Jury Finds Dixon Man Guilty of Molestation in People v. Ellis, Faces Life in Prison

yolo_county_courthouseBy Kaiti Curry

Last Friday on October 18, after nearly two weeks of emotional, highly-sensitive testimonies and grueling questions to hash out the details of the allegations, the twelve-member jury found the defendant, Kevin Ellis, guilty of molesting two young boys over a five-month period. After several hours of deliberation, the jury found the 55-year-old man from Dixon, California, guilty on eight of nine counts as they delivered the highly-anticipated verdicts.

Counts 1 through 6 involved lewd or lascivious acts upon a child under fourteen years old, Count 7 regarded the defendant’s failure to register as a sex offender, and Counts 8 and 9 involved giving marijuana to a minor under fourteen years old.

Counts 1 through 3 involved sex acts with Child Doe One.  Additionally, the jury found two of the three count enhancements, for each of these three counts, to be true. The first enhancement was that the defendant was previously convicted of the same crime and the second was that “the crime was committed against more than one victim.” The jury did not, however, find the defendant guilty of administering “a controlled substance to the named victim by force, violence or fear.”

Ellis was also convicted of Counts 4 and 6, involving lewd or lascivious acts with Child Doe Two. Again, they found the defendant guilty of the same count enhancements for Counts 4 and 6 as they did for the first three counts. Count 5 resulted in a mistrial because the jurors were hung 11-1.

Additionally, the jury found the defendant guilty of Count 7, for failing to register as a sex offender after he was convicted of sex crimes against two teenage girls in 1995. Furthermore, Ellis was found guilty of Counts 8 and 9, giving marijuana to a minor, the final counts against Mr.Ellis.

Moreover, the jury found Mr. Ellis guilty of two case enhancements, Enhancements A and B, alleging that he was a prior offender. The jury found the allegation that Ellis was a prior offender true twice.

Ellis, who has been in custody since his arrest on March 9, 2012, will likely face multiple life sentences according to the district attorney’s office. Ellis will be sentenced by the Honorable Stephen Mock on November 22, 2013. Until then, he remains in custody with bail set at $20,700,000.

On Thursday, the jury went into deliberation after listening to convincing arguments by Deputy District Attorney Robert Gorman and Deputy Public Defender Joseph Gocke.  Gorman’s arguments were very mechanical and went straight to the point, and he carefully covered all of his bases. He explained all of the charges the defendant, Kevin Ellis, faced. The first three involved sex crimes with Child Doe One, counts four through six involved sex crimes with Child Doe Two, count 7 involved the failure of the defendant to register as a sex offender, and counts eight and nine involved the distribution of an illegal substance to a minor.

He explained further that charges two and four relate to the same event and charges three and five correspond to the same event.  For each charge, Gorman reiterated aspects of each testimony that supported the allegations against Mr. Ellis.  After doing so for each of the charges, Gorman submitted to the jury that charges one through nine had been proven.

As a side, Gorman also explained that Ellis failed to comply with his registration required as a sex offender.  He should have registered when he moved back to California in 2008 and each time he moved residences in California, which he did at least three times according his daughters.

Furthermore, if convicted of any sex crimes, the jury had to decide whether to implement two enhancements. The first was whether or not illegal drugs were distributed to the minors to accomplish the crime.  The jury also had to decide if there were multiple victims.

In defense of the discrepancies in the victims’ testimonies, Gorman referred the jurors to Dr. William O’Donohue’s testimony. “The core details are the same,” the doctor had said. Furthermore, Gorman argued that if Ellis sexually attacked these boys while they were together, “it makes perfect sense” that he targets the boys when they were alone also. Discrepancies may also have been caused by the trauma suffered.

Gorman asked the jury to remember Mr. Ellis’s past while making a decision. He claimed the defendant was predisposed to these types of crimes, as he has been convicted before. “Bottom line is this,” Gorman said; “Those boys talked about the sexual abuse they suffered at the hands of the defendant.”

Mr. Gocke, on the other hand, challenged the circumstances in which the crimes allegedly occurred, claiming that “there are contextual problems with the allegations.”  For one, Mr. Ellis only lived with his daughter Sarah for a few weeks, during which time Sarah checked on him frequently, there was no lock on the tent he was living in and the boys were at school most of the time. Therefore, he argued, Ellis would have had few opportunities. Additionally, no other children have made allegations about the defendant since 1995.

On another note, Gocke argued that just because the boys knew about marijuana does not mean they ever had any.  The entire family, he argued, is very familiar with marijuana and the boys likely knew about its effects from them. Additionally, he pointed out that the parents never smelled marijuana on the boys or thought they were behaving as if they were under the influence.

Finally, Gocke attacked the credibility of the boys, noting that Child Doe One made unsubstantiated allegations of physical abuse by his father.  Gocke asked the jury to critically analyze what has been said and to “presume Mr. Ellis is innocent unless the allegations are proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”

In response, Gorman counter-argued all of Gocke’s points, and concluded by saying, “The evidence is overwhelming that Kevin Ellis has done it again.”

Author

Categories:

Court Watch

8 comments

  1. I’m curious how old the boys were when they claim they were molested,
    how old they were when video taped by police, and how old they are now when they testified in person at the trial?

    What control did the accused have over the boys that prevented them from reporting what they claim happened the first time it happened?

    Was there never any semen or DNA to analyze?

  2. @Eagle Eye…the boys were 10 and 11 when this happened. They were videotaped when it was reported I believe in 2012? Yes, they did testify on the stand and now are 14, 15 years of age.

    It was reported they were given marijuana during the time of the incidents. But they did say they were afraid of the man, albeit they continued to go to his tent in the back yard for help with their math? It was a bit strange but often typical in these cases to be afraid of the perpetrator and yet still go around them.

    No, I do not believe there had been any DNA introduced into evidence.

    Both DDA and Public defender put forth two strong sides and points of view but ultimately, the jurors believed DDA Gorman.

    I did feel Defense Public Defender Gohke did an outstanding job in raising doubts though…just not enough to convince a jury.

    I felt the family dynamics may have played a big part in what had gone on for quite some time. All of the adults were using marijuana and being under that influence may have prevented them from making more sound parenting choices for these boys..sadly…

  3. [quote]I did feel Defense Public Defender Gohke did an outstanding job in raising doubts though…just not enough to convince a jury.
    [/quote]

    This is a disturbing thought to me. It is not the Public Defenders job to “convince” of innocence. It is only necessary to raise reasonable doubt.

  4. Agree, Medwoman…is not my point. I was just saying that I felt he had raised enough doubt in his closing to make me believe there were holes in some of the witnesses testimony, albiet, I did believe the man was guilty of some bad stuff…hope this clears things up?

  5. Where did the idea come from that children of 10 and 11, who are beginning to think like adults, would gravitate to the company of their molester?
    Was this an idea presented by the DA, or does this come from
    MBJones’ work experience with abused children?

  6. Interesting that the cannabis use of family members may have played in the decision process of anyone observing. If the boys had been plied with beer, would the family members be blamed for drinking beer?
    Stoned out their minds parents make bad decisions. Sh&*t faced drunk parents make bad decisions.

  7. Yes, makes one wonder if the boys were coerced into testifying against Ellis because the DA was holding charges over the kids’ or the parents’ heads; it’s more advantageous to the DA to prosecute a molest case than a marijuana or neglect case.

    In my experience, these boys would have stayed well away from Ellis if he’d molested them, and they’d have talked about him.

    Too bad jurors made up their minds before hearing all the evidence – we don’t know what the verdict would have been if they’d kept open minds throughout all the testimony.

  8. @ Eagle Eye…..FYI….yes, I do have personal experience with child abuse and molestation cases, although it was not thru working with them. A bit of horse of a different color, if you will, not anyone’s business to know. I am hoping that comment was not to be taken sarcastically

    I cannot recall any one time I ever stated in either comment or article I had worked with them, but there are experiences that can come from other things…thanks for reading.

Leave a Comment