by Ibrahim Baig
It was a short trial for Ricardo Munoz this week. The trial concluded yesterday with closing arguments.
Deputy District Attorney Diane Ortiz reiterated to the jury that this case is a simple case. Ortiz walked the jurors through each charge and explained how the People have met the criterion for a guilty verdict.
Count 1 is second-degree burglary with intent to commit forgery by passing a forged document. Ortiz stated the defendant admitted he entered the Check Max Plus building, and personnel there reported the defendant filled out documents in order to cash a check – a check that would later be discovered to be fraudulent.
The People commented on how sophisticated Munoz was in carrying out an attempt to use a forged document, which is count 2.
The address on Munoz’s driver’s license and the address on his probation contract are the same. However, Ortiz commented that Munoz made sure to write the true address, of the true owner of the check, on the check.
Further adding to Munoz’s sophistication was the fact he changed the money amount on the check from nine dollars to $2755.00. Ortiz commented that Munoz did not change the amount to an even number, but to an odd one; therefore an individual may not question the amount taken out.
Also Special Agent Ryan Igig, who investigates white-collar crimes, determined the check was fraudulent by running the serial number through a database. Igig found the true payee of the check is not Munoz and the check indeed was altered.
Ortiz stated Munoz was forthright with officers about possessing forged documents (count 3). According to the defendant, he knew the check was fraudulent but claimed he received the check from someone else.
However, Ortiz argued that Munoz still showed intent to fraud. He wrote the address of the true owner on the check, placed his thumbprint on the check per request from Check Max Plus personnel, and filled out a client card, all in order to cash in the check.
When it came to count 4, possession of methamphetamine, Ortiz did not spend too much time here discussing with the jury whether the defendant was guilty. She did state that when the defendant was searched, methamphetamine was found on him. Munoz knew he was carrying methamphetamine and knew what it was used for.
Finally, Ortiz explained count 5, failure to appear in court, to the jury.
The jurors heard from Deputy Probation Officer Sam Perri. Munoz was released on supervised own recognizance (OR). He signed a contract with Perri and Perri explained the terms and conditions of this contract.
While Munoz is on supervised OR, he is to maintain contact with the probation office and attend all court hearings on his own recognizance.
The People asked the jurors to review the minute orders, to determine whether the defendant arrived on his assigned court date. She informed the jury that when they review the minute orders they will find that the defendant did not appear in court on his assigned date in April. Instead, the defendant returned to court eight months later, in December, while in custody.
While Deputy Probation Officer Perri was on the stand, he did agree on cross that it was fair to say certain individuals on supervised OR may still have difficulty getting to court, due to various reasons.
Perri also stated that when individuals are released on supervised OR, it means the individual does not pose a public safety risk, although Perri added that no report or analysis was done on Munoz from the probation office. The court ruled to release Munoz on supervised OR.
Ortiz concluded this case is about personal responsibility. Perri is part of the pretrial services unit. This unit can provide transportation to clients who have difficulty getting to court. Perri even testified his unit can provide this service – although it may not always happen. In any case, Ortiz argued that it falls on Munoz to reschedule with the court if he has difficulty coming to court.
Which led Ortiz to conclude that if the defendant were to fail to come to court in April, but then returns in December in custody, common sense conveys the defendant did not want to come to court.
When Joseph Gocke was given the opportunity to provide closing arguments for the defense, he provided a brief argument in favor of a not guilty verdict.
Mr. Gocke opened his closing with a quote about juries from Thomas Jefferson. He reminded the jurors that if they believe the defendant committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt then they should vote guilty. However, if the jurors are in doubt with regard to the defendant’s intent behind the crime, then they should vote not guilty.
Lastly, Mr. Gocke thanked the jurors for their time, and stated Mr. Munoz is also grateful. He did not attempt to cast doubt on any of the charges against Munoz.
The jury would very quickly return with a guilty verdict on all counts.
This seems to be a clear cut case based on what was erported above, even considering the pro-defendant reporting of the Vanguard. I have to wonder – was the defendant offered a plea bargain? Why on earth would he want to take this to trial unless the DA offerred nothing more than to “plead to the sheet.” This one truly seems like a waste of taxpayer money, despite the fact that any defendant in a criminal case has the right to a jury trial.
I’m not sure how this article is read as pro-defendant. The sense we got is that the defendant wanted to take it trial and that was his right to do so.
David – When I mentioned the “pro-defendant reporting of the Vanguard,” I was talking about the overall tenor of the reporting, not necessarily this article. Which is a shame, too, because I think you do a great service to this community by placing a spotlight on the unethical and arguably illegal practices of the local DA’s office. By being so overtly and over-archingly pro-defendant, you give fodder to Herr Reisig and his cronies to support efforts to marginalize you and your blog.
That being said, the above article was well done, and the tenor of the article demostrated a neutrality in reporting that is refreshing.
It certainly was his right to demand a jury tral (just like it would be my right to stand on the steps of the Yolo County Courthouse and yell at the top of my lungs about my obtuse religious beliefs). The question is why would someone want to excercise that right under certain circumstances? Like if you are guilty as all get-out? What if there really is no triable disputes over the facts? In the absence of prosecutorial overreaching (such as a “plead to the sheet/no promises offer), methinks possibly that Mr. Munoz knew exactly what he did but would not accept responsibility for his actions.
I’m actually in agreement with you which is why we have been working on shifting the reporting to a more neutral tenor, still highlighting problematic cases and practices and separating out editorial work from the reporting. I think we’ve made progress.
In terms of this case, we have the exact same questions as you, the answer appears to be as you suggest.
Well done, David!
Do you know if there was ever a reasonable pre-trial offer made to the defendant in this case.