by Vanguard Court Watch Interns
Glynn Trial 1st Day Testimony
The trial of Michael Glynn began on Thursday, March 14. He was arrested on December 9, 2012 for stealing an $83 bottle of whiskey from a Davis grocery store. He was seen on two dates in November on the store’s surveillance video, taking the same whiskey with no evidence of purchase.
Deputy District Attorney Sulaiman Tokhi opened the People’s case, stressing that Glynn has three prior prison terms. Deputy Public Defender Richard Van Zandt reminded the jury that prior convictions cannot be used to find guilt in this case.
Mr. Tokhi called Kris Brockmayer as the People’s first witness. Mr. Brockmayer is responsible for Loss Prevention at the smaller Nugget Store in Davis. He testified about the video evidence and how Glynn was apprehended. Mr. Glynn resisted and tried to escape. It took the assistance of 3 other employees before Glynn was subdued and handcuffed. During the struggle, one of the employees was slightly injured.
In cross-examination, Van Zandt tried to show that the witness was afraid of being held personally responsible for the disappearance of 3 bottles of whiskey. Brockmayer held his ground, responding that the company views the prevention of theft as a joint effort between Loss Prevention and Department Managers.
Another store employee was called to testify about his part in stopping the escape of Mr. Glynn. This employee, a UCD student, used his wrestling skills to pin the defendant. While holding the suspect down, he felt the bottle of liquor and saw it sticking out of the defendant’s shorts.
Van Zandt again pursued a line of questioning trying to prove that Mr. Brockmayer would be held responsible for the theft. The witness gave answers to that line of questioning that were consistent with Mr. Brockmayer’s prior responses.
Officer Enfante of the Davis Police Department also testified on Thursday. He was dispatched to the store around 3:50 pm to investigate the theft. He then arrested Mr. Glynn. Photos were taken of the bottle of whiskey and then he told Mr. Brockmayer the bottle could be returned to the shelf.
The trial was then continued to Friday, March 15.
Enhancements Were Found True
Michael Glynn was convicted of second-degree burglary. On March 18, 2013 in Department 1, the jury had to decide if his three prior convictions’ enhancements were true.
On July 7, 2003 Glynn was sentenced to five years in prison for forgery with multiple counts in Pima, Arizona. Arizona law treats forgery the same as a conviction for a felony. He had not remained out of prison custody for five years before his second conviction.
On August 6, 2006 Glynn was charged with unauthorized use of a vehicle in Yolo County. Then only three years later, on November 24, 2009 he went to prison for being in possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in Sacramento.
During the trial, Deputy District Attorney Tokhi showed the jury certified documents of Glynn’s three previous convictions, which were like certified minute orders (the legal documents that record the “minutes” of a court’s decision, not in formal court order or legal pleading format). The jury was reminded that Glynn needed to complete separate prison terms.
In Public Defender Richard Van Zandt’s closing statement, he said that what he had said 45 minutes ago still stands, that he wouldn’t repeat himself; but to reiterate, he told the jury to look at the details of the documents carefully and separately, and they would come to the right conclusion.
The jury, which was made up of 10 males, two females, and one male alternate, deliberated for about 30 minutes before they came to a verdict. Judge Richardson reminded the jury not to use the fact that he has already been arrested as a reason for assuming he is guilty because he has the right of innocence until he is proven guilty in court.
They unanimously decided that Glynn was previously convicted and the 2009/2006/2003 enhancements were all true. This four-day trial has ended. Sentencing is on Tuesday, April 16 at 10am.
In re: the enhancements, Why does the writer refer to the 8/6/06 prior as ‘charged?’
The VG has a history of blogging about cases they disagree with. What’s the issue with this case?
Mr. Obvious: We have been shifting our coverage since the beginning of the year. We are now covering trials period whether we agree or disagree with the case or the verdict. The interns have become the primary in court reporters, and I have taken on the role more of an editor, writing commentaries, analysis, systemic pieces, and a few feature articles on higher profile cases.
David wrote:
> He was arrested on December 9, 2012 for stealing an $83
> bottle of whiskey from a Davis grocery store.
I’m dying to know what “whiskey” sells for $83 a bottle, next time mention the brand (it also bothers me when reporters write “the $100K high powered sports car hit a wall” I’m always wondering what kind of car was it?)
> This employee, a UCD student, used his wrestling
> skills to pin the defendant.
This reminded me of my high school job where we would catch (mostly other high school kids) stealing beer from the grocery store. One time we brought a kid we caught in to a meat locker where the (born in Italy) store owners (who were also butchers) gave him a talking to. The poor kid was so scared (maybe he just saw a movie with Italian guys that had blood all over them in a meat locker) that he wet his pants…
“David wrote:”
I am not the author
Don’t get the point of this….stole a bottle of whiskey..worth $80 (which qualifies as burglary, not simple petty theft), found guilty plus has priors…uhhh…???? Do the crime(s) do the times. BUT since this is Davis we should probably pay for sending his ass to rehab instead…;-)
Oyster
“Do the crime, do the tome’
There are two ways of looking at this philosophy.
The first is what I believe you are alluding to…… That “we”shouldn’t have to pay for rehab.
The second is that we pay much, much more to keep a man in prison where under the current system, he has virtually no chance to develope a skills set which will allow him to succeed in independent living once he is released. I personally would pay for rehab than for revolving door incarceration which is what we have now.
[quote]The second is that we pay much, much more to keep a man in prison where under the current system, he has virtually no chance to develope a skills set which will allow him to succeed in independent living once he is released[/quote]
Not necessarily true. Once an inmate arrives in prison he is evaluated and put into some sort of program. A few examples of these programs include school so they can earn their GED, substance abuse programs, sheet metal fabrication, cabinetry, printing, furniture manufacturing, modular building fabrication, firefighting, denture fabrication, auto body repair, furniture repair and upholstery, optical, clothing and footwear manufacturing, bakery, egg production, working in the kitchen to provide the 3 meals/day for all of the inmate population, etc… It was explained to me that although making shoes for example is a skill that will never be in demand unless they move to a 3rd world country, for a large number of inmates just having to show up Mon-Fri from 8-5 is a skill that they have never had because they have never had a real job outside their criminal endeavors. That being said, it is also true that you can provide all the programs in the world, but if the person is not receptive to trying to turn their life in another direction nothing will work. [i]You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make them drink. [/i]