Editor’s Note: Every week, the Vanguard Court Watch of Yolo County sends a number of interns into the Yolo County Court in Woodland. Beginning today, we will be publishing some of their accounts of what they have observed.
Many of these are collaborative efforts and will be published under the byline of Vanguard Court Watch Intern. Others will be published under the intern’s individual name. This feature will at least be published on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.
Man Charged with Felony Evasion of Police Officers – Day One
By Vanguard Court Watch Interns
Randy Gilbertson was on trial this week for evading police officers and leading the officers on a high-speed chase. The prosecution argued in their opening speech Gilbertson also broke many traffic violations to escape from officers. Trial began on Monday, January 7th 2013. The only witness that day was Charles Gilbertson, Randy’s father.
Charles Gilbertson called the cops on his son. He believed his son was using drugs and wished for his son to get help. When the police officers came, Charles Gilbertson was standing by the car and Randy was seated in the car. Afterwards, Charles saw his son drive away when the police came.
An investigator from the district attorney’s office had Charles Gilbertson draw a map of the route his son took after he drove away from the police. Apparently, Randy Gilbertson called his father after the incident. However, there are key issues with Charles Gilbertson’s testimony.
First, on cross-examination, Charles was asked if his medication affected his memory (Charles takes pain medicine for hip and back problems). Charles said his memory is not what it used to be. This was evident when the district attorney asked what the red x meant on the map. Charles could only decipher the route his son took from the map. Furthermore, on cross, given Charles Gilbertson knows the route his son takes to go back home, the defense asked if the map were based on the route Randy Gilbertson told his father, or whether it was his route back home. This time Charles answered that he was not sure.
Charles repeatedly apologized for his lack of memory and said he does not mean to “sound like an idiot.” The district attorney also asked Charles if what he previously testified to, in preliminary hearing, had been true. Charles said yes. However, the defense quickly raised the issue of Charles’s memory again. Charles admitted he did not know whether his testimony at the hearing had been true and said he would like to see a transcript from the hearing to confirm its authenticity.
Finally, during the middle of Charles’s testimony, he began choking and stated, “It’s not right using a father against his son.” At the same time, his son’s eyes also swelled with tears. When Charles left the witness stand he proclaimed, “I love you son.” In return Randy Gilbertson replied, “I love you.” No one had asked what specific medication Charles was taking or confirmed with a doctor if his medication causes lapses in memory. This may raise another issue – are Charles Gilbertson’s memory problems due to his medication or to his attempts to protect his son?
Gilbertson Trial – Day Two
By Vanguard Court Watch Interns
On Tuesday, January 8, the trial of People v. Randy Gilbertson concluded and the jury began deliberations. The charges were: Evading a Peace Officer, Reckless Driving and Driving with a Suspended License.
The father of the defendant contacted police on the afternoon of April 22, 2012, to report the location of his son, a parolee who had been out of contact with law enforcement for several weeks.
The father hoped that his son would receive help for his drug abuse if he reestablished contact.
When two officers arrived at the scene, the father was standing next to a blue vehicle. The blue vehicle drove away. The father, the only witness who could identify the driver of the car in question, was subpoenaed by Deputy District Attorney Zamora to testify against his son.
On the final day of testimony, we heard from two Woodland police officers who pursued the blue vehicle through the streets of Woodland. Another officer, whose testimony was read in court, continued the pursuit on rural Highway 113. None of the officers ever caught the vehicle. No license plate numbers were identified. The officers never left their patrol cars.
The chase was recorded on police car video, which uses a GPS to record speed. The officers testified that the top speed of approximately 68 mph, recorded by each GPS, was not accurate, due to transmission time to and from the satellite. They each claimed their speedometers are more accurate, and clocked the vehicle at more than 80 mph.
Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira asked each officer on the stand whether he would ever drive in a manner that would endanger public safety. Each responded no.
Deputy D.A. Zamora emphasized in her closing arguments that many stop signs were violated and the vehicles traveled through highly-populated urban areas – passing several vehicles, a school, a senior center and pedestrians. She said the defendant was only worried about getting caught.
Ms. Sequeira turned the argument on its head. She stressed that the only issue is “disregard of safety,” and “whether the evidence introduced in the trial is sufficient” to prove a disregard for safety.
Both officers testified that “they would never have driven in a manner unsafe and endangering” the public. Their “driving pattern emulated” the driving pattern of the vehicle they were pursuing, at the “same speed and…same route. Because they would never drive that way, the blue car didn’t either. The officers never felt anyone else was endangered enough to call off the pursuit. It allows you to conclude that the officers didn’t believe anyone was at risk.”
The jury favored her logic. Gilbertson was found Not Guilty of Evading a Peace Officer and the other two counts were reduced to misdemeanors.
This police chase ended with no injuries or property damage. But, does the possible capture of a parolee, not suspected of any crime other than lack of communication with the parole department, justify the numerous tragedies that could have resulted from the officers’ actions?
Editor’s Note: Mr. Gilbertson was acquitted on Count 1, Felony evading a peace officer. He was convicted on count 2 of Reckless driving, a misdemeanor, and count 3, Driving on a suspended license.
My dad was a cop many years ago. He also taught me how to drive in the early 70’s. He was a wonderful, safe driver. I applaud Ms. Sequeira’s defense of Mr. Gilbertson. Sounds like this time Yolo Co. D.A didn’t get their “cash for convictions” and did not succeed in their attempt to stack charges. It’s very sad that a father who clearly loves his son was put on the stand & verbally bullied. I’m glad to read there was an acquittal. I hope many UCD, Lincoln and McGeorge law students are reading this. Wouldn’t criminal defense be a noble calling for some of you?
This is the best way that people can hold DA Jeff Reisig accountable. It should be the goal of every jury member to help Mr. Reisig to win the award for most Acquittals in the State. That will stop all this crazy over and outrageous charging to keep his stats up.
Perhaps then maybe the county officials that support him and allow him to run the county like the Gestapo – maybe they will stop his reckless spending and waste of tax payer money for his own foolish agenda.
Jeff Reisig resume: Most convictions, most death penalty cases, most charges, most crime, most gang injunctions, most mistrials, most times caught hiding evidence, most cases over-turned, most gang crimes, most cases going to trial, most money spent on a case ….. [b] What it won’t say [/b]is he is a fair, honest, ethical, trustworthy effective DA.
When was the last time Mr. Reisig answered questions publicly and explained his failures? ummmmm Never!
Mr. Reisig belongs in Washington – that is not compliment.
Roger Rabbit —–WELL SAID!
Jack Easley
What a waste of time and money!
Money better spent on drug treatment and employment training.
Bravo to Ms. Sequeira!