By Linhchi Nguyen
ALAMEDA – Judge Victor Rodriguez here in Alameda County Superior Court presided over two domestic abuse cases last week where both of the victims filed for a restraining order.
But while the first hearing went smoothly, the second one was filled with contradicting facts, confusing text messages, and a difficult witness—which eventually led the court to deny the victim’s request.
For the first case, the sister of defendant Samuel D. Langworthy testified to his assaulting her and threatening to kill her.
Langworthy’s sister testified that on Christmas Eve last year, the defendant punched her in her arm and tried to hit her in the face. As a result, the victim suffered several bodily injuries, including bruises on her back.
“I did not threaten to kill her,” Langworthy disputed. “I did put her hands on her, [but] I did not threaten to kill her. I did not punch her…That is completely incorrect.”
When asked where Langworthy placed his hands on the victim, he then admitted, “I did push her down, yeah I did.”
He went on to explain that it was mostly a verbal altercation between them. “Unfortunately, young people with disrespect feel that they can…they go run and hide to the police after they have been disrespectful and provoke people,” he said.
“By young people, are you referring to yourself or your sister?” Judge Rodriguez asked Langworthy, to which he answered, “Sister.” Judge Rodriguez then pointed out, “Isn’t your sister like three years younger than you?”
After a few seconds of hesitation, Langworthy responded, “I mean…yes, she’s three years younger, but in the mind, maybe…30 years younger.”
Hearing his response, Judge Rodriguez went ahead and issued a one-year restraining order for the victim that would last to Jan. 20, 2022, noting he hoped that the time frame would be sufficient to prevent any future acts or underlying causes of abuse.
He also said to Langworthy that the restraining order does not include any stay-away orders nor move-out orders, and therefore, there is nothing that limits him from visiting anybody in the home as long as he does not harass, attack, threaten, and assault his sister.
Langworthy is also expected to complete a batterer’s intervention program. If the victim remains in apprehension of future abuse by three months before the end of the restraining order, she can ask to renew the term.
In the second case, the victim initially had a temporary restraining order against her husband, defendant David Camello. In court, she presented a series of text messages where Camello allegedly violated the order by verbally assaulting her.
However, upon further analyzing the messages and hearing Camello’s response, it appeared that the messages were not directed toward the victim nor any protected party.
Judge Rodriguez heard the complaint of Camello’s wife. At first, she was hesitant to take part in the hearing, but when Rodriguez asked if she wanted to dismiss her request, she agreed to proceed.
She testified that on Dec. 6, the defendant woke her up from a rest by slapping her on the head. He subsequently yelled at her to get out of their house, and he cut up her ID in front of her. She then asserted that after receiving their initial temporary restraining order, he continued to contact her through text messaging.
“I have screenshots of the date and time that was well after the restraining order was issued…of the assaults, threats, all types of those things that were in violation,” she stated, referring to the text messages.
The messages consisted of the defendant asking someone for the whereabouts of his wife and accusing them for “f****** with [his] wife and family.”
Camello admitted to sending the messages, but he indicated that they were not directed to the victim.
Instead, he was helping the victim’s mother to check on the status of his wife as she tends to leave home on multiple occasions. “There was contact, [but] there was no threatening contact. Her mother didn’t even know if she was dead or alive.”
He also mentioned that his wife has a methamphetamine problem which may be the cause of her constant appearing and disappearing.
Judge Rodriguez acknowledged that “all these messages are to a non-protective party.” However, the victim insisted that the third party was on the temporary restraining order as she requested, but Judge Rodriguez replied that the person was never granted to be a protective party.
“He kicked me out, and then left me with nothing,” the victim exclaimed. “And then manipulated my parents to tell them that I’m missing. I left, they don’t know where I’m at, but he left me with no phone, nothing to communicate with people… It’s a form of manipulation.”
Finding her statements to be not credible, Judge Rodriguez ultimately refused to grant her request for the restraining order as she failed to meet her burden by a preponderance of the evidence. He also dissolved their temporary restraining order so that it is no longer in effect.
In the end, Judge Rodriguez concluded the court’s proceedings with one effective restraining order and one temporary one being dissolved.
Linhchi Nguyen is a fourth year at UC Davis, double majoring in Political Science and English. She currently lives in Sacramento, California.
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:
