by Lauren King
The trial of Manuel Guzman resumed on January 30, 2015, before Judge David Rosenberg at the Yolo Superior Courthouse. After Friday’s lunch break, defense attorney David W. Dratman temporarily suspended his cross-examination of the alleged victim to allow two witnesses from out of town to testify.
The first witness called to testify was Officer Timothy McIrvin of the Bakersfield Police Department. Deputy District Attorney Michelle Serafin began her direct examination of the witness. On October 25, 2013, McIrvin reported to The Alliance Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault Outreach Center in Bakersfield after being informed of a potential child molestation case.
Officer McIrvin was first greeted by one of the center’s counselors, who was bilingual in English and Spanish, and she introduced him to the alleged victim’s mother. It was the mother who had requested police assistance.
The alleged victim’s mother informed Officer McIrvin that she had noticed that the defendant and her daughter had been spending a lot of time alone together and that their relationship appeared to be intimate. The two of them would hold hands and put their arms around each other as though they were involved in a dating relationship.
Officer McIrvin was told that the mother noticed the suspicious relationship between the defendant and the alleged victim shortly after her daughter began puberty. When the mother confronted the alleged victim about the relationship, her daughter told her, “I ain’t saying anything.” This response worried the mother because her daughter did not deny anything.
The mother then proceeded to tell Officer McIrvin about the emails that she discovered and had had translated by the center’s bilingual counselor. She showed him several of the emails by means of her cellular telephone.
Officer McIrvin testified that he saw emails in which the defendant told the alleged victim to delete their email messages so that the two of them would not get into trouble. He also saw that pictures had been sent back and forth. In one of the pictures, the officer reported that the alleged victim had her shirt lifted to expose her stomach up to the bottom of her breast line. She was also sucking in her stomach.
Shortly after, Officer McIrvin drove to the residence where the alleged victim and her family were staying. He and the mother arrived at the residence around the same time. Officer McIrvin then made contact with the alleged victim for an interview.
Officer McIrvin interviewed the alleged victim and concluded that the girl was able to tell the difference between right and wrong, as well as between a truth and a lie (a series of questions are asked to establish that the individual understands the difference and this must be done before questioning an individual under 14 years of age). The alleged victim was very quiet and evasive during the interview with the officer. She did not want to speak about what was going on. She told him that she and the defendant were just friends.
Officer McIrvin told the alleged victim that he did not believe that she was telling him the truth after viewing several of the emails between her and the defendant.
The alleged victim continued to be very evasive with the officer. She told him that she did not want to get anyone into trouble. When asked why someone would get into trouble, she responded that she did not know.
After the interview, the alleged victim translated for her mother when Officer McIrvin wanted to speak to her again. The officer wanted the alleged victim to get checked out at the hospital, but this did not happen. The officer had no physical evidence of a sexual assault.
Defense Attorney Dratman began his cross-examination of Officer McIrvin. Mr. Dratman’s questions were focused on the alleged victim’s mother’s demeanor and statements to the officer, as well as Officer McIrvin’s actions during the police investigation.
Officer McIrvin testified that the mother was very upset during their interaction. She also told him that a few years prior, an ex-girlfriend of the defendant had accused him of molesting one of her children. This information had been brought to her attention by a friend of hers. This new detail caused the officer to become concerned that the defendant was a repeat offender.
It was alleged that the defendant’s ex-girlfriend had filed formal charges against him. Therefore, a complete record check was performed; no record of child molestation accusations was found.
Mr. Dratman asked Officer McIrvin if the alleged victim’s mother had informed him of her joint child with the defendant, their child custody battle, or the fact that the defendant had filed for custody of the child two weeks before she filed her custody and restraining order documents. The officer replied that she had not shared any of this information with him.
The alleged victim’s mother did not tell Officer McIrvin that the counselor translated the emails for her, and she showed him the suggestive picture that the alleged victim sent to the defendant without showing him the defendant’s response.
Mr. Dratman presented a three-page document to the court that contained the picture within the context of the alleged victim’s email and the defendant’s response. In the email, the defendant responded to the picture by asking the alleged victim why she was showing so much skin. Officer McIrvin stated that he had not seen this text and that, had he seen it, it may have colored his impressions of the case differently.
Officer McIrvin testified that he asked the alleged victim’s mother to tell him everything and that she had been very cooperative. Despite this fact, she neglected to tell the officer several background details.
The next witness called to testify was Officer Ryan Clark, another Bakersfield peace officer. DDA Serafin began her direct examination of the witness. On November 19, 2013, at 9:45 PM, Officer Clark reported to a Bakersfield residence after being notified of a child molestation case.
The alleged victim’s mother was the party who had requested police assistance. Officer Clark had reviewed Officer McIrvin’s report before speaking with her. The alleged victim’s cousin acted as translator for her aunt and Officer Clark.
That evening, the alleged victim had informed her mother about a sexual relationship between her and the defendant. The alleged victim told her mother that on September 27, 2013, she had exited the bathroom in the middle of the night and, after being motioned over by the defendant, she and the defendant had sexual intercourse.
Officer Clark spoke with the alleged victim alone in the kitchen of the residence. At the beginning of the interview, the alleged victim spoke with hesitation and refused to make eye contact with the officer. Officer Clark continued questioning the alleged victim and determined that she understood the difference between right and wrong and a truth and a lie.
Shortly after the interview began, the batteries in Officer Clark’s recorder died. Rather than end the interview, the officer pressed on due to the fact that the alleged victim had begun to sob and to open up to him. She told Officer Clark that shortly after midnight she got up to go to the bathroom. The defendant told her to wait for him and then he used the bathroom. Afterward, they went to the couch and began kissing and the defendant removed the alleged victim’s black sweat pants. Then, she told the officer, “they had sex.”
The alleged victim stated that she felt confused about the incident and that this was the first time anything sexual had happened. Officer Clark testified that he made sure that the alleged victim understood the definition of “sex.” The alleged victim also told Officer Clark that she told her mother what had happened because she didn’t want her mother to have to pay five thousand dollars for a lawyer in the child custody battle over her brother.
The alleged victim refused to answer any further questions and a sexual assault exam was not offered, due to the more than two-month lapse in time since the alleged sexual intercourse took place.
Defense attorney Dratman then began his cross-examination of the witness. Mr. Dratman asked Officer Clark a series of questions about the information he was given by the alleged victim’s mother during the investigation.
Mr. Dratman asked the officer if he had been informed that the mother was on her way to see a lawyer before she was stopped by the alleged victim and told about the alleged sexual intercourse. Officer Clark responded that he did not know anything about this.
The alleged victim’s mother told Officer Clark that she had been asleep in the Winters residence when the sexual intercourse took place on September 27, 2013. However, Mr. Dratman informed the court that the mother had previously stated that she had gotten out of bed every hour to check on the defendant while he was asleep in his car because she felt suspicious of his relationship with her daughter. Mr. Dratman also reported that the mother said that the intercourse took place around 3:00 AM, but her daughter told the officer that it occurred around midnight.
Mr. Dratman also began to undermine the credibility of Officer Clark and his interviewing techniques. At the time of the interview, Officer Clark had been a peace officer for five months. The officer admitted that he was not specifically trained on how to talk to an alleged sexual assault victim under 14 years of age. Up until that point, he had only been instructed on standard interviewing techniques.
Mr. Dratman asked if the officer had learned not to give the alleged victim any information or to ask leading questions during the first interview. Officer Clark responded that he did not have knowledge of this protocol. The officer testified that he asked the alleged victim, specifically, if anything physical had happened between her and the defendant and also asked her if they had engaged in sexual intercourse. Mr. Dratman speculated that these types of questions could potentially create a false allegation.
According to Officer Clark’s testimony, the alleged victim told him that she had only lived in the same home as the defendant for one month. He was also told that nothing sexual had taken place prior to September 27, 2013. This information contradicts the alleged victim’s earlier testimony in court.
The trial of Manuel Guzman was scheduled to resume on February 2, 2015 at 9:15 AM.
