WOODLAND, CA – A multi-defendant trial in Yolo County Superior Court faced further delay this week after the prosecution requested a custody stay, although the accused has been held in jail for more than 15 months and the defense is anxiously pursuing the beginning of jury selection.
A custody stay, if granted, would pause the trial proceedings while the prosecution appeals a ruling, keeping the accused in jail during the interim.
Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira stated the trial was not proceeding only because the prosecution had not secured their witness in the previous trial.
DPD Sequeira argued that, based on the case’s procedural history, the impact on the Yolo County community, and her client’s right to a timely trial, further delays were unnecessary.
Attorney David Nelson argued his client has been in custody “for the better part of 15 months,” noting, “We have done… motions for the second time in the past four days… we have our rulings. We like our rulings,” emphasizing the case was “within hours of having a jury.”
Conflict Counsel James Granucci addressed the court, stating the District Attorney’s Office had requested body-worn footage, a warrant, and a delay in jury selection to accommodate their case and the court had granted all these requests.
Attorney Granucci argued, “With granting a stay, what’s gonna happen is that we’re gonna come back, and if it’s appealed, four months and pick up where we are or where we left off. No, that’s not feasible.”
Judge Sonia Cortés addressed the matter, stating that “the court has wide discretion in making a decision whether to grant a stay or not.”
Judge Cortés explained the court must consider both the prosecution’s interest in “correcting an error that they believe the court has made” and the defense’s interest in proceeding with the trial without further delay.
“It was always clear that…(the accused) always wanted to have their trial,” Judge Cortés noted.
The defense maintained that keeping their clients in custody for a prolonged period without resolution would infringe upon their right to due process.
“This case has already experienced significant delays, and my client has exercised their constitutional right to a speedy trial,” the defense stated.
Additionally, the defense raised concerns about the prosecution’s witness, questioning their credibility and the decision to grant them immunity as the Yolo County Sheriff’s Dept. and the Stockton Police had not believed the witness’s side of the story.
DPD Sequeira maintained, “(the witness)…is not competent at all in a tribunal or under the state of California based on his disrespect for the previous orders of the court and his habit evidence…the discovery suggested nobody believed…(the witness).”
Judge Cortés deferred a final decision, and scheduled the matter for further jury trial this week.
What are the charges?
I reached out to the supervisor/ author to address this