By Catherine McKnight
In the further jury trial of People v. Sanchez, the court heard the last witnesses for the defense and closing arguments on Tuesday morning, July 16. Roberto Sanchez has been charged with possession of meth amphetamine and possession of an object used for unlawfully using a controlled substance.
DDA Crystal Junge’s main argument is that a concerned neighbor called the police and during the process, there was meth and a meth pipe found on the defendant. Deputy Public Defender Mr. Johansson’s main argument is that the meth and pipe found did not belong to his client and that they were planted.
Officer Keeney of Woodland Police Department took the stand on Tuesday morning. Mr. Johansson questioned him about the night of January 24, 2012. Officer Keeney said that he got a call about a suspicious person and when he arrived the apartment complex his initial contact with Mr. Sanchez was upstairs.
Mr. Johansson proceeded to ask whether or not he had asked consent to search the defendant and he said the consent was given.
During the search, Officer Keeney said he retrieved a meth amphetamine pipe. Defense asked if he did anything to preserve fingerprints and he replied that he did not, and is not sure if he used gloves while performing the search.
He then proceeded to arrest the defendant and performed another search where he found a small baggie. There were no notes preserved in this case because any conversation or interview was done inside the patrol car and Officer Keeney did not use his in-car video or recording system.
Mr. Johansson asked more questions pertaining to any sort of written statement or recorded statement from that night.
Defense then asked Officer Keeney about the defendant’s demeanor that night. He said his demeanor was consistent with that of a meth user. However, he did not perform actual tests to determine whether or not he was under the influence of meth that night.
A juror asked the question, “Is talking fast always associated with drug use?” He replied that no, it is not.
The next witness, Kimberly Sand, is from the California Department of Justice and works as a criminalist. She is an expert in weighing and analyzing controlled substances.
She made a report on August 23, 2012 based off of an envelope she opened pertaining to this case. It contained 1.03 grams net of meth amphetamine.
Deputy District Attorney, Crystal Junge, asked the witness to open the envelope that contained the baggie of meth, but the envelope had already been opened. The bag was listed at 1.0 gram but when Ms. Sand tested it, it was 1.03 grams, which is slightly more. Mr. Johansson also pointed to the fact that the envelope had already been opened.
The last witness who is also the defendant, Roberto Sanchez, took the stand. Mr. Johansson asked him, “Why was it that you were at 643 3rd Street on the night of January 24, 2012?”
He replied that he had an 8-month-old puppy that had run away onto the property of the complex after letting him out to use the bathroom. He has lived in Woodland at the same residence for 12 years.
The defendant said he knocked on Ms. Haggerty’s door to let her know why he was in the yard so that she did not think he was up to no good. After they spoke, he said he spoke to Nick, another neighbor. At that point, the officer came up the stairs and the officer told him to sit on the bench.
Mr. Sanchez said that he did not have a bag in his pocket or a pipe. He also said that the officer did not ask him any questions concerning those items. The officer, he said, took him to the police department after performing the search and then later to the county jail.
On cross, DDA Ms. Junge, brought up Ms. Haggerty’s testimony from the previous day. She testified that the defendant had told her things such as how he thinks about her all day in his garage or that she is beautiful.
The defendant also claimed that he did not make any of those statements to Officer Keeney that he had earlier testified to.
He was excused and both counsels gave their closing arguments. Junge argued that this case is not as simple as somebody possessing items. She said that the jury must evaluate conflicting stories and that their main duty is to evaluate the evidence including all of the witnesses.
She went on to say that Ms. Haggerty called the police because she felt intimidated and that is why the police showed up.
In Mr. Johansson’s closing he started by saying, “In for a penny, in for a pound.” This case is about a man who is a neighbor, he said, and that given human nature he was not going there to start trouble that night.
He said that they went to the defendant in this case as if he were a criminal and went about searching him. He said that Officer Keeney did not preserve any evidence and that he had the means but chose not to. He continued to say that the pipe and the drugs were planted on the suspect.
Ms. Haggerty did not see a pipe or meth pulled from his pocket during the search. After hearing both arguments, jurors went into deliberation on Tuesday afternoon.
UPDATE: Judge Reed ruled a mistrial on Wednesday due to a hung jury. There will be a pre-trial conference on Monday July 22 in his courtroom at 9 a.m.
A question. Would 1.03 grams of meth typically be considered the amount one would have for personal use, or would it be more consistent with the amount one would have for sale ?
If the former, this entire proceeding would seem to me to be a huge waste of everyone’s time, money and resources that could better be used elsewhere. If the latter….well in terms of overall harm to the community….of more concern in my view.
Its not entirely clear to me if he is accusing the arresting officer of planting the meth; or if he is not sure who might have planted the meth on him? Does the arresting officer have a previous history with the suspect; some kind of grudge? Motivation for why the officer would plant?