By Taylor Smith, Kevin Barragan and Robert Moran
WOODLAND, CA – Calling into Yolo County Superior Court from his jail cell, the accused swore at, and otherwise showed sometimes X-rated displeasure toward Judge David Reed Tuesday afternoon.
The judge had little tolerance for the accused’s actions and denied all requests made on the accused’s behalf.
At the beginning his hearing regarding charges including assault, a hit and run, unlawful drug possession, false imprisonment and several violations of probation, the accused seemed to be in good spirits and compliant.
This demeanor, however, did not hold up for long.
Judge Reed explained the cases and charges that were brought to him and asked if the accused would like to be represented by an attorney, to which the accused responded, “I want my weed back.”
Startled by this comment, Judge Reed clarified that he was asking if the accused wanted to be represented by a lawyer.
This time, the accused blurted out, “You think I’m a f***ing lawyer? Do I know the f***ing law? I don’t know. Yeah, I want a lawyer.”
As Judge Reed attempted to continue the hearing, the accused commented, “Are we done here?” as he spoke over the judge, adding, “All right, bye, a**hole.”
Immediately, Judge Reed put the accused on mute for the rest of the hearing for being disruptive.
Deputy Public Defender Katie Rogers then spoke on behalf of the accused, requesting he be released under supervision and a bail hearing; she also informed the court that he had limited financial resources last time they represented him and advocated for minimal bail.
Given the accused’s presented behavior in court, prior violations of probation and failures to appear in court, Judge Reed denied such requests.
While the judge was giving this statement, the accused – who was still on mute and unable to unmute himself – began to make vulgar hand gestures, and then stripped and presented a nude view of his rear end to the camera.
This silent outburst resulted in his removal from the Zoom call and the rest of the hearing.
Judge Reed stated the accused would likely display the same poor conduct in public if he were to be released, noting the accused has not been compliant with routine requirements of probation, has had warrants for his arrests and failures to appear in court, and that he believed the public would not be protected from the accused if he was released pretrial.
“For the record, after I indicated initially that I was not going to grant him (release) he, appearing on Zoom, flipped his middle finger towards the screen, which I assumed was targeted towards me.
“He turned around and pulled up his shirt and pulled down his pants, exposing his buttocks, so I just want the record to reflect that conduct, which, in my mind, reinforces the court’s decision not to release him on his own recognizance,” said the judge.
Ultimately, it was determined that the accused continues to be a risk to the public, thus release on his own recognizance was denied.
His case will proceed with a trial at the beginning of September.
