by Timothy Chin
(Juan Gonzales is charged with the murder of Alfonso Parado, with enhancement in robbery, on June 18, 2006, at Ortega’s West Night Club in West Sacramento, CA.)
On January 24, 2014, the prosecution team began their closing statement. The district attorney referred to the case as a “lock box” situation in which there were no witnesses to the incident. He asked the jury to base their judgment on the facts and the circumstantial evidence of the case. He also emphasized the comparison between reasonable versus unreasonable interpretations.
The D.A. was concerned about the uncertain perspective and testimony of eyewitness Hugo Petino, who he claims was too far away to see anything clearly. Petino testified that he saw a man dragging a body. He described the man to be roughly 5’8’’, bald, and relatively big. Gonzales is of a much smaller build and the D.A. lashed out at the eyewitness’s unreliable testimony.
The D.A. tried to sympathize with Alfonso Parado’s situation to sway the jury’s decision. He mentioned that Parado worked three jobs to support his family. He further explained that Parado was more than likely at Ortega’s West during the morning of his death because he had just called his wife and told her he was almost done cleaning the bar at approximately 10:30 a.m. The D.A. brought up Father’s Day and that Parado was likely about to head home after work to spend time with his family.
At roughly 11:55 a.m., Parado’s dead body was found at Ortega’s West with a gunshot wound to the chest. Officers Bentley, Martinez and Davis were the first to arrive on the scene.
The eyewitness testimony stated that Petino was watching the World Cup at the time and walked out of his shop about 150 feet away from Ortega’s West. He saw a shirtless man dragging a body near the doorstep of the club. Afterwards, Petino went to get tacos. He claimed that he did not look at the east doorway of the club after he drove by to get tacos. The D.A. felt that Petino’s perspective of the incident was not very clear. The D.A. also mentioned that the higher ground of the nightclub in comparison with the ground outside the club most likely gave Petino the impression that the shirtless man was big in stature when he was actually much smaller.
Alfonso Parado wore a gold chain around his neck, given to him by his wife. Witness testimony stated that he never took off his necklace. The incident showed that his necklace was not only missing but that he had neck injuries indicating a possible struggle at the time. The money drawers and trays in the office were also opened at the scene of the crime. Surveillance tapes were nowhere to be found, which drew comparisons to Gonzales’s previous robbery about 5 days before the Ortega’s West incident.
The D.A. stated that Gonzales is an aide and abettor to the crime of robbery and that any deaths caused during the crime do not require intent to prove murder.
Another indication of struggle was the overturned table at the main floor of the club, which the D.A. suggests was Parado’s attempt to defend himself from Gonzales. There was blood found on an envelope in the office which matched Gonzales and further cemented the D.A.’s argument since DNA is even more reliable than fingerprints.
The defense attorney gave his closing statement. He explained that there is no solid evidence that Gonzales was at Ortega’s West. There was blood on the inner office door as well as the outer office door. Defense stated that there were many unanswered questions about the blood and that there was too much irrelevant blood, with DNA samples all around the scene. He criticized the D.A. for using the old “round up the usual suspects” strategy.
The main reference is to the possibility that the shirtless man dragging the body could have been Mr. Janelle, the husband of Alfonso Parado’s previous love interest. He described Mr. Janelle’s build to be a close match with Petino’s description. The defense accused the D.A. of attempting to influence the jury’s decision by using emotion, such as the picture of Parado’s autopsy as well as his support of his family and Father’s Day. The defense pleads to the jury to look at the facts and realize that Petino’s eyewitness testimony is legitimate because he is neutral and has no reason to lie. He then refuted the D.A.’s closing statement by saying that Petino should have had perfect memory of the incident, considering it was such a life-changing experience. He also explained that any reasonable person can describe the appearance of another person from 50 yards away and, at the least, can describe whether the person was big or small in stature.
The D.A.’s rebuttal pled for the jury to take into consideration that the only relevant evidence is the DNA sample on the envelope which clearly shows that Juan Gonzales was at the scene of the crime. He explains that no one related to Parado knew who Gonzales was before the incident and that there was no reasonable explanation that his blood would be on an envelope in a private office in Ortega’s West.
Closing statements finished and the judge gave the jury final instructions before they started their deliberations.
why is a 2006 murder on trial now?
Currently there is no clear explanation as to why the defendant was arraigned late. I am assuming there was not enough conclusive evidence to bring in Gonzales until 2012 which is when he was booked into jail.
How come Mr Gonzales attorney didn’t bring up the fact that that DNA on the evidence in the envelope how long have they been there and where did that come from I guess they can just say that was there from the robbery are the murder but how do we know it wasn’t there prior to that can t test of blood to see how long it’s been there
As I understand it, the DNA was important in identifying the defendant, but the critical fact was the knife they were able to link between the robbery and the murder.
He was framed…it will come out un appeal