WOODLAND, Calif. — A Yolo County judge ordered the release of a defendant at an arraignment Wednesday after finding that the evidence fell short of the legal standard required to justify continued detention, despite repeated objections from the prosecution and requests that the accused remain in custody.
The case was heard Jan. 7, 2026, before Judge Danette C. Brown. The defendant was arraigned on charges of vandalism, second-degree burglary, and petty theft with two prior convictions, with aggravating circumstances. Deputy Public Defender Katie DeAnda was appointed to represent the accused, who entered a not guilty plea after waiving a formal reading of the complaint.
Deputy District Attorney Carolyn Palumbo argued that the defendant should not be released, citing public safety concerns and the accused’s prior warrants.
DeAnda countered that neither the accused’s record nor the charges were sufficient to establish a public safety risk warranting continued detention, noting that warrants can be issued for a variety of reasons.
Palumbo urged the court to delay any release decision until a Supervised Own Recognizance report could be completed. Judge Brown acknowledged that authorizing release without reviewing such a report posed challenges, stating that the court would have difficulty releasing the defendant without the context the report provides.
Defense counsel responded that the court was required to apply the governing legal standard and make a timely determination at arraignment. DeAnda argued that delaying the decision would effectively result in continued detention without the findings required by law.
“You are asking me to make a decision on the fly,” Brown said, explaining that the court faced two options: choosing the “least restrictive” alternative by ordering release or “erring on the side of caution” by keeping the accused in custody.
When asked again by the defense whether there was substantial evidence to justify continued detention, Brown responded, “The court does not have clear and convincing evidence today, which means he would be released on his own recognizance.”
Following the ruling, the prosecution again objected on public safety grounds. During the objection, Palumbo characterized the decision as “the most ridiculous thing” she had ever experienced in court, prompting DeAnda to respond, “I object to the People’s language in court.”
After ordering the release, Brown set a review hearing for later this month. The prosecution then asked that a warrant be issued. Defense counsel opposed the request, arguing that any such issue could be addressed at the review hearing. DeAnda further emphasized that it was not “appropriate to be asking for future warrants.”
A review hearing on the status of the case is scheduled for 9 a.m. Jan. 21, 2026.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
