By Catherine McKnight
The expected two-week trial of People v. Baird began on Wednesday, May 1 in Department 7 under the Honorable Judge Janet Gaard. Prosecuting the case is Deputy District Attorney Amanda Zambor, with private counsel Richard Dudek defending Ryan Baird.
Ryan Baird is being charged with 4 counts, including several enhancements, involving a tragic car accident when the defendant was allegedly driving under the influence and launched his car off of an exit ramp in Woodland, ejecting the other 3 passengers’ bodies out of the vehicle.
One of the victims was pronounced dead at the scene, about forty minutes after the accident. Baird is being charged with murder in the second degree, gross vehicular manslaughter, driving under the influence with alcohol or drugs in the system or a combination thereof, and driving with a blood alcohol level of .08 or above, causing injury to other persons. The several enhancements mainly include causing great bodily injury, including a severe brain injury.
The murder charge is being allowed, due to Mr. Baird’s two previous DUI convictions.
Before the jury trial began, Judge Gaard made a ruling on Ms. Zambor’s suggestion of excluding any speech regarding the seatbelts in the accident. Also, Ms. Zambor wanted to admit photos of the bodies, including the deceased, into evidence. Judge Gaard ruled against allowing those photos, due to their lack of relevance and their potential undue prejudice. She also ruled against the exclusion of speaking about seatbelts, due to their relevance when explaining how the bodies were ejected from the vehicle; Mr. Dudek had already made it clear he would not use talking about the seatbelts as a defense. He also made it clear that this was a tragic accident, and the last thing he would want to do is belittle the fact that people were hurt.
In opening statements, Ms. Zambor began by reading off a statement on the overhead projector that was found in the defendant’s vehicle. This statement was in a DUI manual Mr. Baird received when he was sent to probation after his first two DUI’s. She said that this note shows that the defendant knew what kind of harm drinking and driving could cause.
On January 6, 2012, he knew what could have happened if he got into that vehicle. Ms. Zambor brought up James Black, who sustained a severe head injury and is currently living full time in a rehab facility. Oscar Rodriguez and Robert Sunderland were also in the vehicle. The latter was pronounced dead on the scene.
She said it was James Black’s 21st birthday and it should have been a good night, but it turned into a tragedy. She claimed Mr. Baird made the choice not to wait at Mr. Black’s house and decided to get into the vehicle and drive. He got onto Highway I-5 and took the off ramp at County Road 102, having reached a speed of 89 mph. The advisory speed limit is about 30 mph on that particular off ramp. He swerved back and forth, skidded, and launched the car airborne off the ramp, where it proceeded to roll over a few times and land in a ditch.
Everyone arrived shortly after but Robert, better known by his friends as Bobby, already had severe injuries, which led to his death. At 9:44 p.m. he was pronounced dead. James also sustained serious injuries and Officer Lavezzoli talked to the defendant. Ms. Zambor said the jury will also hear from Officer Pascoe, the leading investigator in the case.
On April 26 of 2009 Mr. Baird received his first DUI conviction, from an accident where he rear-ended another person who did not sustain any injuries. In 2010 he received a second DUI, and was also convicted. Mr. Baird, the prosecutor said, was told that if he were charged with another DUI again and killed somebody, he could be charged with murder.
Ms. Zambor said the first count, second-degree murder, means she has to prove that he committed an act that killed another person – in this case, Bobby Sunderland. She must prove there was malice of forethought, and implied malice, as well. She said the reason this is not just vehicular manslaughter is that there is a subjective intent, not objective. Ms. Zambor asked that the jury find the defendant accountable for the choices he made, and to find him guilty on all counts.
In Mr. Dudek’s opening, he said the jurors are going to be hearing about what was a horrible accident. He said he will not, by any means, argue against that.
In order to prove this was gross vehicular manslaughter, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Baird, his client, was driving intoxicated and driving fast. Driving intoxicated, he said, is not enough to show that this was gross vehicular manslaughter. He said the only thing relevant here is what his blood alcohol level was at the time of the accident, 9 p.m.
He asked, “Was he deliberately acting with disregard for human life?” Mr. Dudek went on to say that the jury will realize that this was a horrible accident. However, they must analyze carefully that the drinking pattern and the driving problem do not rise above vehicular manslaughter. He asked that the jury find the defendant not guilty.
The prosecution’s case began with the first witness, Lauren Leubano. Lauren was coming down Road 102 northbound when she saw a car flip. She was stopped at a stoplight. Ms. Zambor asked the witness how long she had been driving and she said for over 12 years. She then asked her how fast she believes the other car to have been going. Ms. Leubano claimed that it looked like they were going faster than the suggested speed, maybe 70 mph, when taking the off ramp. Mr. Dudek did not cross-examine her, and the witness was excused.
The next witness was Ryan Minges, who works for the Woodland Fire Department. He arrived at the scene at about 9:13 pm and was there for about an hour and a half. He was the one who physically cut the driver, Mr. Baird, out of his seatbelt. He claimed he did not really talk to the defendant, because his duties were to make sure the scene remained a safe zone. Mr. Dudek did not have any questions for Mr. Minges.
Ms. Zambor then called Officer Lavezzoli to the witness stand. He has been a California Highway Patrol officer for about 16 years. He arrived at the scene around 9:21 p.m., after hearing that this was a CHP matter and not a city of Woodland matter. He determined where the driver of the vehicle was and asked if the defendant had been drinking and whether or not he felt the effects of his drinking. He claimed Mr. Baird had replied, saying, “of course.” He said Mr. Baird later tried to say that he had not been driving the vehicle, even though he was cut out of the driver’s seat.
On cross, Mr. Dudek asked, in more than one way, whether or not anybody, including Officer Lavezzoli himself, informed the defendant that he had been in a bad car accident. Mr. Lavezzoli informed him that he had not said those words to Mr. Baird, and was not sure if anybody else had either.
Ms. Zambor’s next witness was one of the victims, James Black. On direct, Ms. Zambor asked Mr. Black what he remembers from January 6, 2012. He said he does not remember anything from that day, or from any day prior to that day. The first thing he remembered was being at the hospital when he woke up. He does not remember how he met the other individuals in the car – Oscar, Ryan, or Bobby. He said he went from the hospital to his home for several weeks. Later on, he went to rehab at NCS where he still resides.
The defense counsel chose not to cross-examine Mr. Black, and he was excused.
Ms. Zambor then brought in Lisa Black, James’ mother. She recalled the day of January 6 and said it was her son’s 21st birthday. They were having a small BBQ to celebrate his birthday and she said that it was she, her husband, James, Bobby, Ryan, Oscar, and Par who were present. She remembered Par, James’ friend, calling the house around 10 p.m. asking where everybody was, because they were supposed to meet him back at his place. Mrs. Black then said that Kaiser called and said they needed to go to the hospital, because their son was there. They did not know the extent of the injuries yet.
James was at Kaiser for over a month and, as stated, is at NCS now. She is unsure of when he will be able to return home. Ms. Zambor asked her if James is the same person he was before that day. She responded, saying that he is not the same person and that his memory is very spotty; he does not remember the person he was.
She was asked whether or not she drinks whiskey, and she said no. She said that dinner was served around 5:30 or 6 pm, to the best of her recollection, and that Mr. Baird was there for about two and a half hours. She said that none of the boys seemed drunk.
The next witness to the stand was her husband, Ruben Black. James is his son, and he recollected the BBQ, as well. He admitted to buying alcohol, including beer. He did not remember seeing anybody drink anything besides beer. He also did not see anybody taking shots of hard alcohol. He said the next thing he remembered was getting the call from Kaiser. When he arrived, he said it was a horrible sight and that James was in a coma for 2-3 weeks. He has had multiple surgeries on his pelvis and legs.
He said that James is not the same person, and his development resembles someone much younger.
