WOODLAND, CA – During a June 5 hearing in a Yolo County murder trial, the defense challenged the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses, arguing they lacked the expertise to draw scientific conclusions from the crime scene evidence.
The accused faces a felony murder charge, along with three sentencing enhancements, including one for great bodily injury, another for the personal use of a firearm, and a third for aggravating circumstances stemming from the events of December 3, 2023.
Previously, The Davis Vanguard covered a bail review in which Judge Daniel M. Wolk sided with prosecutors, ruling the $1 million bail appropriate despite the case for “imperfect self-defense rather than premeditated murder” presented by Deputy Public Defender (DPD) Dale Gomes.
On the morning of June 5, the court heard testimony from four witnesses. The hearing began with Deputy District Attorney (DDA) Jesse Richardson calling Officer Max Held to the stand.
Officer Held described arriving at the scene and finding the victim lying in a pool of blood beneath a red GMC truck. Under cross-examination, DPD Gomes questioned Held about his limited role, confirming that he was not responsible for documenting bullet trajectories or collecting forensic evidence.
As the cross-examination continued, Gomes asked, “In a scene like this, you are not asked to just independently decide what you are going to do or not do, right?”
Held responded that he was informed by an unnamed partner officer, saying, “It appears there is a gunshot wound to his neck,” when discussing the victim. He added, “When I was informed that the victim was not breathing, I felt my duty was to understand what the victim’s circumstances were.”
Gomes followed up: “Does someone often take charge in investigations such as this, or are you all left independently to do what you want?”
Held replied, “Someone takes charge, like Sergeant Ruiz did, but there are a lot of quickly moving pieces in critical cases. It comes down to teamwork to help each other in such situations.”
Wrapping up the cross-examination, Gomes asked, “You were never asked to take on the responsibility to document where any bullet holes were potentially located or its projectiles?”
Held answered, “No,” marking the conclusion of his testimony.
DDA Richardson then called Officer Brandon Arriola to the stand.
Richardson established that Arriola had completed “basic academy training, including report writing, testing evidence, and field training.”
Arriola testified that he arrived at the scene later than other officers, responding to a “shots fired” call around 7:30 p.m.
He described the victim’s condition upon arrival: “The upper torso was underneath the front portion, or the driver’s side, of the truck. Officer Held was trying to pull the individual from under the truck, lying in the pool of blood.” Arriola added, “There was a circular wound, meaning a gunshot wound.”
He was also asked to clarify the difference between a bullet and a bullet casing. “A bullet casing is what’s expelled when the gun is actually fired; the bullet is what’s still intact and can be used,” he explained.
Richardson then presented Exhibits 8A, 8B, and 8C—video footage showing a truck ramming into Royalty Barber Supply, a barbershop.
Arriola noted that the footage displayed “motion-centered content.” Cross-examination followed.
DPD Gomes began by asking, “Did you participate in any way in crime scene reconstruction?” Arriola responded, “No.”
Gomes replayed Exhibit 8A and asked if Arriola saw someone walking behind the truck after it hit the barbershop. Initially, Arriola said, “There was an individual who was right in front of the truck right when it was about to ram into the shop.”
Upon reviewing the clip again, Arriola amended his statement: “I see a shadow walking behind the truck.”
Gomes concluded by asking, “Did you take up a task of going through any bushes or looking for potentially discarded evidence?” Arriola answered, “No. I was just asked to look for witnesses.” That concluded his testimony.
Next, DDA Richardson called Melissa Griffin to the stand.
When introduced, Griffin stated, “I assist with and practice traffic enforcement, have been with the Woodland Police Department for 20 years, and have served on the crime scene investigation (CSI) team for the past four years.”
She elaborated on her CSI training: “I went to a 40-hour training course where they teach you everything about photography, fingerprints, how to approach crime scenes, and all the duties expected.”
Griffin discussed Exhibit 18, a diagram she created. “I used a laser scanner to scan the scene and created a 2D diagram using software,” she explained, but noted, “The diagram is not to scale; it may not be accurate to the very inch.”
Regarding Exhibit 26, Griffin explained how bullets fragment: “Fragmented bullets become deformed depending on how they are fired and what they hit. Sometimes the bullets can shatter and disperse.”
She described finding a bullet near a pole: “The wood had splintered off the pole, and there was a saw used to cut around the area where the bullet seemed to have struck.”
Exhibit 43 showed Item 21, which Griffin identified as “a piece of a bullet that fell when the team sawed into the post—there was some deformity to it.”
She also admitted, “The officer sawing into the pole did think he might have hit the bullet with the saw.”
During cross-examination, Gomes emphasized that Griffin was not a crime expert.
“So, you take evidence so people can make observations about it?” he asked. “Yes,” Griffin replied.
“You’re not qualified to make scientific conclusions, but you photograph and mark items with yellow placards so qualified people can make those decisions?” Gomes asked. “Yes,” she confirmed.
Gomes noted discrepancies in how Griffin and others labeled bullets, such as referring to “bullet jacket fragments.” After further questioning, Griffin stated, “I am not a firearms expert.”
Gomes asked, “Are you an armed officer?” Griffin responded, “I am a civilian.”
He concluded by asking, “You log information into evidence and allow an investigator or other analyst to draw conclusions from the items of evidence you photographed?” “Yes,” Griffin agreed.
On redirect, DDA Richardson asked if there had been any crime reconstruction in the case. Griffin answered, “There was none to my knowledge.”
Finally, DDA Richardson called Rebecca Behrens to the stand.
Behrens identified herself as “a deputy coroner with the sheriff’s office who investigates deaths, usually of unnatural circumstances.”
She added, “I am a sworn peace officer and completed a two-week coroner’s academy.”
Regarding the December 3, 2023, incident, Behrens testified, “I received a call about an altercation where someone had been fatally injured.”
She described the crime scene: “There were lots of yellow crime scene tape, Woodland Police Department units with multiple officers observing the area, AMR was present, and the victim was found lying on the asphalt near a red truck.”
When attempting to examine the body, she said, “The body was very bloody, so it was hard to see what was going on. There were two defects to the head, and some black dust on him—likely from the parking lot.”
DDA Richardson asked for clarification on the term “defects.” Behrens responded, “Defects mean heavily covered in blood, and there were two holes in his head—one above the left ear and one below the right ear in the neck and chin area.”
On cross, Gomes confirmed, “There were just two defects identified on the victim’s body?” “Yes, there were two,” Behrens replied.
That marked the end of her testimony and the morning session. Court recessed for lunch, set to resume at 1:30 p.m.
