Defense Calls It a Waste of Resources; Couzens Issues Manifesto Against Gangs and Drugs –
The defense argues that you have two small time drug dealers, dealing on their own, and several largely innocent bystanders who got caught up in the web.
He maintained from the start that his only crime was having a son who was dealing drugs. He was unwilling to plead to a crime that he did not feel he committed, and he was finally exonerated by Judge Fall.
From the start, the prosecution argued that the properties at 481 and 501 Walnut Street in West Sacramento were a hotbed of Asian gangster activity over the years.
The police and Prosecutor Ryan Couzens had conducted six months of surveillance on the property, however when they raided it there were pills that turned out to be caffeine pills, powder that turned out to be Ibuprofen, and 1.4 grams of meth.
Saengphet Onsri’s attorney, J. Toney, acknowledged in closing that he had possession of meth for sale. He argued that the defendant had possessed the meth to support himself and his unborn child.
Far from an operation to support a gang, the value of the meth packaged was about $40. Where was the money to support the gang, as alleged by Mr. Couzens, going to come from? Mr. Toney asked rhetorically to the jury, was he just trying to support himself and his family?
Dom Kalah, his attorney argued, was once in a gang. But now he is over 40 years old, he has not been part of a gang since the 1990s, and while there is an old tattoo of AGC (Asian Gangster Crips) on his chest, there is no evidence that he has been active in a gang.
He does have old arrests back in 1992 and 1999, but no convictions at this time.
Ms. Lance argued that there is no evidence that Dom Kalah is an active gang member, and she called it the “desperate hope to justify the tremendous expenditure of resources” on this case, and called Mr. Couzens the “prosecutor who is the ring leader of this circus.”
She cited the utter lack of evidence of drugs, the only 1.4 grams of meth that was found as the result of the raid and the ultimate lack of evidence of an active gang.
The key to charges of conspiracy is what happened when the men were all arrested and then recorded in the jail.
Mr. Couzens argued that the defendants “established their participation in the conspiracy when they discussed amongst themselves, among other things, who the “snitch” was to their operation.”
On the other hand, the defense countered that what happened was that the group of men were placed in jail and held there a long time, they had no idea what they were there for and thus began to speculate and try to figure it out.
Ms. Lance argued that their discussion focused only on the only evidence that they knew in the holding cell.
Mr. Couzens, in his rebuttal, argued that this excuse was flimsy, that if the jurors were held in a room for a long time, they would not admit to some criminal conspiracy. Of course, his analogy omits the critical difference that the men were being held in jail and therefore it would make sense that they attempted to figure out why they were arrested.
Mr. Couzens argued that this is evidence of a criminal conspiracy. The jury will have to decide if that is the case, however, there is almost no other evidence to support the criminal conspiracy charge other than the supposition that the men are in a gang and therefore dealing drugs to attempt to support that gang.
In his rebuttal, Mr. Couzens launched into a manifesto, first attempting to attack the defense by suggesting that they are diverting attention toward attacking the police and investigators, in alleging the waste of public resources.
“When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law,” he argued, “When neither are on your side, pound the cops.”
It is worth noting that the standard quote actually says “pound the table,” perhaps a minor distinction but worth noting.
Ironically, he himself decided to pound on drugs and gangs at the end, rather than present facts or law.
He calls this a gang, selling drugs. He said that it is irrelevant that Sacramento or Stockton would charge this crime as a misdemeanor. He said that it is on them, and their problem. He said this is Yolo County and we do things differently here.
He admits that he is very aggressive about gangs and crimes. He said the same for his office.
He admitted that they did not find evidence of a huge drug operation. That they only found 1.4 grams of meth.
But he said that if he allow “specks of methamphetamine” to go unchecked, if we allow a fledgling gang to go unchecked, just because it is a fledgling operation, that “that’s throwing in the towel.”
