Reneaux Convicted on Three Counts in DV Case

By Misha Berman

On the afternoon of March 2, 2016, in Department 14, Defendant Jesse Reneaux was found guilty by the jury for Count 1, intimidating a witness; Count 2, false imprisonment by violence or menace; and Count 3, inflicting injury on a co-inhabitant resulting in traumatic conditions.

For Count 4, also a false imprisonment by violence or menace charge, and Count 5, a vandalism charge, the jury could not make a final decision.

“So jury is deadlocked?” asked Judge Rosenberg.

The jurors responded affirmatively. Judge Rosenberg then thanked the jury for their services and excused them. Judge Rosenberg then decided for both the defense and prosecuting attorneys to return on March 10, 2016, for the “bifurcated” portion of the trial, and when they will decide what to do for Counts 4 and 5.

Closing Arguments in Domestic Violence Case

By Monica Velez

The last day of evidence, March 2, 2016, in the domestic violence trial that hangs over defendant Jessie Reneaux’s head, began with Deputy District Attorney Crystal Chua playing an audio recording of a phone call between the defendant and the alleged victim sometime after Reneaux was arrested.

Reneaux is being charged on five counts. Count one is intimidating the witness. Counts two and four are false imprisonment by violence or menace. Count three is inflicting injury on a co-inhabitant, resulting in traumatic conditions. Count five is vandalism.

“I f-ing miss you, I hate being home alone,” said the alleged victim to the defendant, Jessie Reneaux, in the audio recording.

“Baby, I love you,” said Reneaux to the alleged victim.

The defendant and alleged victim shared many intimate phrases between one another during the entire phone call, with Reneaux telling the alleged victim that he wants to marry her, “no matter what.”

“I’m not letting you go, baby,” said the alleged victim.

Reneaux went on to tell the alleged victim not to talk to the district attorney’s office, telling her to call and say she made a false report. He repeatedly told her not to send him to prison, to tell Officer Morgan Hatcher (an officer who took photographs of the alleged victim’s bruises and made a report) that everything was a lie.

The defendant reiterated that the alleged victim would not get in trouble for doing this, and that the “only thing you can do is call and say it’s a false report.”

Reneaux told her she had to call the district attorney’s office and needed to “pull it off,” referring to her saying the whole report was a lie.

“You understand that, baby?” asked Reneaux.

“I’m not going to hurt you, I’m going to get you out,” said the alleged victim.

The alleged victim began getting emotional over the phone, crying and sniffling on the recording. She told Reneaux she promised she was going to call and say what happened was a false report. Reneaux told her that he wants to be with her and that she was his “angel.”

“Don’t worry, I’m not letting you go to prison,” said the alleged victim.

Reneaux was persistent in telling the alleged victim to call Officer Hatcher and the district attorney’s office, multiple times if she had to. He told her not to talk to anybody about the case and the alleged victim agreed to do everything he said.

“I’m going to miss you tonight so much,” was the last thing the alleged victim said to Reneaux before the audio recording of the phone call ended.

Judge David Rosenberg then told the jury about a stipulation that both parties accept as true – on September 22, 2015, the alleged victim called the district attorney and said she lied.

At this time the defense and the people rested, now ready to go into closing arguments. Before beginning, the judge explained to the jury that closing arguments are not considered evidence, they are the views of what the attorneys believe the evidence shows.

The judge then began the jury instructions, explaining the five counts that Reneaux is charged with, which occurred on two separate occasions, August 13 and 28 of 2015. He explained thoroughly what evidence would have to be proved for each count to result in a guilty verdict.

After the morning recess, Chua started her closing argument at 10:35 a.m. Chua played an excerpt of the audio recording between the alleged victim and Officer Hatcher.

“He’s very intimidating and scary,” said the alleged victim while describing Reneaux.

Chua said that, on August 13 and 28 of 2015, intimidating and scary is exactly what the defendant was and that the alleged victim’s credibility is an essential issue in the case, with the jury having to figure out what they believed happened, while seeing that the alleged victim tried to recant her story.

On August 13, 2015, the alleged victim was crying and distraught when the police came. She said that she and the defendant had an argument, and he followed her out to her car while she was attempting to go to work.

Reneaux punched the windshield with his closed fist, cracking it, and then hit the roof of the car, denting it. With an unknown object, Reneaux then did something to the ignition so the car would not start.

