By Mia Machado
SACRAMENTO – Sometimes “routine” hearings in court become not so routine, as was the case last Friday in Sacramento County Superior Court when Judge Trena Burger-Plavan halted a “routine” restitution hearing for a 2015 burglary for items reported stolen by defendant Francis Muao back on March 31, 2015.
The victim – accompanied by Punjabi interpreter Kamal Judge, and represented by Deputy District Attorney Matthew Moore – appeared virtually through Zoom to testify on the value of his possessions taken during the crime.
Routine? Not exactly.
While questioning the victim about the value of each item, private defense counsel John Renwick objected,
stating the victim did not possess an understanding of how these estimated values were made.
Agreeing with the defense, Judge Burger-Plavan ordered the hearing to be continued at a later date, when a more appropriate witness could be brought to the stand.
Before the ruling, court began with the presentation of prosecution’s exhibit one, a police report stating the description and value of each item reported stolen. Speaking on behalf of DDA Moore was a certified legal intern, Vanessa Washington, who began a line of questioning with the victim.
After confirming that the victim understood what document was being presented on the screen, Washington asked if he could state what items were listed on the first page. Communicating through his Punjabi interpreter, the victim confessed that he did not know enough English to read the document, and would need the items read to him.
Washington proceeded by reading the title of each item and asking the victim for its estimated price, a number that was clearly displayed on the side of each column. After successfully relaying the 
correct costs for the items on the first page, the victim was asked how he determined the listed values.
The victim responded that he did not possess any of the receipts and needed help finding the prices on the computer. Before Washington could proceed to the following page, defense attorney Renwick objected again, who argued that the estimated prices did not come from the victim, but from someone else who helped him with the computer.
Taking his objection under submission, Judge Burger-Plavan allowed Renwick to question the victim, so he could hopefully lay the foundation.
Attempting to clarify how the information was gathered, Renwick asked the victim to identify who was responsible for collecting the estimates. After revealing that it was his grandson who compiled the information, Renwick asked how he was able to find the prices.
The victim explained that he didn’t know where, but that “on the computer, if you put in the name of the item, I guess the computers tell you.” With this response, Renwick reiterated his objection and stated that he did not believe a foundation could be laid with the witness that they had present in the courtroom.
Requesting that the judge strike the testimony given for page one, Renwick explained that “foundation requires personal knowledge” that the victim did not possess, and that the grandson is needed to continue with the hearing.
Taking over for his legal intern, DDA Moore intervened, explaining that the amounts estimated on the list were reasonable “based on common sense,” and it appeared that the method of obtaining those– having his grandson search for them on the computer and relaying the information — was “generally reliable.”
In an attempt to avoid bringing a minor to court simply to state that he had searched for the items on a computer, Moore asked if they could try to proceed with the hearing.
Renwick refused, stating that Moore was “asking [him] to waive a valid, well-reasoned legal objection” and that he “can’t waive [his] client’s rights to have this extraordinary claim proven.”
Agreeing with the objection, Judge Burger-Plavan shared that she was also concerned about the method used by the grandson to collect the prices, given that he could have searched for the price of the items in 2015, and not for the year in which they were originally purchased.
Judge Burger-Plavan concluded that “as hard as [the victim] is trying, he’s not going to be able to give all the [necessary] information today,” and suggested re-setting the hearing.
With both Renwick and Moore agreeing to a continuance, the restitution hearing was halted, and scheduled to proceed on Nov. 12, once District Attorney Moore can locate the grandson, and gain a better understanding from victims as to how they arrived at their calculations.
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:
