VANGUARD COURT WATCH: Sonne Rape Trial Goes to Jury

by Antoinnette Borbon

(Editor’s note: Previously the Vanguard covered this trial on January 18 and January 21).

The trial of the People vs. Sonne wrapped up today, sending the jurors into deliberation by 2:45 pm. As the case continued this week, we heard from several witnesses, most of them from the Davis Police Department. Officer Ralph Piro, Officer Janell Bestpitch and Detective Ariel Pineda’s reports were in accord, almost in exact words, as Deputy Public Defender Dan Hutchinson pointed out.

But to our knowledge, the officers claim they never corroborated their stories with one another, although their reports and testimonies told a different story.

Testifying for the defense, Officer Michael Yu of the Davis Police Department stated in his report that he never heard the words, “female appeared in distress,”  from any one of three witnesses at the scene.

Davis Police Sgt. Ilya Bezuglov also testified for the defense. He stated he was summoned by other officers to go to the alleged crime scene and look for female underwear.

After a search of the scene, he found nothing. The jurors were presented with the evidence in custody, which included all of the defendant’s and alleged victim’s clothing/belongings. No female underwear was ever recovered, nor were shoes from the alleged victim.

Sgt. Bezuglov also testified that he goes over the reports written by officers and works in internal affairs as part of his duty.

Testifying for the prosecution was Sheri Rickpatrick, a nurse from the sexual assault center in Sacramento. She testified to the findings she noted in her report. She stated she found injuries conducive to a “rape.”

But she also noted she found no bruises backing up the reports taken by Officers Bestpitch and Piro, and Det. Pineda, which stated the defendant had the girl’s arms pinned down.

She explained the process of the exam, stating the patient must fill out and sign a consent before an examination. There were questions as to how she was able to obtain a signature and discuss the patient’s social/sexual history, given the patient’s level of intoxication. In one statement she told the jurors that the “alleged victim was so intoxicated she was falling asleep while I performed the physical exam, having to hold her legs up myself to finish.”

So how could she have been sober just minutes earlier to read and sign the consent form? It raises questions.

Testifying for the defense was Dr. Andrew Lin, an obstetrician out of Fairfield, California. He told jurors he reviewed all of the photos and reports/findings, written by Nurse Rickpatrick. He stated, from his years of experience as an OBGYN along with articles published by several doctors, 55 percent of women having normal consensual sex can still sustain injuries like the alleged victim.

He stated, “There is no real way to tell either way if it was consensual or non-consensual in a lot of cases.” Both Dr. Lin and Nurse Rickpatrick agreed there were injuries; there could be disagreement as to their origins.

We just have no conclusive evidence whether they had been made by the defendant, or by the alleged victim’s prior sexual contact with her former boyfriend three days before the incident. As Nurse Rickpatrick pointed out, “Bruises can still show up 5 to 7 days later.”

In other testimony was criminologist Joseph Palacek, of the Department of Justice. He administered the blood tests to the defendant, along with alleged victim.

He explained, under oath, how the level of alcohol depreciates in our system, once it is at a peak and drinking is stopped.

He did notice there was a difference in amounts reported by the Davis Police, from the breathalyzer test done in the field on the defendant. The jury never received an explanation of how this could happen.

Mr. Palacek also went over the studies he has done with tolerance of alcohol, as each person has a different tolerance. He stated he has seen people be way up in the 0.400 measures of alcohol intoxication and still be walking around, talking, etc. But he stated in some individuals, a 0.35 reading could mean a lethal dose.

After the last witness took the stand this morning, the jurors were given instructions, and closing arguments began. Deputy DA Amber Zamora started out her closing statements the same way she began her opening statements. “No means no!”

She explained to the jurors what the word “consent” meant, defining what is constituted as a rape in a court of law and how the defendant was guilty of the charge. She replayed a part of the recorded statement taken by Officer Piro shortly after the incident occurred.

In the recording the defendant himself says he heard the word “no,” but swears he did not know what she meant.

It sounded as if the defendant was confused and in shock, but stuck to his assertion of innocence. She went on to talk about the evidence in the case. She talked about the testimony of the nurse, the evidence of injury.

She talked about Officer Bestpitch’s testimony of how she found the alleged victim “sobbing, grasping to speak and  highly intoxicated.”

She also reminded the jurors of the three eye witnesses and their testimony, of the legitimacy of their statements.

She concluded to the jury that even if a woman is in the “act of” having sexual intercourse, if a woman says the word “no” or “stop,” then a man should have the reasonability to stop.

Wrapping up her closing argument, Deputy DA Zamora argued that each witness testified to the best of their ability to remember the facts in this case and the truth of those testimonies, given under oath.

She then pled with the jurors to find the defendant guilty of “rape by force,” explaining what the charge meant.

It was now up to Deputy Public Defender Dan Hutchinson to prove reasonable doubt. He began with the statement, “Is this really happening?” his voice strong, loud and confident.

His face was red with emotion. He began going over statements the police officers had made.

He talked about the inconsistencies of Officer Bestpitch and her ability to be “spot on,” as he put it, on guessing the exact footage of where she first heard voices. He brought to the jurors’ attention just how close the three officers’ reports were about the incident.

He pointed out how even the prosecutors’ witness and investigator, Tanya Souza, testified today how Officer Bestpitch changed her story about the amount of distance she walked before she heard voices.

He dug deep into each witness’ testimony, tearing apart several inconsistencies within these testimonies. He talked about how the three eye witnesses gave different accounts of the event on the stand, in contrast to the statements made on the night of the incident to Officer Yu.

He talked about how when the defendant was asked by Detective Pineda if he had anything to say to the alleged victim, the defendant stated “no,” and asserted his innocence. He explained this is a tactic police use to get suspects to admit to something.

He went into testimony given by the alleged victim herself, stating, “When she was asked if she needed an ambulance, she said no, and when asked if she was raped, she told the police, ‘No!’ ” He talked about tolerance and her level of intoxication.

He reminded the jurors that the defendant twice asked for a lawyer and they did not listen.  He also told the jurors the alleged victim texted a friend while sitting in the back of the cop car, “I am being arrested.”

He tore apart testimony after testimony and the idea of this being a “rape case,” pointing out inconsistencies with witness’ testimony. He asserted once again loudly, “is this really happening?”

He talked about what both expert witnesses testified to, in regard to non-consensual versus consensual intercourse. He went over testimony given by the defendants’ ex-girlfriend as to the character of the defendant.

Finally, in an emotional closing, Mr. Hutchinson told the jurors, “It is your duty to do the right thing and that is to set this kid free, let him go back with his family, he is innocent of the crime of rape.”

His face was flushed, but his voice was still strong, powerful yet seemingly on the verge of tears.

Jurors were then escorted to the deliberation room. At about 4:20, jurors requested the transcript to re-read testimony, but then decided to end the day shortly thereafter. Deliberation in this case continues at 8:30 am, Friday morning.

Categories: