By Darling Gonzalez
VENTURA, CA – In a couple of cases heard here last week in Ventura County Superior Court, requests by the defense won, as well as lost.
In the first case, the assistant public defender charged that the prosecution was hiding discovery from the defense in a felony case, specifically a 10-minute interview with witnesses.
Assistant Public Defender Hali Ford cited a statement given by a witness that was not provided to the defense by the prosecution.
Ford claimed there were two witnesses—Max Amino, the person interviewed, and a deputy—in discussion about the facts of the case with the DA’s office.
Ford asserted, “None of that content is remembered by anyone, unfortunately. None of the content was discovered to the defense. The way that the evidence has gone in this case I would be shocked if there weren’t inconsistencies in that witness’s statements.”
Ford then requested that she received the content of the 10-minute conversation, along with a 30-minute conversation between the DA investigator and a doctor, because the doctor had given an explanation to the jury that was not mentioned in evidence.
The deputy district attorney responded by stating there was no significant foundation in the 10-minute conversation because PD Ford had known a lot of the content of the conversation that she called an “interview.”
The DA stated that the conversation contained information about witness preparation, specifically regarding telling the truth, objections, and scheduling a meeting to come to court.
The DA also added that the conversation with the doctor only included medical definitions about what “sympathetic ophthalmia” was and information about witness preparation.
The DA stated, “It wasn’t any earth-shattering new evidence so I think Ms. Ford is trying to paint the DA’s office in this bad light that we’re hiding all this evidence and we’re not disclosing all of this when that’s not the case.”
The judge replied by saying that he would need definitive proof that the conversations were significant to be included in discovery, noting “1054 has very certain requirements about what has to be discovered…I don’t think that that was necessary to be turned over.”
The requested conversations by Ford were not entered into discovery.
IN ANOTHER CASE IN Dept. 12, during sentencing Defense Attorney Wayne Tobin requested a reduced fine for a felony charge on Charles Taitai, citing Taitai’s low income status and health condition.
The prosecution offered Taitai probation for three years and 180 days in county jail for his felony charge along with a fine of $300 to the women’s shelter and $500 to the Domestic Violence Fund.
Defense Attorney Tobin stated that Taitai had been shot in the head in April of 2018 and this event had caused longstanding memory problems and other mental health issues.
Tobin also stated that Taitai’s income was also limited to $850 a month in social security, and he had five children and lived with his mother in a converted garage.
“He has very limited means. For that reason I would ask the court to reduce the fine…to a minimum of $300 and ask that he not pay for any pre-sentence report, said Tobin.
Tobin also requested that the 40 hours of direct work requested by probation along with the fines of $300 to the Women’s Shelter and $500 to the Domestic Violence Fund be stricken or stayed for another time due to his medical condition and income status.
With consideration of his health condition and income status, the judge sentenced Taitai to probation for three years, 40 hours of community service on a hold for another time, 180 days in county jail, and lifetime prohibition of firearms.
The judge held the $300 to the domestic violence shelter due to his economic status and ordered a strike on the $500 to the Domestic Violence Fund.