If there were ever a more telling statement to understand the Yolo County DA’s office or Deputy DA Ryan Couzens, it was that.
How will the jury see it? We will find out next week.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
None of this surprises me except that fact that he admited that Yolo County practices are over the top. Ruining people’s lives for the sake of a pulling down money or paving the political career. Sadly, this happens in other departments within the county as well but the DA has got to be the biggest mob boss I have ever seen.
“Mr. Couzens argued that this is evidence of a criminal conspiracy”
If Mr Couzens is really looking for a criminal conspiracy, he really not need look any further than his place of business.
[quote]From the start, the prosecution argued that the properties at 481 and 501 Walnut Street in West Sacramento were a hotbed of Asian gangster activity over the years.[/quote]
Here is the problem… knew of a case one time, where a teen was dealing dope out of his bedroom window at night, when his parents were asleep. The parents were completely clueless. Teens can be very devious when it comes to hiding things from their parents. I’m sure this is why the one defendant (the father who owned the house I believe) had all charges dismissed… it is not necessarily appropriate to visit the sins of the child upon the parent… obviously the evidence just wasn’t there that the parent know what his son was doing…
[quote]But he said that if he allow “specks of methamphetamine” to go unchecked, if we allow a fledgling gang to go unchecked, just because it is a fledgling operation, that “that’s throwing in the towel.”[/quote]
So I would say Couzens attitude is that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”? Lets see what the jury has to say…
Elaine: the problem is his attitude is that one TON of prevent is worth a pound of cure.
To dmg: Let’s see what the jury thinks… should be interesting…
This really doesn’t surprise me….it’s just proof that Yolo County is out ot destroy lives, and take one mistake, and cause it to screw up a persons entire life. Let me just tell you, that granted I am no angel, and I’ve done things that …I know that I shouldn’t have….but 1.4 grams of meth is hardly a drug operation….it’s more like personal use. I’ve said time and time again that this county does not have a gang problem, it has a SERIOUS drug problem. Instead of locking everybody up and making career criminals out of them, they need to get them help, and put them in drug rehabs.
mistyd
I agree with your conclusion that locking people up for individual drug use is a less effective, to say nothing of more expensive strategy than drug rehab programs. However, I disagree with you that this means that “Yolo County is out to destroy lives”. What I believe we have is a difference of opinion about the best approach. My belief is that vilifying those with different beliefs is rarely as effective as a well reasoned presentation of your own ideas.
medwoman: I don’t think most prosecutors in Yolo County are out to destroy lives, but you’ve never met Ryan Couzens. I’m not sure where what motivates him, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he took some kind of pleasure from doing exactly that.
medwoman: I don’t think most prosecutors in Yolo County are out to destroy lives, but you’ve never met Ryan Couzens. I’m not sure where what motivates him, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he took some kind of pleasure from doing exactly that.
[quote]I agree with your conclusion that locking people up for individual drug use is a less effective, to say nothing of more expensive strategy than drug rehab programs.[/quote]
I don’t think that’s clear. It very well may cost more to offer drug rehab than prison. However, it is certainly more humane to offer drug rehab, and ultimately more productive to society if we can get the person back to a normal life of employment and paying taxes. That has to be factored in as well.
[quote]I’m not sure where what motivates him, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he took some kind of pleasure from doing exactly that.[/quote]
This is pure speculation… you cannot possibly know what motivates an individual to do what they do…
Elaine, you shifted my comment from “it wouldn’t surprise me” to you cannot “know” – well I never said I knew, I said it wouldn’t surprise me. And I may not be able to know, but I can observe. You ought to sit with me sometime next week on his next court trial and then you can judge for yourself.
It makes me sad that Ryan Couzens has this reputation in Yolo County. His father is one of the best Jurists in the entire state of California!!
To dmg: IMHO, you should never attribute motives to anyone – unless you do know… just my opinion 🙂
As I said Elaine, come to the court with me and watch him in action and decide for yourself.