By Julian Verdon
SACRAMENTO – Judge Michael Savage granted consolidation of two cases despite the defendant’s attorney arguing that the grouping of offenses would prejudice the jury against the defendant.
Deputy District Attorney Allison Wieder asked Judge Savage for permission to consolidate two cases against Cedric Owens, which means his two charges, although not happening at the same time, would be tried at one time.
Courts often call that “judicial economy,” saving time and taxpayer money. However, defense lawyers usually object, noting these cost-saving measures do not benefit defendants.
Owens is charged with two separate and independent counts of resisting arrest, but the circumstances between each arrest differ. 
According to his defense attorney, Brennan McGee, they should not be grouped together due to the differences in the arrests.
For the first charge, Owens allegedly complied with the officers and then ran away from them. The officers then caught him and asked Owens to stop, which he did, and there were no further disturbances.
On the second charge, Owens allegedly resisted officers and struggled against them when placed in handcuffs.
“Joining these two cases would essentially be bootstrapping a weaker case to a stronger case. Based on the discovery the defense has received so far, one case has 11 different pieces of video evidence that depict [Owens’] alleged conduct. Whereas the following case is based on a 911 call and witness testimony,” explained McGee.
McGee argued that the jury members would find it difficult to look at each case individually and compartmentalize their evaluations. One case may be more damaging to Owens, while the other may possess less evidence. McGee believes the more serious instance could bias the jury’s verdict on the additional resisting arrest charge.
The prosecution filed the motion to consolidate because both cases involved resisting arrest. However, McGee argues that actions taken during each incident warrant separation and not consolidation.
“The People allege that [the alleged incidents] happened in a similar manner, but the facts of this case do not demonstrate a common plan or scheme. The People allege that my client got angry and resisted the police. That’s a vague statement of the law, and by that standard, every single [resisting arrest charge] can be joined,” McGee maintained.
McGee then asked the court to deny the prosecution’s request to consolidate due to a lack of cross admissibility between the two cases.
However, the judge refused McGee’s appeal and granted the motion to consolidate for the prosecution.
Owens’ next court date is Sept. 16 at 1:35 p.m. in Dept. 62.
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
