by Antoinnette Borbon, Christina Zuniga and Dan Williams
As the trial of Thomas Vukodinovich, who is being accused of having sexual relations with a disabled woman, continued, Deputy District Attorney Alvina Tzang played the taped interview of the alleged victim. In this interview it was clear much of what she was trying to say could not be fully understood. It sounded like a type of “gibberish,” and much of it consisted of repeated answers.
Steve Gail assisted in the investigation and has worked with the district attorney’s office for several years, 36 to be exact. He talked about his experience on the stand. He described his knowledge of sexual abuse cases, but admitted to only having worked on one other case such as this in years past. Mr. Gail stated he had done a few elder abuse cases, too.
In continuing, Mr. Gail testified to doing what was considered an undercover operation to put the defendant in a “more relaxed state,” as he put it, to tell the truth about what happened. Gail stated the defendant appeared to be honest in his answers but never asked for an attorney nor utilized his Miranda rights to be silent until an attorney was present. In cross, defense Lisa Lance repeatedly referred to this operation as a “fraud, rather than a ruse,” standing her ground with the witness.
Mr. Gail described how he and another officer from the Winters Police Department had posed as insurance agents who, with a digital recording device, went to interview the defendant for the first time at his residence. He explained this tactic is usually done before an arrest and works to the benefit of the suspect in many cases.
In cross, Deputy Public Defender Lisa Lance disagreed, asking Gail, “How do you know if the defendant was not embroidering or embellishing with answers to please you?” Gail replied, after short pause, “In my 36 years, I found nothing to be incredible and the victim’s story seems to be consistent with the defendant’s for the most part.”
The defense questioned the operation: “Have you been successful in obtaining information through deception?” Investigator Gail answered, “Yes, most of the time.” He stated, “It seemed to work in gang-related crimes, and other crimes in which the defendant has the chance to tell the truth and be remorseful about what they have done.”
Ms. Lance asked, “Do you think this was to the benefit of the defendant? This type of operation? Fraud..” Gail, looking confused a bit, replied, “Yes, it can be in these types of cases, child sexual abuse.” The defense stated, “But this is not what we are talking about here, this is not a child sexual abuse case is it?” Gail stated, “No, it is not.”
Ms. Lance then asked Gail if a rape kit had been used on the alleged victim. Gail answered, “No, due to the limited ability of the victim to explain things – it would not have provided any evidence as to the sexual assault.” It raises questions…
In the taped interview of the defendant, Investigator Gail questioned Mr. Vukodinovich about the details of each alleged sexual encounter. Vukodinovich told Gail that it was the alleged victim who kept making advances on him.
He stated that, because of his illness, he was unable to do any penetration but admitted to oral sex. Mr. Vukodinovich stated he used tissues to finish the job. Vukodinovich, in the interview, talked about how he kept doing this with the alleged victim as a means to keep her quiet and appease her.
During the interrogation of the defendant, he told of the locations the events had taken place. The alleged victim rode with her sister, but detectives failed to point out locations which seemed consistent with the defendant’s list.
Mr. Vukodinovich also mentioned the other people who rode the bus, and the names of a couple different female witnesses who could give statements to witnessing what the alleged victim would do.
When the defense asked why the detectives did not follow up with these witnesses, Gail replied, “We felt we did not need to. ” It raises questions…”
In the conclusion of Gail’s testimony, the defense asked, “How many people have you interviewed and felt have helped themselves by speaking to you first?”
Mr. Gail replied, “I cannot recall but maybe about 15 to 20 percent? It is my job to get the information without promising any benefit in return, but you could ask Tom, he provided the information to pursue criminal charges in this case.”
Ms. Lance responded, “Perhaps you did not understand my question, I did not ask you the percentage or about snitches, but about the people who have actually helped themselves by speaking to you first?”
Ms. Lance stuck to the assertion that the undercover operation was not a mere “ruse,” but, in her opinion, an outright “fraud” done by the district attorney’s office. She asked Mr. Gail if this type of operation has to be authorized. Mr. Gail explained in short, “No,” but in a long answer, “We concur with a supervisor but we are not required to if just trying to solicit information as detectives.”
The final witness of the day was the Department of Justice’s criminologist. Jonathan Sewell, who is trained in forensics, talked about testing the items taken into evidence. Tissues and several other items were taken into evidence and tested for saliva, semen and blood.
Mr. Sewell found no semen on most of the items admitted into evidence, but noted finding sperm cells on a blue towel taken from the van the defendant drove for work. He also noted finding a positive P-30, in the crotch of the alleged victim’s underwear. These are e-cells which are normal secretions from the female’s genitalia and can be concentrated over time. No other evidence of sperm cells were found on the items introduced into evidence.
Mr. Sewell explained how each item was carefully sealed, once received and tested with a fluorescent light, and put under microscope using chemicals which extract bodily fluids. Items are put into what is called a bio-screening process to determine the source of fluid. Sewell stated he has performed over one hundred tests and testified 4 times in trial, with this case being his fourth.
Testimony concluded with Jonathan Sewell from the DOJ still on the witness stand, and will resume on Monday morning.
Antoinette
[quote]In continuing, Mr. Gail testified to doing what was considered an undercover operation to put the defendant in a “more relaxed state,” as he put it, to tell the truth about what happened. Gail stated the defendant appeared to be honest in his answers but never asked for an attorney nor utilized his Miranda rights to be silent until an attorney was present.[/quote]
I am confused. This sounds to me as though the police posed as insurance agents while interviewing the defendants. If they were posed as insurance agents, why would the defendant have had any reason to request an attorney or invoke Miranda rights ? Or, is this referring to separate instances of questioning ?
[quote]to put the defendant in a more relaxed state[/quote]
This would seem to me to be a euphemism for “lying to the defendant to cause hime to say something to incriminate himself by bypassing his awareness that he should have a lawyer or invoke his Miranda rights.
Please let me know if I am misunderstanding what happened here.
Can someone knowledgeable in the law explain to me the technical difference between a “ruse” and a
“fraud”. It sounds to me as though either would involve officials lying in order to extract some desired bit of incriminating evidence. I am clearly failing to see the fine points here.
my read as well, i guess we’ll have to see what comes out of the rest of the trial
mw, simply put, a ruse is specifically permitted by the SCOTUS and the crime of fraud, is not.
@Medwoman….correct, he would not have needed one if he was under the impression they were only insurance agents. I needed to clarify that point better…lol. It was during the interrogation, he never asked for one. A fine point, yes, it may be just what officials are doing. But it is hard to tell unless we know more. So far, we are only into the first week of trial. We will try to make things clearer.
@adremmer…thank you for defining the difference! I appreciate it!