by Antoinnette Borbon
The small courtroom of Department 9, Yolo Superior Court Commissioner Janene Beronio presiding, was packed full of Yolo County residents Wednesday. Some were friends and family of the victim, with a few family members of the defendant. All of them were anxiously awaiting the arraignment of the young man accused of beating a Davis resident.
Clayton Garzon, accused of beating a 32-year-old Davis resident and allegedly using the f-word in referring to the victim’s sexual orientation during the attack, is now facing felony charges along with three enhancements for a hate crime to each felony charge.
In what is usually a pretty routine arraignment and often short and to the point, Wednesday’s arraignment went into great detail and length on both sides. Deputy District Attorney Steve Mount went into the details of the defendant’s actions on a night back into September of 2012, stating Mr. Garzon had been drinking at a party and was involved in an altercation where he is now charged with felony assault with a deadly weapon in Solano County.
Mr. Mount argued that Clayton Garzon had been heavily intoxicated and from witnesses’ statements, “Garzon is a good kid until he is drinking,” but that once he is intoxicated he turns violent.
Deputy DA Mount described the incident with the Davis victim and how Mr. Garzon was once again under the influence of alcohol. He explained to Commissioner Beronio that this kid is a danger to the public and went on to explain the breakdown of the new bail he was asking the court to set in this case.
He asked the court to put bail at $500,000 and requested that Mr. Garzon wear a tracking device if he posts bail. He also made sure there is a no contact order, and requested the defendant to be supervised at all times.
Once the DA rested, Attorney Linda Parisi for the defense argued against the bail, stating that “each time the defendant has had a court appearance he has been there and is not a flight risk.” Ms. Parisi told a different account of the altercation and the charges against her client.
She told the court that in September the defendant was approached by at least 9 to 12 other people coming at him, and it was over four months before Solano County even filed charges for the alleged assaults. As she talked about the Davis attack, she stated it was not a hate crime.
She disagreed with the bail amount, stating Mr. Garzon has a loving and supportive family and they will watch over him if he is able to stay at home. She also stated to the court that Mr. Garzon is already in treatment for his alcohol abuse.
Commissioner Beronio did not believe the defendant would be watched over by his family if left out of custody. “That is a hollow promise,” she stated to Ms. Parisi.
Commissioner Beronio then asked about the injuries sustained. Mr. Mount asked the victim’s mother to talk about the injuries. The victim’s mother also read a letter begging the court to make sure the legal system gives her son justice.
The victim sustained head injuries, with fractured facial and orbit bones along with several bruises. She stated to the court that her son is paranoid now and suffers from post-traumatic stress syndrome from the attack.
As both defense and prosecution were finished with statements, Commissioner Beronio began with her decision.
Commissioner Beronio told the court she did feel the defendant was a public safety risk and agreed with the district attorney’s office in setting the bail at $500,000 – but actually set it to $520,000.
She stated calmly, “This case concerns me,” and paused. The court sat quietly waiting for her to elaborate. As she looked at the defendant with seriousness, he finally began to lower his head a bit. She told the defendant he would have to wear a tracking device, abstain from alcohol, stay away from the victim and his family, and be supervised if he is out on bail.
As the bailiff put the cuffs on the defendant, sitting over to my right was a young man who looked to be the defendant’s younger brother, and he was rubbing tears from his eyes. The defendant’s father attempted to console him.
The next court appearance will be on April 12 in Department 4, Judge David Rosenberg’s court. Linda Parisi estimated a four-week trial.
I do believe that this young man is dangerous and needs to be controlled. I also believe that he will not receive adequate treatment in Yolo County Jail. While I deeply care for protecting the victim, I don’t believe that Garzon will attack him again. I do believe that alcohol and drugs played a major part in Garzon’s behavior, but I also believe that Garzon is responsible for consuming it and must be responsible for the consequences. I believe that Garzon is the community’s responsibility, just as much as his family’s and we need to find a solution that isn’t just throwing Garzon away. If there was ever an opportunity for restorative justice, this is it, folks. Let’s walk the talk.
Very powerful Ryan…thanks for the post.
Antoinnette Borbon wrote:
[quote]Commissioner Beronio told the court she did feel the defendant was a public safety risk and agreed with the district attorney’s office in setting the bail at $500,000 – but actually set it to $525,000.[/quote]
If I may, in the legal world, the “Court” is the jurist. It sounds as if you meant the Court told the attendees, audience or? (perhaps?)…
@ Ryan Kelly…
Predicting criminality? Unprecedented to say theleast…
@AdRemmer- How about this: If the boy is found guilty, then this is a good chance to advocate for restorative justice.
To everybody else- how does one advocate for restorative justice without coming across as sympathetic to a hate crime? I totally agree we should argue for restorative justice, but I’m worried of how that advocacy would appear in this case.
Local young adult male commits two back to back very violent crimes and this makes him a poster child for restorative justice? If he were anybody else but son of a local wealthy physician who does a lot of charity work everyone would be clamoring to lock him up and throw away the key.
I guess wealth does have it’s privileges……
Calling for restorative justice does not, in my view, minimize the seriousness of the crime and the role of hate towards a particular group in its commission. Rather, RJ calls for an acknowledgement of the harms done and the search for “making the harms right” as far as possible. The key here is acknowledgement that one has caused harm. In the current system of justice the “defendant” is positioned to deny responsibility and even after conviction is never called upon to acknowledge responsibility.
As I suggested in a column here several weeks ago, an RJ process in cases like this one are very difficult because the victim is severely traumatized and cannot and should not be coerced in any way into “facing” his offender to name the harms and suggest ways they could be made right. However, what Ryan Kelly’s post suggests (importantly I believe) is that harm is done to the entire community in cases like this one. It is not clear to me how to deal with such harms (community level) without dealing also with the personal and familial harms done to the direct victim.
If the Partida family requested some form of victim/offender conferencing I believe (contrary to what I suggested in the article I wrote) that it could happen if the offender were willing. It would have to involve substantial “pre-caucus” meetings to prepare both sides for a face-to-face meeting but we have the resources in the Davis community to make that happen (and the recent Florida case shows that it can happen in serious crimes–murder in that case). However, and I repeat, the timing may not be right for Mr Partida to do this and the accused offender’s lawyer may counsel against it.
Increasingly, RJ is being done post-conviction with some success. One might ask what incentive there is for a convicted offender to meet with his/her victim. For those who think it is because s/he might get a reduced sentence that is not usually in the cards in the cases in which RJ is used. It appears that some offenders begin to wake up to their need to make things right and become willing participants. There are several models that have been tried, one of which has offenders meeting with “surrogate” victims. This could lead to meetings with the actual victim and that happens in some cases (without first meeting with surrogates).
I appreciate the interest in RJ expressed in this case and want to remind people that a small group of Davisites is working on two separate approaches to using RJ for less serious crimes. One of these concerns juveniles and one adults. We are in the early stages but learning how to apply RJ for non-serious crimes will provide us with a model for how we might apply it in more serious ones.
I am no expert on RJ but I have tried to pay attention to the very educational Vanguard coverage of the concept and its application. What I understand is first and foremost the victim has to be willing and then the offender has to have something to offer. To apply it as the community being the victim is an interesting proposal, not sure how it would work. I guess the community would have to have representatives to participate in the interactions and the process.
David — Who was the judge that set the initial $75k bail?
diemongello – Including members of the community in an RJ process is possible. This could happen in conjunction with (or after) a meeting between the victim and offender. Such a process, called a “circle process”, would not be unique but is not common in the US. It could be done. A small group of us called for such a process after the pepper spraying incident but it never came to pass (for reasons I could describe but will not here). Circle processes, like victim/offender conferencing, require careful preparation but I have participated in them and they can be quite powerful.