He was excused, and Officer Nick Pascoe was called to the stand. He has been a CHP officer for 13 years. He arrived at the scene around 9:29 pm. He contacted Officer Lavezzoli and verified who the driver was. Ms. Zambor asked when and if the off ramp had been redesigned. He said it was redesigned, and since the construction it had been open about 5-6 months. The off ramp advisory speed is 35 mph.
When Officer Pascoe spoke to the defendant, he was calm at first but then grew agitated, then belligerent. The officer noticed Baird had red eyes and an odor of alcohol on his breath. Mr. Baird told him he was a passenger, and when asked whether or not he felt the effects of his drinking he responded, “I feel pretty good.”
When Mr. Pascoe performed a PAS, or Breathalyzer, test, the results were .144 at 9:44 p.m. Later, when he took a blood test at 10 p.m., the result was a .18.
He said they had found a DUI manual and two bottles of alcohol outside of the vehicle at the scene. They also found a small container of marijuana. The alcohol and the marijuana bottles were never fingerprinted.
The witnesses’ testimony was to continue on Thursday, May 2 in Department 7.
Security Guard at Court House Finds Brass Knuckles
By Catherine Woodward
On Wednesday, May 1, in Department 8, the court heard opening statements, evidence and closing statements in Micko Logan’s misdemeanor jury trial. On January 30, 2013, Ms. Logan arrived at the Yolo County Superior Court around 1:30 p.m. and went through the security checkpoint with her young son. A set of metal knuckles was discovered in her purse, and Ms. Logan was subsequently arrested for possession of the illegal weapon. Attorney Amy Caskey represents Ms. Logan, while Deputy District Attorney Brad Morrow represents the People.
Officer Gabriel Bautista is a security guard at the Yolo County Superior Courthouse. As the supervisor, he operates the x-ray machine that scans peoples’ belongings as they enter the courthouse. The x-ray screening detected a large metal object in Ms. Logan’s purse. Before looking inside, Officer Bautista asked Ms. Logan if there was anything in her purse that shouldn’t be there, and she responded that there was not. He quickly found the metal knuckles, which were near the top of the contents of Ms. Logan’s purse. Officer Bautista radioed for backup.
Sheriff’s Deputy Laurie Olson heard the call on her radio and responded to the security checkpoint. She is employed as a bailiff at the Yolo Superior Courthouse. Officer Bautista gave Deputy Olson the metal knuckles that he had confiscated, and directed her to where Ms. Logan was seated with her young son. When Ms. Logan saw Deputy Olson holding the illegal weapon, she spontaneously admitted that she had forgotten the metal knuckles were in her bag. When Deputy Olson informed Ms. Logan that it is a felony to possess metal knuckles, Ms. Logan became upset since she was not aware of this fact. Child Protective Services arrived to take care of Ms. Logan’s young son. Afterwards, Deputy Olson arrested Ms. Logan, and she was booked into the jail.
Ms. Logan took the stand to testify as to her version of the events. On the morning of the incident, she visited a friend’s apartment around 10 a.m. On the table, she saw a set of metal knuckles belonging to her friend’s brother. Since the young man had just been released from juvenile hall, Ms. Logan put the knuckles in her purse, intending to dispose of them later. She knew that metal knuckles are dangerous, and she didn’t want her friend’s brother to get into more trouble. However, Ms. Logan did not know that it is illegal to possess metal knuckles. After leaving her friend’s apartment, Ms. Logan returned to her own residence to pick up her young son to go to court. Between car troubles, her two-year-old son, and rushing to get to court, Ms. Logan forgot that the metal knuckles were in her purse.
Mr. Morrow stressed that Ms. Logan possessed the metal knuckles, and she knew that they were in her purse and she knew that they could be used as a weapon. On the other hand, Ms. Caskey argued that there is a difference between knowledge and possession. Ms. Logan was not trying to hide the metal knuckles, but had genuinely forgotten that they were in her purse.
The jury will continue their deliberations at 9 a.m. on Thursday morning.
