Child Molestation Case Opens in Yolo County

By Jackie Snyder and Lauren King

Opening arguments began on January 27, 2015, in the trial of Manuel Guzman. Guzman, a resident of Winters, California, was accused of committing lewd and lascivious acts against a child under 14. Guzman was arrested after the alleged victim made several incriminating statements about him, first to her mother (Guzman’s ex-girlfriend) and then to authorities in Yolo County.

Opening arguments allow for both parties’ attorneys to summarize to the jury what they expect the evidence to show. Deputy District Attorney Michelle Serafin, assigned to this case, believed the evidence would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant touched the 11-year-old alleged victim with sexual intent, as well as engaged in sexual intercourse with the alleged victim.

DDA Serafin supported her claim by presenting several emails, romantic in nature, that were exchanged between the alleged victim and defendant. Prior to the emails being exchanged, the alleged victim, along with her two younger brothers and her mother, lived with the defendant. The defendant carried on a romantic relationship with the alleged victim’s mother and they had a child together, the youngest son.

The relationship ended when the alleged victim’s mother claimed she was severely mistreated by the defendant. She then made the decision to take all three of her children and move to Bakersfield to be closer to family. A short time later, the emails exchanged between the alleged victim and defendant were discovered by the alleged victim’s mother and were reported to authorities.

An investigation took place. While at first the alleged victim was quiet about her relationship with the defendant, she would later allege the defendant touched her inappropriately and they engaged in sexual intercourse.

Ms. Serafin stated to the jury that the alleged victim (now age 13), scheduled to testify at the trial, may exude romantic feelings toward the defendant, due to the alleged relationship the victim and defendant engaged in at one time.

When concluding her opening argument, Ms. Serafin asked the jury to keep in mind all evidence, including suggestive emails, because the defense will likely attempt to attack the alleged victim’s creditability.

After a brief recess, Defense Attorney Steven C. Sabbadini presented his opening statement to the court.

[callout bg=”#000000″ color=”#ffffff” font=”0″ fontsize=”14″ bt_content=”Donate Now” bt_pos=”right” bt_style=”undefined” bt_color=”red” bt_link=”https://secure.yourpatriot.com/ou/dpd/friends_of_the_vanguard/donate.aspx” bt_target=”_blank” bt_font=”0″]If you haven’t already signed up to become a subscriber – Please donate today by clicking on the link. You can also make a one-time payment starting at $120 to become a subscriber. You can do so either by credit card at the previous link or by mailing a check to Davis Vanguard, PO Box 4715, Davis, CA 95617[/callout]

The defendant had entered a plea of not guilty to all counts against him and Mr. Sabbadini told the court that he believed the evidence would reflect that his client was, indeed, not guilty.

He then argued that the alleged victim and her mother’s statements were not consistent or credible and that DDA Serafin had presented emails that were taken out of context to support the prosecution’s position.

Following the final breakup between the alleged victim’s mother and the defendant, the defendant filed for custody of their shared child.  About two weeks later, on October 21, 2013, the alleged victim’s mother filed a restraining order and request for custody of the shared child.

In these documents, the mother claimed that the defendant kicked her out of their house in Winters, California. Mr. Sabbadini claimed that this statement was different than the mother’s previous statement regarding the events of their breakup.

On November 6, 2013, the restraining order, preventing the defendant from having contact with the mother or the three children, was granted.

Mr. Sabbadini stated that the alleged victim’s mother was jealous of the defendant’s relationship with the children.  The children were very fond of him and they would communicate with the defendant in English (the alleged victim’s mother does not speak or understand English).

This was one of the factors that created problems in the relationship between the defendant and the alleged victim’s mother.

The relationship between the defendant and the alleged victim was said to be purely familial and friendly in nature.

Mr. Sabbadini argued that the suggestive emails presented by the prosecution were taken out of context.  He stated that the alleged victim had a crush on the defendant.

However, the defendant did not cease electronic communication with her, despite the suggestive content, because he wanted to use the correspondence to get information that might help him with the upcoming custody hearing.

The credibility of the alleged victim’s allegations was then called into question by the defense.  Mr. Sabbadini asserted that there have been inconsistencies in core details of the alleged victim’s statements.  The alleged victim told the first interviewing officer that nothing sexual happened between her and the defendant.

Later, she told her cousins that she had slept with the defendant twice.  This led to the alleged victim telling her mother about the sexual relationship, and to a second interview.  During this interview, the alleged victim told an officer that she only slept with the defendant once and that nothing sexual had happened up until that incident.

Sabbadini also claimed that the alleged victim told authorities that she did not feel anything when the defendant sexually penetrated her and that her genitalia did not feel different or unusual after the alleged intercourse took place.

The defense also stated that the alleged victim told authorities that she changed her statements about her relationship with the defendant because she didn’t want her mother to have to pay $5,000 for a lawyer in the custody case.

She believed that the new statements would help her mother get custody of her younger brother.

The trial was set to resume at 9:00 AM on January 28.

Categories:

Tags: