WOODLAND, Calif. — On April 29, closing arguments in a jury trial involving two counts of arson on forest land centered on sharply disputed witness accounts, as both the prosecution and defense urged jurors to interpret the accused’s actions in fundamentally different ways. Both sides addressed how jurors should interpret the actions of the accused. The defense, however, focused extensively on the reliability of the prosecution’s eyewitnesses, highlighting inconsistencies and reliance on circumstantial evidence. The charges stem from two fires that occurred in a vacant lot near an intersection in West Sacramento. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused set the fire with malicious intent in order to secure a conviction.
Deputy District Attorney Aimee McLeod’s argument emphasized witness observations and their testimony about the accused’s location at the time of the fire. According to the prosecution, both witnesses described the accused kneeling near the field as flames appeared.
The prosecution further described the accused’s behavior according to witness testimony. The prosecution argued that the accused “walked away fast and looked back at both witnesses repeatedly” and that this was proof of malicious intent on behalf of the accused.
Deputy Defense Attorney Erin Dacayanan challenged this interpretation of the accused’s behavior, as well as the credibility of the witnesses. DPD Dacayanan argued that the prosecution’s arguments were based solely on circumstantial evidence, focusing on the accused’s movements after the fires rather than objective evidence of a deliberate ignition.
DPD Dacayanan questioned the credibility of the prosecution’s witness testimony. The case relied heavily on two witnesses who were on site and reported seeing the accused near the fires when they started. During initial cross-examination, the defense highlighted various inconsistencies in the witness accounts regarding how the fires were described.
The witnesses initially testified that the accused allegedly flicked a cigarette into the field, while later descriptions included the accused crouching and deliberately starting the fire. The number of fires changed in eyewitness testimony, as did claims about waiting for the police department to arrive on site, which was contested by police body camera footage that allegedly appears to show both witnesses being stopped and questioned by officers “several blocks” away from the location of the fires.
The defense also pointed to the absence of corroborating evidence. Testimony from the responding fire captain indicated that the cause of the fire was “undetermined.”
The prosecution responded by maintaining that the eyewitness testimony constitutes direct evidence and argued that their testimony should be considered credible based on “timing” and the reported movement of the accused described by the witnesses.
Judge Catherine Hohenwarter instructed jurors that they must determine whether the prosecution has proven its case with proper evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
A verdict was not reached at the time the trial concluded for the day.
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.
