by Antoinnette Borbon
A Yolo County man stood trial on Tuesday, facing charges of possession of a controlled substance, possession of a firearm being a felon, and possession of drug paraphernalia – along with the enhancement of having the firearm while in possession of the controlled substance. On Tuesday he took the stand to testify in his own defense.
Andrew Savala, a man who had admitted on the stand Tuesday to a long-term addiction to methamphetamine, also admitted to having a history of being in prison, on two separate occasions. But before the testimony ended, we heard the defendant talk about being put on the county’s “gang injunction” list as a known gang member. He testified that he was actually in prison when his grandparents were served the papers with his name on it.
We heard testimony from two officers who went out looking to pick up the defendant on a warrant. Upon arriving at the trailer park on Glide Ave in West Sacramento, they found the defendant inside a motorhome with a friend.
The officers testified to finding items in the motorhome where the defendant had been staying off and on. While the officers searched the motorhome, they retrieved a bag of meth, drug pipes, a shotgun and a homemade shank.
But in no testimony by the officers was there any evidence found to identify whose property the gun or the shank belonged to. In fact, only the meth and the meth pipes were known to be that of the defendant’s, by his own admission.
Deputy Public Defender Dan Hutchinson put the defendant on the stand to testify. He questioned Mr. Savala about the night of May 1, 2013, when police arrived to serve a warrant. He asked Mr. Savala to explain why he told police the gun found was his.
Mr. Savala discussed his addiction to meth and how he had become desperate that night, wanting to end his life. A tear-filled emotional Andrew Savala testified he was afraid to tell the truth about whose gun and shank it was, out of concern for his friend and the woman they called “Granny.”
Mr. Savala said the person he referred to as “Granny” was his friend’s grandmother, who had helped him many times in the past with food, shelter and sound advice.
Mr. Savala stated he knew his friend had a felony record and did not want him to get into trouble. He said he admitted the drugs and drug pipes were his because they were, but he lied when he took the blame for the gun and shank when questioned by police.
Mr. Savala had been staying in the West Sacramento trailer park in between being homeless. He stated, tearfully, “I was depressed about my life, thinking about my son, my family, and what I had done to them, I wanted to end my life.” It was moments after he had drunk a fifth of Jack Daniels and smoked meth when his friend came to check on him.
Mr. Savala said the two were talking in the motorhome for about 30 minutes when he heard someone call his name. He thought it was someone playing a joke until he looked out the window of the motorhome and saw it surrounded by police.
Mr. Savala testified that he had been in the back of the motorhome with his friend when police arrived. Testimony by the officers corroborated his story. He said he walked out of the motorhome and was put on the ground by police, following standard procedure. It was then the officers searched the motorhome, finding the items.
Mr. Savala said he knew he was in big trouble and felt bad about disappointing the woman he called “Granny,” who had opened her home to him and several other homeless people at one time or another.
When questioned by Deputy DA Crystal Junge about why he lied to the officers that night, he asserted once again that he did not want Granny to see her grandson be taken away by police. Granny was 94 years old and had resided in a duplex on the property where the motorhome was parked.
Mr. Savala stated that, over the years, she had helped a lot of people and he himself had witnessed several people coming and going from the motorhome.
In part of Mr. Savala’s testimony, he talked about being put on the list of known gang members back in 2005, stating his grandparents were served with the notice while he was in prison. He testified that he felt harassed by police there in West Sacramento because of his past. He stated he had been lied about before and did not trust them.
After a tear-filled testimony, Mr. Savala was done. Closing arguments began..
Ms. Junge began with the evidence found and the conflicting statements given by the defendant. She stated how there were two things both prosecution and defense did agree on: possession of meth and possession of drug paraphernalia.
But she argued that the defendant had been telling the truth to the officers on the night of his arrest regarding the shotgun found.
Ms. Junge stated Mr. Savala had no time to formulate a story and, from what we could hear on the audio, the defendant appeared to be honest in telling the officers that the gun and shank were, in fact, his.
Ms. Junge also argued that the testimony given by the defendant in court was the first time Mr. Savala had claimed the gun was not his. She asked the jurors to use their common sense and think about the defendant’s testimony and see which part it fits more, his honesty today or on the night of his arrest. “You decide,” she stated.
In defense attorney Dan Hutchinson’s closing, he began with a statement that, even if we make mistakes, it is never too late to do the right thing. He talked about the life of a man who had an addiction and, because of that addiction, had put himself in prison a couple times.
But Mr. Savala admitted to having a criminal past and was not afraid to tell about it himself. Mr. Hutchinson talked about a man who did not want to see his friend be taken away in front of his elder grandmother.
Mr. Hutchinson talked about the evidence of the shotgun. He pointed out that it had no identity, as it had never been fingerprinted. The defendant, he said, paused on the audio recording when asked about the shank found.
Mr. Hutchinson stated, “His hesitance to answer shows he had no knowledge the gun and shank were there in the motorhome.” He argued that Mr. Savala did not even know what the shank actually looked like.
He talked about the confession made by Mr. Savala. He explained to the jurors that, even when there is a confession, the prosecution still has to prove it is all true. He stated, “In this case, it was not done.” He said the prosecution could have called a rebuttal witness to testify, backing the state’s contention about ownership of the gun, but that was not done either.
As Hutchinson wrapped up his closing, his voice shuddered with emotion as he talked about a man who had taken the blame for another by doing what he thought was right at the time. He stated that Mr. Savala’s account was corroborated by the evidence in this case.
He told the jurors his client will still walk away with a felony possession, no matter what, but he could not be found guilty of possession of a firearm when there is nothing proving it was the defendant’s. Hutchinson stated there is no evidence, no fingerprints, and no DNA taken or tested off of the shotgun. He asked the jurors to find Mr. Savala not guilty of the firearm charge and the enhancement.
In DDA Junge’s rebuttal closing, she addressed the reasons as to why she did not test the gun. She stated the state does not have the funding to test everything they want tested or hire as many investigators to do work they have no funding for, nor does the county have the funding to ask the DOJ to test anything they want tested. But Junge asserted that she did not need to.
Ms. Junge stated that Mr. Hutchinson brought up good points, but she told the jurors to use their common sense and think about Mr. Savala’s story and his conflicting statements.
She argued that what he told officers on the night of his arrest is more likely the truth. “Why didn’t he tell the truth earlier?” she asked.
Ms. Junge argued that the defendant did not have time to formulate a story and was honest when admitting the gun and shank were his on the night he was questioned and arrested. She said he was under the influence and did not have time to come up with a story to give police.
She pled with the jurors to find him guilty on all counts.
“We heard testimony from two officers who went out looking to pick up the defendant on a warrant. Upon arriving at the trailer park on Glide ave in West Sacramento, they found the defendant inside a motorhome with a friend. The officers testified to finding items in the motorhome where the defendant had been staying off and on. While the officers searched the motorhome, they retrieved a bag of meth, drug pipes, a shotgun and a homemade shank.”
Four sentences. Is this all the evidence the prosecutor presented as the DA’s case?
I’m also curious why the police showed up in the first place. What was the warrant for?
[quote]What was the warrant for?[/quote]
His arrest.
That’s obvious, Mr. What for?
And, how old is his guy? You have to admire his dedication to and concern for his buddy and Granny even if he realized the weapons were not his so late in the game and in such a self-serving manner. Give credit also to his defense attorney who delivered up his closing while “his voice shuddered with emotion.” Isnt he the same defender who was brought to tears during his close a month or two ago?
@ Just Saying…yes, it was for his arrest on a violation of a parole program, different from a regular parole, if I got that correct.
I am not sure the age of the defendant? I am guessing mid thirties? In regards to DDA or defense’s presentation of evidence or statements, I try to condense them due to the amount of words allowed into the articles. But highlight the most important parts. I also do not do the final editing either. Some stuff may get cut out for good purpose.
Yes, I too, believe he felt he was doing the right thing, sparring his granny and friend heartache.
As for the defense, yes, it is Mr. Dan Hutchinson. He does an incredible job during trial. He is a man who cannot hide his compassion or sympathy for another human. I cannot speak for Dan, but I see a man who becomes so involved with his cases that he cannot hide the emotions which bind him to the defendants or their story. In the end, it makes for an incredibly powerful defense which I believe jurors can see and feel. I watch them look at him during his opening and closing…they appear to like him and his style. I have covered his trials for several reasons..but mostly believe it is out of pure providence. I stand behind him 200 percent….
I pray for a logical verdict in this case as I do believe in the honesty of the witness. I have seen the act of fake emotion, this was not one of them. Hard to stop the flow of tears once they are real…our body just won’t allow it.
Any addiction is anguishing and often leads to death in many cases. I understand he will still be taking a felony or two but hopefully he will be put into a rehab that has proven to be successful.
His mother talked briefly about the suffering his family has endured over her son’s addiction…sad story to hear but now, there may be a light of hope for all of them. I know they believe in a God…and that belief will be the light that guides them.
My prayers go out to all: Hutchinson, the jurors and the family.
Did the alleged owner of the firearm come forward at trial to claim ownership?
do you have any idea how trials work? defense has no burden to prove anything and if the prosecution can’t prove its his gun, then they probably don’t get the conviction.
I do know how they work. I also don’t think we need much more than the admission. I think it is silly and expensive to expect the police to test every claimed piece of evidence because the jury may hear a sad story at trial.
Mr. Obvious
[quote]I think it is silly and expensive to expect the police to test every claimed piece of evidence because the jury may hear a sad story at trial.[/quote]
If the purpose of testing is “because the jury may hear a sad story at trial ” if would indeed by silly.
However, my understanding is that testing is necessary to get to the truth. It is also my understanding that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. It seems to me that this is the responsibility of the prosecution regardless of whether or not they believe it to be “expensive”. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but it looks very much as though you are claiming it is unnecessary to have proof.
UPDATE:
Today the jurors were brought back into the courtroom to hear a re-argue over the gun charges. In the end, it was a hung jury. We will have to wait and see if the DDA’s office re-files.
@Mr.Obvious…it is entirely up to the prosecution to prove their case as you know, and up to defense to raise a reasonable doubt. It could have been tested by both parties for fingerprints or any kind of DNA but it was not. I do not believe the sad story had a thing to do with what was not done by either side. I realize everyone may have a sad story, but I do not think that was the point here..
Thanks for reading!!!
“Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but it looks very much as though you are claiming it is unnecessary to have proof.”
Even though the defendant admitted that the weapons belonged to him, it seems that investigators would feel obligated to find something to corroborate his confession about the gun since it resulted in the “felon with a firearm” charge.
Pleading budget problems is really weak. The oversight apparently provided an opening that allowed the defendant to change his story during his trial.
Of course, if the DA really offered the case described here, it’s hard to imagine a jury convicting Andrew Savala for anything. Was there evidence about where the shotgun was found? Was under Mr. Savala’s bed, next to the drug pipes? Who knows? We certainly don’t if we rely on this report.
Although Antoinnette Borbon is among the best of the Vanguard’s best trial reporters, she’s so restricted the prosecutor’s evidence here that it’s almost impossible to opine on the case at all. By providing the DA’s case in only four vague sentences and immediately discounting it, then filtering other incriminating evidence though the defense’s wording, she’s left us with no basis for making judgements.
Antoinette provides a valuable service covering courtrooms that barely get noticed by the Bee, Democrat and Enterprise. I would hope she can be more objective when reporting future trials.
It’s fine to be enamored by dedicated public defenders’ performances, to feel for poor and unfortunate defendants and to be distressed by the imbalance in the resources of the prosecutor and the accused that makes the process seem unfair. But, labeled commentary is the place to reflect those feelings.
Trial news reports should be as objective and unbiased as we want trials to be. Easy to say, not so easy to do. Meeting that standard is worth the effort, however, because it adds to the Vanguard’s credibility when it decides it’s appropriate to try to influence aspects of the process or to have impact on the outcome of specific cases.
@just saying..first, thank you for the compliment, if that is really what you were trying to do? I am not sure though if it is one or a passive-aggressive insult?
The reality is, the four sentence statements was just about all she had in a nut shell…
Yes, I suppose I could write a lengthy verbatim report but then you would be equating me with the court reporter, not there yet…
As for this being a commentary….fail to see that? If I write the demeanor of a defense or DDA or defendant, it does not infer the person is guilty or innocent. We leave the opinion part for the commentary;hence the purpose of a commentary.
As I stated before, we are a work in progress..it would be kind of you to realize this with patience.
In regards to where the gun was found, I believe I stated it’s whereabouts in the article, but if I did not, it was found above the driver seat on a bed atop. The defendant slept in the back. No one claimed ownership…
Objective to what? I am lost…ellaborate please..
As to being “enamored,” with defense Dan Hutchinson’s performance as a lawyer, you may have chosen a better word to describe my sentiment. It screams inappropriate to me…he is a married man. I am not so sure his wife would appreciate that statement..nor do I. I admire his work, his character, integrity as I do a few others, nothing more. Please use caution on here…as someone could inadvertently get hurt.
I do appreciate the feedback…and will take from it…if the compliments are sincere, then I do thank you…
Kindly, Antoinnette
“Even though the defendant admitted that the weapons belonged to him, it seems that investigators would feel obligated to find something to corroborate his confession about the gun since it resulted in the “felon with a firearm” charge.”
I’ll add to it, out of court admissions by the defendant are not sufficient to sustain a charge in and by themselves, there must be additional evidence according to evidence code and jury instructions.
Bottom line in this case, the jury hung, and I’m certain had they more conclusively determine the owner of the gun as Antoinnette suggested, that they may have gotten a conviction (assuming the test linked the gun to the defendant).
That undermines your argument a bit, Mr. Obvious.
Let me clarify the last thing first. I mean that you admire Dan Hutchinson’s performance as a lawyer, based on what you’ve written about his dedication to clients, his incredible trial work, etc. I observed by your reports that you “admire his work, his character, integrity as I do a few others, nothing more.” And, nothing inappropriate suggested.
My compliment was sincere, based on reading your reports for quite awhile now.
My concern is that Vanguard reports on crime and trials are so driven by an agenda that it’s difficult to get a fair understanding of what happened (although the objectivity of “news reports” has improved in quality as the Vanguard gets older.
I don’t look for verbatim court reporting of a trial, but I do want to have enough to get a feel for both sides of the case (even if you feel the defendant is innocent, even if the defense attorney is more convincing, even if you believe the defendant, even if you think police did a bad job or were mean).
I just think that you missed in this article if you tried to give a fair and accurate accounting of the prosecution case and to do it it without making judgments or commentary as you went.
I don’t want to be picking apart your report, but allow me to offer an example of what I talking about. You’ve set the stage for the police account by noting the found Mr. Hutchinson in “a” motor home, yet I suspect they reported that they went to arrest him at what served as his home and that they tied the weapons, drugs and pipes to him because they found them in his home and by having him confess all were his at the time. Yet, after failing to provide any of the police account (even of his admissions) you give your commentary, your opinion, that:
“But in no testimony by the officers was there any evidence found to identify whose property the gun or the shank belonged to. In fact, only the meth and the meth pipes were known to be that of the defendant’s, by his own admission.”
The police testimony is evidence. If they reported that the items were found in his possession by being in his home and if they reported specifics of how he admitted to his ownership, that’s evidence in the trial. Just because the defendant said “by his own admission” later in the trial that the drug items were his (and the shotgun wasn’t) doesn’t mean that a reporter should fail to provide the police testimony then opine that no evidence was provided.
After this prosecution case in a four-sentence nutshell, you go on to give an extensive accounting of the defense case with a most sympathetic treatment.
Since I wasn’t there, I don’t know whether the minimalist prosecution account was full enough to be a fair one. Maybe your report gave proper credit to the prosecution case. But, it’s hard to see how the DA even would charge this case if he didn’t have anything more of significance to offer at the trial.
[quote]But in no testimony by the officers was there any evidence found to identify whose property the gun or the shank belonged to. In fact, only the meth and the meth pipes were known to be that of the defendant’s, by his own admission.
[/quote]
Savala initially admits to owning all of the contraband. At trial Savala denies ownership of the weapons but maintains ownership of the drugs. He claims he claimed possession of the weapons because his friend had a felony record. Apparently Mr Savala also had a felony record because he had a warrant for a parol violation.
How did the police prove the drugs actually belonged to Savala other than his admission? By the arguments made here we should also throw that part of the conviction out as well. With what has been reported we only have a claim of ownership and no actual evidence that the drugs actually belonged to Savala.
“How did the police prove the drugs actually belonged to Savala other than his admission? By the arguments made here we should also throw that part of the conviction out as well. With what has been reported we only have a claim of ownership and no actual evidence that the drugs actually belonged to Savala.”
What conviction?
[quote]What conviction?[/quote]
Hung all the way around or just on the gun charges? Did they hang on the drug charges as well?
Hung on everything.
Interesting. What was the ratio for and against conviction?
7-5. Not sure which way
With David’s additional information, Antoinnette, let me add to the comments you’d asked of me this morning. You deserve an additional compliment for having a feel that the prosecution hadn’t offered adequate evidence to convict Mr. Savala.
Not that you shouldn’t take my counsel and reconsider how you report the prosecutor’s case each trial that you cover. I hope you will consider it, at least. But, you certainly were correct that the case presented against Mr. Savala must have been a weak one–at least, the jury didn’t buy it.
I’ll bet the DA spends a little more money nailing down evidence before the retrial or plea bargain. Did the accused identify the person he claimed was the “real” gun owner? I’d think investigators would be talking to him before refiling charges.
@just saying….Yes, I agree with you, the DDA never really proved even the drugs were his..only by the defendants own admission.
As to the compliments, thanks, just wasn’t sure how to take the last write up. Yes, I am always open to suggestions and helpful critisism. It is a bit difficult due to the fact that I really do not consider myself a journalist more than a person interested in justice and the law. But I do know with time and more effort, I will do better.
Thanks for understanding the part about Dan Hutchinson, just would like to keep things professional. I will take it how you meant it and apologize for rushing to a judgment.
I guess what I did not realize here was in writing this piece, I put the facts in a bit of a different way, dislike sounding like a written police report, that is all.
So, after the jurors deliberated, they could not decide unanimously on a verdict so the whole thing was hung. Yes, I agree the DA and the defense should spend more time and money to provide proof. I understand the defense does not have to but if it were up to me, as a lawyer, or investigator, I would find a way to test any and all I needed…still not sure where the funding is though? Nor do I believe it can be used as an excuse in so many trials, it gets old.
I am curious though, are you a lawyer?
Thank you also for the extra compliment…lol. Honestly, looking over my notes, there was not much more to put as to what the prosecution had as evidence. I will list the outline I had:
1. Defendant had a warrant, parole violation program
2. Drugs were found in the motorhome
3. A shotgun, shank and drug paraphernalia
4. A 58 min audio tape of Officer Gill questioning defendant about the items found.
5. defendant admits to everything being his.
6. No fingerprints, DNA testing done on any of the evidence
7. defendant confesses ownership of items
8. One piece of mail found to be that of the defendants
9. Officers heard two males in the back of the motorhome, not near the front where the shotgun was found.
10. No witnesses other than the two officers for DDA’s case
DEFENSE:
1. Defendant is the only testimony.
2. Defendant admits ownership of drugs and drug pipes.
3. Defendant denies ownership of guns, shank.
4. Defendant admits parole violation.
5. Shotgun, shank, or drugs/drug paraphernalia not tested/fingerprinted for DNA.
6. Defendant admits to a criminal past, to being a felon, an addict.
So, there is the bulk of the case. We really did not hear or see much. It was short. A couple of the jurors felt there was just not enough proof of anything to give a guilty verdict on anything except for the drugs but it was still not unanimous so they hung on it all.
I do not know yet what they will do with the case? But it is possible a plea could be reached or charges may even be dismissed? Not sure how it will end..
I hope this clears up a few things for you..and once again, thanks for the compliments.
Sure we will update the public on what happens next.
Kindly, Antoinnette
oops, sent that before I was done…didn’t realize you had followed my articles..but thank you again, really do appreciate it!
UPDATE:
I need to correct a couple of things in this article. I will let David know to see if he can re-do in the article itself but I will post them on here. I did not hear it correctly the other day, my humble apologies…
Here is what the jurors came back with: Guilty on the felony posession, guilty with a misdemeanor having drug paraphernalia, hung on the gun charges and enhancements.
Apparently the “accessible,” part is what hung a few of them…but on Thursday, we will know if the DDA decides to re-try the gun charge part of the case along with enhancements.
I hope this update does clear things up and gets out there…so sorry for the mistake…I am human…I apologize to cousel on this as well…
Kindly, Antoinnette