By Cheyenne Galloway
WOODLAND, CA – The Yolo County Superior Court this week held jury selection for an impending jury trial regarding a driving under the influence charge, and there was immediate conflict between opposing counsel.
The prosecution told the court it feared the defense would try to probe into some areas of evidence for the upcoming trial due to a discovery uncovered the night before the day’s hearing.
And, sure enough, the defense noted a civilian complaint had been filed against a police officer who was key in this case. The complaint, from an individual separate from the accused, alleges the officer pulled the plaintiff over and made them drive to a particular location, but that was the extent of the complaint.
“And there are no actual findings; at least, this complaint doesn’t state that there were any findings of any actual malfeasance on the part of the officer by the department’s investigation. I’d ask if we have a ruling by the court now, whether that information will come in or not before we start the juror processing,” said the prosecution.
The defense said the District Attorney’s office notified the public defender the investigating officer in this case was on the Brady list, a list typically compiled by the prosecution detailing the names and offenses of officers who have maintained untruthful, unjust and criminal behavior; thus, diminishing their credibility.
The defense then filed a Pitchess motion, a request for information from “confidential police personnel records,” which Judge Tom M. Dyer granted—resulting in an in-camera review, where the attorney for the Department of Justice divulged the entirety of the complaint filed against the officer that happened just five days after the current accused’s arrest.
In the entire complaint from the police personnel records, “It alleges that (the officer) engaged in case tampering; he harassed and threatened the plaintiff and used her employment with Yolo County against her, and moved her from where the traffic stop occurred to an unsafe location to conduct a separate investigation,” contended the defense.
The defense continued, “Now, my understanding from the records disclosed to my office was that a sixty-day suspension was ordered, which should be at the top of the complaint inquiry. The court is well aware of the quality of the investigation, and the credibility of the officer is always at issue, but even more so in this case, where we have proof and complaints filed against this officer.”
After concluding the entirety of the complaint and his concerns with it, the defense requested a ruling on the complaint before initiating jury selection.
The prosecution argued the defense was preconditioning the jury with this comment and inquired what the defense proposal question was for the jury.
Judge Daniel M. Wolk decided to defer his ruling, noting, “I think for voir dire, why don’t we stay away from the details of this incident. My concern is preconditioning the jury; I think you can generally ask about law enforcement and whether they find law enforcement credible or not.”
“But I will come back to discuss whether this gets in; I think (the defense) is making good arguments here,” concluded Judge Wolk.
