WOODLAND, Calif. — A Yolo County judge ruled Wednesday that an accused man’s case could proceed beyond the statutory 30-day trial deadline, despite the fact that he had not waived his right to a speedy trial, citing good cause based on the unavailability of two prosecution witnesses.
The accused was arrested last month after allegedly giving a false name — his brother’s — to law enforcement officers.
Two witnesses, a detective and a deputy, were both on vacations they had scheduled prior to the accused’s arrest, and, because of their absence, Deputy District Attorney Rachel Meyers asked for a continuance. The People also argued that because the accused had a prior offense in which he gave the same brother’s name to a different officer, that was also reason enough for a continuance.
Deputy Public Defender Adrian Jauregui argued Wednesday that because his client was arrested on May 15 and never waived his right to a speedy trial, the case should not proceed past the 30-day deadline of June 22. Jauregui stated that doing so because of the detective’s and deputy’s absences was not reason enough, as the officers’ testimony may or may not be admissible. The arresting officers also were not wearing body cameras.
“The court should find that there’s no good cause based on [the detective’s] unavailability, because even if [admissible], the court deems it necessary to prove that he’s been convicted of giving false name to a law enforcement officer in the past, that a conviction cannot otherwise be proven by a certified copy of the minute order, or his criminal record,” Jauregui said. “To continue the trial past its last day on June 22nd, for a deceptive event prior case, for evidence that may or may not be admitted, I don’t think, rises to good cause.”
Jauregui further argued that the deputy’s testimony would lack materiality because he was not the primary investigating officer but rather the officer involved in the prior offense, meaning any statements he made about the case at hand would constitute hearsay.
“His involvement has been summarized as ‘he remembered to be on the lookout [for the accused],’” Jauregui said. “His contribution to the present case would not be necessary unless otherwise proven by the primary investigating officer, giving the hearsay exception testimony.”
DDA Meyers argued that the hearsay exception would not allow the deputy’s testimony and that, without it, the prosecution could not prove nexus.
While Jauregui was concerned about going past June 22, he also expressed concern about the accused’s probation. However, the accused’s probation may not expire July 4, its original date, because, according to DDA Meyers, its status has been revoked.
After hearing each argument, Judge Catherine Rayhill announced that she would “find good reason to continue,” even though the accused had not waived time.
The trial readiness date was scheduled for June 24, with a mandatory settlement program for the misdemeanor set for 1:30 p.m. The trial itself was scheduled for June 29 in Department 9 at the Yolo County Criminal Court at 9 a.m.
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.
