WOODLAND, CA – A debate over judicial appropriateness was showcased here Wednesday in Yolo County Superior Court when Deputy Public Defender Jailene Gutierrez raised objections to Deputy District Attorney Ashley Harvey’s use of her own experiences in legal arguments.
The court never commented on the controversy, and also postponed ruling on the case.
The case centers on a hit-and-run misdemeanor charge involving a 50-year-old mother with no prior criminal history, who is now requesting judicial diversion, to avoid a criminal record by performing community service or other alternative service rather than facing criminal charges.
The accused is facing allegations of striking an 11-year-old pedestrian on an e-bicycle while driving her children to school, and then fleeing the scene with her 15-year-old son, present in the car.
DPD Gutierrez argued the incident was “snap judgment” on the part of the accused, and not reflective of her character. She cited letters submitted to the court by the accused’s husband and children, which reflect her character as a wife and a mother.
DPD Gutierrez emphasized the accused has an important role in her household and community, as well as no prior criminal record, suggesting that judicial diversion would allow the accused to maintain her future employment prospects and family stability.
DDA Ashley Harvey, however, opposed the motion, charging judicial diversion would undermine accountability, citing the seriousness of the case with her own story, recalling she was hit by a vehicle while legally crossing the street with the right of way at 29 years old, and the accident continues to cause personal distress.
DDA Harvey then asserted that because the accused left the scene on the advice of her 15-year-old child, the actions warranted a formal record. DPD Harvey added, “a mother would have stopped the car that day.”
She argued the request for a diversion, again, reflected a lack of accountability and responsibility on behalf of the accused and characterized the motion as “self-serving,” emphasizing that the accused had yet to make an effort to acknowledge her role in the incident.
DDA Harvey also referenced another case of judicial diversion with another public defender who was present in the courtroom, explaining how this varied from that in a few ways and how that qualified whereas this should not.
The prosecutor added the letters from the accused’s family, while portraying her as a caring mother, failed to address the incident itself. This included the accused’s 10-year-old daughter, who was present in the vehicle at the time of the incident and did not mention the victim in her letter.
DPD Gutierrez claimed that it is not appropriate for DDA Harvey to bring her own backstory and experiences into the case, adding “if Ms. Harvey has such strong feelings on the case, she could have recused herself.”
With respect to DDA Harvey’s mention of another judicial diversion case, DPD Gutierrez stated, “Your honor I would appreciate if the court focused on this case,” continuing, “we all have other cases,” adding she would appreciate it if the court could focus all its time and attention right now on this case.
DPD Gutierrez also acknowledged DDA Harvey’s comment about the letters from the family of the accused, stating they were intended to be “character letters, not letters about experience,” and if she wanted the facts of the case, she would not have asked for family letters.
The public defender stated that a hit-and-run on the record for the accused, who is a non-English speaker with gaps in her resume, would be “detrimental” and “impede her chances” if she pursues future employment.
DPD Gutierrez added the accused’s husband is the sole breadwinner of the family who works in a tire shop, and “they do not have a lot of money,” so she might end up working.
She continued that the accused was an immigrant and in her home country of Pakistan she was a teacher and principal, demonstrating her propensity to work and further speaking to her law-abiding nature.
Ultimately, Judge Daniel M. Wolk chose to take the case under submission, postponing his final decision, stating, “I need to think about this one.”
