by Ruby Zapien
On February 17, 2017, the jury returned from deliberation on the People v. Jared Daniel Boles case. After about seven hours, the jury had reached a verdict on all counts.
The jury found Mr. Boles guilty on counts 1, 2 and 4, all involving the transportation, possession, and possession for sale of marijuana. However, Mr. Boles was not found guilty on count 5, possession of a controlled substance.
Mr. Boles was also not found guilty of charges 10-12: infliction of bodily injury or simple battery, false imprisonment and child endangerment.
Regarding the four charges of possession of a firearm and possession of ammunition, Mr. Boles was found guilty on counts 6-9.
The court therefore found Mr. Boles to be in violation of his probation and, regarding his priors, the court also found those to be true.
Mr. Boles’ sentencing date is March 20, 2017, at 9:00 A.M.
Previous: Narcotics Trafficking Trial Wraps Up
By Jagjit Bath and Ruby Zapien
Testimony continued in the jury trial of the People v. Jared Daniel Boles, in Department 11 with Judge Timothy Fall on February 16, 2017. Defense Attorney David Nelson started the day’s questioning, with Mr. Boles on the stand to testify. Mr. Nelson asked Mr. Boles to recall and tell the jury what exactly happened on June 19, 2016, including why his girlfriend started hitting him while he was mowing the lawn. Mr. Boles said that he was sitting by the mower when his girlfriend came out of the house and started punching him and popped his blood vessels and gave him bruises on the left eye. He also stated that when his girlfriend yelled, “Who is she? Who is she?” he began to understand why she was punching him.
Mr. Nelson asked a follow-up question of Mr. Boles, about whether he talked to his girlfriend regarding what happened or what was going on. Mr. Boles said no, because she was not being calm about the situation, so he just suggested to his girlfriend that they just go to sleep because “I got work at 5am. We will talk about it tomorrow after my work.” He testified that they both went to sleep and did not get a chance to talk about it, because when he returned from work there were cops at his door waiting for him.
Mr. Nelson asked, “Did your girlfriend go to sleep as well? Did you prevent her from calling anyone that night?” Mr. Boles responded, “Yes, we both went to sleep. I did not prevent her from calling anyone. I asked her, I can leave the house if that’s comfortable for her but she said no.”
Next, Deputy District Attorney Michael Vroman confronted Mr. Boles regarding the charges of selling methamphetamine to underage students in 2010 for $3000 cash, along with questioning Mr. Boles by showing pictures seized from Mr. Boles’ phone. Mr. Vroman pointed out the picture of Boles holding an AR-15 and asked whose AR-15 that was. Mr. Boles claimed that they were not his guns, but Mr. Vroman then asked, “If they’re not your guns, then how did your fingerprint showed up on duct tape on the magazine?” Boles claimed that he used the duct tape to put a flashlight on his son’s bike, so someone might have just happened to use the same duct tape to wrap around the magazine. Then, Mr. Vroman insisted, “You didn’t mention anything about a jacket or latex glove in your truck (in) testimony regarding the day of your arrest, right?”
Mr. Boles responded, “Correct.” Mr. Vroman mentioned that a latex glove was filled with methamphetamine and was found in Boles’ truck. Mr. Vroman also said the police officer did not see bruises or any popped blood vessels when he arrested Mr. Boles on June 20, 2016. Mr. Boles testified, “Even (as) I pointed out, the police officer did not care about the bruises or anything, and he was just there to arrest me.”
Mr. Vroman kept questioning about how the police officer did not see or believe that Boles had bruises on his eye, when he was there with Boles for 45 minutes, arrested him, brought him from near his truck to the police car. “I was sitting on the back seat of the police car while the officer was standing outside on the passenger seat with the open door,” Mr. Boles responded.
Mr. Vroman then presented Mr. Rogelio Orozco as his next witness. Mr. Orozco works for the Yolo County District Attorney’s office as a investigator. After Mr. Orozco was sworn in, Mr. Vroman asked him whether he could recall one of his cases from May 2011, where Orozco acted as a client in a drug sale. Mr. Vroman then asked Mr. Orozco if he could recognize the seller in the courtroom, from the drug bust in May 2011.
Mr. Orozco pointed out that it was Mr. Boles. Mr. Vroman asked Mr. Orozco, “How did you make the deal with Mr. Boles?” While on the stand, Orozco told the court that he and one of the CIA agents contacted Boles via a phone call to sell him $3000 worth cash of methamphetamine. They then waited at the location where Boles was supposed to come and drop off three ounces of methamphetamine for the $3000 cash.
As Mr. Boles reached the meeting location and parked next to the undercover car, he reportedly asked them, “How do you want to do this?” Then Mr. Boles got into their car and sat in the back seat, and asked Orozco if he had the cash. As Orozco gave the signal for the process of the bust, “I purposely made a delay by counting the money.” Then the police came. To confirm, Mr. Vroman asked, “What did Mr. Boles do when he saw police cars?” Mr. Orozco answered, “Mr. Boles jumped out of my car,” and they were arrested.
Then Mr. Nelson asked some questions of Mr. Orozco in cross-examination, for clarification. “Was there anybody else in the car with Mr. Boles when he came to make the deal?” Mr. Orozco responded, “Yes, but I do not know who she was except that it was a female.” Mr. Nelson asked Mr. Orozco if he could describe the female, but he said, “I could not see her, since I was being arrested and put (in the) back seat in the police car as a bust process to cover my identity.” Mr. Nelson asked Mr. Orozco if he knew that there was female in the car, while he was on the phone making a deal with Mr. Boles before meeting up with him. And Mr. Orozco responded with no.
Judge Fall asked the jury to leave the courtroom for a short period of time because he needed to talk to the lawyers regarding further jury instructions. After the break, Judge Fall went over the instructions with the jury.
After the morning recess, Mr. Vroman pointed out all the charges in his closing argument. He stated that it was not right for Mr. Boles to possess methamphetamine, marijuana, firearms such as an AR-15, and even ammunition.
In his closing argument, Mr. Nelson thanked the jury for donating their valuable time to find justice for the community. Before Mr. Nelson could proceed further with statements in defense of Mr. Boles, it was lunch time. Judge Fall asked Mr. Nelson to continue with his argument at 1:30pm in Department 11.
Closing Arguments in Case Involving Narcotics Trafficking, Possession of Firearms, and Child Endangerment
By Ruby Zapien
On the afternoon of February 16, 2017, the Honorable Timothy L. Fall presided over the closing arguments in the case of the People v. Jared Daniel Boles. With all jurors, counsel, and defendant present, Attorney David. R. Nelson resumed his closing argument.
Mr. Nelson expressed his concern for the lack of evidence in this case. He advised the jury, “You have to make your decision rationally, without passion and without a reasonable doubt.”
He continued to state that anyone had access to the shed and reminded the jury of the testimony of the deputy sheriff who claimed he searched the home for weapons. Mr. Nelson then raised the question of how weapons showed up a day later.
Deputy District Attorney Michael Vroman followed with his rebuttal argument, stating that “Jared Boles is not a chivalrous drug dealer who took the rap for his girlfriend.” Mr. Vroman argued that there is no evidence showing that Mr. Boles’ cohabitant, “WK,” was involved.
Regarding the issue of evidence and doubt, Mr. Vroman proceeded to read from the jury instructions on circumstantial evidence, CALCRIM No. 224. As he read, he held up a hand and counted off the five times the word “reasonable” appeared.
“If it is not reasonable, not only do you not consider it, but reject it,” stated Mr. Vroman.
He followed by attacking the credibility of Mr. Boles. Mr. Vroman did this by declaring that Boles has used meth, has the motive to lie, has been convicted, has cheated on his pregnant girlfriend, and has said he has never held guns – when there are images of him that say otherwise.
Addressing the issue of the gun not being located in the first search of the home, Mr. Vroman reminded the jury that Officer Ariel Pineda said he did not look behind the curtain or in the oven where the weapons were located.
Mr. Vroman also addressed the idea of WK “setting Mr. Boles up” by planting the guns in the home the following day of the search. He gave a hypothetical situation and told the jury, “When you hear hoof beats, don’t think zebras.”
Reminding the jury of the pistol found with duct tape and Mr. Boles’ fingerprints – and no other fingerprints, Mr. Vroman said, “Don’t think zebras.” Moreover, he told the jury that guns were obtained, there were photos on Boles’ cell phone of him holding one of those guns, and a video of him shooting one of the guns. “There is no other explanation,” stated Mr. Vroman.
Finally, Mr. Vroman spoke on the charges of child endangerment and infliction of corporal injury – by giving another hypothetical scenario describing Mr. Boles throwing his son across the kitchen floor, followed by the confrontation with WK regarding their son and Mr. Boles’ actions.
The jury was sent to deliberate and will continue deliberations on Friday, February 17, 2017, at 9:00 A.M.