I would say that all the offender needs to “give” initially is a willingness to participate. This is a huge step pre-conviction and is rare in serious crimes (but, again, not unheard of). In the pre-caucusing (before any face to face or circle) the offender is prepared as well with the help of a trained mediator. The actual agreement about how the harms will be made right is part of the conference/circle and is not predetermined nor imposed.
In the high profile Florida case the conference also had the AG office as a stakeholder whose input was necessary because of the seriousness of the crime. In that case the offender had admitted guilt and the conference enabled the family of the young woman who had been murdered to name the harm, ask questions of the offender, and then participate in naming what it would take to make things right. The AG’s office required prison time and the young man will spend time in prison, after which he will be required to engage in forms of service that the family requested (If I am not mistaken, the young woman loved animals and worked at a shelter–he will be required to serve in her stead when he is released in 15 years). The person who mediated that complex and unprecedented (in some ways) case was Sujatha Baliga from Oakland who spoke at the Martin Luther King day celebration in Davis this year.
Its Jekyll and Hyde, right down to the drinking the elixer. Sad for everyone, the victim, the perp, the families. Restorative justice or not, alcoholism like this is an illness, and, society must be protected from the risk of future injuries. Who will this guy hurt next is the question that concerns me the most? Next would be restitution to the victim for damages and medical costs. Then treatment and punishment. How the courts accomplish these objectives will be interesting to watch.
Just for the record on 3-22 -13 Mr.Toad wrote: “Maybe, but perhaps there will be additional restrictions on his freedom imposed giving the rest of us better security in our community.”
David then responded “I don’t believe that to be the case.”
It seems that is exactly what the judge did by adding conditions to his bail.
Robb, I certainly did not think for a minute RJ would occur pretrial.
Mr. Toad, yes I too have thought a bit about the responsibility of the perp for Mikey’s bills which so far many of us have donated to help cover. Even when you have insurance there are plenty of uncovered costs, not to mention what has happened to the victim and what he is going through to try and recover physically and psychologically.
diemongello – There are precedents. Rare. But it is possible. In the FLA case there was no trial as a result of the conference as far as I know.
If RJ is going to be considered, it needs to be used with the poor and gang members too-not just the wealthy.
PROB IS: [i]”David — Who was the judge that set the initial $75k bail?
“[/i]
I believe it was the same court officer who increased it, Commissioner Janene Beronio.
[img]http://www.yolobar.com/exparty12/images/BeronioJ.jpg[/img]
Themis – No argument from here. In the juvenile program in Fresno (a “diversion” program for ow level crimes) one of the things that has happened is that victim/offender conferencing is the default–all cases of a certain type are automatically referred to an RJ process. This takes the decision about which cases “are best suited” for RJ out of the hands of people who might exclude certain groups from the RJ process. According to Ron Claaseen, founder of the Fresno VORP–the group that provides the v/o conferencing–this is a critical piece of the program. In a recent meeting here in Yolo County in relation to a possible RJ program for low level offenses (again, it is a good thing to start RJ processes with such crimes) I made this point and asked for a process whereby people would not be excluded based on personal characteristics.
…low level…
Ryan wrote:
> If there was ever an opportunity for restorative
> justice, this is it, folks. Let’s walk the talk.
It looks like this kid has the potential to turn things around if he can try and understand where he is headed with the help of RJ and his parents. I would like the court to try and make a deal with the parents to get them to promise to be more involved in their son’s life (so the kid is not smoking pot on his Mom’s roof when she is not home and beating up more neighbors of his Dad if he leaves town to help people in Africa)…
I don’t know this family and I doubt anyone else here saying stuff does. He is 20 years old and responsible for his actions, parents job’s are largely done at this point, they do not have a lot of influence opportunity left. He is clearly very angry, at what would probably be useful to know. But his attitude, both current and possibly transformed by some kind of help, is everything. Some of the attitudes of young men I have encountered at this age, both of privilege and of none, well let’s just say you can “cut it with a knife”.
Re: initial bail amount. It is tied to charges/certain enhancements, outlined in bail schedule. Upon a showing or petition to court parties ask for reduction/increase – then present their case, jurist decides, based on new/additional info.
@ civil discourse, in re: RJ says who?
Make your case!
Go!
Restorative Justice is a process we definitely need to encourage and embrace. I think the only way for the victim to truly recover and find peace is through the great work of the restorative justice process. The lock them up and throw away the key process does not teach the person who committed the crime how to be a better person, nor do they truly have to face the hurt/harm they did.
@adrmer….I usually say court to mean the judge and any other person in the courtroom. But I do realize it may be politically/legally incorrect. Thanks for the correction.
In regards to this case, we do not know all the facts yet so it is a bit presumptuous to jump to conclusions but with what we know to be true so far is quite disturbing and I do agree with most on a better plan of restoring such a one so he does not continue to destroy his life or the family that he has hurt and lives him. Often times when we do bad things, we never think about all those we hurt..no sin ever effects just the person doing it. Too, the. Bible tells us even though we may be sorry for our actions, we must still be punished. I know some may think it is money keeping this young man with the ability to get away with these things but just take a step back and realize if we don’t try to create a better system with helping our youth or any human from repeating patterns, that money will not stop him or any other man from perishing one day…and this is Christs objective…that no one perish. I keep all those in legal power close in my prayers each day I am in that courtroom.. For it is He who governs all laws first.
“Garzon is the community’s responsibility,”
Really, is “the community” responsible for his entitled attitude and execrable actions ? When his family’s money and influence in”the community” allow him to walk free, it seems a biological certainty that he will abuse others . Stop giving this nonredeemable creep a pass .
I think what he did was horrific, but he’s 20 years old, I’m not willing to say he’s unredeemable.
” I’m not willing to say he’s unredeemable. “
He knows and exploits that impediment of judgement found in most decent people. He will play upon such instincts in the jury and judge, should he come to trial . The photo in The Bee of him, clean shaven and in a nice suit at the bail hearing, could not disguise the smirk on his face.
I don’t disagree with what you say only your concluding from that info, limited as it is, that he’s unredeemable.
[i]”I think what he did was horrific …”[/i]
I think what he [b]is alleged to have done[/b] was horrific …
What makes this particular case so disturbing is the combination of its brutality (based on the injuries to Mr. Partida) and that Mr. Garzón allegedly was involved in a violent attack earlier, in fact, a very short time earlier.
If it were just a fight with very small injuries to the victim, even one where Garzón had started it and used anti-gay slurs, it would not be all that troublesome. There are a lot of 20-year-old males who are very immature and who act like jerks when they are drunk. These guys often “look for trouble.” But in short order they grow up, calm down and drink responsibly.
In Garzón’s case, if both criminal allegations are true, he has a much more serious problem. First, his level of violence seems to be much more dangerous. The injuries to Partida were very serious; and the person who inflicted them seems to have meant to do terrible damage. That kind of an attack could result in permanent brain damage. It was not “child’s play.” Second, again under the assumption that both cases are proven, a second offense of the same nature (i.e., another violent attack) suggests Garzón is presently very dangerous.
I am not certain what the best type of punishment/correction will be meted in this type of case if there is a conviction. I suspect professional psychological counseling is in order. I would not be surprised if drug/alcohol counseling is in order, too. I believe some time in prison (18-24 months?) is called for. However, I think the ultimate solution for a troubled young man of this sort, after appropriate counseling and recognition on his part, is time: He will likely mature in the next few years and with that he will become much less of a threat to society.
“: He will likely mature in the next few years and with that he will become much less of a threat to society. “
Or he will be released and become another Manson or Bundy .