By Roxanna Jarvis
SACRAMENTO – Because an officer witness is on injured leave a defendant’s trial date would have been pushed to next year if a Sacramento public defender had not questioned why the injury prevented the officer from testifying on the stand.
A simple phone call showed that he actually was available.
“Mr. Brady, did you receive that additional information from liaison?” asked Judge Helena Gweon here in Sacramento County Superior Court this week.
“I did your honor,” Legal Research Assistant Patrick Brady for the prosecution replied, adding, “After contacting liaison I was informed that Officer Williams is in fact able to testify.”
“Great, thank you. I guess the problem [is] resolved, huh?” asked Gweon. Not quite, as it turned out.
Danielle Ayers, charged with driving under the influence and having a blood alcohol content of 0.08 or higher, was set to be on trial the same day as the continuance hearing. But the People’s motion to move the matter to January 4, 2021, meant that the trial would have to be next year.
Brady, under the supervision of Deputy District Attorney Kelly Clark, submitted the motion because their witness for the trial, an “Officer Williams,” was unable to testify due to being on injured leave. Brady told the Court that he was unsure of when Williams would be able to testify, as the extent of his injuries were unknown. “I have reached out to another officer that works with Officer Williams, he also doesn’t know what’s going on injury-wise.”
However, this did not sit right with Assistant Public Defender Ashley Chang for a few reasons, and she objected to the motion.
“First, the DA’s own motion specifies that Officer Williams does not have a return date and so, without any additional information, we don’t believe that Officer Williams can be obtained within a reasonable amount of time. The DA’s request for January 4 appears to be arbitrary,” Chang said, adding that with the ambiguity of the injury and return date, the January 4 date is over a reasonable amount of time at 50 days.
In an effort to “address other factors,” Judge Gweon asked if there were any other reasons to object to the motion for continuing the date, including if she were objecting to the prosecution having 
exercised due diligence (requiring Williams to be a witness using documentation.)
“Well, I think there is a difference because we don’t have any additional information as to the reason for the officer’s leave,” answered Chang. “It’s my position that there is a difference between an officer who may be unable to go out on the field, make stops, make patrols versus an officer or person’s ability to come into court, sit down, and speak. So whether or not this officer is actually unavailable for the purposes of testifying at trial is an additional reason for objection.”
In his response to Chang, Brady restated that the extent of Williams’ injuries were unknown to him as well, but included that the Jan. 4 date is a reasonable time for the jury trial, noting, “It is the balance between the need to go to trial, but also the uncertainty of when this officer is going to be back and be able to testify.
“The information I received from liaison was that this officer was definitely not available for this trial date, but also could possibly be out for the remainder of the year,” Brady continued. He then reiterated that Jan. 4 would “strike the balance” between both.
While Brady found this as an adequate argument for reasonable time, Gweon thought the opposite and explained that a possibility could be anything. “We’re talking about possibilities. That means he could possibly be back before then. So that’s the part I’m having trouble with. Whether this is a reasonable time.”
Brady then explained that setting the trial date would also save having to come back and file another motion to continue if Officer Wilson is unable to testify until 2021.
“I understand the nature of it is very ambiguous. This is the information that I have and I believe that January 4, 2021, strikes that balance of reasonable time and being able to secure this material witness,” he said.
Gweon disagreed once again, stating that his argument doesn’t tell the court anything, as “anything is possible.” She added, “It’s up to the court to decide what’s [a] reasonable time…I think you need to get more information about when is a reasonable time to expect [Officer Williams].”
A short break was then held, and that’s when Brady found out that Williams could actually testify. “The People are ready [to go to trial],” said Brady.
It was then Chang’s turn to have a break to make a phone call.
“My apologies, your honor, I wasn’t anticipating that the officer would be available,” chuckled Chang. “So I did tell Ms. Ayers she likely didn’t need to request an absence from her employer…. If I can have a moment to contact to make sure that she’s available today.”
Defendant Ayers was not able to go to trial this week, but the prosecution and Chang agreed to December 14—a date one could say “strikes the balance” between November and January.
Roxanna Jarvis is a fourth-year student at UC Berkeley, currently majoring in political science with a minor in public policy. She is from Sacramento, California.
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:
