Following a preliminary hearing last week, Yolo County Judge David Rosenberg has allowed the case against Cafe Mediterranee owner Ashot Manukyan to move forward and stand trial on charges that include a felony count of assault with intent to commit sexual penetration, penetration with a foreign object and false imprisonment, and a misdemeanor charge of sexual battery.
The alleged victim had worked at the popular Davis restaurant for five months prior to the January 31, 2011, alleged incident.
She came back with wine cups and put them on his desk. He then poured vodka for the two of them and they sat down drinking and watching Armenian TV. Mr. Manukyan was translating it.
As she got up to leave, Mr. Manukyan got in between her and the door. He started hugging her and she tried to push him away.
He eventually reached down her pants and put his hands in her underwear. She tried to push him away saying “I need to go” over and over again, and he said okay and backed up. He then hugged her again but this time grabbed her left breast with his right hand.
Twice she said he slipped his hands into her pants, and the second time he penetrated her.
The victim, who is married, testified that prior to the incident he had never touched her. She said that she finished all her work very quick, and did not go home for a long period of time because she did not want to go to her husband after what had happened.
On Thursday, a female co-worker testified that she had been employed there for a year and a half prior to the incident. She quit right after the incident had become known to her.
That evening there were five people at work, including Mr. Manukyan.
The co-worker testified that he had never touched her, however, she got an uncomfortable feeling from him when he stared for a very long period of time.
She said that she heard the victim being asked to bring mineral water to Mr. Manukyan’s office. Prior to leaving, the victim had said, “I think Ashot likes how I do my make-up.”
She replied to her, “Maybe he has a crush on you.”
The victim then said, “That’s creepy” and left.
The victim came back saying, in an awkward way, that the defendant wanted to cups in the office so they could celebrate. The co-worker estimated that the victim spent two to three minutes in the office the first time, and maybe 5 to 6 minutes the second time.
The second time the victim came back in “a very intense mood.” She was very quiet, shocked and anxious to get out.
She heard the story from the victim a few days later over the phone. She described the victim’s demeanor as very angry and upset.
In a preliminary hearing, there is a low standard for evidence, it is simply probable cause. Evidence is generally heard in best possible light, meaning for the purposes of the preliminary hearing, there only needs to be evidence that, if proven to be true, could lead to a conviction based on the elements of a given charge.
While the defense will cross-examine the witnesses, they need not put on their own case or present their own witnesses, though sometimes they do. The defendant is entitled to a full trial where evidence is scrutinized at a far higher standard.
In this case, the note of caution is that we have not heard Mr. Manukyan’s side of the story and have not seen what witnesses he may be able to put on to refute these allegations.
Judge Rosenberg found sufficient evidence to hold Mr. Manukyan to be tried for the charges against him. He set the date of arraignment as July 27.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]On Thursday, a co-worker testified that she had been employed there for a year and a half prior to the incident. She quit right after the incident had become known to her. [/quote]
Need a bit of clarification here. Who is “she”? Who had been employed for a year and a half; quit right after the incident? The co-worker or victim?
After stating once again that I find it unjust in a case like this that the accuser’s anonymnity is preserved while the accused’s name and business are published and tarnished by the very nature of the accusation, I would guess that guilt or innocence here will be determined by a perception of the credibility of the two of them. Physical and circumstantial evidence likely will play no part in the determination.
That is, does the jury find the accuser a credible person, someone who does not have a history of telling tall tales or committing fraud or does not have some personal, professional or financial motive to fabricate such a story?
On the other hand, assuming the accused testifies, his credibility will be judged in large part on the basis of his history: are there other women who come forward and say he attacked them or touched them inappropriately? does he have a problem with alcoholism? was he unhappy in his marriage? etc.
Given the presumption of innocence, it seems to me that if the accused has no criminal record and no other accusers step forward and so on, even if the accuser’s record is as pure as snow, he will be found not guilty, but will still suffer a ruined reputation.
[quote]In this case, the note of caution is that we have not heard Mr. Manukyan’s side of the story and have not seen what witnesses he may be able to put on to refute these allegations.[/quote]
If there was no one else in the room, how could there be a witness to refute anything? Sounds like a simple case of “he said, she said.” I don’t see how there could be a basis for a trial.
