What should have been a simple case involving the sale of a single ounce of marijuana and the possession of another ounce of marijuana, has been blown into a case where the defendants are facing 13 years in prison, due to gang enhancements and gang charges.
At one point during a break, Public Defender Martha Sequeira told Deputy DA Jay Linden that he ought to drop the gang charges and charge this case as it really is – a marijuana sale case.
She said that the DA was wasting $25,000 in tax money on what she called “a chicken shit case.”
Ms. Rodriguez has a two-month-old daughter and is attending classes at the community college and they want to send her to prison for a lengthy period of time.
Indeed, both defense attorneys seemed frustrated at the process and the lack of willingness of the DA to reduce the charges. It was made worse by the utter inability of the gang expert, Davis Police Officer Kierith Briesenick, to articulate how a small-time drug deal would benefit the structure of a gang.
The incident began on May 5, 2010 when police served a search warrant on the home of a Davis resident at the 1500 block of Cypress on the corner of Drexel. During the search, they found multiple bags of marijuana, scales and US currency. One of the residents, a juvenile, was arrested.
During the course of the arrest, the juvenile received a text from someone with the moniker of “Chico,” whom police recognized as belonging to defendant Israel Covarrubias, about the availability of marijuana for sale. Police intercepted the call and used the phone to lure Mr. Covarrubias to the site for the purpose of selling one ounce of marijuana.
Officer Edens and LaFlor parked on the street and watched as a green Honda pulled up, the trunk opened, and an individual, later identified as a Mr. Morales (who would be arrested and deported) took a bag out of the truck and gave it to Mr. Fiero, a known drug dealer.
The co-defendant in this case is Amaris Rodriguez, the girlfriend of Mr. Covarrubias, who has recently given birth to the couple’s two-month-old daughter. She was the driver in the vehicle. Mr. Covarrubias was in the rear right passenger seat.
Both defendants were on searchable probation, and the police found a digital scale in the purse of Ms. Rodriguez that had residue that tested positive for marijuana. A 2.9 gram bag of marijuana was found in Mr. Covarrubias’ pocket, another brown bag with approximately an ounce of marijuana was found on the floor board, and a 3.1 gram bag was found under a seat.
The opinion of Officer Eden, formerly of YONET, is that the two bags that were an ounce in weight were possessed for sale while the smaller bags were consistent with personal use.
According to Officer Edens, there was no evidence of gang indicia found in the car or at the scene. But, he acknowledged he lacked any knowledge of gangs. The gang charges were added at the insistance of Officer Briesenick, along with the direction of Sheriff’s Deputies Bautista and Oviedo, from the Yolo County Gang Task Force, who were on the scene.
Officer Briesenick testified that the home was a known Norteno household where there had been fights, graffiti and drug use periodically over an extended period of time. She testified that Mr. Covarrubias was a validated gang member from the Norteno Criminal Street gang, as was Mr. Fiero. Ms. Rodriguez was described as an associate with criminal street gang members, but not a gang member herself.
That determination was based on her relationship with Mr. Covarrubias, and the fact that she was on the scene at this incident.
The members of the house on Cypress were said not to be gang members, but associates.
As Defense Attorney Rod Beede would argue, the Penal Code 186.22(b) statute requires a specific intent, “with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members,” read Mr. Beede.
However, Officer Briesenick was fundamentally unable to articulate the benefit in this case to the criminal street gang other than the fact that there were two gang members and an associate in the case and the home had ties apparently to Norteno Gang Members.
The benefit, she argued, was monetary, but also security, in that by trading with known associates they were able to build trust that the transaction would remain secure.
This keeps the drug deal secret and develops trust. The problem is that she was asked if Nortenos sell to anyone and she responded in the affirmative. In fact, drug dealers benefit more when they deal to a broader clientele.
Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira asked if the secrecy motivation is merely speculation, and she asked if it were sold outside of the Norteno family would it negate the benefit?
Officer Briesenick testified that people who receive drugs continue to be intimating and instilling fear in the neighborhood.
Judge Gaard was clearly willing to hold them over on the basis that there were two validated gang members in the vehicle and an associate, and allow a jury to sort out whether the action itself falls within the realm of 186.22(b).
As defense attorney Beede argued, this is not some great criminal conspiracy exposed.
Ms. Sequeira in her closing comments, noted that known drug dealer Mr. Fiero, is apparently still out there allegedly selling marijuana, while there is no evidence that either defendant here still is (they are both out of custody) going to a home that is known as a drug haven where kids go to get drugs and have done so for five to six years, according to testimony from the police.
She suggested that these were Mr. Fiero’s drugs, and that he was driven by Ms. Rodriguez because he had a suspended driver’s license and borrowed Mr. Covarrubias’ phone. She argued that there is no direct evidence that Mr. Covarrubias had any knowledge of this deal in advance or that they were his drugs.
But the mild protest of the drug charges pales in comparison to the defense argument against the gang charges. Ms. Sequiera argued that there were no facts as to what the specific benefit was to the gang, and that the police officer’s tie was thin and hypothetical at best.
Mr. Beede argued that these enhancements are dangerous to young people in general, and these young people in particular.
He argued that the 186.22 charge requires that there be “specific intent” to benefit the gang and in fact, there is not even credible evidence of any benefit at all. This is simply a small-time marijuana deal. These are not the Mafia. There is no kind of organized crime syndicate.
He asked, “What are they promoting?”
He argued these are a bunch of kids from a certain background who are enamored with a certain lifestyle. How are they specifically promoting a gang through a small drug sale?
He said that he could see the transportation, possession and possession for sale charges, but he called the enhancements to promote a gang lifestyle “lunacy.”
“They did not do this to promote some mythical gang life on the street – it’s lunacy,” he argued.
But the system does not care. Both defense attorneys argued that, given the burden of proof at the preliminary hearing, it is easy for a judge to move this to trial and let a jury sort this out.
Judge Gaard in her ruling said, “It’s not easy,” but found sufficient evidence that crimes occurred, with enhancements, to hold the defendants to answer for the charges.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Remember when you had to wait for the new issue of High Times for pictures like that ? Sounds like everyone should smoke some of that bud and chill ! Raising a more serious vein, this is the continuing war of harassment, the “choke wide open, shoot in the crowd and let’s see who we get .” approach that usually makes the authorities less credible and the gangsters more sympathetic . The way to rid the streets of gangs is to build credible intelligence (usually by infiltration) develop RICO cases that take the heads and button men(Sorry, don’t have a good gender neutral term or know of any button women !) and scatter the underlings to live in fear . Canada and until recently, western Europe were making some progress against outlaw motorcycle gangs, but the “War on Terror”(and our economy) has placed those efforts on the back burner .
These “gangs” are so loosely affiliated, they really do not belong being charged even under the 186.22 statute.
So let the jury sort it out!
To biddlin: Law enforcement just does not have the manpower now to develop RICO cases, or anything of the sort…
By the way, the headline does not seem to match the story. Whose temper flared? The defense? That’s what they get paid to do – feigned outrage at their clients arrest… how dare they! LOL
Hang em High !
“So let the jury sort it out! “
Easy for you to say, so now you have two kids facing extremely long sentences for doing very little.
In terms of the title, it was pretty heated during the break. It was not feigned outrage, it was very real. You have to know the players to understand. Plus, there was no one present to have a show in front of.
Another example of priorities, Elaine and unfortunately an excuse for greedy, ambitious sheriffs and DAs to to see gang members everywhere and form a task force to pursue said gangsters and the accompanying federal grant money without regard for the truth or justice !
Typical yoyo county bs, yolo county courts ought be glad their just selling marijuana!!!
“Tempers Flare in Davis Case Involving Sale of Marijuana with Gang Enhancements”
Is it possible some of your faithful readers have been expecting your reports to meet journalism standards while your aspirations have been more along the lines of creative writing? Elaine and others look for a headline that’s a short, accurate summary of a significant part of the news report that follows. What we frequently find, instead, is fanciful or sensational short story “title” that has little connection with the heart of the writeup.
So, a PD let’s her foul mouth get the better of her in the courtroom during a break in the proceedings. So what? Was she really, really pissed? Or, was she angry about how long the case has been dragging on? Or, was she frustrated about something going on at home? Or, was she just joking around with her colleagues–you know how those smart-alecky lawyers are! Maybe she was concerned that the judge might have overheard her outburst. Maybe she wanted to impress her clients, letting them know how tough she was with the prosecutor.
