by Hannah Poploskie
The trial of Elmer David Rodriguez resumed with further testimony from the complaining witness on Tuesday afternoon, as the defendant faces multiple felony charges which include rape and torture.
Deputy District Attorney Tiffany Susz began questioning the alleged victim by presenting photos to the court. The photos were taken at the West Sacramento Police Department three days after she was released from UCD Med Center. She identified multiple bruises and burns on her body.
She told the court that some of the bruises had faded by the time the photos were taken. Ms. Susz asked the victim if she had still been in pain at the time the photographs were taken. She replied that she was in less pain than when the injuries first occurred. Ms. Susz also asked if the witness clarified parts of the report when she was at the station, which she confirmed.
When asked what needed to be clarified in the report, the witness responded that she was concerned that the report contained claims of vaginal rape. She said no vaginal rape had occurred and she wanted to make sure the police report did not say they had. She also clarified that she had not told the hospital staff about the sodomy because she was ashamed.
Ms. Susz turned the questioning to a meeting that occurred between the alleged victim and a member of the public defender’s office after her testimony at the preliminary hearing. The victim testified that she 
had invited the public defender employee to her home after he had contacted her regarding additional charges being pressed against the defendant.
The victim said she had been upset to learn they were adding torture to the charges that had been pressed against the defendant. She was upset that he was facing more charges and she felt guilty for going to the police. The alleged victim’s mother was uncomfortable with the public defender representative being in the home, so the victim asked him to leave. The victim called Ms. Susz after that meeting and arranged a meeting with the prosecution.
In the meeting with Ms. Susz, the complaining witness said she was very upset about the potential punishment facing Mr. Rodriguez. She told Ms. Susz that she considered dropping the charges against the defendant. The victim had said that she believed when the defendant gave her the bruises he had been proud of what he had done. She wanted him to be responsible for what he had done, but she was conflicted.
She testified that she was hesitant to press charges because the defendant loved her and because she did not want him to go to jail. She was also nervous about what may happen to his family, as she cared about them. The prosecution finished with their line of questioning.
Deputy Public Defender Monica Brushia started her questioning by asking about the meeting that the victim had with the member of Ms. Brushia’s office. The victim confirmed that she had willingly let the public defender representative into her home. She had researched personally the potential sentencing that came with the torture charge and it caused her distress.
Ms. Brushia focused her next line of questioning on the meeting between the victim and Ms. Susz, particularly on potential discrepancies between what was told to Ms. Susz, the victim’s testimony at the preliminary hearing, and the victim’s current testimony. Using a calendar, on which the victim circled dates of the alleged assaults, Ms. Brushia asked if the victim identified the week of January 16 as the time of one of the claimed assaults, which the victim confirmed.
Using text messages between the victim and the defendant, Ms. Brushia went through that week to establish their relationship together through the week in question. After going through pages of texts, Ms. Brushia told the court that their relations that week were mostly friendly, except for one day.
In the one day of text messages, the defendant got verbally abusive with the victim. He called her several rude names and got upset because the victim had sexual relations with men other than her. The victim was apologetic with the defendant in the messages, to which he responded by being upset. However, at the end of the exchange they appeared to make up.
Through the text messages presented by Ms. Brushia the witness also admitted to drug use that she and the defendant would participate in together. She admitted to the sexually explicit relationship she and the defendant had together.
Ms. Brushia turned to establishing a timeline involving the living situation of the complaining witness. The witness was living in an apartment with a roommate, and around November of 2016 she started to move out. At this time she expressed to the defendant her interest in living with him.
The defense asked the victim if the defendant was seeing anyone else, and she replied that he was. The victim elaborated that she slowly was moving her things to the defendant’s mother’s apartment, but when she would see him she would sneak in so his family did not see her.
In the final line of questioning for the day, a series of letters were shown to the court that the victim sent to the defendant while he was in prison previously. In the letters she expressed her devotion to the defendant. Ms. Brushia asked if the defendant had expressed desire to have children with the defendant in these letters. When she replied that she did not remember, the defense presented a letter in which the victim expressed that she wanted children with Rodriguez. Court was then adjourned for the day.
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…
