by Sarah Gregory
The first witness in the Alejandro Loza Quezada murder case, the defendant’s previous girlfriend, was recalled to the stand despite the opposition of her new attorney, Jeff Raven. She had previously been granted “use” immunity, which means statements by the witness may not be used against her, but the prosecution does not agree that it will never prosecute. Raven requested a continuance for the preliminary hearing because he found the lack of professionalism in this case appalling.
Raven accused the prosecutor, Kyle Hasapes, of failing to provide him with documents such as copies of the witness’ previous police statements. He also told Judge David Reed that the prosecutor had only just handed him one of his client’s statements five minutes prior and stressed that he knows nothing about the case yet and would like some time to go over the documents with the witness.
Judge Reed granted him an hour to go over the documents, even though the hearing had already begun a little over an hour late due to scheduling issues with the other attorneys.
An hour later, Raven was still frustrated. He told Judge Reed the prosecutor had handed him yet another of the witness’ statements after his hour for review had begun. He argued that an hour was not sufficient to go over multiple statements and requested a continuance until the next morning.
Judge Reed denied this request because the hearing was already running at least two hours behind schedule. Raven also asked for his client to be allowed to log her use of immunity for the record and that he be allowed to sit next to her while she gives her testimony. This request was granted.
Next, the witness began her testimony. She was extremely emotional throughout, because she was unable to recall many of her previous statements with police and on July 1, 2016, the day of the shooting.
As Mr. Hasapes began to question her, she became more unsure of herself and confused by his phrasing of the questions. The witness also privately conversed with her attorney, Raven, before she answered any of the prosecutor’s questions.
The prosecutor began by reminding the witness of her previous testimony the week before. He asked her with whom she had been living at the time of the shooting. Raven advised his client that she should invoke the 5th Amendment. The prosecutor argued that the action was unnecessary and Judge Reed ordered her to answer the question. Several other similar disputes occurred throughout the rest of the direct examination.
The witness was living with the defendant, her previous boyfriend, and two coworkers on July 1, 2016. She had begun dating the defendant about two months prior and he had moved in with her a week before. The witness established that the defendant did not have a key to the apartment, but kept some of his personal items there.
Hasapes asked if she was aware of any drugs or firearms that belonged to the defendant in her apartment. She said at first that she did not know of any guns or drugs in her apartment. The witness told the court she was confused by the question and asked the prosecutor to rephrase.
The second time Hasapes asked the question, the witness responded that she did possess previous knowledge of drugs and firearms in her apartment. The prosecutor asked if the defendant had ever asked her to buy bullets for him, she responded that he had only done so once. The witness had refused to buy bullets for the defendant.
Next, the prosecutor moved on to the events of July 1, 2016. The witness stated that the defendant left her apartment around 6 pm to work on his car and came back around 8:40 pm. She observed that the defendant seemed out of sorts after he came home. She asked the defendant if he was all right, and he told her he was and they did not speak about the shooting until three days later.
Hasapes inquired whether the witness had seen the defendant put a gun away after he came home that evening. The witness stated that, in her first statement to the police, she had accidentally said the wrong thing. She told the detectives that she had seen the defendant put a gun with a red handle away in her lingerie drawer, however, she recanted that statement and said she now remembers she did not see him putting away anything. The last time she saw the gun with the red handle was about a month before July 1, 2016.
The prosecutor asked the witness if she had spoken with police at least ten times before coming to court. She said she did not remember and that she had not had the opportunity to go over any of her previous statements. At this point, the court took a lunch break, which is when the witness reviewed her statements and prepared herself for the rest of her upcoming testimony.
After lunch the prosecutor asked what else happened the night of July 1, 2016, after the defendant came home to the witness’s apartment. The witness said the defendant arrived with his brother.
Hasapes asked if the witness knew the defendant, her previous boyfriend, sold drugs. She stated that she did and that he kept them in her lingerie drawer along with the gun in her room. The drugs were identified as methamphetamine and marijuana. The prosecutor asked her how she knew the defendant was a drug dealer. She said she knew he sold drugs because she originally asked him to get some for herself.
She also verified that she had never seen the defendant carry a gun and that the gun with the red handle had been on her bed about a month prior to the shooting. That was the last she remembers seeing it.
The prosecutor then proceeded to ask if the defendant had ever asked her to hide a gun for him or help him get out of town.
The prosecution tried to bring up a text message conversation between the witness and defendant about going to Los Angeles in order to dispose of a gun. However, neither Martha Sequeira, the defendant’s attorney, or Raven had copies of the text messages. They asked of Judge Reed that the prosecutor move to a different line of questioning.
Hasapes moved to the defendant’s alleged gang affiliation. The witness stated that she had no previous knowledge of the defendant being part of a gang. However, she reported that the defendant did have several friends who were gang members.
The prosecutor asked if the witness had seen the defendant selling drugs to these gang members. She stated she did not see the defendant selling drugs to them, however, she assumed he did so. Apparently, he would go into her room with them for privacy for only a few minutes when they would visit.
The witness described what the defendant had told her about the shooting on July 1, 2016, a few days afterwards. The defendant had gone to work on his car at his cousin’s house and took it for a test drive afterwards. Another car pulled alongside the defendant and the people inside the car began yelling at him, “We know who you are!”
The passenger in the front seat of the other car stepped out and pulled his gun on the defendant. The defendant noticed that the passenger was swaying and most likely drunk. This is when the defendant decided to race down the road to get away from the other car and a car chase ensued.
Both cars eventually stopped. The defendant turned around and shot back at the other car. After he fired the gun and did not see any movement from the other vehicle, he hurriedly drove off.
The defense began cross-examination. First, Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira asked the witness about her relationship to the defendant. The witness stated she first met the defendant a couple months before the shooting at a friend’s birthday party. Since the witness worked 30-60 hours a week during the relationship, both she and the defendant had a limited amount of time to see each other. When they did, it was almost always in the presence of company.
A week after the shooting, on July 8, 2016, the witness’ father picked her up from her apartment and told her they would be going to his birthday dinner. During the drive to the restaurant, the car was stopped by police and the witness was taken to the station for questioning.
Not knowing how police found her or what they wanted from her, she told them the truth to the best of her ability. She asked for an attorney twice.
The witness claimed that police questioned her for about five hours and it was not always recorded. She stated that whenever she accidentally changed her timeline of events, the detectives would berate her. This is when one of the detectives told her that he knew her father and that they had orchestrated an elaborate ruse to get her to come into the station for questioning.
The same day, detectives asked to look through her phone. They held her phone for 12 days and told her she could only get it back if she came in for another round of questioning.
On July 20, a detective called her home phone and asked for her to come down to the station. She was reluctant because she just wanted to be done with the whole thing. She asked if they could meet at a public place instead. The detective declined and said she had to come in or else she would not receive her phone again.
While giving her last statement, the witness reported the detectives appeared to be asking her questions to which they already knew the answers.
The defense asked the witness if she knew she had a constitutional right to not talk to the police. The witness had no idea.
The defense finished with the remaining events of July 1, 2016. After the defendant came home with his brother, his sister-in-law showed up at the apartment a couple of hours later. After a while, the witness, the defendant, his brother and his sister-in-law decided to go to a family member’s house in the country.
However, the police statement says that the defendant ran away to the country to hide from law enforcement; the defense asserted that, in reality, they were just visiting. The defense insinuated all of the witness’s police statements were summaries of what the detectives assumed happened, rather than what she had originally told them.
At this point, the preliminary hearing ended for the day, and was scheduled to resume the following day, August 2, at 1:30 pm.