You tell Elaine that Ms. Sequeira must have really, really meant her offensive comment because she was like the tree falling the forest, that “there was no one present to have a show in front of.” Well, there go some of my theories that involved people overhearing the comment. I’d also assumed that you were present; did you have to rely on hearsay for the headline? From DDA Linden? He might be complaining to the court or to the Judical Review Board–but he can’t have much hope for winning if he also wasn’t present.
Did you confirm with Ms. Sequeira that she really said “chicken shit”? If she wasn’t a courthouse potty mouth, she might not appreciate you claiming she was. I’m not even sure if she would appreciate you using her apparently private, vulgar outburst to attract readers if she really did talk dirty.
But, my real question is how many tempers flared? And, whose tempers were they? Inquiring minds want to know.
“During the course of the arrest, the juvenile received a text from someone with the moniker of “Chico,” whom police recognized as belonging to defendant Israel Covarrubias, about the availability of marijuana for sale.”
This one sentence has all the facts you need to understand what is happening. The cops know Chico and that he is a gang member. He is texting about the availability of marijuana, thats called pushing isn’t it? A car shows up with Chico in it, but, his daughter’s mother is holding the scale, so they charge her hoping Chico will take the fall. The girlfriend is a much more sympathetic defendant so they fight try to fight it. Maybe they DA loses the case but in the meantime they keep pressure on a known gang member and drug dealer.
I wonder about the background of these people if the cops know Chico you have got to wonder how? And who is this Mr. Fierro and why do you say he is still out there selling dope to young people?
David —
I found this story very confusing, but maybe I am just having trouble believing the lengths to which the Davis police will go to make it look like we have gangs in Davis and like they deal with real crime.
Please clarify: There is a residence at the corner of Drexel and Cypress that is a known Norteno household, but the members of the house are are not Norteno gang members? Then how can the house be a Norteno household? And the defendants purportedly had the intent to further gang activity because they showed up at this “Norteno household” that the police lured them to?
Is it typical in Davis for the two on-scene officers to make a bust, but for officers and detectives who were not on-scene to then insist on adding enhancements to the charges?
I am so sick of years of hearing and reading stories about Davis PD harassing and overcharging young people. The young people I know are much more wary of the cops in Davis than of any of our citizens, including the ones the cops contend are gang members.
Davis cops should be shipped off for mandatory training rotations in Compton. Then maybe they could understand what gang activity is and stop their nonsensical approach to the tiny bit of crime we have in Davis.
JS: I guess I’m not following you. They were shouting in a court room and it was audible and tempers were flaring both during court and in the breaks. What exactly are you complaining about here?
Robin:
Your confusion here is understandable. We just kind of shook our heads walking out.
“There is a residence at the corner of Drexel and Cypress that is a known Norteno household, but the members of the house are are not Norteno gang members?”
That’s what Officer Briesenick testified. She called them associates meaning they sometimes work with or hang out. There are different levels of involvement, associates are not validated gang members either due to lack of evidence or informal involvement.
As far as I can tell, and I have spoken to the owner of the house, her kids party a bit too much and use marijuana and the police have been on that house for some time. But it seems like they have overblown the extent of crime.
This is the same house in January 2010 I wrote a story on a kid facing 10 counts of fighting with gang enhancements, that was her son, the same kid as arrested here. That case eventually settled for three misdos. This case, they dropped the charges against the kid.
“And the defendants purportedly had the intent to further gang activity because they showed up at this “Norteno household” that the police lured them to? “
The explanation of how this was a gang case and furthered gang activity was convoluted if you ask me.
“Is it typical in Davis for the two on-scene officers to make a bust, but for officers and detectives who were not on-scene to then insist on adding enhancements to the charges?”
Apparently they were all on scene, but it did seem a bit unusual that it actually read in Edens report that he added the gang charges at their insistence.
This is a case of pot that has been way overblown, this baffles. There is no way a jury ever convicts these kids of the gang stuff, but they’ll probably get forced into taking some sort of overly harsh plea.
Toad: That Chico is a gangmember does not make this a gang case.
“And who is this Mr. Fierro and why do you say he is still out there selling dope to young people? “
That’s what the police officer acknowledged on the stand. I don’t know who he is, he wasn’t in the proceedings.
[quote]Davis cops should be shipped off for mandatory training rotations in Compton. Then maybe they could understand what gang activity is and stop their nonsensical approach to the tiny bit of crime we have in Davis.[/quote]
Topete lived in West Davis, the one that allegedly killed the police officer. It is not uncommon for gang members to live in quiet, “safe” Davis…
[quote]JS: I guess I’m not following you. They were shouting in a court room and it was audible and tempers were flaring both during court and in the breaks. What exactly are you complaining about here? You have to know Martha Sequeira, she’s a bit passionate and fiery and an outstanding attorney. [/quote]
I would say using that sort of language in front of a public audience is highly unprofessional… Reminds me a bit of the defense attorney for Casey Anthony who gave the proverbial middle finger to the press…
“That Chico is a gangmember does not make this a gang case.”
David you are missing my point. This guy and the law enforcement authorities of this area obviously have a history. The cops know who he is and set him up when, as luck would have it, he was pushing marijuana while they were busting his targeted buyer. It is the history that drives the case. If you want to believe that the cops and DA operate in a vacuum and that their prosecutorial decisions should be devoid of any other knowledge about the perps in the box you are just not living in the real world. Why don’t you look a little deeper into the backgrounds that makes the DA want to come down hard in this one?
The history can drive the case all it wants, but you still have to establish that the conduct in question has to drive the charges. He may be a gang member, he may have a criminal record, but none of that is sufficient make this a gang crime unless the prosecution can show a link between the crime and the benefit to gang. And from what the DPD Officer said, they are going to have trouble.
Maybe it will be a tough case to make. Meanwhile the defendants can sweat it out, maybe take a plea. Who knows how it plays out but my point is you need to look beyond the facts to understand why the DA wants to pursue this so hard.
They’ve love to take a plea, but right now the DA is not offering something that they can take. To me this is a clear overreach, this is a marijuana case pure and simple, any effort to turn this into a gang case is a miscarriage of justice. You say, well they can sweat it, but this is our tax dollars being wasted. You are defending something that is really indefensible. The police’s argument for the benefit to the gang made no sense.
[quote]To me this is a clear overreach, this is a marijuana case pure and simple, any effort to turn this into a gang case is a miscarriage of justice. You say, well they can sweat it, but this is our tax dollars being wasted. You are defending something that is really indefensible. The police’s argument for the benefit to the gang made no sense. [/quote]
To show a little balance you should list the cases where you believed the the gang cases were justified and the DA’s weren’t over reaching. I don’t believe I’ve seen you cover any.
According to a previous defense “expert” there is no such thing as the Norteno gang. You didn’t discount his testimony but you readily discount the police account of its existence.
“To me this is a clear overreach, this is a marijuana case pure and simple, any effort to turn this into a gang case is a miscarriage of justice. You say, well they can sweat it, but this is our tax dollars being wasted.”
Two things:
I am always cautious when people claim its just a _____ case. I remember when Abby Hoffman was facing 20 years for cocaine in New York under the Rockefeller drug laws the DA claimed it wasn’t political that it was simply a drug case. Of course it was more than that if it was only a drug case you would not need to state the obvious.
You claim our tax dollars are being wasted but you still haven’t done what I asked you to do by looking into the backgrounds of the accused. This is something I am sure the DA has done and my guess is that he didn’t like what he saw. Without knowing what law enforcement knows its hard to determine whether this is a waste of taxpayers money.
[quote][b]David:[/b] “Officer Edens and LaFlor parked on the street and watched as a green Honda pulled up, the trunk opened, and an individual, later identified as a Mr. Morales (who would be arrested and deported) took a bag out of the truck and gave it to Mr. Fiero, a known drug dealer. The co-defendant in this case is Amaris Rodriguez, the girlfriend of Mr. Covarrubias, who has recently given birth to the couple’s two-month-old daughter. She was the driver in the vehicle. Mr. Covarrubias was in the rear right passenger seat….Ms. Sequeira in her closing comments, noted that known drug dealer Mr. Fiero, is apparently still out there allegedly selling marijuana….She suggested that these were Mr. Fiero’s drugs, and that he was driven by Ms. Rodriguez because he had a suspended driver’s license and borrowed Mr. Covarrubias’ phone.
[b]Mr. Toad: [/b]”And who is this Mr. Fierro and why do you say he is still out there selling dope to young people? ”
[b]David:[/b] “That’s what the police officer acknowledged on the stand. I don’t know who he is, he wasn’t in the proceedings.”[/quote]You don’t have a clue who Fiero is? Don’t the defense attorneys know?
And, with all your interest in this case–and your intimate knowledge of so many aspects of it–you exhibit absolutely no curiosity even when Mr. Toad inquires about this significant player? And, you still don’t care? (Okay, I’m willingly suspending disbelief to appreciate the story until it plays out.)
On another part of the story you could clarify: The green Honda was being driven by defendant Rodriguez, a street gang “associate” and the girlfriend of defendant “Chico” Covarrubias, a validated gang member from the Norteno Criminal Street gang, who was sitting in the back seat of the Honda.
The two arrived at the “known Norteno household” to deliver what “Chico” thought was a routine drug buy, but really was cops responding to Chico’s text message to the juvenile. Amaris pops the Honda trunk, at which time a “Mr. Morales” takes a bag out of “the truck” (sic) (trunk?) and hands it to Mr. Fiero, a known drug dealer.
It isn’t clear where Amaris and Morales come from–was Amaris driving both of them in the Honda, in addition to Chico? Was the bag empty, full of oranges, allegedly connected to the case? What happened at that point?
I agree with Robin when she finds “this story very confusing,” but for different reasons. One significant reason is you begin your report arguing this is over-reach without ever reporting basic case facts.
You want sympathy for these “kids” facing years in prison because they’ve been overcharged by the DA/Davis police. Yet, you fail to list the charges brought. And, you never get around tell the ages of the defendants or where they’re from.
You don’t provide any background for your comment that “it was an unusually charged atmosphere, as this case has been dragging on for over a year.”
Or to what the judge was referring when she said: “in her ruling, ‘It’s not easy’, but found sufficient evidence that crimes occurred, with enhancements…”
Are you implying she thought: 1.) “It’s not easy” for her to find evidence to support the gang enhancements? 2.) “It’s not easy” for her to find evidence that crimes occurred? 3.)”It’s not easy” for her to send along these sympathetic kids–now with a kid of their own–to face such serious charges and maybe prison?
Please fill in these basic, important facts for those of us who still would like to understand this story.
[quote]To show a little balance you should list the cases where you believed the the gang cases were justified and the DA’s weren’t over reaching. I don’t believe I’ve seen you cover any. [/quote]
There are different layers here.
First, in general I don’t believe the 186.22 gang laws are well written and they have tended to subvert standard burdens of proof. I you believe that gang crimes have been in “association” or in the “benefit” of a criminal street gang, then the burden to prove that should be beyond a reasonable doubt and they should have to show more than mere gang members, but actually establish a benefit. Instead we get these murky explanations and often it comes down to whether the guys are gang members.
In this case, the “in association with” doesn’t hold because they were not wearing colors and did not otherwise identify each other as gang members.
The benefit of clause was not established. The officer’s testimony was convoluted and there was no direct evidence presented.
Finally, as I have argued before, laws designed to deal with LA hardcore gangmembers and actual organized crime have been used for what in Yolo County is small time operations. Look at the Kalah case, if that was the hotbed of criminal gang activity, we really have very little.
The gang injunction presented a bunch of case that with very few exceptions look a lot more like a bunch of small time criminals, hanging out with their buddies, committing crimes. There were very few that really looked like gang crimes. The closest would probably be the Memorial Park attack.
JustSaying:
I don’t know who Fiero is, and I don’t know if the defense attorneys know who he is, it sounded like they did based on their questions and argument, but they could have been taking off what KB (Briesenick) said.
“And, with all your interest in this case–and your intimate knowledge of so many aspects of it–you exhibit absolutely no curiosity even when Mr. Toad inquires about this significant player? And, you still don’t care? “
I didn’t say I didn’t care, only that I do not know who he is.
“On another part of the story you could clarify: The green Honda was being driven by defendant Rodriguez, a street gang “associate” and the girlfriend of defendant “Chico” Covarrubias, a validated gang member from the Norteno Criminal Street gang, who was sitting in the back seat of the Honda.
The two arrived at the “known Norteno household” to deliver what “Chico” thought was a routine drug buy, but really was cops responding to Chico’s text message to the juvenile. Amaris pops the Honda trunk, at which time a “Mr. Morales” takes a bag out of “the truck” (sic) (trunk?) and hands it to Mr. Fiero, a known drug dealer. “
That was part of the question actually whether Amaris pops the trunk. They actually asked the officer if the trunk release was on the center console for the car, and he had assumed it was not based on it being a Honda, but had not checked.
There is also question as to whether that house is really a Norteno household. The younger son of the owner is a very prominent skateboarder, my interns were telling me he just won at X Games in LA this weekend, and he’s been in the paper up here and has won up to $250,000. In fact, when I interviewed the owner last year, she pointed out that the police had used a picture taken of her two sons at a skate competition and claimed it was a gang photo.
If you go back to old council agendas, you will find that there were complaints about that house on Cypress Street with regards to a skate board ramp. That were her son’s practice area, the neighbors didn’t like it probably because of the noise and the kids hanging around. THere is a lot going on here.
Also she told me on Friday, that they have not lived in that house for all of that time – they moved away and then came back.
“It isn’t clear where Amaris and Morales come from–was Amaris driving both of them in the Honda, in addition to Chico? ” Amaris was the driver. Three others in the car. Chico in the back right.
“Was the bag empty, full of oranges, allegedly connected to the case? “
The bag had an ounce of marijuana in it. It was given to Fiero I believe who took it to the door and was arrested.
“You want sympathy for these “kids” facing years in prison because they’ve been overcharged by the DA/Davis police. Yet, you fail to list the charges brought. And, you never get around tell the ages of the defendants or where they’re from. “
I’m pretty sure I mentioned them possession for sale, transport, and possession, each with a gang enhancement and a stand alone 186.22A charge. Looking back I mentioned those charges at least twice.
“You don’t provide any background for your comment that “it was an unusually charged atmosphere, as this case has been dragging on for over a year.” “
I don’t know that there was much more to say than that. The attorneys were upset from the start that the DA was unwilling to settle this as a marijuana possession for sale case. They made it clear before, during, and after the proceeding. The arrest happened in May 2010, it first came for prelim in July of last year and has taken a year to come to prelim. Not sure what else I needed to say.
“Or to what the judge was referring when she said: “in her ruling, ‘It’s not easy’, but found sufficient evidence that crimes occurred, with enhancements…”
This is what I wrote: “Both defense attorneys argued that, given the burden of proof at the preliminary hearing, it is easy for a judge to move this to trial and let a jury sort this out.”
So what I am referring to is mentioned just above, that the defense argued that it would be easy for the judge to move this to trial and let a jury sort it out, obviously implying that she was not about to kill it.
Then I wrote, “Judge Gaard in her ruling said, “It’s not easy,” but found sufficient evidence that crimes occurred, with enhancements, to hold the defendants to answer for the charges.”
So she was responding to the defense attorney there.
She was implying that she thought it was a difficult decision but nevertheless found enough evidence. But I was really just reporting her response to the defense attorney’s charge that it would be easy to move this forward.
[quote]I don’t know that there was much more to say than that. The attorneys were upset from the start that the DA was unwilling to settle this as a marijuana possession for sale case.[/quote]
Of course the defense attorneys were “upset” bc the DA was not willing to deal – LOL
And just for context, and this is only anecdotal, but I was walking in West Davis at about 8 pm at night in the dark (big mistake), and strolled by a car containing 4 people in it doing drugs. As soon as they saw me walk by, the turned the car on and sped away. Davis is not the “safe haven” everyone thinks it is…
“Of course the defense attorneys were “upset” bc the DA was not willing to deal – LOL “
You say that, but I have covered well over 100 trials and hearings at this point, I have NEVER seen the anger and frustration that this one triggered. So I would say you are understating it when you say “of course.” What makes this case different from all the others that the DA refuses to offer a reasonable deal? The exposure for a relatively minor crime of marijuana possession for sale.
