By Eric J. Trochez
SACRAMENTO – After a spiteful, revenge burglary, a victim found they suffered a substantial $20,000 loss, including losing a MacBook, jewelry, and designer clothes and bags.
In a Sacramento County Superior Court restitution hearing for the case Tuesday, the victim demanded restitution for the losses they suffered from Emily Isamade, who has already pleaded guilty to burglary and agreed to pay restitution if the court found it due.
Deputy District Attorney Nick Karp called the victim, who said Isamade took revenge against them after Isamade said the property “rightfully” belonged to her, not the victim, because it was her husband’s property and she had rights to it. She had written a letter months ago asking for her husband’s undergarments and like property.
After being denied access to this property for so long, Isamade said, “You’ll get what you deserve tomorrow” to the victim. On August 16, 2019, the very next day, Isamade broke into and burglarized the victim’s house.
Karp asked the victim to describe their side of the story. The victim began by telling how they recognized something suspicious from the security camera in the home, positioned, toward the 
driveway. The victim saw the hood of their Mercedes popped open. The victim saw a car blocking the Mercedes, and Isamade at the residence.
The victim called their sister to check in on the situation and later got their phone hacked by Isamade, allegedly. After a long drive down to Los Angeles, the victim returned immediately the next day to their home in Sacramento. The victim had to wait for the Sacramento Police Department and CSI to finish their inspection of the scene before being able to enter their residence.
When they finally entered the house, the victim found that it was completely “ransacked.”
The victim gave a short description of the condition in which they found the house: “Everything was flipped. Items were on the floor in the garage. Kitchen: my cabinets were open. Doors were out. Everything was thrown on the floor. Everything was just out.”
The victim described the process of reporting the incident to the police, filing a supplemental report, reporting lost items and filing a claim to their insurance company. After a lengthy description and account of the property lost, the total value of all the lost property was $19,951.95.
The items the victim lost were: two necklaces that belonged to a friend, a pair of $14,000 diamond earrings, a diamond necklace, a Louis Vuitton purse, a small pink MCM purse, a big brown MCM purse with wallet, a pink MCM backpack, a MacBook laptop, a pair of Gucci women’s shoes, a Louis Vuitton backpack, some clothes, a designer shirt, and some documentation Isamade wanted.
The documentation included Isamade’s husband’s checkbook, bank cards and casino cards.
After a lengthy account of the items lost, description of where the items were, a description of the reporting process and claim made for the lost items, Assistant Public Defender Steven Sirsch began his cross-examination.
PD Sirsch asked if Isamade had contacted the victim beforehand. The victim confirmed it was the day before the incident. The victim said that Isamade threatened to take their things if she did not receive what she asked for. The victim stated that Isamade stated that she “has something coming to you (you, referring to the victim).”
The victim had all of Isamade’s husband’s property released to her and had no reason to forfeit any of it to Isamade. Even the husband refused to give this property to her, but Isamade insisted.
Sirsch ended his cross-examination and Officer Matthew Jones was called to the stand… until a choppy testimony from Officer Jones caused DDA Karp to call for an “extraordinary request,” to have Judge Curtis M. Fiorini, himself, and PD Sirsch speak privately in a break-out room.
Upon the end of the meeting in the break-out room’s, Officer Jason Lee replaced Jones as the witness. The officer described how he received two calls the night of the burglary. The first call was actually called in by Emily Isamade herself. She described that there was a burglary going on at the victim’s residence and described that she herself burglarized some items.
The items she stole were limited to documents, such as bank cards, checkbooks, and casino cards. She reported to have no part in the taking of the more expensive property, such as the designer bags, MacBook, and designer clothes. When Officer Lee searched her and her vehicle, he found nothing.
When Officer Lee was asked about his conversation with the victim’s sister, the sister stated that she did not see Isamade leave with anything—simply that she entered the house and went to her car several times. Sirsch used this as “solid” evidence that Isamade didn’t steal anything.
However, the cross-examination highlighted something very important: an unknown truck at the scene. It could be speculated that the truck could have taken the more expensive items. Not only that, the surveillance footage recorded two voices conversing, one being Isamade’s voice. This raised the possibility of Isamade colluding with someone else.
Sirsch argued that, while Isamade admits to stealing some documents, there’s no evidence to suggest that she took all the other items, whose value totals nearly $20,000. None of it was found and the sister’s eyewitness account even proves this, said Sirsch.
DA Karp responded by saying the footage did capture Isamade at the house and walking from the house back and forth. Isamade also knew of the truck and saw it at the scene. Neither the truck nor the items were found. She has no alibi as to what she was doing within that hour; she could’ve moved those items within that hour.
Judge Fiorini ruled that whether or not Isamade actually stole the items is not relevant. The victim would not have suffered such a material loss had it not been for Isamade’s criminal conduct. Because Isamade burglarized the victim’s home, these items were taken.
Isamade had already pleaded guilty to a first degree residential burglary. Part of the conditions of that plea was restitution. Because the victim suffered losses and there is sufficient evidence that Isamade was responsible for that, the court orders that Isamade must pay the victim a restitution of $19,951.95.
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
