Forensic Pathologist Who Conducted Mr. Choate’s Autopsy Testifies
By Tiffany Yeh
Witness Dr. Ikechi Ogan, a forensic pathologist with the Forensic Medical Group, testified in court today about the autopsy he performed on Kelly Choate. He estimates that he has performed around 5,000 autopsies to date. Jeffrey Lemus is on trial, accused of the fatal stabbing of Mr. Chaote at Kenny’s Bar & Grill in Woodland on December 5, 2015.
Upon physical examination, Dr. Ogan saw, in his words, a “significant injury to torso” and an “inflicted wound,” “a stab wound to the chest,” along with a “surgical incision by thoracotomy on the left side of the chest” in order to massage and try to revive the victim’s heart.
He described the torso injury as in a vertical orientation, about two inches wide, and speculated that the lower part of the injury was caused by the sharp edge of a knife.
Dr. Ogan also dissected from the skin downwards to where the wound terminated.
The wound went through the seventh rib, punctured Mr. Choate’s left lung (with the “lung partially collapsed), went through the sac where the heart is in, and through the two chambers of the heart.
He described the heart injury as a “heart injury.”
Pictures were shown of Mr. Choate’s chest and torso area and of his heart. Deputy Public Defender Ron Johnson made a continuing objection to the showing of the pictures in court, and Judge David Reed overruled those objections.
One picture showed a ruler stuck in the victim’s heart, indicating how deep the wound was. It was four inches deep, according to Dr. Ogan. The knife used was a “singled edge blade, reinforced at the back” and the knife was in “excess of at least four inches” and “at least an eighth of an inch thick.”
When shown a folding knife in court by Deputy District Attorney Kyle Hasapes, Dr. Ogan identified it as the knife he chose, from a couple of knives at the autopsy, as the one that most likely inflicted the wound on Mr. Choate.
The picture of the victim’s heart on a cutting board, with a probe in it, was shown in court to the jury. Dr. Ogan described the wound as being on the left side of the chest, medial, front to back. The wound went from the front through the middle chamber to the back of the heart. To him, the stab wound was “fatal” and “non-survivable.”
An outside reference lab tested Mr. Choate for some drugs, which was found positive. His eye fluid was also tested for alcohol, which showed a 202 milliliter per deciliter level of alcohol. Dr. Ogan described the level of alcohol as approximately two and a half times the legal limit that Californians can drive under (in other words, two and a half times larger than the 0.08 blood alcohol concentration – BAC – legal limit).
The toxicology report showed that the victim had methamphetamine and another amphetamine-type drug in his system. According to Dr. Ogan, the victim’s meth and alcohol use had “no correlation to Mr. Choate’s death.”
The Sacramento death certificate for Mr. Choate stated that drug and alcohol intoxication was an “other contributing factor” to his death. Dr. Ogan stated that law enforcement makes the decision on what to put on the death certificate, not doctors.
In Dr. Ogan’s opinion, drug and alcohol intoxication was another factor that had NO bearing on Mr. Choate’s death. The cause of death was a stab wound to the heart, he deemed.
At one point, Dr. Ogan described the 3,000 nanograms per milliliter found in Mr. Choate as a “significant amount of meth.” However, he firmly believes that the stab wound to the heart was the cause of death for Mr. Choate, not his meth use.
Dr. Ogan described meth as being “lethal at 2000, lethal at 5000” and that it is a continuum with meth use and depends on a person’s previous use, tolerance, dependence, and chronic use.
Mr. Johnson nailed Dr. Ogan about whether he thought that the level of methamphetamine found in Mr. Choate could have be lethal for other people.
In response to Mr. Johnson’s questions on that subject, Dr. Ogan continually repeated that toxicology was “not his expertise” and that he (the doctor) would “defer to a toxicologist.”
Dr. Ogan refused to make statements about meth levels beyond that and whether the 3000 nanograms/mL of meth is lethal in other people, and he stated that he did not want to go into hypotheticals.
He acknowledged that the level of meth found in the victim’s body was “quite significant” and that meth can lead to increased aggressiveness in some people, but declined to answer most of the other questions regarding meth.
Upon Mr. Hasapes’ questions, it came to light that Dr. Ogan did not speak to a toxicologist when writing his autopsy report, and only integrated findings from the toxicology report itself.
When questioned by Mr. Johnson about why he did not ask the toxicologist’s opinion in this case, he replied that there was an “obvious stab wound” to “both sides to the heart, lung” and that there was “no need to talk to a toxicologist.” Dr. Ogan stated that if he had “any doubts,” then he would have consulted with a toxicologist about whether drug use played a role in a person’s cause of death.
The “big gaping wound” was a fatal injury, according to Dr. Ogan. He said the cause of death was a stab wound, puncture of the heart, and he said he based it on his experience and opinion.
The second witness for the afternoon was “RV,” who lived three houses down to the east, on the same side of the street as Mr. Choate. She had known Mr. Choate for 36 years.
She stated that she was “good friends with both” Mr. Choate and Mr. Lemus.
At times, she seemed forgetful during her testimony. RV stated that she was “embarrassed because I don’t have a good memory.” In response to some questions, she stated that she did could not remember.
She described renting out the front of her property to “JF” for two years, while she lived in the back section/house of the property.
One night, she described drinking beer and watching TV with Jeffrey Lemus, Kelly Chaote, JF, and others at JF’s house. Kelly left first, stating he wanted to check on the chicken in his house. Later that night, Mr. Lemus was “very upset” that his bike was gone from JF’s front yard.
Sometime later, although it was unclear from the witness’ timeline, RV described going to Lemus’ house and seeing that Lemus had two bikes at his house. She described Mr. Lemus as drunk at that time. Lemus asked her if she wanted one of the bikes and told her that the bikes were Kelly’s and that he had beaten up Kelly.
Around 5pm, RV went to check up on Kelly Choate at his house. It was unclear and confusing whether RV went to check on Kelly the same day or the next day after the drinking at JF’s house. Kelly answered the door and she entered his house for about five minutes and then left.
She stated that she noticed that he had a “little cut” that looked “fresh” on the back of his ear. That day, Kelly and RV did not talk about what happened to cause the cut. A couple days after that, Kelly mentioned something to her about being at JF’s house and explained the story. It did not seem that RV remembered what he told her.
Three to four months afterward, Kelly was drunk and said something like, “I’m going to kick your ass, m—f—r!” Ms. Vigil stated that she never heard Jeff Lemus respond to Kelly Chaote’s taunts.
The last witness of the day was JF. He had lived on the same street as Mr. Choate for five years, and had moved there in 2011. He described knowing Kelly for over 10 years and that he, Kelly, and Lemus would gather at his house a lot on weekends to watch sports and boxing tournaments and drink beer.
JF remembered a verbal altercation between Kelly and Jeff over a bike. It was “within a couple years” of December 2015.
On a particular day, JF, Lemus, Chaote and two other people were at JF’s house. There were six bikes parked outside his house. At some point later, Kelly stated that he was going home, that he was drunk.
About twenty minutes later, Jeff started to leave and then said that someone took his bike. JF remembers Jeff Lemus looking visibly upset at the time.
A couple days later, someone told JF (he could not remember who it was) that Jeff’s bike was at Kelly’s house.
Sometime later, JF and Jeff walked to Kelly’s house and knocked on his door, telling Kelly that they were told that Jeff’s bike was there. Kelly, drunk at the time, said that the bike was in the back of the house.
JF and Jeff went inside the house, then to the back, and grabbed the bike.
Sometime later, Jeff and Kelly argued about who took the bike. JF advised them to drop the argument; he described the bike issue as a point of contention between the two ever since.
About four days after retrieving the bike, Kelly kept verbally attacking Jeff about the bike. JF described Kelly “going at Jeff” and Kelly saying “I didn’t take the bike.” He also said he was going to “kick Jeff’s ass.” Kelly was doing most of the yelling while Jeff backed off.
Then, about three or four months after the bike incident, JF described Kelly and Jeff as looking like they were going to get into a fist fight or tackle each other, with Kelly going at Jeff, and JF was able to get in the middle and stop the fight.
JF described similar situations (fights about to break out) occurring four or five times at his house. He described Jeff as responding to Kelly’s taunts by standing there, sometimes walking away, and then finally saying he (Jeff) was going to stand his ground. JF said that Kelly was “always the aggressor” and that Kelly “wouldn’t leave it alone.”
Sometimes, JF and Kelly would got to Kenny’s Bar on Saturdays and Sundays to drink, and they had never seen Jeff at the bar there when they were there.
Both RV and JF testified that they have never seen Kelly threaten anyone with his knife. Mr. Hasapes seems to be using this piece of information (that prosecution witnesses have never seen Kelly threaten anyone with his knife) as a key part of the prosecution’s case.
Mr. Johnson mentioned something about Mr. Hasapes giving discovery to him late, which Mr. Hasapes denied and was about to talk more about when he was cut off by the judge.
A couple moments later, Mr. Johnson questioned Mr. Hasapes about why he had his (the public defender’s office’s) investigator, Mr. Ford, under subpoena for a couple days during the trial when the investigator has not refuted any of the witnesses’ statements; the witnesses’ testimonies do not deviate much from what they told Mr. Ford during interviews in the past.
Perhaps Mr. Johnson was implying that Mr. Ford has other things to do with his time rather than sitting next to Mr. Hasapes and offering input during this case about the witnesses’ testimonies. Judge Reed did not really reply to Mr. Johnson’s inquiry and seemed to defer to the prosecution on this issue.
Final Day of Evidence in Murder Trial
By Prince Sahota
On Wednesday May 18, 2016, multiple witnesses were examined in the trial of Jeffrey Lemus, accusing of the fatal stabbing of Kelly Chaote. The defense moved to strike the entire case and Judge David W. Reed initiated jury instruction discussion with the prosecution and defense lawyers.
Pursuant to this case, the defendant Jeffery Lemus is charged by the prosecution with murder according to California Penal Code section 187(a): “Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being . . . with malice aforethought.” Deputy Public Defender Ron Johnson asserted that defendant Lemus acted in self-defense. The prosecution declared that defendant Jeffery Lemus stabbed the victim Kelly Chaote during a fight at Kenny’s Bar & Grill in Woodland, California, leading to Kelly’s death on December 5, 2015.
The People called witness Josh Marcuso, a detective with the Woodland Police Department. He maintained that he was informed by dispatch that an assault with a weapon occurred at Kenny’s Bar. He recalled, upon arriving at the scene, photos being taken and people gathered on the front patio of the bar. He recalled hearing somebody say “that’s the guy . . . ” and he noticed that Officer Zachary Ryno apprehended defendant Lemus. He further testified that the defendant admitted to having a knife, and compelling the witness to write down identifying information. The defendant was taken into custody and read his Miranda Rights.
Next, “JR” testified in this case as a prosecution witness and friend of the victim. In prior testimony he observed surveillance and told the defendant directly, ”you better get a damn good lawyer.” The defense said the witness was biased by emotional involvement. JR spoke about a past incident with victim Kelly and a lady named Maria involving yelling between the two individuals. He requested that Maria stop bothering him. He continued by discussing an incident where a car swerved toward victim Kelly and Kelly threw a bottle at the vehicle thereafter.
The following witness was “EM,” a friend of both victim Kelly and defendant Lemus. She witnessed an altercation prior to December 5, 2015. The event consisted of yelling. She restrained Kelly and claimed that Kelly did not make use of a knife he carried. She said Lemus did not have a reputation for violence, while mentioning that Kelly Chaote stated that he would beat up Lemus.
The prosecution called witness Greg Ford, a detective with the Woodland Police Department. He declared that records under police control cannot be manipulated, based on his own experience in child sexual assault cases and homicide. On cross-examination by Mr. Johnson, he argued that Detective Ford was not capable of determining catalog record security, given that he did not have special training related to the matter. Examination of this witness continued with a study of the People’s exhibit which included police calls made by the defendant who claimed to be a victim. The prosecution decided that the victim called in when not guilty of a crime, but refused to call when culpable. The calls included stolen medicine and a bicycle. The defense counsel contended that the Woodland Police Department did not report an incident where the defendant was stabbed. Defense called into question a statement given to Det. Ford by “RE,” a witness in this case. First, RE claimed to have heard the defendant state that he had something for the victim and revealed the knife, whereas the defense argued that Mr. Lemus had stated something to the effect of if Kelly started trouble he had something – the knife – for him. The court deemed RE dishonest on the grounds that his statements were inconsistent with video evidence of the bar. Det. Ford then related his memory of defendant Lemus’ response to Kelly’s death. The prosecution maintained that Mr. Lemus had no concern for victim. In the alternative, Mr. Johnson provided that defendant Lemus felt like throwing up after learning of the death.
The defense called witness RA, a lifelong friend of Mr. Lemus, to the stand. He observed two similar confrontations between defendant Lemus and victim Chaote. On examination by both parties, Kelly Chaote was the aggressor and Mr. Lemus a non-aggressor. The prosecution emphasized that Kelly did not threaten the defendant’s life.
The final witness, which was for the defense, in this session was Mr. Browne, a retired military member and nurse with the Woodland Memorial Hospital. He testified that victim Kelly Chaote had been transported to the hospital, restricted and in police presence, on an occasion after consuming alcohol. He claimed that Mr. Kelly attempted to bite his ear off. On cross-examination, the prosecution argued that Mr. Kelly was placed on ambulance restraints as opposed to police restraints. While Mr. Browne mentioned that Kelly told him “I’m gonna kill you,” he asserted that such threats were a common part of his work experience.
When the jury was dismissed for the day, the defense provided a motion to the court to strike the case on evidence. The prosecution responded by reviewing the defendant’s behavior, including the defendant’s plan to wait and attack, and how the defendant pointed aggressively to Mr. Kelly. Further, the prosecution declared that Mr. Lemus stated he was sick of Kelly Chaote, walked purposefully toward him and stabbed him to death at the bar. The defense motion requesting the removal of the case was denied by the Honorable David W. Reed, who is presiding over this trial.
The judge and opposing counsel discussed the contents of jury instructions in terms of what might be included or excluded. In causation instruction, CALCRIM No. 240, doctor testimony that methamphetamine may have caused victim’s death led to an instruction that more than one cause of victim Kelly’s death was possible. The jury must decide if defendant Lemus is guilty, given that he left the scene of the stabbing incident after it took place. The jury must consider good as well as bad character evidence.
Looking forward, the jury instructions will be final, and closing arguments will be presented on May 19, 2016.
