blood indicated that this was a crush injury caused by a blunt object.

According to the defense, there was a lot of emotion in the jail calls.  Mr. Woodall was upset about being in jail for a crime he didn’t commit, and worried about posting bail as well as the numerous burglaries going on at his house. 

Mr. Woodall was acquitted of the 2007 charges involving his daughter.  The incident with his ex, Sheila Speer, happened after they broke up, she got drunk, came back to his house, got his roommate to let her in, and then used a bar to pry open the door, ripping the frame off in the process.  A day or so later she went  to tell the cops he hit her with a piece of the frame that had a nail sticking out of it.  The case was dismissed by the DA.

For his part, Bert Lok was not a good witness.   It was not clear when he answered questions that he understood him, and it seemed that he sometimes just randomly picked either yes or no.  He also sees things that are not there. 

The problem that the prosecution had in this case is that Mr. Lok was constantly making up stories, such as believing his sister stalks him with a shotgun, believing a tire came through the car while he and a friend were driving to the County Fair Mall but they arrived unharmed, and believing that Mr. Woodall was stealling his Hungry Man dinners and sodas.

In addition to an IQ of about 40, Mr. Lok is taking medication for schizophrenia.

Combine that with the doctor’s testimony, and there was plenty of evidence for the jury to reach the not guilty verdict that they did – twice.

The case was beset by bizarre twists and turns, with Mr. Couzens at the center of each of them.

It all started on Monday, June 20, between the second and third week of the Kalah trial.  As we reported, Mr. Couzens, after earlier that week confirming the trial, filed for a continuance. 

In fact, he did not just file for a continuance, he sent his supervisor, Garrett Hamilton to fill in for him because he was reportedly tired from working the Kalah trial.

Mr. Hamilton was asking for a continuance, and was so confident that he began dismissing witnesses even before court began.  Mr. Hamilton argued that they did not actually need good cause for the continuance because it was within 60 days.  The defense countered that there was absolutely no good cause, but Judge Gaard continued it, finding good cause.

They reset the case for July 5.  Right off the bat, Mr. Couzens informed the court that he and two Woodland PD Officers had gone to interview Mr. Woodall’s daughter and former girlfriend because apparently they had heard that Mr. Woodall had been attempting to contact them to influence their testimony.

He and the Woodland PD had investigated the incident on Friday night.  He told defense attorney, Deputy Public Defender Dan Hutchinson, about the investigation on Saturday, but he didn’t disclose the substance of his interview until Monday July 4.

Mr. Hutchinson moved to have it excluded as a discovery violation, but Judge Gaard decided instead that the prosecution could introduce the evidence, but not until Hutchinson has time to review all of the material.

The defense also learned that Ken Woodall’s daughter’s boyfriend had been arrested on charges of burglarizing Mr. Woodall’s house.  Mr. Hutchinson argued that that was Brady material, that which would tend to prove the defendant’s innocence, and it gave her a reason to lie.

This turned out to be critical information because Sandra Woodall acted as though she was scared of her father in court, but the revelations that her boyfriend had pled to burgalizing Mr. Woodall’s home really damaged her credibility.

And there was more, as she had testified that she had no real relationship with her father, but following his arrest, she stayed at his home and drove his truck around.  This will become more important, undoubtedly, as there is a preliminary hearing on the dissuading a witness charges against Mr. Woodall to begin today.

Mr. Hutchinson argued in his closing that the daughter is vindictive.  He said, “Sandra Woodall is the poster child for a lying witness.”

He described her as having a pizza party with Mr. Couzens and the Woodland Police.  Mr. Hutchinson said that she was laughing and joking with her friends over the phone saying they were interviewing her at gunpoint.

In countering that, Mr. Couzens made a big mistake when he told the jury that “that’s not how it was” (meaning the interview of Ms. Woodall), and he invited the jury to watch his interview with with Sandra Woodall at Woodland PD on July 1. 

Mr. Couzens told the jury, “Feel free to look at my interview with her, I have no problem with that.” 

The problem was that the tape was never introduced into evidence, and he obviously knew it.

Mr. Hutchinson objected, “Prosecutorial Misconduct.”

Judge Gaard instructed the jury, “The interview is not evidence in this case.”

But we are not done.  During his closing argument, Mr. Couzens argued that unanimity is not necessary for the assault charge, which was the lesser included.  He argued half of the jurors can think it was a knife, half can think it was a can.

When Mr. Hutchinson objected, they took up the issue outside of the jury’s presence (which is a problem since Judge Gaard would uphold the objection but never discuss the matter with the jury).

When Judge Gaard had received the note that the jury had a verdict, Mr. Couzens said that they should be instructed on the court’s ruling that when Mr. Couzens argued that for the lesser assault charge that they don’t have to agree on whether a beer can or knife was used.

The defense countered that since the jury had already reached a verdict it was too late. Judge Gaard then brought the jury down and said that defense made an objection when the people were arguing unanimity and that objection was overruled.

She sent them back upstairs and a minute later they came back with the verdict.

Following the verdict, Judge Gaard released Mr. Woodall on OR (own recognizance).  Mr. Couzens asked for him to be searchable and testable on the basis that Mr. Woodall’s daughter, who perjured herself according to the defense, said her dad gets angry easier when he uses drugs. Judge Gaard denied it.

There will now be a preliminary hearing today on the dissuading a witness charge.

Another typical Ryan Couzens trial.

—David M. Greenwald reporting