by Hannah Poploskie
The preliminary hearing for Amanda Leeann Ickes occurred on Wednesday afternoon. She is facing stalking charges from an April 2017 incident.
The first witness was called to the stand by Deputy District Attorney Jay Linden on behalf of the People. She identified herself as the former girlfriend of Ms. Ickes’ ex-boyfriend (“DM”). Mr. Linden asked if she could identify the defendant, which the witness did and further identified her as the mother of DM’s three children. The witness was dating DM in April, and was now testifying to events that happened during her relationship with DM.
Mr. Linden asked if she had any contact with the defendant and the witness replied she had had several texts, calls and Facebook messages from Ms. Ickes. The witness was asked if she had any other contact with Ms. Ickes and the witness testified that Ms. Ickes had come to her house in early April.
When asked to elaborate on the events, the witness said that around nine at night, Ms. Ickes came to the witness’ door and proceeded to pound on the door. Earlier that night, some texts by the defendant were received on the witness’ phone saying that the light was on in DM’s car. The witness was uncomfortable because the defendant knew where she lived.
When the defendant was pounding on the door, the witness was uncomfortable because her daughter was awakened by the commotion. She asked DM to handle the situation and he responded by calling the 
police. When the police arrived, Ms. Ickes was no longer there.
Later that evening the witness received what she estimated as 50 to 70 text messages telling her the light was on in DM’s truck. Believing it was a ruse to get DM to go outside, they stayed inside the apartment. The following morning when DM was leaving, he saw his truck was missing.
Mr. Linden then asked the witness about the next time she had contact with the defendant, and she replied about a week later. The witness was leaving the apartment with her child and DM when one of DM’s children ran up to the witness. The witness then looked around to see who the child was with and saw Ms. Ickes.
The witness got her car keys from DM to secure her own child in the car and take her out of the commotion. The witness said that DM and the defendant proceeded to argue. The witness got into the driver’s side of the car and told DM to get in. The witness testified that, as he was getting into the car, Ms. Ickes followed him and was hitting him on the back as he got in the car.
The witness started to drive to work and testified that Ms. Ickes started to follow in her car. Speeding up the car after being fearful at how close Ms. Ickes’ vehicle was behind her, the witness said that the defendant went into the bike lane and was gesturing through her car window at DM and the witness as she drove beside them.
Again, fearful of an accident, the witness drove into a school parking lot and turned around, eventually losing Ms. Ickes. The witness told the court that DM was on the phone with the police during the incident.
Deputy Public Defender Monica Brushia, representing Ms. Ickes, then began her cross-examination of the witness. Ms. Brushia asked the witness if DM was living with her at the time, to which she replied that he basically was. He had left his former residence and was filling out applications for a new dwelling.
Ms. Brushia then asked for clarifying details about the car incident. The witness told the court that she was traveling about 50 miles an hour trying to lose the defendant and that she was never hit, but Ms. Ickes’ car came within inches.
In the final questioning of the witness, it was revealed that the witness’ apartment was across the street from the babysitter of the children. The witness was then dismissed.
DM took the stand next and was first questioned by Mr. Linden. DM mentioned that his phone was turned off the day of the incident at the other witness’ apartment. He said that he did not want to deal with Ms. Ickes that evening and called the police instead. The next morning, he found his truck missing, but he eventually got it back.
The day of the car incident, DM testified that he did not want to get into an argument with Ms. Ikes and attempted to walk past her and to his girlfriend’s vehicle. When asked if the defendant did anything to him, he replied that his hat was flipped off of his head. When in the car, he told his girlfriend where to drive, but she followed her own route.
In an attempt to get the defendant to leave them alone, DM said he had held up his phone so Ms. Ikes could see it and know he would call the police. Since she continued driving beside them for an estimated five minutes, he called the police. Mr. Linden asked if anything else had happened to DM, to which he replied that the tires of his work truck and motorcycle had been slashed on a separate occasion.
Ms. Brushia then questioned the witness to establish where he and the defendant had lived throughout their almost 12-year relationship. DM told the court that their residence directly prior to the incidents was an apartment they were renting that was on the property of a home. The owner had asked them to leave, but gave them a little more than a month to do so.
DM then moved in with his girlfriend because he wanted to get away. He was looking for a new place for the children to live, and he told Ms. Brushia that he had full custody of all three children. DM was then dismissed.
The last witness of the day was a police officer in the city of Woodland. Mr. Linden asked him about being called to respond to a complaint of slashed tires. The witness identified that he went to the residence of DM and saw four slashed tires on DM’s work truck. The tires of a motorcycle were also cut in a similar way. There was a slit in the side of each tire of the truck and a slit in the tread of each tire of the motorcycle.
Mr. Linden asked if anyone else was questioned and the witness replied that a neighbor gave a statement. The neighbor had witnessed a person pull up to the truck and bend over near each tire. The person then went over to the motorcycle and eventually drove off. When given a photo line-up, the neighbor identified Ms. Ickes as the person seen. The trial was set for November 15.
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…
