By Cindy Chen and Kayla Betulius
WOODLAND, CA – During a trial this week at Yolo County Superior Court of an accused facing drug and firearm-possession charges, Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira raised serious concerns about the integrity of a missing interview recording involving a witness and Yolo County Deputy Sheriff Gary Ritcher.
Ultimately, the judge ruled to allow the witness testimony and granted a continuance to the case.
According to DPD Sequeira, officers spoke with all occupants of the vehicle during the traffic stop of the original arrest, including the witness.
Deputy Richter later took the witness who had been arrested for the same offense as the accused to a recorded interview room at the police department to obtain another detailed statement. Richter claimed this interview was recorded and booked into evidence, DPD Sequeira said.
However, DPD Sequeira found the interview was missing, telling the court, “I have looked through everything. My office has transcribed hundreds of hours of body cameras… There were hours, and the interview was nowhere….it’s gone. The interview is gone.”
DPD Sequeira argued the missing recording is, at best, a case of negligence and, at worst, deliberate interference with evidence on the part of the investigator.
DPD Sequeira expressed major concerns about Deputy Richter’s reliability, stating, “He’s either not being truthful in the report, he didn’t book it in the evidence, or he did book it into evidence and then someone else did something with it.”
DPD Sequeira charged car camera transcripts revealed officers at the scene exclusively focused on the accused, despite the presence of other individuals in the car with criminal offenses, including one individual out on bail for drug and firearm offenses, and the witness with a record of three prior arrests.
Sequeira raised concerns about the integrity of the interview, suggesting it might have been manipulated to portray the witness as innocent at the expense of others. Referring to the witness as a “snitch witness,” DPD Sequeira highlighted previous arrests in which she was found with drugs, guns, or pills in her purse and subsequently shifted the blame onto others.
“The conversation they have with (witness) on scene is clearly designed to get her to snitch on the people she’s with, which is consistent with what she does,” stated DPD Sequeira.
With this history, DPD Sequeira posed a scenario involving Detective Richter and the witness, suggesting the witness had previously invoked her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, and her change in sudden willingness to be interviewed may have been influenced by coercion.
The witness, said the public defender, presents a hypothetical with the witness at the detention center, maintaining the detective “goes to her and says to her, I’m not going to talk about your role in the case. I want to talk about (the accused’s) role…I know you invoked, but I want to talk to you about their role and not your role.”
Ultimately, DPD Sequeria asked the court to exclude the witness testimony entirely because of the loss of evidence that could be potentially exculpatory and was recklessly lost.
District Deputy Attorney Preston Schaub admitted responsibility, stating: “We don’t have any authority showing that striking testimony is a remedy for a lost recording at this point. We made a mistake. There’s either a recording that was recorded, got lost, or a police officer wrote incorrect information in his report.”
However, DDA Schaub argued that although the missing recording is the DA’s “responsibility,” it does not impact the witness willingness or ability to testify unless she chooses to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights, noting, “There are other remedies available other than just denying testimony as a whole.”
Ultimately, Judge Sonia Cortés ruled to allow the witness testimony, though she granted a continuance to address the evidentiary concerns involving the missing evidence raised by the defense, which said it is filing a motion for a mistrial.
