MODESTO, CA – A Stanislaus County Superior Court jury heard closing arguments this week in a trial involving two defendants accused of burglary and receiving a stolen vehicle.
Alternate defender Kojo Moore, representing one accused, alleged not all leads or opportunities were investigated, including not checking fingerprints nor locating any DNA even more than a year later.
AD Moore argued to the jury that the date of the burglary is still unknown, but remains around the timeframe of Sept. 22-25, and that video footage for only the 25th had been checked.
“At the first house alleged, the case is based on there being fingerprints in and outside the home. There had been testimony that there were two sets of footprints, believed to have paint on them. They took a picture of the shoes that had been taken and of the footprints in there,” explained the defense counsel.
However, AD Moore noted his concern is that the footprints were never analyzed, stating, “If you look at the outside footprint, there is no paint in it. If you look at the picture in the exhibit, there is only one footprint outside. My client was walking in that video so there would have to be more footprints.”
Moore argued that the comparison could have been sent to the Department of Justice, adding that now prints, or DNA evidence were found in the house, and although a detective said the evidence could arrive, “it has been over a year.”
Moore stated this in itself proves that if there is not any direct evidence linking the accused to the crime the verdict should be not guilty.
Regarding the second alleged residence burgled, a vehicle was located, but AD Moore argued his client had nothing to do with that residence, as there is no existing testimony indicating the accused was ever present.
On the third residence, AD Moore admitted officers had said it was known for “nefarious and illegal activity” and that people had been arrested there previously, but that no one had interviewed them on this occasion.
“My client was not present at that time. He was at a general store,” AD Moore said to the jury, adding some officers provide differing quantities of people who occupy that residence, some claiming there to be five people, while others estimate around 12.
Again, AD Moore insisted there was no investigation, checking for DNA or fingerprints, and just assumed guilt, stating, “We are not saying any evidence was planted, but that officers did not investigate all leads and opportunities. There is no evidence that my client committed the burglary.”
The second accused in this case is being charged for knowingly having possession of a vehicle that was stolen from the residence at which the burglary occurred.
This accused is represented by criminal defense attorney Rebeka Monez, who agreed with AD Moore’s claim that this case is built on circumstantial evidence and noting that, while her client did receive the stolen vehicle, there is no evidence that shows how the accused got the car or that the accused was aware it was stolen.
According to defense attorney Monez, if her client had received the vehicle and found out it was stolen after receiving the vehicle, it cannot be considered the accused is guilty, arguing, “When my client received the vehicle, we know this family was out of town…(we) also know that the vehicle was in the alleyway of the residence at this time.”
Defense attorney Monez references a text message that had come on Sept. 25 that read, a “G-ride” must be sold, maintaining, “If you were to arrive at the conclusion that this text is about the family vehicle, you still have no evidence as to who, what, or why he received this vehicle.”
Monez concluded her closing argument by stating it is perfectly reasonable for someone who receives a car with the key to it to not make the assumption that it is stolen, and requested a not guilty verdict from the jury.
Deputy District Attorney Aurora Maddocks claimed in her rebuttal argument that the surrounding circumstances have to be looked at in this case, noting AD Moore’s client is in possession of a pair of shoes that match the size of the footprints outside of the house and that the soles of these shoes were destroyed by the accused. She also claims that the man in the video footage on Sept. 25 has the “same distinct haircut, same backpack, and shoes” as the accused.
DDA Maddocks argued the second accused was aware the vehicle was stolen because, soon after gaining possession of it, the accused tried to sell it.
Maddocks brought up the series of text messages where the term “G-ride” was used in reference to the vehicle. Given that this term can be understood to mean a stolen vehicle, DDA Maddocks said, the accused was aware the vehicle was stolen.
