VANGUARD COURT WATCH: Not Guilty Verdict in Davis Vandalism Case

By Catherine Woodward

Zechariah Simpson’s jury trial began on Wednesday, April 17, Mr. Simpson, represented by Deputy Public Defender Emily Fisher, is charged with a misdemeanor for allegedly vandalizing the men’s restroom of G Street WunderBar on March 18, 2012. The damages totaled less than $400. Mr. Simpson had been visiting Davis for the first time on St. Patrick’s Day to watch his brother’s band play at the G Street WunderBar.

In his opening argument, Deputy District Attorney Kyle Hasapes emphasized that, since the incident, Mr. Simpson has refused to take responsibility for his actions and must be held accountable. Ms. Fisher argued that her client is innocent and has been wrongly accused of vandalism.

The People’s first witness, bartender Benjamin Sattler, was in the men’s restroom around 12:30am on March 18 last year, when he heard yelling and banging from inside the stall, and saw the defendant’s feet shuffling around. Mr. Sattler saw a foot leave the ground, and heard a loud thud, and then saw drywall debris fall to the floor. Mr. Sattler pushed the stall door open, pinning the defendant between the door and the wall. His foot was stuck in a hole behind the stall door, which was 4-5 feet tall and about a foot wide. He helped Mr. Simpson remove his foot from the wall before performing a citizen’s arrest and alerting his manager.

Mr. Hasapes’ second witness, Davis Police Officer Dan Beckwith, responded to the scene. He obtained statements from Mr. Sattler and Mr. Simpson, as well as from the manager and bouncers. Mr. Sattler showed the hole to Officer Beckwith. However, Mr. Sattler never mentioned that he had pinned Mr. Simpson between the door and the wall, or that the defendant’s foot had been stuck in the hole. Officer Beckwith was unable to remember if the hole behind the stall door coincided with the door’s metal frame. He did not see any drywall debris on Mr. Simpson’s shoes. The defendant’s statement was simply that he had not vandalized the wall.

Throughout the investigation, Mr. Simpson remained calm and did not need to be handcuffed. Officer Beckwith considered this incident to be somewhat trivial and did not want to make an arrest, hoping that the two parties would be able to resolve it civilly. However, Mr. Sattler was adamant about making a citizen’s arrest, while Mr. Simpson insisted that he hadn’t done anything. As a result, Officer Beckwith was forced to cite Mr. Simpson and release him with a notice to appear in court.

Ms. Fisher emphasized the difference between Mr. Sattler’s testimony that he was already inside the restroom itself when he heard the pounding and subsequently entered the stall to investigate, in contrast to his statement to Officer Beckwith that he entered the restroom only after hearing pounding.

Day Two of Trial

By Charmayne Schmitz

The misdemeanor trial of Zechariah Simpson concluded on Thursday with an acquittal. Mr. Simpson was accused of damaging the wall of the men’s room at the G Street WunderBar in Davis during the 2012 St. Patrick’s Day celebrations.

In the morning, evidence was presented for the defense by Deputy Public Defender Emily Fisher. The defendant’s brother, John Simpson, was the first witness. John invited Zech to the WunderBar to watch his band perform. When the band took a break around 10 pm, John got in a long line of men waiting to enter the restroom. An Asian male further back in line became impatient. He went around the line and kicked the stall door several times. The door flew open, exposing a very surprised occupant. John observed the door hitting the wall, making a loud noise. The Asian male seemed to realize what he had done and ran out of the men’s room. A bouncer came in and confronted the occupant. The people in the bathroom told the bouncer “it wasn’t him.” The bouncer asked John to accompany him to search for the person. After looking around, they were unable to locate the Asian male. Then John returned to the stage.

Daniel Meyers, Zech’s best friend, was called to the stand. Zech had asked Daniel to drive him to Davis as an early birthday present. Zech’s birthday is March 19. Around midnight, Daniel believes he was outside smoking with another female friend who accompanied them to the bar. Daniel then entered the empty men’s room some time after midnight. He started to enter the stall. When he saw the hole in the wall, he went to the urinal instead. He was concerned about being blamed for the hole. Then Zech entered the bathroom. Daniel informed him about the hole and warned him to stay away from the stall. But, Zech went in anyway.

While his back was to the door, a security guard entered and grabbed Zech. Zech was not being aggressive or resisting.

On cross-examination by Deputy District Attorney Kyle Hasapes, Daniel told how he followed the security guard as he took Zech out. Daniel tried to tell the other security persons that Zech didn’t cause the damage. When the police arrived, they told Daniel to stay back and wouldn’t let him talk.

Daniel had no explanation for why, but he had not made any attempt to call the police department after the incident. He thought Zech just received a ticket and didn’t realize how serious it was.

On redirect by Ms. Fisher, Daniel revealed that he has 4 daughters and a wife and was too busy to think of calling the police. Zech had not been arrested and he rode home with Daniel that night. Daniel didn’t understand the “ramifications of the ticket.”

The defendant was then called to the stand. His decision to testify was made after hearing Mr. Sattler’s testimony. When asked how he could remember all the details, he responded that he has a photographic memory.

When he opened the stall, he opened it “hard,” causing more debris to fall to the floor, but the hole was not enlarged by this action. Zech did not yell, shuffle his feet or kick the wall, as claimed by Mr. Sattler.

The security guard came into to the bathroom and grabbed Zech as he exited the stall. He was aggressively detained in such a manner that his hat flew off. But, Zech didn’t respond aggressively. He was cooperative because he didn’t make the hole. He was never pinned to the wall and never kicked the wall.

Mr. Hasapes asked about the amount of alcohol Zech had consumed. The witness said he only had 2 beers, but he was intoxicated. He then drew a very detailed layout of the bar, stage and where they were seated in the bar.

At this point, Hasapes asked if he had been handcuffed. The answer was no. Then he was asked if he could bend over and touch his toes. The defendant answered “I don’t know what you’re trying to get at,” so the prosecutor dropped this line of questioning. Hasapes then asked why he didn’t tell the police or security to ask Meyers about the incident. Zech said he didn’t think about it.

In closing arguments, Hasapes summed up the People’s case as one of accountability, taking responsibility for what happened. Even if a small piece of debris fell off the wall, that’s damage. Sattler says he saw the defendant kick the wall and, even though there are discrepancies between Officer Beckwith’s testimony and Sattler’s testimony, it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t make them liars. It’s ok that Sattler doesn’t remember all the details because it’s been a year and it’s not his job to take a statement. Police officers don’t write down verbatim everything the witnesses or suspects say. They write a summary of the core of the statements. The officer is not going to remember everything, either. Despite these discrepancies, there is “only one verdict you can reach, guilty.”

Ms. Fisher began her closing by saying there is only one vandal, the person who kicked the door. All the others who opened the door, that’s not vandalism. Mr. Simpson did not cause intentional damage.

There are contradictions in the testimony of two of the People’s witnesses. The prosecutor impeached his own witness with the testimony of the officer. The officer didn’t want to make an arrest. Mr. Sattler insisted on the arrest.

“No evidence has been presented that the witnesses for the defense side are wrong. This is a perfect example of why juries are important. Sometimes people are accused of things they didn’t do. Please save Mr. Simpson from this nightmare. Find him not guilty.”

The jury deliberated for about an hour. It’s been said that if a jury is able to look at the defendant as they enter the courtroom the verdict is not guilty. This was certainly true on Thursday.

Judge Leaps to Conclusions

By Catherine Jung

This hearing included an unfortunate situation where a United States citizen was assumed to have been a foreigner.  On Wednesday April 17, 2013, defendant Jose Hernandez and his defense lawyer, Rod Beede, stood in front of the judge, the Honorable Paul K. Richardson, in Department 1 for a hearing about the charges placed on Hernandez.

Jose Hernandez is accused of stealing a motorized mannequin worth about $3,000 from a restaurant. Additional charges were placed when officers uncovered 3 methamphetamine pipes in his possession. At the time of his arrest, 2 of these pipes were filled with 0.08 grams of methamphetamine.

Today’s hearing included the defendant agreeing to a plea agreement provided by the district attorney. This plea agreement entailed that if the defendant were to plead “no contest” to certain charges, then all his other charges would be dismissed.

When Judge Richardson asked Mr. Hernandez how he pleads to counts 1 and 2 of CRF 13637, the defendant pled “no contest.” The judge then proceeded to inquire whether the defendant was aware that a plea of “no contest” is treated equivalent to a plea of “guilty.” Mr. Hernandez replied that he was aware of that fact.

Judge Richardson then proceeded to explain to Jose Hernandez that this plea might result in Hernandez’s deportation. In addition, this “no contest” plea could also mean the United States will not accept Mr. Hernandez as a citizen, which means he would not be able to complete naturalization.

However, while Judge Richardson continued to dictate what consequences Jose Hernandez may face, Mr. Beede interrupted the judge to mention that his client was born in California and is a United States citizen. Judge Richardson then continued the hearing and proceeded to set another court date for May 29.

Categories: