By Vanguard Court Watch Interns
The trial of People v. Jimmy Medel began on Tuesday, January 15 with opening statements by Deputy District Attorney Johnson and Public Defender Olson. Mr. Medel is charged with 3 counts of residential burglary in Davis, during the summer of 2011. One incident occurred on June 22 and the others on July 13 and 14.
A similar, dark-colored SUV and portions of the license plate number were identified by witnesses in all 3 incidents. Several of the witnesses saw a Hispanic male removing items from the homes and leaving the crime scenes.
The witnesses who testified on Tuesday could not agree that the defendant in the courtroom positively resembled the Hispanic male at the crime scenes.
On July 14, 2011, Jimmy Medel was arrested as a suspect in a burglary on J Street. Mark Bjerke, a witness to the prior day’s incident, was taken by patrol car to the arrest scene.
They drove slowly past the suspect at a distance of about 100 feet to see if Mr. Bjerke recognized Mr. Medel.
Mr. Bjerke was unable to make a positive identification. In the police report, Mr. Bjerke stated that the man he saw fleeing the scene was not as old or as short as the one being arrested.
The following day, Mr. Bjerke called the officer to say he believed he had been unable to make the identification because he had been “nervous” and was now able to confirm Mr. Medel as the perpetrator.
He “didn’t think it was reasonable for it NOT to be the person.” Instead of the lineups we see in police dramas, this practice of drive-by identification has been used in several cases covered by the Vanguard.
The witnesses are informed beforehand that the subject is not necessarily guilty of a crime and shouldn’t let it affect their judgment. But, the person under observation is usually being detained in some manner, so how can it not affect the outcome?
Another witness, Matthew Sullivan, had returned home on June 22, 2011, to find his home being burglarized. As the suspect jumped in the dark SUV and started driving away, Mr. Sullivan got close enough to bang on the hood and to look directly into the face of the driver/suspect.
On the witness stand, Mr. Sullivan could not find that person in the courtroom. His description at the scene was of someone younger than the defendant.
It was suggested by Public Defender Olson in her opening statement that several people in the Medel household had access to the dark colored SUV, including Mr. Medel’s son. That would give credence to witness testimony of a younger suspect.
There are several more days of testimony to come. Maybe we’ll learn why the son isn’t sitting at the defendant’s table.
Defense Claims Defendant Did Not Intend to Steal Scrap Metal
Defense Claims Defendant Did Not Intend to Steal Scrap Metal
By Vanguard Court Watch Interns
Donald Bebman reported missing property to the sheriff last September. His trailer was gone, oil pipes, and other agricultural tools. Mr. Bebman ruled out the possibility another worker took the items when he spoke with his foremen. No one had touched the missing property.
Detective Glaser, from the Yolo County Sheriff’s Department, immediately had a suspect in mind upon hearing Mr. Bebman’s story. The detective noticed tire tracks at the scene. The tire tracks matched the tire marks from Kevin Hubert’s vehicle. Another law enforcement official had informed Detective Glaser that Kevin Hubert collects scrap metal for a living. In addition, Hubert was seen driving, pulling a trailer.
This may all seem coincidence if it were not for the fact Kevin Hubert showed the detective where he obtained the scrap metal and trailer. Mr. Hubert did this because the detective asked him where he obtained such items. According to the detective, Hubert showed him the items under his own volition.
Hubert took the detective to Mr. Bebman’s land. The location where Hubert found the pipes and the trailer matched the same location Mr. Bebman noted to the detective. Furthermore, Hubert informed the detective of the recycling center, called Green Zone, that he visited to turn in the scrap metal and trailer.
Later the detective brought Bebman to Green Zone. Mr. Bebman identified what was left of his trailer as his. The detective was also able to recover some of Mr. Bebman’s property, which was originally located in the trailer.
The defense argues Mr. Hubert did not have any intention to steal the property. Instead, Mr. Hubert was collecting these items because he believed them to be in bad condition. Furthermore, Mr. Hubert cooperated with the detective by showing the detective the locations of where he obtained the trailer and pipes.
Despite the Mr. Hubert’s cooperation, it does not seem reasonable to take a trailer and call it scrap metal. The oil pipes may seem understandable – however, Mr. Bebman described that the pipes had to be pulled apart for anyone to take the pipes out of the ground.
Perhaps Mr. Hubert may get his charges reduced to a misdemeanor, as the defense requested. Yet again, it is difficult for anyone to accept that the collection of a trailer was for scrap metal.
Missing License Plate Leads to Questionable Weapons Charge
Missing License Plate Leads to Questionable Weapons Charge by Bessie M. Samson
On Monday, January 14, 2013, Marcos Marquez was sentenced to nine months in jail for an incident that occurred on December 12, 2012. Marquez was stopped by Officer Torres, while driving a pick-up truck that had no front license plate.
After Officer Torres discovered that Mr. Marquez was driving with a suspended/revoked license, he then searched Mr. Marquez and the vehicle, finding a small bat-like wooden object. After coming across the object, Officer Torres questioned Mr. Marquez about it and later arrested him, with one of the charges being “possession of a nunchaku.”
During the preliminary hearing heard by Judge Fall, Deputy Public Defender John Sage, representing Mr. Marquez, asked the court to reduce the initial jail time sentence for the count on the wooden object for reasons that there was allegedly no intent to commit any type of violence with the object and that the object resembled a toy more than a weapon.
Deputy DA Jennifer Davis, on the other hand, representing the People, objected to the reduction of the sentence for the reason that Mr. Marquez has a variety of several other priors dating back to the 80’s – but which had no violence-related matters, whatsoever.
Upon reviewing Mr. Marquez’s prior convictions and examining the wooden object, Judge Fall decided to reduce sentencing. Although Mr. Marquez’s priors consisted of theft, burglary, possession, and several other crimes, none of them were violent incidents.
It would be understandable to maintain the longer sentencing, had it been the case that Mr. Marquez had prior convictions of violent instances. But, it does not seem reasonable to say that a magnitude of various convictions, unrelated to a current charge, should determine the length of a sentencing.
In this case, Jennifer Davis objected to the reduction on the count of the alleged wooden weapon belonging to Mr. Marquez, despite the fact that Mr. Marquez has not been convicted of any violent acts, and despite any suggestions that he is a violent person or intends to harm anyone.
