VANGUARD COURT WATCH: Yolo Prosecutor Throws “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” Under the Bus

By Charmayne Schmitz

In closing arguments, Deputy District Attorney Brandon Finn told a jury: Beyond A Reasonable Doubt “is a term us lawyers come up with.”  This is the second trial where I’ve witnessed a Yolo prosecutor take liberties with the basis for a criminal conviction in our country’s judicial system.

Finn’s statement was at the tail end of a contentious 2-day trial. Pablo Campos was accused of driving with a suspended license after a traffic stop on March 30, 2012. Deputy Seja testified about pulling the vehicle over on I-5 to check for an expired registration. Mr. Campos was found to be the driver. The deputy issued a ticket for the expired license and the defendant signed it.

On cross-examination by Defense Attorney Lawrence Cobb, Deputy Seja couldn’t recall any other details about the case. It’s standard practice not to allow an unlicensed driver to drive away from a traffic stop. Often a car is towed if there isn’t another licensed driver available to drive the car. The officer could not recall who drove the car from the scene, but the car was not towed. He could not recall if there were other people in the car.

The officer’s lack of memory continued throughout most of Mr. Cobb’s cross-examination. Deputy Seja could not remember if the driver started to open the door. The deputy could not recall if he told Mr. Campos not to get out. He did remember calling dispatch, to check the license. He did recall dispatch saying the license was suspended. But he had no memory of the dispatcher saying there was no proof the defendant had received notification of his suspended license.

Mr. Cobb asked for a DVD player so he could present the recording from the patrol car. The jury was dismissed for a break while the judge and the lawyers argued this request. Mr. Cobb accused Mr. Finn of preventing the jury from hearing evidence. Mr. Finn accused Mr. Cobb of being unprepared. Mr. Cobb said he wasn’t expecting the deputy to “not recall” standard aspects of a traffic stop. The defense attorney claimed, in his 36 years of defending a variety of difficult cases, he found what Mr. Finn was doing by suppressing evidence “unfathomable.”

Mr. Cobb stated that it was now impossible to present rebuttal witnesses. It appeared that the defense attorney believed the DVD would show there were other people in the car and Mr. Campos was restrained from exiting the car. This could require that the occupants be given their Miranda Rights. The DVD would also show who drove the car away from the scene.

Before calling a recess, the judge told the attorneys to review the DVD on a computer. I guess the request to show the DVD to the jury was denied. When court resumed, both attorneys rested their case without any more evidence being presented.

The defense’s closing argument stressed the lack of evidence proving the defendant knew his license was suspended, and the memory lapses of the deputy. If the deputy’s memory is unreliable, the jury shouldn’t trust what he claims he is able to remember.

D.D.A. Finn then closed with the previously mentioned explanation of Beyond A Reasonable Doubt. He prefers the jury think of it as “an abiding conviction.” The deputy remembers the important parts of the traffic stop and that is all that matters in finding the defendant guilty. The jury deliberated for over an hour and returned with a guilty verdict.

Davis DUI Case

By Catherine Woodward

Sebastian Chia’s jury trial began on Wednesday afternoon, May 22, in Department 8. He is charged with two misdemeanors: one for driving under the influence of alcohol and the other for driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.08% or above. Attorney Francisco Rodriguez represents Mr. Chia, while Deputy District Attorney Matthew DeMoura represents the People.

On October 29, 2011, Mr. Chia was driving his white BMW around 2:30 a.m. when he was pulled over by Corporal Pheng Ly of the Davis Police Department. Although Mr. Chia had not made any driving errors, Corporal Ly noticed that the defendant’s windows were darkly tinted, which is a violation of the California Vehicle Code. Since Corporal Ly observed that Mr. Chia’s eyes were red and watery, he began conducting field sobriety tests. Three field breath tests returned results indicating that Mr. Chia had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.07%, 0.08% and 0.09%, respectively. At this point, Corporal Ly placed Mr. Chia under arrest.

Persons arrested for DUI must submit to either a blood or breath test, and Mr. Chia opted to provide a blood sample. Corporal Ly took Mr. Chia to Sutter Davis, where the defendant protested that he was afraid of needles.

Corporal Ly transported Mr. Chia to the Davis Police Department, where he gave Mr. Chia over ten opportunities to provide breath samples using the EPAS device, which is a chemical breath test whose results can be used in court.

However, Mr. Chia was unable to produce a suitable breath sample, so Corporal Ly transported the defendant back to Sutter Davis. The blood sample, which was drawn 2 hours after Mr. Chia was pulled over, had an alcohol concentration of 0.06%, which is under the legal limit.

In his opening statement, Mr. DeMoura stressed that although all DUI cases are unique, in each instance the defendant is accused of being too mentally and physically impaired to operate a vehicle. Mr. DeMoura argued that since Mr. Chia failed multiple field sobriety tests, and breath tests performed at the scene returned blood alcohol concentrations that were at or above the legal limit of 0.08%, the jury should find the defendant guilty on both counts.

Mr. Rodriguez argued that not everyone who is arrested for DUI is guilty, and it is up to the jury to render the verdict. Mr. Rodriguez emphasized that Mr. Chia was driving lawfully, and the only reason Corporal Ly pulled him over was because his windows were tinted.

Mr. Rodriquez blamed Mr. Chia’s size and stature for the fact that he failed the balancing test, and he explained that half of the population displays nystagmus (or lack of smooth pursuit) when asked to perform field eye tests. The defense attorney emphasized that field breath test results can vary by as much as 0.02%, meaning that Mr. Chia’s true blood alcohol content could have been anywhere from 0.05% to 1.1%.

Additionally, although Corporal Ly is expected to testify that Mr. Chia did not blow into the breath device correctly, this took place out of view of the patrol vehicle’s dash camera. Furthermore, the audio recording from Corporal Ly’s wireless microphone reveals that he never told Mr. Chia that he had a right to refuse the field breath test in the first place.

Finally, given the blood test result of 0.06% alcohol by weight, a criminalist is anticipated to testify that Mr. Chia’s blood alcohol concentration would have been 0.10% when he was driving. Mr. Rodriguez emphasized that the deputy district attorney’s case is based purely on guesses and speculation, and therefore there is not enough evidence to convict Mr. Chia of the two charges against him.

The trial will continue on Thursday morning at 9 a.m. in Department 8. The jury is expected to begin their deliberations sometime on Friday.

Categories: