UPDATE: A Yolo County jury returned a verdict of guilty in the case of Nan-Hui Jo on Tuesday morning, following just over a day of deliberation. She faced a single charge of kidnapping the baby she had with Jesse Charlton in 2008. The Vanguard will have more information shortly.
Previous story by Jackie Snyder and Lauren King
On the morning of February 27, 2015, the trial of Nan-Hui Jo reconvened. The defendant, Nan-Hui Jo, had taken the witness stand the previous day and would remain on the witness stand for the majority of the morning. At this time, Deputy District Attorney Steven Mount was conducting his cross-examination of Ms. Jo. Most of DDA Mount’s questions surrounded the spring of 2009, the time period in which Ms. Jo and Jesse Charlton (the biological father of the child) made the decision to work on their relationship for the benefit of their child.
DDA Mount inquired into the joint account Charlton and Ms. Jo had opened. DDA Mount asked Ms. Jo if she knew Charlton received a certain amount of cash each month, via the GI Bill, that was deposited into the account. Ms. Jo stated she did.
DDA Mount then launched into a series of questions and statements, which it seemed was in an effort to discredit Ms. Jo. Mr. Mount asked Ms. Jo about applying for food stamps in September of 2009. He provided the portion of the document that states it is against the law for anyone except the person named on the document to use the Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card that was issued. Mr. Mount then brought attention to the end of the document where it states to sign the document under penalty of perjury. Ms. Jo had provided her signature. DDA Mount then asked Ms. Jo if she had ever let anyone else use her card. She stated she had not, but she did leave her card behind at a friend’s house when she left to South Korea. When asked how the friend attained Ms. Jo’s pin for the card, Ms. Jo stated she had given it to her. Ms. Jo rationalized this by explaining her friend had helped her with her child in the past.
Mr. Mount asked Ms. Jo to explain her plans for moving out of the country in October 2009. Ms. Jo testified she was going to stay with a friend in L.A. for awhile and then visit her aunt in Florida. Ms. Jo stated she was not able to contact her aunt in Florida, however, and therefore continued on to her trip to South Korea. Mr. Mount claimed that, according to an email he had recovered, Ms. Jo knew that her aunt was planning to be out of town at the time Ms. Jo claimed she was to visit her. Mount stated that Ms. Jo had no intentions of visiting her aunt and was simply planning to leave the country to avoid her court date with Charlton.
Mr. Mount asked Ms. Jo if it were true that her friend in L.A. had encouraged her to attend her court appearance and have her issues with Charlton resolved. Ms. Jo stated yes. Mr. Mount then asked her if she made the decision, based on what her friend had said, to look into an attorney and seek legal advice. Ms. Jo agreed. Mount then stated that, after Ms. Jo’s visit to the attorney, she packed her bags to leave for South Korea.
DDA Mount then inquired into the emails Ms. Jo received while in South Korea. He asked her why, after she was emailed by an employee of the Child Abduction Unit regarding future court dates and contact information of the Sacramento County Superior Court system, she made the decision to not to reach out and make things right with Charlton. Mr. Mount claimed that Ms. Jo knew how much Charlton’s child meant to Charlton. He stated that when Ms. Jo made the decision to move to South Korea she knew she would be cutting off Charlton’s connection with the child. Mr. Mount claimed this to be true because, why else would Ms. Jo later tell her child that she did not have a father? DDA Mount inquired as to why Ms. Jo did not just tell the child the truth ‒ that she had a father who loved her and lived in America.
Mr. Mount then told Ms. Jo that, by not calling the Sacramento court to arrange a process in which Charlton would have the opportunity to check on his child and watch her grow, she was putting her interest ahead of her child and that of the child’s father. Ms. Jo stated she did not feel as though she was putting her interest first and she was just concerned for her and her child’s safety. At this point in time, Ms. Jo testified, she did not know Charlton’s state of mind.
The last person to testify was a rebuttal witness called by DDA Mount. The witness was a very good friend of Charlton. DDA Mount questioned the witness about Ms. Jo’s demeanor during the arguments that would take place between her and Charlton. The witness stated Ms. Jo would be very angry and aggressive at times, often swearing at Charlton. The witness claimed that Charlton would become embarrassed by Ms. Jo’s outbursts and did not know how to calm her.
Once the witness was dismissed, Judge David Rosenberg explained to the jury that at this point in the trial he would explain the law that applies to the case, and then closing arguments would be conducted by both attorneys. Finally, the jury would be required to deliberate. Before any of this took place, however, Judge Rosenberg excused the court for lunch and ask that they reconvene at 1:30 p.m. in Department 4.
Afternoon: Closing Arguments
The courtroom was a hotbed of activity on the afternoon of February 27, 2015, as the lengthy trial of Nan-Hui Jo came to a close. Ms. Jo’s devoted supporters were again present, in addition to a number of journalists. During the day’s morning session, testimony had been heard from Ms. Jo and Mr. Greg Potter. These testimonies concluded the evidence portion of the trial. After the lunch break, Judge Rosenberg delivered jury instructions. After the detailed instructions were presented, counsel gave their closing arguments.
During the jury instructions, Judge Rosenberg included several key pieces of information that Vanguard readers would also benefit from noting, to better understand this case. The crime is said to have taken place from October of 2009 to July of 2013. Ms. Jo has been charged with violating California Penal Code section 278.5 which reads as follows:
(a) Every person who takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals a child and maliciously deprives a lawful custodian of a right to custody, or a person of a right to visitation, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for 16 months, or two or three years, a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or both that fine and imprisonment. (b) Nothing contained in this section limits the court’s contempt power. (c) A custody order obtained after the taking, enticing away, keeping, withholding, or concealing of a child does not constitute a defense to a crime charged under this section.
However, within this case, both the act and intent are important. Ms. Jo may be found not guilty if she fulfills one of the requirements outlined within California Penal Code section 278.7 which reads:
(a) Section 278.5 does not apply to a person with a right to custody of a child who, with a good faith and reasonable belief that the child, if left with the other person, will suffer immediate bodily injury or emotional harm, takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals that child. (b) Section 278.5 does not apply to a person with a right to custody of a child who has been a victim of domestic violence who, with a good faith and reasonable belief that the child, if left with the other person, will suffer immediate bodily injury or emotional harm, takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals that child. “Emotional harm” includes having a parent who has committed domestic violence against the parent who is taking, enticing away, keeping, withholding, or concealing the child. (c) The person who takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals a child shall do all of the following: (1) Within a reasonable time from the taking, enticing away, keeping, withholding, or concealing, make a report to the office of the district attorney of the county where the child resided before the action. The report shall include the name of the person, the current address and telephone number of the child and the person, and the reasons the child was taken, enticed away, kept, withheld, or concealed. (2) Within a reasonable time from the taking, enticing away, keeping, withholding, or concealing, commence a custody proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction consistent with the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (Section 1738A, Title 28, United States Code) or the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (Part 3 (commencing with Section 3400) of Division 8 of the Family Code). (3) Inform the district attorney’s office of any change of address or telephone number of the person and the child.
Judge Rosenberg explained that the jury must find that Ms. Jo committed the act and that she did so maliciously. The judge explained that malicious, in a court of law, means that the defendant intentionally committed an unlawful act. He advised that only witness testimony and exhibits presented to the court are evidence and that it may be direct or circumstantial.
Deputy District Attorney Steven Mount then delivered his closing argument. “This case is about people and relationships, the right to due process, protecting children, and protecting a parent’s right to their children,” DDA Mount began. During this statement, the district attorney displayed a photograph of Ms. Jo’s child as an infant and then a photograph of Mr. Charlton with the child at her first birthday party, using a video projector. Mr. Mount continued by stating that the case has not been about deciding whether Ms. Jo is a good or bad person. Rather, it has been about deciding whether Ms. Jo broke the law. He argued that Ms. Jo deprived Mr. Charlton of seeing his child grow up. The court must decide what is in the best interest of a child, and parents cannot decide for themselves.
Mr. Charlton notified Ms. Jo of several court dates and she also received emails from Ms. Jenny Carillo and Ms. Angela Smith about the custody case. Ms. Carillo specifically warned Ms. Jo that she should not ignore Family Court proceedings.
Mr. Mount then addressed the issue of domestic violence. Ms. Jo and Mr. Charlton only mentioned one instance where Mr. Charlton had placed a hand on Ms. Jo. DDA Mount admitted that Mr. Charlton overreacted when he threw Ms. Jo against the wall and choked her, but argued that a second component of domestic violence was not present. Mr. Charlton did not wield power and control over Ms. Jo. Only Ms. Jo had access to their joint bank account and the two of them lived in her home when they moved in together in 2008. Ms. Jo was depicted not as a victim, but as a powerful, intelligent and capable woman.
Mr. Mount also argued that, after the single instance of physical violence against Ms. Jo, Mr. Charlton removed himself from the situation. He would not continue to be involved in a volatile relationship in front of his child and so he broke up with Ms. Jo. After the incident, Mr. Charlton only visited Ms. Jo’s home to see his daughter.
The prosecution then revisited the series of emails that were exchanged between Ms. Jo and several recipients. Mr. Mount asserted that these emails had been sent without concern of being judged and therefore they were likely composed with greater authenticity than later statements. In October of 2010, Ms. Jo told Ms. Carillo about the legal situation unfolding in California and confided that she was afraid of losing her child. Mr. Mount remarked that had Ms. Jo appeared in court, she would most certainly have been found the more fit parent. However, in that scenario, Mr. Charlton would still be allowed some form of contact.
Ms. Jo was not honest with Ms. Carillo or Ms. Smith during their online correspondence. Ms. Jo did not tell Ms. Carillo that she was already in South Korea when Ms. Carillo advised her not to “avoid the legal stuff.” She also lied to Ms. Smith when she said that she had to leave the country in six months. She had left for South Korea two months prior to sending that email. Ms. Jo was offered advice and extensive means of appearing in court, but chose not to attend.
DDA Mount argued that Ms. Jo is guilty because she denied Mr. Charlton any access to his child. He was not allowed visitation, phone calls or emails, or even pictures of his daughter. She also never sent Mr. Charlton any updates on his child during the five years they were apart. DDA Mount continued, “She knowingly acted wrongfully. She put her wants and insecurities ahead of the relationship between father and child…She would not even allow the Embassy to do a welfare check on the child so that they could contact Jesse and let him know that they were okay. That is just wrong.”
Deputy Public Defender Dean Johansson then delivered his closing argument. “So much of what you’ve heard is very confusing,” DPD Johansson began. He went on to explain that there was a civil matter in Sacramento and a criminal matter in Yolo County that were both discussed in this case. The deputy public defender asserted his belief that this whole trial seemed to be about the civil matter in Sacramento. Each type of court has a different inner workings and a different burden of proof. In this case, the People must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Ms. Jo is guilty of committing a felony.
DPD Johansson then re-framed the domestic violence issue involved in the case. He argued that DDA Mount portrayed the domestic violence differently than the witnesses did in their testimony. Mr. Charlton was around 240 lbs and a trained killer. Ms. Jo was around 90 lbs. Mr. Charlton choked her against a wall and screamed in her face. He had an explosive personality and was a drunkard whose body was deteriorating from war and drink. DPD Johansson professed that it is the threat of future harm that hurts the most and causes the most fear.
Mr. Charlton lived a life without roots or responsibilities. He only cared for skateboarding, food, sex, and photography. Even the district attorney admitted that Ms. Jo was the more responsible party.
DPD Johansson also held that DDA Mount neglected to mention Ms. Jo’s immigration issues in his closing argument. He also mentioned that the prosecution closed his case by calling Mr. Potter to the witness stand in order to establish that Ms. Jo sometimes yelled and swore at Mr. Charlton. The public defender argued that this inclusion was ridiculous and made it seem as though Ms. Jo was on trial for yelling and swearing.
“This case should be seen in civil court in Sacramento, not here,” DPD Johansson pressed. He continued by stating that this case was about the bond between mother and child. Ms. Jo did not believe that she could get pregnant after a previous miscarriage and she saw this baby as a miracle. The public defender described an incident where the child was choking and Ms. Jo instinctually inserted her fingers into the child’s mouth and retrieved the hazard. Mr. Charlton panicked and did not act. “Ms. Jo is a stellar mom,” Mr. Johansson remarked.
DPD Johansson argued that Ms. Jo did the best she could with what she had. He did not believe that she had malicious intent. Mr. Johansson gave an example of why Ms. Jo had reason to be wary of Mr. Charlton, “Mr. Charlton threatened to hire a bounty hunter to find her. This is not a loving relationship, folks.” He also reminded the jury that Ms. Jo had a storage unit in Sacramento that was full of possessions that were close to her heart, which suggests that she always intended to return to the United States with the child. DPD Johansson asked that the jury find Ms. Jo not guilty or, at the very least, find that the case was not proven by the prosecution.
DDA Mount was then allowed an additional closing argument in rebuttal. He reminded the jury that their decision was about whether a crime was committed and not about the consequences that may follow. It is the judge’s responsibility to decide the consequences that a defendant will face. He also reemphasized that Mr. Charlton never got to see, hear, or know about details pertaining to the first five years of his child’s life. DDA Mount also argued that Ms. Jo did not deserve her day in civil court (as he believed DPD Johansson suggested) because she was scheduled several court dates and given creative methods of appearing to those court dates, but she would not cooperate.
DDA Mount admitted that Mr. Charlton was inappropriate in many of his actions and that he was not great parent material, but he stressed that Mr. Charlton still had rights and that the custody issue should have been decided in court. Mr. Charlton had a right to due process. Mr. Mount also admitted that Ms. Jo likely had good faith and belief when she abducted the child, but she did not inform the Yolo County Child Abduction Unit of her and the child’s whereabouts.
Had Ms. Jo appeared in court, she would likely have gotten custody of the child, but Mr. Charlton would have been awarded some form of visitation, phone contact, or even just letters and pictures. When Ms. Jo acted as judge, she chose not to allow him anything.
In an email to Ms. Jo, Mr. Charlton told her that he did not know if she and the baby were alive or dead. Mr. Mount claimed that Ms. Jo read this and knew that he was in pain. He also claimed that when Ms. Jo discovered that Mr. Charlton was serious about going to court, she booked a flight to South Korea.
Mr. Mount informed the jury that the Hague Convention was implemented to prevent the very thing that occurred in this case. He also stated that frequently, in domestic violence cases, a person will deny the other person the thing that they love most, after they run out of other ways to inflict pain. This statement seemed to suggest that DDA Mount was accusing Ms. Jo of committing acts of domestic violence.
Mr. Mount finished his rebuttal argument by alleging that this case depicted two different pictures of Ms. Jo, but that the finer details showed that Ms. Jo was fraudulent in her actions and that she knowingly and willfully deprived Mr. Charlton of contact with his child. For this reason, the jury was urged to find Ms. Jo guilty.
The jury was excused for deliberation at 3:30 p.m. and the court session concluded at 4:00 p.m.. Deliberation will continue on March 2, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. The Vanguard will disclose the trial’s verdict when the jury returns with its decision.
“Section 278.5 does not apply to a person with a right to custody of a child who, with a good faith and reasonable belief that the child, if left with the other person, will suffer immediate bodily injury or emotional harm, takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals that child. (b) Section 278.5 does not apply to a person with a right to custody of a child who has been a victim of domestic violence who, with a good faith and reasonable belief that the child, if left with the other person, will suffer immediate bodily injury or emotional harm,”
“DDA Mount admitted that Mr. Charlton was inappropriate in many of his actions and that he was not great parent material, but he stressed that Mr. Charlton still had rights and that the custody issue should have been decided in court. Mr. Charlton had a right to due process. DDA Mount also admitted that Ms. Jo likely had good faith and belief when she abducted the child, but she did not inform the Yolo County Child Abduction Unit of her and the child’s whereabouts”
I think that a key to this case is the word in the law “maliciously”. DDA mount himself seems to undermine his own case in is admission that he feels that Ms. Jo “acted in good faith and belief. This would seem to assert that her actions were not “malicious” but rather protective.
The bigger issue here however seems to be the focus of the legal system. The interest of the child should be primary. In this case, we do not have a consistently kind, caring father. We have a volatile, intermittently violent, alcohol dependent individual who has demonstrated at least on episode of domestic violence (which tends to escalate, not abate) when left untreated and is especially dangerous when combined with substance abuse. This is the same individual who tried on a number of confirmed cases tried to get Ms. Jo to either terminate or adopt out her “miracle baby” who belatedly had a change of heart. And now the prosecutor essentially tells the jury “Don’t worry about the consequences, don’t worry about the welfare of the child, consider only the “rights” of this man. How is this substantially any different from societies in which the law establishes that “ownership” of the children belongs to the male ?
How anyone could hear of the scene of throwing another individual against a wall and choking them ( regardless of how many times) and feel that the victim of this act should not take steps to protect her child and that she is being “malicious” in doing so is beyond my ability to comprehend. This should be worked out in a mediated setting with the primary concern being the safety and well being of the child, not some archaic view of parental rights. ( Please note that I would be saying exactly the same thing if the genders in this case were reversed.)
which suggests that the defense is trying to frame the issue as being whether it was done out of malice and perhaps the prosecution differs. however, i see nothing here to suggest anything other than a hung jury or an outright acquittal.
I agree, if one of the parties was manipulating a “kind” of spouse (baby daddy or mommy) by:
— raiding a joint bank account,
— trying to marry, to get citizenship, then divorce,
— manipulate the system to their advantage and get child support but deny the baby visiting rights as stated, and the legal system as it suited them,
— lying about where they are,
— ignoring courts to further delay justice, then
— claiming she cannot speak English but go to one of the most prestigious film schools in the nation,
you have to wonder if there is any truth in her testimony.
I also wonder why so many of her “devoted supporters” are there every day? I only ask because this is a common story, and each case is eerily identical. Few people can act differently than this lady, but she pulled every trick in the book to make the baby daddy just go away. I wonder where each party got all this money but is “broke”?
The term I would use is “calculating”. I have seen it before, many times, by either gender
This is about people not history, don’t escalate the argument, you might say it is about race next?
“This is about people not history, don’t escalate the argument, you might say it is about race next?”
We have a legal system that is largely based on precedent. I see that as relevant.
“she pulled every trick in the book to make the baby daddy just go away”
It would appear that there are things that the father would also like to have “just go away”. His urging for abortion. His urging her to adopt the baby out.His denial that the child was his until proven so by paternity testing. His payment of child support when it suited him and not when it didn’t. His lawyers minimization of the domestic violence and alcoholism, a dangerous and volatile combination.
What I have seen through the years are “calculations” made by both sides when it comes to parental rights. Once again this is being framed as the manipulations of the mother vs the rights of the father, when what should be being considered is the welfare of the child.
Update: Jury has found Ms. Jo guilty.
I’m guessing the jury viewed it as I did:
Ms. Jo acted in full knowledge of the illegality of those actions, demonstrated poor parental judgement and little regard for the child’s welfare or the justice system, with no accompanying awareness of her own shortcomings and responsibility. Just my take.
;>)/
I am not surprised at the verdict. The problem here is that the defendant tried to get Mr. Charlton to marry her, despite her claim that he was abusive, which undercut her credibility. Secondly, she refused to use our country’s court system to adjudicate child custody issues, by removing the child from the court’s jurisdiction without permission, a huge no-no. And just for the record, this was not a custody hearing, but a criminal proceeding to determine whether the defendant had kidnapped the child from the court’s jurisdiction over the child custody case. Clearly she had.
i’m disappointed with the verdict and that this case was handled as a criminal matter. i still believe that most of the issues could have been resolved criminally. i think the poor judgment by ms. jo was a combination of lack of understanding of our system, fear and panic. not every mistake needs to be dragged through the criminal system.
Sorry, but kidnapping a baby, to a foreign country merits a criminal trial. Poor judgement, for whatever reason does not excuse a crime of that magnitude.
;>)/
you realize that it will probably end up being a misdemeanor by the time the judge here’s the motion to reduce the charges? she didn’t do things the right way, but the charge here is parental abduction, which is not the same as kidnapping, and is in fact a wobbler. i don’t think she really understood the law and i don’t think she really intended to take the baby away. but that’s just me.
DP,
So your earlier prediction was a “hung jury or outright acquittal” and then the jury came back guilty. Now you are predicting a misdemeanor? It will be interesting to see if your track record remains intact on predictions for this case. Five years is a really long time to be denied contact with your child.
The bigger issue is what does the family court judge do with this case where one parent is convicted by a jury of stealing a child for five years, regardless of whether it is a misdemeanor or felony. I pity the poor judge that has to clean up this mess. How does he allow the child to have a productive relationship with both parents when he cannot trust the mother with the child in case she were to flee again and then she has immigration issues that may not allow her to remain in this country? Both parents should be allowed to participate in the raising of this child.
What I find to be truly troubling by many of the posts concerning this case are the over the top attacks on the father. Concerning the best interests of the child what type of parent is the father now? He does not seem to get much credit for overcoming injuries suffered while serving his country in a combat zone, getting an education and then becoming employed as a school teacher. I wonder how much treatment through the VA or other medical sources he had to go through to get where he is now? What was that struggle like. It looks like he has really gotten his life together and is a much better parent now than when the child was born. I wonder what he wants now? Has anyone asked him?
“So your earlier prediction was a “hung jury or outright acquittal” and then the jury came back guilty. ”
i wasn’t counting on a juror to resign rather than rule not guilty.
DP, when you think of all the cases of men and women who play this out every day, present them with laws of behavior and they ignore it, try to circumvent it, or claim it does not apply to them, then it is largely like Bill Clinton claiming he didn’t do anything wrong in his marriage. But he lied under oath, and that was the crime. So did this woman, Ms Jo.
strangely enough i think you make a good analogy. the lesson of the clinton impeachment was not every technical crime rises to the level of impeachment and the lesson here is not every mistake in violation of the law needs to prosecuted criminally. i think the father in this case would have been satisfied with an agreement to allow him to be part of his daughter’s life. the criminal prosecution of this case, may well mean that the mother is deported and the daughter is deprived of the care of the parent that was most responsible for her care and that may well be counter to the best interest of the daughter just as the pursuit of the impeachment on those grounds was really counter to the interests of this nation. but i’m sure you have a different view.
Based on this mother’s actions, I think it is quite a stretch to say that leaving the child in her care is necessarily in the best interests of the child. This is a woman who will attach herself to an abusive man to obtain a green card; defy court orders she doesn’t like, unilaterally taken away the father’s right to have contact with his child, etc. Her behavior is hardly exemplary.