WOODLAND, Calif. — A man in custody appeared at Yolo County Superior Court for a preliminary hearing Wednesday morning, with the defense highlighting inconsistencies in detectives’ testimonies.
The defense’s argument centered on the gray area surrounding consent, the legal definition of kidnapping, and the appropriateness of detectives offering personal opinions about the accused.
Despite the arguments, Judge Samuel Richardson set bail at a high amount.
The accused faces charges including rape by force or fear, an offense committed during the course of a burglary that renders him ineligible for probation, as well as false imprisonment, kidnapping, and circumstances in aggravation.
Deputy Public Defender Richard Van Zandt questioned the clarity of the videographic evidence, the consistent and mutual communication between the accused and the victim witness before and after the alleged assaults, and the fact that the victim witness did not contact anyone outside the relationship.
He also pointed to the victim witness willingly going with the accused to get food together after the alleged incidents.
Van Zandt strongly urged the court to drop the kidnapping charge, citing contradictions in detectives’ testimonies about what actions were consensual.
During cross-examination, Van Zandt asked Detective Yee why his police reports included personal opinions about whether the accused was lying.
The defense argued that doing so overstepped the proper role of an investigator and blurred the line between law enforcement and advocacy.
Van Zandt underscored this issue to the court, arguing that such language was inappropriate in an official report.
Following testimony, Judge Richardson asked whether the case should proceed to trial.
After a pause, Van Zandt leaned forward at the defense table and said with frustration, “I think this case has been poorly investigated.”
He continued, “I think the court has been poorly served, and I think this just goes to the roots of the allegations.”
Van Zandt also said, “I do not think the victim witness is completely credible. Maybe there is enough evidence to go to trial,” adding, “But I will reserve the rest of my comments for bail reduction.”
Deputy District Attorney David Robbins responded, “The victim witness has been consistent in her responses. Even other people corroborated her statements.”
Van Zandt then asked the court not to issue a holding order on the kidnapping charge, stating, “They clearly go out to get food, no crime is committed at the restaurants, there is no crime committed on the road.”
Judge Richardson set a future court date for arraignment on information for Wednesday, July 9, 2025, and ordered the accused to appear.
Turning to bail, Van Zandt requested a reduction from $400,000 to $100,000.
“The accused’s father was here yesterday, the mother is here today, he worked at UPS, so there is no flight risk,” VanZandt said.
“He is an American citizen. He knows these are serious charges, so not appearing would make matters worse.”
DDA Robbins responded, “The court found sufficient information to bind the defendant over trial for extreme violence,” and added, “The bail amount was justified in a bail enhancement at arraignment, so I am asking the court to keep the bail at $400,000.”
Van Zandt replied, “The accused is entitled to a brand new bail assessment as it does not matter what a prior court did.”
Judge Richardson ultimately ruled, “The bail will be reduced to $200,000 on the basis of public safety concerns.”
The arraignment is scheduled for July 9, 2025, at 9 a.m. The court was then dismissed for the day.
