By Edward Garcia
The court trial for Jason Raysean Broadbent resumed this past Friday afternoon with witness testimony. Mr. Broadbent is accused of selling contraband—numerous assault rifles and drugs—to undercover police officers in 2015.
The trial reconvened with Deputy Public Defender Ava Landers cross-examining Agent Cristobal Lara.
To begin, Ms. Landers inquired about a meeting on September 1, 2015, involving Agent Lara, another undercover officer, and the defendant. Lara’s testimony stated the meeting’s objective was to find the source of the guns, and, before he was pulled off of the case, introduce Mr. Broadbent to the other officer.
Related to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) participation, Agent Lara stated that ATF had been involved throughout the investigation, and eventually took over.
The defense insisted on learning the objective of the investigation and, in particular, Lara’s involvement in the case. Agent Lara emphasized his main role was to be an undercover officer, and he was not involved with surveillance or phone monitoring.
Further testimony clarified that, after the September meeting, Mr. Broadbent and Agent Lara did not meet until October 29, 2015, when a drug buy was negotiated.
Ms. Landers critiqued the investigation’s need to set up another drug buy, especially after several months without one occurring. Lara made it clear the buy was an attempt to identify the defendant’s gun supplier. The idea was to talk about purchasing another gun, and ideally, as a consequence, have the defendant call his supplier.
During the meeting, Broadbent simply told him that “production had slowed down.”
Furthermore, the defense asked Agent Lara if he ever inquired about the defendant’s relationship with the other undercover officer. Lara never did, but he knew they hadn’t met. Mr. Broadbent was adamant with Agent Lara that he would only deal with him.
To finish cross-examination, Ms. Landers asked Agent Lara if the defendant had ever test fired the rifles in front of him, to which he gave a firm, “No.”
The redirect by Deputy District Attorney Robin Johnson attempted to clear up some specifics about several of the meetings.
In regard to the firearm transactions, it was Agent Lara’s understanding that Broadbent was receiving them from someone else.
Additionally, during their July 28 meeting, Lara clarified that the only reason they met twice was because Broadbent stated the gun supplier “was at football practice.”
Due to issues transporting evidence, Ms. Johnson was allowed to re-open the agent’s testimony and give Lara the opportunity to identify the drugs he had bought from the defendant. Agent Lara identified the heroin and methamphetamine, specifically noting the “China White”—a different color heroin—that he had purchased.
Judge David Rosenberg asked if this type of heroin was something Agent Lara ran into regularly.
“This was my first time,” Lara responded.
Due to the re-opening, Ms. Landers was allowed another cross-examination which she used to target the “China White” buy.
Agent Lara admitted to telling the defendant that he had a relative that could cut the heroin.
“If we were able to show his supplier how to do that, he would take us up on that offer,” Lara said. The goal of the offer was to identify the defendant’s narcotics supplier, which never ended up happening.
Once Agent Lara was finally excused, Judge Rosenberg switched his attention to the defense’s contention of sentence entrapment, in regard to interactions between Lara and Broadbent prior to July 28.
Ms. Landers argued to the court that the continued dealing with Mr. Broadbent without arresting him is a form of sentence entrapment, manipulating investigations to effect a greater sentence, and she provided a handful of cases as support.
Furthermore, she stated the court should know how Agent Lara came to meet with the defendant and what information led the police to begin the investigation.
The People refuted this by stating those interactions are irrelevant and require access to confidential information.
This did not deter Ms. Landers who insisted that the court should demand to know what information was given to the police about Mr. Broadbent. If no probable cause exists in that information, then this investigation went from “zero to a hundred.”
Judge Rosenberg ruled that the doctrine of sentence entrapment is not recognized under California law. The cases that do address sentence entrapment focus on defendant conduct, and specifically it would require outrageous law enforcement conduct that would induce a law-abiding citizen to commit these acts.
On these grounds, Judge Rosenberg rejected the defense’s contention of sentence entrapment.
After settling this legal issue, the prosecution brought Boyd Lasater, Senior Criminalist with the California Department of Justice, Bureau of Forensic Services, to the stand.
Mr. Lasater was the forensic scientist designated to review the heroin and methamphetamine purchased during the investigation.
He testified to have tested the drugs in question, and recalled the drugs screening as positive.
The defense questioned the type of tests used by Mr. Lasater, who provided a detailed explanation of each test for the court.
In regard to the “China White,” Lasater simply said, “Heroin is heroin.”
Ms. Landers finished cross-examination by asking why Mr. Lasater used three different tests for the methamphetamine. He explained his first test resulted in a chemical reaction that required a second test. The third test was just checking for cocaine.
Judge Rosenberg excused Mr. Lasater, prompting the People to bring to the stand Detective Tim Keeney, who is part of the Woodland Police Department and the ATF Task Force.
Due to Detective Keeney’s expertise, the People asked him to describe characteristics of the firearms sold to Agent Lara. Keeney described what makes a rifle centerfire (with the primer in the center of the cartridge case head, as opposed to the older rimfire method), and explained the following parts: collapsible stocks, pistol grips, and flash suppressors.
Detective Keeney went on to describe his involvement in the investigation, which he described as aiding wherever he was needed. He was involved in every buy except the very last one in October.
He admitted to seeing the firearms sold by the defendant, and then identified each firearm for the court.
Ms. Landers began cross-examination by questioning the difference between centerfire and rimfire rifles. Det. Keeney explained it was truly up to ammunition preference.
Keeney went on to admit that these particular rifles can all be modified to be automatic rifles by way of a lightning link—also known as a multiverse trigger.
In regard to the multiverse trigger, Judge Rosenberg asked, “Does this have to be manufactured?”
“Yes,” Detective Keeney said.
He made it clear that this modification is not something you can just go out and buy.
Keeney identified the multiverse triggers for the court, and fully described how they work. Under questioning from Ms. Landers, he clarified this modification is not visible externally.
Additionally, he recalled being present when the firearms were pulled apart, but didn’t test the firearms due to safety concerns. He did, however, explain how one can test the guns without firing them.
Finishing his testimony, Det. Keeney did admit to never determining the source of the guns or drugs, even with the use of a wiretap and pen register.
Judge Rosenberg excused Detective Keeney and court was adjourned.
The court trial will resume November 9 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 14.
Come see the Vanguard Event – “In Search of Gideon” – which highlights some of the key work performed by the Yolo County Public Defender’s Office…