Chua argued this incident proved without a reasonable doubt that the alleged victim was guilty of count five, vandalism. He knowingly and willingly damaged the alleged victim’s car so she could not go anywhere, a crime that bleeds into the false imprisonment, counts two and four, as well.

By damaging the car that the defendant knowingly knew was the alleged victim’s, he was not only vandalizing her property, but was also “maliciously” keeping her from leaving, even though he knew she wanted to and was attempting to get away from the situation.

Chua argued that counts two and four corresponded with what happened on August 28, 2015, as well. That morning, between 1:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m., their landlord had his daughter call the police because he heard shouting from the defendant’s and alleged victim’s granny flat.

Officer Hatcher had responded to this noise complaint and the police continually knocked on the door, announcing it was Winters Police. In testimony, it was said that Reneaux was preventing the alleged victim from going to the door by holding down her jaw with his hand and telling her to “shut-up.”

Chua said Reneuax kept her from getting assistance from the police, satisfying the requirement for count three, intimidating the witness because he knew he was keeping her from leaving, while using violent actions resulting in her bruising, or “traumatic conditions.”

Chua drilled her arguments into the jury, explaining how each count would prove the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Counts two and four are satisfied by the defendant willingly keeping the alleged victim from receiving help through Reneaux’s excessive force and the screws holding a door closed – with the photos Officer Hatcher took of the alleged victim’s bruises proving Reneaux grabbed and held her down.

Count one was also proved mainly through the recording heard earlier in court of Reneaux telling the alleged victim to tell the district attorney that everything she had said was a lie.

Defense Attorney Jeffrey Raven started his closing argument by saying this case was filled with speculation and generalization. He said that often some women are scared and recant their reports.

He distinguished the difference between assuming what happened to believing beyond a reasonable doubt what happened, and that believing only a certain percentage of what happened is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Raven brought up the fact that, because the alleged witness refused to testify, he was not able to get her side of the story. He argued that she could have been scared she would get arrested because she admitted in an audio recording with Officer Hatcher that she had slapped Reneaux.

The alleged victim’s lack of testimony and credibility made what happened unknown.

Regarding the recording that was played earlier in court on March 2, 2016, Raven argued that Reneaux was simply telling the alleged victim to tell the district attorney that she lied. Raven said that Reneaux knew that only the alleged victim could right the wrong and, of course, he wasn’t going to call her hurtful names like Chua said he would have if he knew the alleged victim was actually lying.

Raven said that the defendant did not want to upset her and that the jury is “asked to make a lot of circumstantial inferences in this case.” Raven said that if the jury is any bit doubtful, they must go to the inference of not guilty.

He explained to the jury that the phrases “most likely” cannot be used to uphold the standard of convicting someone beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the standard of proof is not a gut instinct.

Raven said jumping to conclusions is how many people get wrongfully convicted and the audio recordings were the only sources to evaluate the alleged victim’s credibility.

The defense raised the question as to why the district attorney did not follow up on the alleged victim’s attempt to recant her statement. Raven said there is also no evidence that the defendant told the alleged victim not to testify, he simply told her to tell the district attorney she lied.

Raven went on to discuss the photos of the alleged victim’s bruises. Most of them were purple, the color of bruises that were already three days old according to Raven. He said the bruises were not consistent with her story because, according to her, they happened only about twelve hours before the photos were taken.

Raven ended by telling the jury to be careful about speculation in the case, and that he was not sure what happened because the evidence is incapable of showing that the injuries coincide with the alleged victim’s story.

“You don’t know what happened beyond a reasonable doubt that evening,” Raven told the jury.

Since the People have the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, Chua got another chance to make a final statement. She argued right away in rebuttal that in the recording played earlier in court on March 2, 2016, Reneaux never told the alleged victim to tell the truth.

Chua said if Reneaux knew that the alleged victim was lying the whole time, he would have told her to tell the truth, but in reality he repeatedly said the word “lie” and told her to “pull it off.”

“This is 100 percent […] convincing her she made a false report,” said Chua.

Chua confirmed that the alleged victim was granted immunity by the People, so she would not get in trouble or incriminate herself, thus there was no way she was worried about what would happen to her if she testified. She argued that Reneaux continued to exert power over the alleged victim and that is why she did not testify to what happened to her.

At 11:45 a.m., seven women and five men went into the deliberation room.

Categories:

Tags: