By Audrey Sawyer
MODESTO, CA – A crucial and repeated component of an alleged shooting from a co-accused’s defense here in Stanislaus County Superior Court this week is that testimony only describes clothing and not faces, and security footage did not display enough evidence to indicate that the accused was at fault.
And, there was an admission from law enforcement they could not verify all events of the footage and the footage was “unclear.”
Two different preliminary hearings happened for an accused.
In the first one, a police officer claimed one of the co-defendants has “Norteño ties,” noting a Sept. 11 search of the accused’s property found a revolver with rounds in the kitchen.
The mother, father, and sister were all at the house, and the mother had said that the weapon had belonged to an accused. A gun was located in the pantry, which was found by another officer.
Defense in this case pointed out that anyone in the house could have accessed the pantry, and that there is no evidence such as DNA sampling linking that this gun belongs to the accused.
Judge Shawn Bessey agreed that there was sufficient cause to believe the accused guilty and set the arraignment for Oct. 12 after Deputy District Attorney George Biko repeated the mother and sister claimed the weapon belonged to the accused.
It was previously pointed out before this decision that the brother also lives in the house, which the officer stated that he was not aware of at the time.
In the second preliminary, it was established that security camera footage showed a vehicle parked, said to be a white pickup, but it was out of camera visibility. Most of the hearing revolved around the quality of the footage in terms of lacking detail or lacking concrete evidence toward the accused.
Another officer that had testified was Colby Jantzen, who said he was dispatched on July 20, 2023, about a shooting that had occurred. He noted that he saw vehicles, one of which had a broken window. He then talked to a victim and got to see security camera footage.
A white pickup could be seen, but was nearly out of camera view. It is alleged that a subject in a white shirt was firing. The footage had been reviewed around the area of the incident.
Officer Jantzen stated the vehicle had been pulled over weeks prior for a citation (which he said was the same vehicle seen in surveillance). The officer told the court that he had tried to slow down the footage and could see someone in the driver’s seat, but no one in the passenger seat.
The officer added he was assisting another officer on Aug. 13, 2020, when they had contact with the other co-accused with an inventory search of the vehicle and located a black semi-automatic handgun. The co-accused stated that he is the only one in the vehicle, and the footage shows someone with a white shirt.
Deputy Public Defender Tai Bogan brought up, “The pickup just shows that it’s white. In the video, you cannot see who’s driving.” DPD Tai Bogan asked if there were any distinctive markings that could be noted to apply to the accused’s car.
Officer Jantzen responded by saying that the front end is lower than the rear, and that there is a visible spotlight.
However, DPD Bogan pushed back against this response, arguing many cars could fit the description of being a white pickup, and received a “no” from the officer after asking if the license plate was visible. In the “shooting” portion of the footage, the truck is noted to be just outside of the scope.
DPD Bogan continued by questioning if the officer had asked what direction he was going, to which the officer stated he hadn’t. DPD Tai Bogan then pointed out that there are two different routes to get there, and the officer did not ask the time that he would have gone to a friend’s house like the co-accused said he was going.
Officer Jantzen also admitted that he believed it to be the co-accused based on “past experiences” but that he cannot say that officially based on the surveillance footage provided.
It was also noted at this time by Deputy Public Defender Ryan Bowler there was a truck that was offscreen during the shooting video, and the neighborhood where the incident occurred is a residential neighborhood, and his client said that he was not currently with anyone else, to which the officer had agreed.
DPD Bowler said there was another pickup in a different color across from the car with the damage in the video of the apparent shooter, stating, “In the video, it doesn’t show any actual shooting from the truck, correct?”
The officer responded with a yes.
DDA Biko asked the officer, after an accused was pulled over, if it was consistent with prior July surveillance footage, to which the officer also said yes.
Another officer, Marcus Freeman, noted the truck had been searched, and that clothing was located consisting of a hat and two bandanas. He said they later determined that the other co-accused was in the passenger seat.
The white pickup’s contents consisted of a red and blue bandana, and a red and white skull bandana, but the testimony provided of the alleged shooter had only discussed there being a white shirt, with the officer claiming he does not recall any information pertaining to the shooter possessing such items.