“And just for context, and this is only anecdotal, but I was walking in West Davis at about 8 pm at night in the dark (big mistake), and strolled by a car containing 4 people in it doing drugs. As soon as they saw me walk by, the turned the car on and sped away. Davis is not the “safe haven” everyone thinks it is… “
They were more scared of you than you were of them. Now if you pass a car with four people with guns, I’d agree with your statement.
What are the ages of the two defendants? If they’re not Davis residents, where they from? And, why were they “on searchable probation” when they came face to face with the cops?
I thought your sentence was pointing out that the courtroom “was an unusually charged atmosphere” BECAUSE OF some sense that the year delay before completing the preliminary hearing was somehow unfair to the defense. Guess I was putting too much emphasis on the words “AS this case has been dragging on….” meaning you saw a causal relationship.
Or maybe the judge was troubled by the attorneys’ challenging contention that she would take “the easy way” rather than the thoughtful, judge like, courageous approach of weighing the evidence and letting the defendants off. As you point out, “the system does not care.” Maybe Judge Gaard thinks she does care. (Guess you had to be there….)
I’m encouraging you to first report the basic news elements of courtroom stories before you begin your critical commentary. I’m not questioning your right to write anyway to you want to, just giving you feedback from a reader’s viewpoint. I’ll admit I’ve read this short piece more times than anything else you’ve written, trying to understand what happened before and during the official hearing, determining who the players are and (as usual) trying to understand why you feel (as usual) that justice is being denied.
You reply that you confirmed that you “mentioned (the charges) at least twice” in your story when I wrote about the need to “list” the charges. Are you saying that one of the references is the lead sentence because you mentioned “what should have been a simple case of….”?
JustSaying:
The ages I think are about 19 at this point. That’s a guess.
I think they both are from Woodland.
The girl burglarized her mother’s home. Since then the couple has a baby and she is going to college and apparently has cleaned up her lifestyle. The guy had previous convictions as a juvenile for selling marijuana. He has had no further run ins with the last since his May 5, 2010 arrest.
“I thought your sentence was pointing out that the courtroom “was an unusually charged atmosphere” BECAUSE OF some sense that the year delay before completing the preliminary hearing was somehow unfair to the defense. Guess I was putting too much emphasis on the words “AS this case has been dragging on….” meaning you saw a causal relationship. “
That’s helpful to understand how you are reading this. The fact that the case has dragged on was definitely a contributing factor because the defense attorneys were clearly frustrated with their inability to get this down to a simple marijuana for sales case, which clearly is how they see it.
“Or maybe the judge was troubled by the attorneys’ challenging contention that she would take “the easy way” rather than the thoughtful, judge like, courageous approach of weighing the evidence and letting the defendants off. As you point out, “the system does not care.” Maybe Judge Gaard thinks she does care. (Guess you had to be there….) “
I’m sure she thinks she does. The “probable cause” and “best possible light” standard plays a role here, meaning that often you will see a judge push the case to trial but admonish the prosecutor that they won’t get a conviction.
“You reply that you confirmed that you “mentioned (the charges) at least twice” in your story when I wrote about the need to “list” the charges. Are you saying that one of the references is the lead sentence because you mentioned “what should have been a simple case of….”? “
The first two paragraphs list the charges and the fourth from the last paragraph also lists them.
“I’ll admit I’ve read this short piece more times than anything else you’ve written, trying to understand what happened before and during the official hearing, determining who the players are and (as usual) trying to understand why you feel (as usual) that justice is being denied. “
To me this is a simple case, you have a group of kids who are driving to Davis to sell another group of kids marijuana. They are not wearing gang colors. They are not shouting gang slogans. There is no evidence that they are gang members. The charging officer did not charge them with gang enhancements until prodded to do so. There is no evidence that sales from the marijuana would have funded a criminal enterprise, there is not even evidence of a criminal enterprise. In short this should be a probation case, not a case that ruins the lives of two people who appear to be getting their lives back together with a 13 year sentence.
That’s what I see as the miscarriage of justice here. If you don’t see that as a miscarriage of justice, we will never see eye-to-eye on these matters.