Witch hunts are nothing new to Deputy District Attorney Ryan Couzens. He once had his own victim arrested and charged with attempting to influence a juror to acquit the defendant.Angry that probation was recommending probation in a case involving a stolen gun, he charged the defendant with possession of pruno, or prison wine, which had never been done before, in an effort to coerce the defense to take a prison sentence. It did not work, but as the result, inmates in Yolo County are now being periodically charged with pruno, just so the defense can never again claim it was never done before.
Mr. Woodall was acquitted of all charges of assault last week. However, the weekend before the trial, Mr. Couzens had a little surprise for the defense – new charges.
According to the prosecution, Bert Lok, a mentally retarded man who was a tenant of Kenneth Woodall’s, had accused Mr. Woodall of stealing some of his Hungry Man dinners.
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 allegedly called Bert a “retarded sonofab—-,” spilled beer in his face, pulled out his belt buckle knife and stabbed or sliced Bert in the chin.
Just prior to the trial 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 burglarizing 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.
Judge Rosenberg heard the preliminary hearing. He allowed the case to go forward to trial, finding sufficient evidence, though he struck the most serious charge of witness intimidation, due to lack of evidence. Apparently, that charge requires corroboration from more than one individual.
Moreover, Judge Rosenberg admonished the prosecutor that, while there was enough evidence to hold Mr. Woodall to answer these charges, he did not believe there was sufficient evidence to convict. He pressed very strongly that the prosecutor cut a deal or drop the charges altogether.
There is simply nothing here. It is clear that Ms. Woodall is not close to her father, she has some sort of a vendetta against him and it is even more clear that her story completely lacks credibility.
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.”
However, Mr. Couzens is on a mission, apparently, to put Mr. Woodall away. He tried everything in the book to get Mr. Woodall during his trial and even added additional charges.
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, 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.
Just another day at the office for Mr. Couzens.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Angry that probation was recommending probation in a case involving a stolen gun, he charged the defendant with possession of Pruno, which had never been done before, in an effort to coerce the defense to take a prison sentence. It did not work, but as the result, inmates in Yolo County are now being periodically charged with Pruno, just so the defense can never again claim it was never done before.”
And people question why there need to be an independent investigation of the DA’s office?
[quote]The problem was that the tape was never introduced into evidence, and he obviously knew it.[/quote]
Please explain…
This is all done and over with, correct? Couzens didn’t get away with anything, correct? Just want clarification…
I’d actually like you to explain Elaine. Is it your contention something is only wrong if someone does not get away with it? And if an act is done by others, it is not wrong? He put this guy through one trial and now trying to put him through another trial when the only evidence of wrongdoing is an obviously vengeful daughter and even the judge said he could not win and you apparently have no problem with it. As I have tried to establish, this is not an aberration for Mr. Couzens, it is his normal operating procedure.
[quote]He put this guy through one trial and now trying to put him through another trial …[/quote]
It is all over, is it not? Or is this still ongoing?
And you haven’t explained the tape issue – there needs to be clarification as to what the problem was…
[i][quote]”He once had his own victim arrested and charged with attempting to influence a juror to acquit the defendant.”[/quote][/i]How was this case resolved? Sounds like the classic domestic-violence victim’s dilemma.
[i][quote]”It did not work, but as the result, inmates in Yolo County are now being periodically charged with Pruno, [u]just so the defense can never again claim it was never done before[/u].”[/quote][/i]How do you know that this is the reason? Wasn’t the “never before” defense already precluded by the case you described? Is it beyond the realm of possibility that authorities have moved to stronger measures to solve the Pruno Problem since oversight and administrative efforts have been unsuccessful?
As to the current case, would you please identify what violations you’re trying to attribute to Mr. Couzens. The report seems to ramble along, describing fairly typical courtroom give-and-take.
Witch hunt?! With an ancestor executed in a real witch hunt, I’m impelled to speak up whenever the term is misused to describe harmless or trivial actions.
Another question: If Mr. Woodall was acquitted on all charges, why are testing/OR issues even being discussed?
Elaine: The first trial is over, the second matter is still pending.
“And you haven’t explained the tape issue – there needs to be clarification as to what the problem was… “
The problem was that Mr. Couzens was attempting to introduce new evidence during the rebuttal phase of the closing arguments. That is not simply inadmissible, but in fact misconduct.
JustSaying: I don’t know how that case was resolved. The DA made a big deal out of it at the time with a press release that made the papers with sensational headlines, but I’d have to look up the case.
“How do you know that this is the reason?”
I suspect it was the case, because it was never done previous and has now been done several times. The defense had filed a malicious prosecution motion based in part on that. So I don’t know for a fact, but I believe that is the case and I’m not the only one.
“Wasn’t the “never before” defense already precluded by the case you described? Is it beyond the realm of possibility that authorities have moved to stronger measures to solve the Pruno Problem since oversight and administrative efforts have been unsuccessful? “
I’m pretty sure based both on how the case unfolded and how it was resolved that it was the decision not of the authorities but of Mr. Couzens perhaps with the okay of his supervisors. It was used for the express purpose of trying to get prison time in a case in which the recommendation was probation.
“As to the current case, would you please identify what violations you’re trying to attribute to Mr. Couzens. The report seems to ramble along, describing fairly typical courtroom give-and-take. “
There was NOTHING fairly typical about the courtroom give and take. Every attorney I ran into last week asked if I was following what was going on in that courtroom. Mr. Couzens conducts himself in ways no one else has. It’s not an isolated incident, every case he has suddenly has charges of witness intimidation, usually he tries to spring it on the defense, in this case he took the additional step of getting an arrest the weekend before the trial and then sprung it on the defense the day before – on July 4 no less. There was the last minute effort to add a lesser included after the jury had already reached a verdict, no one had ever seen that. And then his effort to introduce new evidence during his closing which is misconduct.
As for witch hunt, yes, he sees these things in every trial, he withholds evidence, and tries to spring it as a trap. For some reason, he has gone after Mr. Woodall with pretty thin charges of witness intimidation that he has only the word of the defendant’s daughter who is less than credible as even Judge Rosenberg acknowledged.
“If Mr. Woodall was acquitted on all charges, why are testing/OR issues even being discussed? “
Because there is a whole new case that arose out of the witness intimidation charge.
[i][quote]”As to the current case, would you please identify what violations you’re trying to attribute to Mr. Couzens.”[/quote][/i]I was asking for specifics about what wrongdoing you’re charging. You provide only a single alleged violation, “misconduct” during his closing, plus another batch of generalities and opinions. (Sounds a little like the Roger Clemens trial where the judge sent everyone packing when the prosecutor dropped some inadmissible stuff during his opening.)
Who charged that Mr. Couzens committed “misconduct”? What action is being taken?[i][quote]”Because there is a whole new case that arose out of the witness intimidation charge….It’s not an isolated incident, every case he has suddenly has charges of witness intimidation, usually he tries to spring it on the defense, in this case he took the additional step of getting an arrest the weekend before the trial….” [/quote][/i]Thanks and sorry, I missed that important point (of the new charges, not resolved during the trial). So, what do you propose the DA do when they have evidence of witness intimidation? What contribution do you think the alleged intimidation played in Mr. Woodall’s exoneration? Does the DA claim it contributed? If so, what would you have a DA’s office do when they have evidence of intimidation that might have affected an outcome? Would you take the same stand if it were the prosecution allegedly committing witness intimidation?
[u]Fact check[/u]: How many trials has Mr. Couzens handled as asst. DA? You really claim he’s come up with “charges of witness intimidation” in every single one? Really? If so, I’ll buy your claims that you can depend on him to unfairly treat every defendant he faces. But, maybe, it really was 3 out of every 4? Or 60%? Or, 45%? Or, maybe, 0.0001%?
When does misstating the truth to such an apparent degree start affecting the [u]Vanguard[/u]’s reputation and credibility? A judicial watchdog should not argue points as though he’s a member of the defense team. Or, of the prosecution team. If we can predict that you’ll leave out certain things (intentionally or because you’ve failed to do due diligence in researching), the watchdog looses his teeth.
JustSaying:
There is one instance here of wrongdoing, the rest is just strange or ineffective.
“Who charged that Mr. Couzens committed “misconduct”? What action is being taken?”
The defense attorney objected specifically stating “prosecutorial misconduct.” The Judge sustained the objection and directed the jury that the video was not evidence in this case. Now one key question is that this was Judge Gaard and I suspect another Judge would have come down a lot harder on Mr. Couzens.
“So, what do you propose the DA do when they have evidence of witness intimidation?”
The problem here is the credibility of those claims is highly in question.
“What contribution do you think the alleged intimidation played in Mr. Woodall’s exoneration?”
None. Mr. Woodall’s exoneration came probably exclusively from the testimony of the expert who testified that there is no way the cut came from a knife, instead it came from a blunt object like the beer can. The daughter’s testimony was not credible because she was shown to have lied on the stand and her boyfriend burglarized Mr. Woodall’s home.
“Does the DA claim it contributed?”
Don’t know the answer to that. If they believe it contributed it is not credible, the daughter still testified against the defendant and did not change her story.
“If so, what would you have a DA’s office do when they have evidence of intimidation that might have affected an outcome?”
I don’t think that is applicable here.
“Would you take the same stand if it were the prosecution allegedly committing witness intimidation?”
The two problems here is that (A) there is no credible evidence that Mr. Woodall did this and Judge Rosenberg was very clear on that point and (B) it had no impact on the trial. So I likely would take the same stand.
“How many trials has Mr. Couzens handled as asst. DA? You really claim he’s come up with “charges of witness intimidation” in every single one? Really?”
The real question is how many cases have I watched Mr. Couzens try, which might be half a dozen, and I can remember him making the charge in at least five of those six (Kalah, Gang Injunction, Memorial Park, Three defendant case at the 7-Eleven, and this one). But there were no witnesses in what became the pruno case, it was just the police doing a probation search that started it. Also I may be forgetting some cases for instance the one in which he had the witness arrested for perjury, I didn’t see so I don’t know if witness intimidation came up. Did I overstate that specific charge? So out of six cases, five of them clearly had charges of witness intimidation and the sixth had no civilian witnesses. That’s your basis for attacking my credibility?
[i][quote]”A frequent charge that Mr. Couzens makes is witness intimidation, and in the case of Kenneth Woodall, he has indeed charged Mr. Woodall with attempting to intimidate a witness, his own daughter.”[/quote][/i][b]Don[/b] and [b]highbeam[/b]: What is the [u]Vanguard[/u] policy on flagging changes so that readers know the changes that are made to a report after it’s initially posted ? How many people have the authority and the access to allow them to edit reports after publication?
Two people have access to make changes. Our policy is that we flag substantive changes but not grammatical and spelling changes. Why is this an issue here?
[quote]The defense attorney objected specifically stating “prosecutorial misconduct.” The Judge sustained the objection and directed the jury that the video was not evidence in this case. Now one key question is that this was Judge Gaard and I suspect another Judge would have come down a lot harder on Mr. Couzens. [/quote]
I hate to say it, but sometimes doing something like this is a tactic… I believe Baez did this in the Casey Anthony trial…
Obviously we are supposed to hold prosecutors to a higher standard, but judges give both sides a whole lot of leeway. Happens every day in every courtroom…
I just don’t think you have observed enough trials outside the county. It might be interesting for you to take a trip to a county next door…
[quote]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 burglarizing Mr. Woodall’s home really damaged her credibility.[/quote]
How so?
Elaine: The funny thing is when I talk to lawyers from outside the county that rarely come to Yolo County, their response is bemusement.