By Antoinette Borbon
During his opening arguments on Thursday, Deputy District Attorney Ryan Couzens had admonished the jury that the witnesses were all drinking and partaking in meth use. He warned them that at times the testimony might conflict. But even he was perhaps not prepared for what happened on Friday.
The trial of Billy Wolfington and Shannon Silva continued Friday afternoon in Judge Mock’s court. It was quite eventful, to put it mildly. Taking the stand was Simone Mitchell. Ms. Mitchell, wearing a hat and cloth nearly covering her face, was shaking and on the verge of tears as Mr. Couzens began asking her questions about the evening of September 2, 2011.
As she answered, she began to sob louder. Mr. Couzens was only able to get her to answer a few questions pertaining to the crime. One of the questions involved photos of the victim, and showed the people who were holding him in their arms as he lay there bleeding.
She identified herself in another photo, too. Mr. Couzens then asked her why she was shaking and crying. She stated she knew the defendants were from the Broderick Boys gang and was scared.
Ms. Mitchell then was asked by Mr. Couzens if she were under the influence of anything today. She replied with a yes, “I had a couple beers and a joint cause I was nervous!” she stated.
After appearing as though she would be unable to finish testimony, Judge Mock called counsel to chambers. The jurors were sent to the jury room. After waiting in the lobby, 3 bailiffs came out with Simone Mitchell in cuffs.
She was ranting on to Mr. Couzens that she did not understand why she had to stay in custody for the whole weekend. He explained to her their understanding was that she would be sober to testify.
Ms. Mitchell was not happy. As they took her away sobbing, she accused Mr. Couzens of lying to her, along with the investigators, using a few choice words.
Mr. Couzens appeared a bit shaken up from the whole event, but continued on with another couple witnesses. Testifying briefly for the prosecution’s case was Officer Barrearo from the West Sacramento police department. He testified to what he observed upon arrival at the scene.
He stated that he saw two people next to a man covered in blood, lying on the ground in the parking lot of the motel. He took several photos of the scene, which included one with a bike lying on the ground just a few feet away from the victim.
He described statements made by witnesses and their demeanor. Under cross-examination by Deputy Public Defender Ron Johnson, Officer Barrearo was asked more about the statements given by a witness by the name of Carlitha Gordon. Mr. Johnson asked if she seemed nervous while giving her statement.
The officer responded, no. Mr. Johnson asked about a trail of blood found. Officer Barrearo told him that the blood trail ended near the train tracks. It was not stated whose blood it was linked to.
The final witness to take the stand Friday was a prosecution witness who had to be detained to ensure she would be there for testimony.
Her testimony was even more aloof than that of Ms. Mitchell from earlier. During questioning, Mr. Couzens asked about her drug use. Ms. Boon testified about being on drugs on and off. But she also stated she has been on meds for mental health disorders, such as bi-polar and multiple personality disorders.
She appeared focused at times when being asked about what she witnessed that night, but went on rambling silly things as if the victim were still alive. It seemed to bewilder the jurors, as well as defense counsel.
Ms. Boon, after being questioned by both DA Couzens and defense, was finally able to give as clear a recollection of what happened as she could. She testified to partying in her room with friends, and two white males being in her room during the party.
She stated she saw the victim get stabbed during a fight between the two defendants and the man she called “B,” which was the moniker of the victim. She stated on the stand that she never saw who stabbed B, she just ran for the door after seeing blood and B look like he was getting weak from the fight.
She did admit they had all smoked meth earlier but she never saw B smoking. After fleeing the room, she said she saw Bobby come out and hit the ground.
Ms. Boon testified to seeing the defendants flee, but in court could not positively identify the defendants as even being the two at the party. However, when questioned about a tattoo one of the defendants had, she clearly recognized it as being on the head of the defendant – unclear who it was in the photo.
The day ended with her testimony. The trial will resume Monday.
Ah, the non-existent “Broderick Boys.”
Those of us who have been in this county for 35+ years, chuckle at the newcomers, who live in The People’s Republik of Davis, who “Know better.”
Since I’ve worked in the county for 30 years and don’t live in Davis, I question your comment. What about this case is about the Broderick Boys or proves the contentions of those who believe that the BB mythology has been overblown by those in the DA’s office laughable?
I wonder whether the jurors will be made aware that Ms. Mitchell is testifying for the D.A. under great duress and fear of more jail time if she doesn’t testify the way the D.A. wants.
“What about this case is about the Broderick Boys …”
The reluctance and intimidation of the witnesses should tell you a lot.
@AdRemmer, Learning more about these boys and yes I have been in Davis thirty two years myself. But this crime must be proven it was tied to gang activity, so far it is sounding like a dope party gone bad.
@Eagle eye, I am not sure how they will work with her but at least she will be clean and sober for monday morning.
@Siegel, I agree thus far as it is too soon to tell.
Thank you all for your responses.
“The reluctance and intimidation of the witnesses should tell you a lot.”
Really? Have you ever spent a lot of time with people who are meth addicts? They tend to be very paranoid. Distinguishing between legitimate fear and meth induced paranoia is going to be a tough task here.
I was one of the potential jurors, and was present when one potential juror asked to be excused on the grounds that one of the defendants was known to him, and that he feared for his safety if selected for the jury. The potential juror was an intern at an anti-gang organization in West Sac, recently graduated (from undergrad) and beginning law school in the fall, e.g. most likely not a meth addict. Was a big guy, and HE STILL expressed fear for his safety. Whether the stabbing was an official gang-related act or not, a guy has been killed, at the hands of the defendants, who admitted at beginning of jury selection to have done the deed. WHAT PERSON IN THEIR RIGHT MIND OR NOT, who had any connection to these defendants, would NOT fear them? these people live in the same community as the defendants and their associates. it would be unbelievable if they testified that they were not in fear for their safety.