By Kalani E. Gaines
SACRAMENTO – Evidence—and its whereabouts if it exists—brought a hearing to a standstill Wednesday in Sacramento County Superior Court here.
For Derrick J. Blakes, who is facing felony possession of a firearm by a felon and a handful of lesser misdemeanor charges, the confusion may mean he’s closer to his release—he has been waiting the past nine months
Judge Patrick Marlette was overseeing the motion to compel discovery, to which Deputy District Attorney Alexandra Sanders claimed the sheriff’s department does not have an in-car camera, 
although many marked cruisers do.
“We’ve done our part in trying to obtain any video and the sheriff’s department doesn’t utilize body-worn cameras,” said Sanders. “So that is the only camera surveillance that would be available and that apparently is not.”
After reviewing the motion submitted by the defendant’s private defense attorney, Shane Hoover, Judge Marlette saw that the motion indicated there was an audio recording. Yet Sanders had already confirmed there was no in-car camera or body cameras used by deputies. He asked Hoover what audio he was referring to.
“There is an excerpt from a transcript where they interview my client and they put in pieces of that interview in the report,” Hoover clarified. “They stated that the audio is available.”
Judge Marlette said, “What we’re dealing with here is either there is evidence out there Mr. Blake is entitled to and not getting or, if the DA is satisfied that there is nothing there, there might be an order precluding later discovery.”
Sanders explained that she was new to this case and thought that this hearing was specifically being held to address the presence of a camera inside of the police car at the time of the incident that could be used as evidence. She was unaware that the motion was to compel an audio recording.
Judge Marlette also noted that Hoover included body-worn cameras in the motion; however, Sanders reiterated that the deputies do not use them, although—and no one mentioned this—the sheriff’s dept. usually has dash cameras.
Confused, Judge Marlette asked, “So where would this audio recording come from?”
“It looks like if they had him in a room, they could have audio recorded it in an interview,” Sanders replied.
DDA Sanders is going to request the audio, which she presumes is on a CD, and will present it when they return for this case on October 13. The preliminary hearing is scheduled for November 18.
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
