By Citlalli Florez
WOODLAND, CA – The Justin Gonzalez retrial—he was convicted of murder previously but new law allows him a new trial now—being heard in Yolo County Superior Court this week has provided new insight into apparent prosecutions inconsistencies in the murder at Casa Del Sol Mobile Home Park in 2016.
As noted in Wednesday testimony, there was lack of DNA on a T-shirt that should have had blood from the victim if Gonzalez were nearby; the t-shirt was not tested until recently. Witnesses have also had multiple difficulties identifying the accused as a suspect from the night in question.
During the afternoon hearing of the retrial Wednesday, two witnesses were called to the stand. The first was the coroner who conducted the autopsy of victim Ronald “Tony” Antonio. The second witness was Sarah Diaz, who called 911 during the time of the incident back in 2016.
Coroner Jason Tovar, employed at the Sacramento County Coroner’s office, is a chief forensic pathologist and his primary role is to perform autopsies to determine the cause of death of individuals and to manage other doctors who work in the office.
The Yolo County Coroner’s Office had a contract with the Sacramento County Coroner’s Office, which is why Antonio’s autopsy was performed by Dr. Tovar. The coroner proceeded to detail the injuries found on the victim.
There was bruising found on multiple parts of the body, according to Dr. Tovar, who said something had to scrape across the surface and have enough impact to cause such bruising. There was a laceration found on the back of Antonio’s head which Dr. Tovar describes as being the result of blunt force injury; the skin was split due to impact.
Deputy District Attorney Robin Johnson asked the witness if the injury could be caused by a fist. Dr. Tovar paused then answered, “with enough pressure you could definitely split the scalp, but you would have to use enough or there could be other possibilities or any blunt force: a kick, a strike, a fall to the back of the head.”
The next thing located was an incised wound on the left chest. The autopsy cannot tell the coroner what caused the wound but “the markings are there.” According to the coroner, the wound would be the result of a slash as opposed to a stab wound.
More abrasions and bruises were found on the victim, according to Dr. Tovar. DDA Johnson asked the coroner if the wounds could have been caused by the victim struggling against someone who had a knife. The witness responded that they could have been caused by someone falling. However, the coroner also stated that some of the abrasions had scabs on them which would imply that they were older.
Two stab wounds were identified during the autopsy, confirmed Dr. Tovar, adding the wounds were allegedly important to the case because they seemed like they were inflicted during life. The stab wounds caused only internal bleeding and the coroner determined the cause of death to be stab wounds to the torso, Tovar said.
DDA Johnson then asked if there would need to be more force than a kitchen knife to cause the stab wounds. The coroner answered “yes, it takes a certain amount of effort and force as it continues to hit bone and fracturing bone, there’s more force that would be needed to do that. The force cannot be measured.”
Deputy Public Defender Ron Johnson cross-examined the witness, and Dr. Tovar agreed the wounds would have been bleeding when the incision wounds were made.
According to the coroner, someone who would have been around the victim should have had blood on them; the stab wounds penetrated various blood carrying vessels and there would also be blood on the knife that penetrated the wounds.
It was revealed by the witness that the contusion wounds could have been caused by a fist or could have been caused by impact from a hard object. Also mentioned was the toxicology report, which found ethanol and alcohol were present in the victim’s blood during the time of the incident.
DDA Johnson rebutted and asked Dr. Tovar if someone grabbing the victim from behind would be expected to have traces of blood on them. The coroner had stated, “potentially” which, according to both the coroner and DDA, there’s a potential that there wouldn’t be blood on the person grabbing him from behind as well.
Diaz said she was visiting her mother the day of the incident. Her mother lived in the Casa Del Sol Mobile Home Park where Antonio was killed. According to the witness, they had begun hearing noises outside and became worried because her mother’s husband and Antonio were outside.
Diaz testified to hearing people scream and heard it come closer to her, explaining she was confused and looked through the window. She stated, “What I remember at this point is seeing people out there because they were fighting… I heard some woman screaming and I could see them kind of running…they were like arguing.”
The witness then heard someone knocking at the door. The first time she couldn’t identify anyone through the window. However, the second time she looked she said she saw someone with long hair and baggy clothes holding a knife.
She couldn’t quite remember how long the hair was but she believes that he had a ponytail. The witness was shown a photograph and stated that the hair was consistent with what she remembers.
Diaz recounted, “All I remember is that he was wearing a baggy t-shirt, but I don’t remember details.” She reviewed a transcript of a previous statement she had made about the incident through older proceedings. The witness then confirmed that the t-shirt was white. When asked about the race by DDA Johnson, the witness replied that “he seemed Latino.”
Diaz then recalled seeing the man holding a knife and described him as looking like he was having an adrenaline rush. There were other people around the man, she added, but she couldn’t recall who they were because she was focused on the knife.
She then saw Antonio sprawled on the stairs with his head reaching the floor and without a shirt. She recalled, “He was already dying” and described how people were running to flee the scene.
The witness said she went outside and called 911 and people began to gather around. Diaz stated that a girl had told her, “I can’t believe they did this” and told the witness that it was “el oso.” The witness described the girl as skinny, with light skin, and red orange hair.
Diaz was asked by DPD Johnson if she had seen a vehicle at the scene. She commented that a vehicle was leaving when she went outside, but that she didn’t remember the description of the vehicle.
It was revealed a woman accompanied Diaz the day of the incident. The woman had told her that she saw “the guys” and was in shock; she tried to do something, but nothing could be done.
Diaz’s 911 call was played in court. The vehicle was revealed to be a white van, and it was then confirmed that she was never able to identify anyone else other than “el oso,” who was a co-accused in the previous trial.
Once the jury was dismissed, Judge McAdam had a discussion with both the DPD and DDA, noting, “At one point, I believe that the defense objected to exhibit 24 which is a picture of Justin Gonzalez which was shown to Raquel Ponce. As the parties no doubt recall, there was a dramatic moment in trial where she stood up when asked if the person she saw with Mr. Antonio was in the courtroom and she was unable to identify the defendant.”
Judge McAdam continued, “The court then allowed the prosecution to show exhibit 24 which was a picture closer in time to the events of Mr. Gonzalez and I think at that point she was able to identify. The defense had objected to that basically on grounds of leading and that’s the way I took it, suggestibility or leading. The court overruled that objection. The court has great discretion in allowing leading questions under code 764 and 767.”
The judge added, “It was clear to the court that the witness had been unsuccessful at identifying and it is appropriate to allow some leading questions in circumstances to refresh memory or to sharpen one’s recall and so the court allowed that. That being said, I believe the defense will no doubt have arguments against her credibility of her identification and how that played out and so I think it’s fair for both sides to articulate that line of testimony.”
A separate issue entered discussion regarding the admissibility of the fact that the defense asked that the shirt identified with Gonzalez from the night in question be tested for DNA.
The defense had asked the shirt be tested and at that point the DA’s office tested the shirt despite not having tested it for DNA prior. The defense would be allowed to submit this fact into evidence, but Judge McAdam stated that they should find a way to do so without attorney testimony.
The judge said the jury needs to know the sequence of events. However, the DDA argued that she had a different memory of what had happened.
Finally Judge McAdam asked DDA Johnson if they could work on a stipulation of events with the defense so that it can be read on the record at the next hearing. The DDA stated, “I’ve told the court that I do not wish to stipulate to this.”
Judge McAdam asked why there was so much objection to writing a stipulation and said, “You certainly don’t want Mr. Johnson to take the stand for this narrow purpose.”
DDA Johnson interrupted, “If he does, I do.” DPD Johnson then said that he would just call on the DDA because he does not intend on taking the stand. There was a brief back and forth, with DDA Johnson claiming that she would “think about it.”
