By: Alexandra Rose and Catherine Woodward
On the morning of Monday March 11, 2013, in Department 4 of the Yolo County Superior Court, the domestic violence casewas set to start under Judge Rosenberg.
The Defendant is accused of the following felonies: injuring his wife, resisting an officer, attempting to remove a firearm from said officer, child abuse, and damage to power/telephone lines. He is also accused of a misdemeanor for injuring a wireless connection device.
Present and out of custody, The Defendant appeared calm and collected in front of the judge, speaking only a few words to his attorney, Ms. Daly, throughout the entire morning session.
Ms. Babino, the attorney representing the defendant’s wife, began the morning by addressing the judge and motioning to exclude the defendant’s wife . The crux of Ms. Babino’s argument rested on her assertion that any of the statements the defendant’s wife may make on the stand could be self-incriminating, and could therefore be excluded under the 5th Amendment.
Judge Rosenberg was not impressed with such an argument. He remarked that, under Ms. Babino’s extremely broad interpretation, witnesses would never answer a question. He stated that the witness should assert the privilege on the stand if she wishes to do so; Judge Rosenberg ruled that the defendant’s wife would not be excused as a witness. Ms. Babino vocalized her disagreement with the court’s interpretation of the 5th Amendment and the ruling, while Judge Rosenberg finished with a simple statement: “I call them as I see them.”
He ruled that he would not exclude the defendant’s wife as a witness. He did mention that the court had a broad interpretation of the 5th Amendment, but not as broad as Ms. Babino’s interpretation.
After this lengthy debate, the People called the defendant’s wife to the stand. Unsurprisingly, the defendant’s wife pled the 5th Amendment when she was asked if she knew the defednant. After the defense and prosecution engaged in another lengthy debate over the application of the 5th Amendment, again the judge ruled that the defendant’s wife must answer.
The defendant’s wife stated that she respectfully refused to answer. Refusing to testify is punishable by law. The prosecution suggested keeping her in custody for the night so that she could rethink her decision. The court ruled that under its broad reading of Marsy’s Law, a bill of rights concerning victims of domestic violence and the issue of immunity, the defendant’s wife would not be taken into custody and would instead be ordered into domestic violence counseling.
A recess ensued, and the morning session continued when Detective Fellows was called to the stand. Earlier in the morning, his credibility had been attacked by Ms. Babino. She had motioned to exclude Detective Fellows as a witness, based on his deplorable conduct in terms of pressuring the defendant’s wife and spreading lies about her to her ex-husband, her ex-husband’s attorney, and even her family. The judge ruled that this information would not affect the right to a fair trial, and Detective Fellows would be able to testify on the witness stand.
The People’s questioning of Detective Fellows was extremely hard to follow. It did not follow the logical order of events, and instead skipped around to specific parts of the events that took place on July 9, 2012. Not only this, but Detective Fellows was also accused of speculation and multiple levels of hearsay throughout the morning session, making it difficult to get the facts.
Most importantly, Detective Fellows testified that the defendant’s wife said that her son was present during some of the events that took place on July 9, 2012 and that the defendant injured her, caused damage to a telephone line, and damaged a wireless connection device. This witness testimony supports four of the six charges against the defendant. Also, Detective Fellows identified the defendant’s wife when he was shown pictures of her bodily injuries, mostly in the form of bruises to her face and arms. At this point, the morning session ended.
Fortunately, in the afternoon of March 11, 2013, the case continued and more details came to light. Officers had arrived on the scene in West Sacramento on the night of July 9, 2012. Officer Wright approached the front door and heard a woman calling for help. The door opened, and the defendant appeared and made a move for Officer Wright’s gun. Officer Wright responded by shooting the defendant once. The defendant then stumbled back into the residence.
Interestingly enough, several of the witnesses reported not seeing the defendant struggle with Officer Wright. Even so, Judge Rosenberg found sufficient evidence for all 6 counts, and an arraignment was scheduled for March 27, 2013, at 1:30 pm.
A Vocal Defendant on Trial for a DUI
By: Alexandra Rose
On the morning of Monday March 11, 2013, in Department 6 of the Yolo County Superior Court, the DUI trial of James Long was set to start under the Honorable David W. Reed.
Mr. Long is charged with a DUI, plus 4 added enhancements for prior convictions.
The People of California, represented by Mr. Lyndon, sought to impeach the defendant as a witness because of the defendant’s ongoing criminal activity since 2001.
Ms. Savella, on behalf of Mr. Long, claimed that the court should consider several other factors and aspects of Mr. Lyndon’s argument. She pointed at her client’s age of fifty, the fact that his previous convictions were not only remote, but also unrelated to the charges filed in this case.
The judge permitted impeachment under two specific convictions in 2006 and 2008, which were both related to burglary.
The defense then motioned to exclude statements that Mr. Long made to Officer Mez, one of the reporting officers in the incident. The crux of Ms. Savella’s argument rested on the defendant’s lack of mental capacity to waive his Miranda rights because he was under the influence.
Judge Reed did not find reason to exclude the statements that Mr. Long made to Officer Mez. He mentioned that there is little specific case law, if any, concerning this topic because it has been ruled time and time again that the waiver of rights is still valid even when the subject is under the influence.
At the end of the morning, there was a recess for jury selection. Opening statements are expected tomorrow morning at 8:30 am.
How doe one “injure” a device ? ROFLMAO
Biddlin ;>)/
[quote]Interestingly enough, several of the witnesses reported not seeing Mr. Hughey struggle with Officer Wright. [/quote]
Based ont his article it doesn’t appear that Officer’s said they struggled with Mr Hughey, they shot him because he made a move fore one of their guns. If there wasn’t a struggle, at least one wan’t described here, I wouldn’t expect witnesses to saw they saw one. How many witnesses have testified so far?
If the events really happened, then I hope & pray the child is in a safe,loving foster home, away from violence.
If i am correct,this is the same person (Attorney Kevin A Hughey) that tried to extort me in a civil lawsuit.
Mr Hughey in an e mail told me if i did not meet his clients demands that his client would tell the goverment of my so called perjury and fraud,but if i was willing to meets his clients denmands and sign over my share of a co owned property,then the the BK courts would not have to get inviolved.
Mr Hughey took a civil lawsuit case,that had no merit,and any attorney that was thinking clearly would have never taken a case like that.Mr Hughey really thought he was a big shot,and could push me around and scare me,i told him and his client to,ffff off,then mr Hughey and his client filed a lawsuit on me that was filled with lies,they got nowhere with there malicious lawsuit.
So now Mr Hughey is beating woman and reaching for a cops gun,not to mention he got 2 drunk driving charges in sac county in a 20 month period.All i can say is AA all the way.