[i]” I don’t see how there could be a basis for a trial.”[/i]
The police and the DA found her accusation credible. They believe a jury will, too.
I think that the co-worker saw enough in terms of her mood change and his actions to back up the victim’s side of the story. The defense would need to challenge the credibility of both the witness and the victim. That’s the part that we do not know.
I can tell you this, those who watched the prelim found her account very compelling and her testimony very believable.
When I wrote, [i]”… it seems to me that if the accused has no criminal record and no other accusers step forward and so on … he will be found not guilty …”[/i] I was not thinking about something a relative of mine, who used to teach criminal law at Stanford, told me a long time ago:
That MOST rape trials come down to the perceived credibility of the accuser. If the jury believes her story, they convict. If not, they acquit. As a result, most of the defense work is to attack the credibility of the accuser.
My relative told me that most rape accusations are not stranger attacks, but rather date rapes or acquaintance rapes. So the defense in those cases is always, [i]”it was concensual sex.”[/i] Very often there is not enough other evidence–such as torn out hair or severe trauma wounds or scratches on the accused–to prove it was an assault. So it comes down to, does the jury buy the accuser’s story?
In the case at the Davis restaurant, where rape is not alleged, but rather “assault with intent to commit sexual penetration,” I suspect the jury’s finding will also be based on the accuser’s credibility: If they believe her, he is toast.
The “she” refers to the co-worker, and as that was the only person mentioned in that sentence, I let it stand as David wrote it. The victim, as described in an earlier paragraph, had been employed there for only five months, in contrast to the co-worker who had apparently been employed for “a year and a half prior to the incident.”
I decided to add the word “female” to the description of the co-worker, which should aid in linking the co-worker to the pronoun in the sentence. Thanks for your input!
To highbeam: Thanks for the clarification.
[quote]I would guess that guilt or innocence here will be determined by a perception of the credibility of the two of them. Physical and circumstantial evidence likely will play no part in the determination. [/quote]
There very well may be physical evidence, e.g. bruising, tearing, DNA evidence on a foreign object used for penetration, etc. Forensics is more sophisticated today, although it also is often open to more questions as to its scientific validity…
For anyone who thinks rape allegations are never fraudulent, I recommend you read this two part story from the L.A. Times, which details a case where a woman claimed she was violently and sexually assaulted by the father of her child, amid a custody battle the two were going through:
Part 1 ([url]http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-accused-20110626,0,4056332,full.story[/url]).
Part 2 ([url]http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-accused-20110628,0,4711694,full.story[/url]).
It’s a very good read.
Rifkin wrote: [quote]After stating once again that I find it unjust in a case like this that the accuser’s anonymnity is preserved while the accused’s name and business are published and tarnished by the very nature of the accusation,[/quote]
Please review the following statutes for more information.
Penal Code 293/293.5 & Govt Code 6254(f)(2)
[quote]… ” I don’t see how there could be a basis for a trial.”
The police and the DA found her accusation credible. They believe a jury will, too. [/quote]
More importantly per the article the jurist did…
The basis for trial is very low, if someone makes a credible claim that if proven true would mean conviction, that is sufficient. The standard for guilt in a trial is far higher.
“For anyone who thinks rape allegations are never fraudulent”
I have covered several cases where I think the rape allegations were fraudulent and there were a couple of others just before YJW started (Dev and the Noori’s).
ADREMMER: My argument is not with the Penal Code or with Govt Code 6254. My complaint is with media outlets like the Vanguard and The Davis Enterprise. They withhold the name of the victim in rape allegation cases. I think that is reasonable in most cases. I think the same fairness and consideration should be afforded by them to the alleged rapist, any time they are protecting the accuser.
To Rifkin: In France, apparently they do protect the name of the defendant, by not allowing cameras in the courtroom or the name of the defendant to be published, and other such protections. The French were appalled at how the former head of the IMF, Kahn, was treated here in America, as if he were guilty as charged, and made to do a “perp walk”. There was an interesting article in the CA Lawyer magazine this month on the issue…