By Kianna Anvari
SACRAMENTO — Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Steve White set a trial date for a Sacramento man here, even after telling counsel that he would not proceed with this case with the current evidence.
In fact, White said he’d find the defendant not guilty if it were a bench trial in front of him.
Joey Marks appeared in custody at his preliminary hearing on Wednesday, charged with one count of felony attempted burglary and one count of misdemeanor theft.
Deputy District Attorney Nick Karp called his first witness, officer Dalton Ford with the Sacramento Police Department. After about five minutes of technical difficulties with the Zoom platform, the questioning began.
Officer Ford said that he was doing field training on Jan. 31 when he arrived at the scene for “suspicious circumstances.” The homeowner was out of town, and saw, via live surveillance footage, two white males allegedly manipulating the lock box in front of her home. The gate was open when the officers arrived at the scene—but all points of entry were secure and the alarm was still armed.
Officer Ford explained that the male suspects retrieved the key out of the lockbox and entered the gate into the yard of the residence. After interviewing the neighbor, the officers on the scene learned that the neighbor yelled at the suspects to get out of there, causing them to leave the premises. However, Ford did not hear any audio of the neighbors yelling in the surveillance video recording.
The recording, as recalled by Ford, showed the two men peering through the window of the residence. One individual left the frame and returned with a pair of shoes and bolt cutters.
Karp showed Exhibits 1 and 2 to the witness, which were screenshots of an individual in the surveillance video, alleging it to be Marks.
During cross-examination, defense attorney Larenda Delaini questioned whether the individuals attempted to remove window screens or open the windows, to which Ford answered no.
Delaini asked Ford to describe the two individuals; he said they seemed to be about the same height and build, but it was “hard to tell exactly.”
After another 10 minutes of technical difficulties, Karp called Detective Jayme Valdez with the Sacramento Police Department as his second witness. Valdez said that the homeowner’s boyfriend was missing his cycling shoes and bolt cutters.
Detective Valdez said she checked county records to find a photo of the defendant. Karp showed Exhibit 3, which was the Web KPF photo that Valdez used to compare with the surveillance screenshot.
Delaini then showed Exhibits A and B to Valdez—DMV photos of Marks from June 2020. Valdez said that he looked heavier in this photo and could not clearly see if the individual had a neck tattoo like Marks.
During closing remarks, Delaini asked the court not to issue a holding order because she did not believe identification had been established. She said that, unlike Marks, the individual in the surveillance photo had a scar between his eyebrows and a mole on his cheek. She added that the individual in the surveillance photo is tall and slender, while Marks is not. Further, she said there was no evidence that the defendant attempted to enter the home with the other individual.
Judge White said that the question of attempt was satisfied because of the knowledge of the neighbor yelling at them to leave. He added that the two were in the process of attempting to commit a burglary.
Karp argued that the defendant could have very likely changed in body weight over the last nine months. He emphasized the shape of the defendant’s lips and nose, claiming they are identical in all the photos.
Delaini added that the two witnesses claimed both the individuals to be the same height and weight, and clearly they are not.
After hearing both sides, Judge White said: “The People have met their burden for this hearing, however only barely.” He added that the People established probable cause to conclude that all the photos are of the same individual.
Yet, Judge White claimed: “If this were a bench trial, I would find the defendant not guilty because I would have a reasonable doubt based on this evidence.”
Because of the very low bar to move the case to trial, the defendant was ordered to return for a jury trial Dec. 7.
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:
