In late September into early October, a Yolo County jury hung, with seven jurors voting to acquit and five to convict Jesus Solis. Mr. Solis stood accused of shooting and killing an individual named Jesus Cortez Heredia last September outside Ortega’s West, a bar in West Sacramento. Another individual standing beside Heredia at the time of the shooting was also hit by the flurry of bullets, following a fight in the parking lot at closing time.
Mr. Solis is now in Mexico, having been deported, but is free after facing, at one point, the death penalty in this case. Former Deputy District Attorney James Walker had said in the original filing that this was a capital case, unless stated otherwise. Charges were refiled after the mistrial.
According to all witnesses who testified, it was at closing time at the popular bar on a Saturday night in September of 2009 when a fight broke out in the parking lot between two groups of drunk people.
It started when Martin Ventura confronted Heredia, after Heredia had approached and made advances to Martin’s wife Rosie, who had been waiting beside a taco truck. The two began fighting and Heredia beat up Ventura..
Security broke up the fight and the parties went to their cars. Mr. Ventura and his group got into their red Ford Expedition. That vehicle remained stationary for a minute, after which it drove towards the exit.
Heredia taunted and shouted out to the vehicle, and removed his shirt with his arms raised. This act may have cost him his life, because the vehicle stopped on the road outside the parking lot, reversed towards Heredia and shots were fired from within it towards Heredia.
Mr Heredia was hit in his torso and neck, and died at the scene.
At this point, when the authorities began to reconstruct the event, the image became murky. The biggest problem is that no one who testified actually saw the shooter or the gun.
In addition, after the shots were fired from the car, one of the security guards fired something like eleven rounds at the vehicle, hitting it a number of times.
After a lengthy trial, the jury could not reach a verdict and the DA sought to refile the case for a third time. Mr. Solis was originally arrested on January 14, 2010, four months after the September 13, 2009 incident. However, the case had then been dismissed, only to be refiled on April 16, 2010.
But now, on the day before the next trial was to begin, the attorneys Deputy Disrtrict Attorney Robin Johnson and Deputy Public Defender Dean Johansson entered Judge Mock’s Chambers. They remained there approximately fifteen minutes.
When they emerged, Mr. Johansson spoke to his client, Jesus Solis, and conveyed the DA’s new offer of 16 years in prison on the reduction of the murder and attempted murder charges to manslaughter. After an emotional discussion with Mr. Johansson through the Spanish language interpreter, Mr. Solis replied that he “respectfully rejects the DA’s offer.
Judge Mock gestured towards his chambers suggesting that the attorneys return there to discuss the matter further. Mr. Johansson declined. He told Judge Mock that he would like any discussions henceforth to be on the record.
Deputy DA Robin Johnson appeared to be texting rapidly on her phone as Judge Mock returned to his chair. It seemed she was communicating the latest developments to the DA’s top brass and awaiting instructions on how to proceed.
The judge then turned to the matter of the trial at hand and inquired as to the readiness of both sides. The defense indicated they were ready to proceed and the prosecution stated that they were not.
DDA Johnson explained that witnesses necessary for the prosecution’s case were unavailable. Mr. Johansson turned to Ms. Johnson and in a quieter tone asked her which witnesses she was referring to.
She replied that she was speaking of Martin and Rosie Ventura, and a man known as Lola. The defense refused to waive the 60-day time limit for trial, so a continuance could not be given to the prosecution.
DDA Johnson then stated, in what seemed like a recited line, words to the effect that the People cannot reasonably represent that they can prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The prosecution asked to dismiss the case, probably so they could refile it. The judge turned to the defense to ask if they agreed to dismiss the case and Mr. Johansson unexpectedly objected to the dismissal, stating that he had his witnesses ready at the present time and might not have them available in the future.
This scenario, where the defense did not agree to the dismissal, means that in order to refile the case for a third time, the DA has to show excusable neglect as a reason for not being ready. Witness unavailability is not good enough.
Judge Mock stated “I have no choice but to dismiss the case. I order the defendant released from custody.”
Deputy DA Johnson, in effect, was attempting to bluff Mr. Solis and Mr. Johansson into taking the sixteen-year deal. Considering the exposure, it was a reasonable offer, except for the fact that Ms. Johnson knew full well that the DA had no ability to try Mr. Solis, due to lack of witnesses.
Mr Solis has maintained from the beginning that he will not accept plea deals because he is innocent of the charges. They offered him 16 years in jail minutes before admitting that they could not put on a trial.
The witnesses mentioned by DDA Johnson as being required for her case were not part of the previous trial, and yet their unavailability was her stance.
For all of the charades put on by the DA’s Office, the fact remained that there appeared never to be even a remote possibility that the DA could gain a conviction.
As we stated following the original trial, the DA’s Office likely accused the wrong individual of the crime. They would have been better off trying to extradite Martin and Rosie, getting their statements and then figuring out who actually did shoot the victim.
The September/October trial was futher complicated because Martin and Rosie fled to Mexico within a few days of the incident and were unavailable to testify. The defense would argue, with witnesses to substantiate, that Martin Ventura, and not Mr. Solis, was the actual shooter.
A key witness in this case is Jorge Gomez, a close relative of Martin’s and a friend and colleague of Mr. Solis. Mr. Gomez, however, was not present that night. After a seven-hour interrogation by Detective Eugene Semeryuk of the West Sacramento Police Department, Gomez pointed to Mr. Solis as the perpetrator.
However, as Mr. Johansson pointed out, at the tail end of this seven-hour interview is a conversation between Det. Semeryuk and Gomez’s girlfriend Veronica Delgado, in which Ms. Delgado mentions to the detective that Gomez had told her it was his roommate who was the shooter. Martin Ventura and Rosie were Jorge Gomez’ roommates, not the defendant. That priceless snippet of information was probably recorded inadvertently at the end of the tape recording.
Mr. Johansson put this in perspective for the jury. He said, “Do you want to hear what the real crime is? The statement from Veronica Delgado that it was the “roommate” is not in any police report. [Defense witness] Jennifer Villasenor’s statement [that Martin and Rosie told her they did it] is also not in the police report anywhere.”
Witness Mr. Gomez has immigration problems, and needed the police to forestall an ICE hold multiple times during the investigation. He agreed to make a pretext phone call to Mr. Solis from the police department, with Det. Semeryuk guiding him.
That taped phonecall is ambiguous evidence, at best. So is the lengthy videotaped interrogation of Mr. Solis, which is a good illustration as to why interrogations and confessions ought to be treated as suspect – Mr. Solis never claimed to have shot anyone, but the process clearly disoriented him.
Deputy Public Defender Dean Johansson argued in the trial that Mr. Solis was not the shooter at all, and that the shooter was Martin, who was, by that time, thought to be in Mexico.
“Mr Solis, at best, put himself right behind the driver,” Mr. Johansson argued. Jerry Chisum, the defense’s expert witness who is a renowned crime scene reconstruction expert, stated in his testimony that the seat right behind the driver was the safest spot in the vehicle. On January 14th, when Mr Solis was dragged out of bed by authorities, they examined him and found no recent wounds of any kind. The search of Rosie’s residence turned up bloody t-shirts, with blood on the right side of one, in the armpit area in particular.
Mr. Johansson spoke of another witness, Elvia Salcedo: “If you remember, here’s this lovely lady and she’s sitting there and she raises her hand. She’s raising her hand and she wants to ask a question. ‘Where’s the shooter?’ ” She revealed that the shooter was not in the courtroom.
Deputy DA Robin Johnson suddenly, in her closing argument, had changed her story that Mr. Solis was the shooter to Mr. Solis had aided and abetted the crime. It was almost a ploy to hang the jury and get another shot at it.
She continued last week to maintain that Mr. Solis was the shooter.
Ms. Johnson argued in October, “If you find somehow that the defendant did not shoot…” She said the defendant drove the vehicle around the lot, and stopped near the victim. She said that an aider and abettor is someone who knows what the perpetrator intends to do and does something to assist him. She said that the aider and abettor is as guilty as the perpetrator of first-degree murder and all other charges, except for the charge of personally discharging a firearm.
“The theory of the case has changed constantly. Do you see how the rules have changed underneath us? No longer is she [Ms. Johnson] even arguing that the defendant is the perpetrator,” Mr. Johansson had told the jury in his closing.
For the full story of this trial, please see our article from October 4, 2010, “Murder Trial Ends With a Hung Jury.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David thank you for covering this case. I’m disgusted with the DA’s office and the other commenters who have defended them in the past on this case. It was obviously clear when Ms. Salcedo testified that this case should have been dismissed at that moment and yet Ms. Johnson instead of seeking the truth, tried to prevent the woman’s testimony and when she couldn’t just changed the game.
Their latest actions against Mr. Solis are almost predatory – they are anything but honest. It’s a “Win at Any Cost”. To try and plead a man to 16 years in prison when they could not win an earlier trial, and given the information revealed at the last trial (that this man was not the shooter) reveals the DA’s actions are not just questionable they are unethical and immoral. Where is their sense of right and wrong?! A District Attorney’s office that cannot judge right and wrong and the DDA’s who just follow what the boss says – is nothing more than a gang – more dangerous than a street gang, because they do it with the veil of authority and with the weight of our government.
I have to agree with lyah. This case definitely illustrates a policy of “Win At Any Cost.”
The number of times the DA’s office has changed its story on this case and the ploys they have used to get a conviction are immoral. Truth seems to not matter.
Thank you for making the public aware of this.
David, what did you mean that Mr. Solis has been deported? Was he not in the courtroom when this happened? Did they free him, and then deport him?
How do these so called “officers of the court”, Dep DA’s, sleep with themselves. This is absolutely appalling. I understand behavior such as them from DA Reisig, he is as crooked as a cork screw, but for the Dep DA’s to continue to turn their backs on the people and justice, just to follow orders from their Dictator Reisig.
This is such a travesty of justice. How many innocent people has Reisig bullied into a false guilty plea? How many people who can’t afford a good lawyer get forced into prison time when since they are worried about the crooked efforts of Reisig to put anyone in jail to get a guilty verdict?
You would think just one case like this would prompt a critical look and investigation into Reisig’s unethical actions and yet these scenarios just keep repeating and no one does anything. What a shame.
[quote]The people of Yolo need to revolt and speak out. How long before all potential jurors just say NO more guilty verdicts for this DA. Reisig is not worthy of public trust.[/quote]
I can assure you, if I was on a jury, I don’t care what the DA’s office said, I would vote NOT GUILTY, since there is no way of knowing how much the DA is lying, how much the DA is hiding, how much the has manipulate the case just to win?
Perhaps if more people wrote letters to the new Attorney General Harris, requesting oversight and review of Mr. Reisig and his office, perhaps Mr. Reisig could send time the prisons he seems so fond of.
Three cheers for Deputy Public Defender Dean Johansson. He has the DAs game figured out and prevented them from filling our overcrowded prisons with yet another victim of a justice system gone awry!
[i]”A Yolo County jury hung, with seven jurors voting to acquit and five to convict [b]Jesus[/b] Solis. Mr. Solis stood accused of shooting and killing an individual named [b]Jesus[/b] Cortez Heredia last September outside Ortega’s West, a bar in West Sacramento.”[/i]
If Jesus did not shoot Jesus, then who killed Jesus? Was there another suspect? Or is Jesus Heredia still alive?
Jesus Cortez Heredia was shot and killed. Jesus Solis was accused of the crime. Solis maintains his innocence. Some of the evidence brought up by the defense points the finger at other individuals, specifically Martin Ventura, his wife Rosie and a guy known as Lola.
dmg: “Deputy DA Johnson, in effect, was attempting to bluff Mr. Solis and Mr. Johansson into taking the sixteen-year deal. Considering the exposure, it was a reasonable offer, except for the fact that Ms. Johnson knew full well that the DA had no ability to try Mr. Solis, due to lack of witnesses.”
I’m struggling with whether this was an ethical violation – if the Deputy DA knew the witnesses were not available and there was no way they could try the defendant, then was the plea offer made in good faith? I did some brief research, but didn’t come up with any conclusions…
[quote]I’m struggling with whether this was an ethical violation – if the Deputy DA knew the witnesses were not available and there was no way they could try the defendant, then was the plea offer made in good faith? I did some brief research, but didn’t come up with any conclusions… [/quote]
It is clearly unethical. And if someone else did the same thing they would be charged with extortion. The problem is you are going under the belief that the DA’s office is ethical. Reisig knows how to use and manipulate the law and he has taught his staff well. Let me explain: If anyone would try and say this was not in good faith, and the State Bar investigated, then the DA would file and say “see, I told you we were going to file, so it was in good faith”. It is a no win situation when the person with all the power knows how to get around the rules.
[quote]Don’t roll around in the mud with a pig. You will just get dirty and the pig likes it.[/quote]
RR: “It is clearly unethical.”
There is a vast difference between “unethical” and “legally unethical”. Perhaps I was not clear enough in pointing out what I meant was “legally unethical” under the ethical canons all attorneys must abide by…
And by the way, I still am unsure – would have to do more legal research…
“David, what did you mean that Mr. Solis has been deported? Was he not in the courtroom when this happened? Did they free him, and then deport him?”
He had an ICE hold so they turned him over to ICE, they took him to Mexico and dropped him in TJ with nary a cent on him. Fortunately his family had been able to put some money into his account, but a lot of people who get dropped by ICE apparently end up robbed and without any money put in a place where they have not lived in years if ever.
“If Jesus did not shoot Jesus, then who killed Jesus? Was there another suspect? Or is Jesus Heredia still alive?”
We believe Rosie and Martin shot Heredia. Several witnesses at the trial said as much.
“I’m struggling with whether this was an ethical violation – if the Deputy DA knew the witnesses were not available and there was no way they could try the defendant, then was the plea offer made in good faith? I did some brief research, but didn’t come up with any conclusions…”
That’s my question as well. If there was a reasonable chance of convicting Solis and they had facts to support their charges, I would say yes. But in this case, I don’t think even with those witnesses they could have convicted Solis, because I don’t think Solis did it.
David, did you observe this or simply do the write-up from someone else’s notes?
I hope in the future you’ll indicate whenever it’s the latter, and give credit to your volunteers when their notes are the basis for your stories. I was surprised and disappointed to read Ms. Guerrero’s report–“Local Injustice?”–a couple weeks ago. I’d never before gotten any impression that you wrote first-person reports from other people’s notes, partly because you repeatedly make the point in your responses that we should give weight to your fourt observations since “I was there.”
I think it’s great that you’re giving folks experience as interns. But, when we read “–David M. Greenwald reporting,” we shouldn’t have to guess whether you were there…or just pretending to be there.
It also would enhance the Vanguard intern experience to have them draft a story for your consideration and for them to get byline credit for their work. Just a suggestion….
“court observations”
JustSaying makes an important point. So much of what goes on in court has to do w personal observation.
[quote]”So much of what goes on in court has to do w personal observation.” [/quote] I agree, Elaine. This was brought home to me as I first read the opening line of Ms. Guerrero’s recent account of her Vanguard internship: [quote]”If you want to find injustice, follow the activities in your county courthouse.”[/quote] What moved a young person to come such a troublesome conclusion? Apparently this: [quote]”I was assigned to different criminal trials and all have gotten a conviction. But it kept me thinking, they should have never gone to trial. Most of the trials I followed were a mocking of our justice system and provided justice to no one….The jury buys the story, without the evidence connecting the defendant to the crime[/quote] How many trials (from beginning to end for five days a week) did it take to get her to this world view (county view, I mean)? David responded that she covered the Gang Injunction trial plus at least three others. Not enough to draw such conclusions, in my opinion. But I guess it’d be hard to convince her when 100 per cent of her trials were of innocent people unjustly tried and unfairly found guilty.
A bigger issue for [u]The Vanguard[/u] is that her Nov. 21 piece is the first, and only, time her name appeared (surprise!). I started wondering which reports had come from her work; would readers have a different interpretation of them if we’d known David was writing from some unnamed, inexperienced person’s notes instead of his own personal reporting? The answer, I conclude, is “yes.”
Fast forward to this current dismissal writeup. I now know it makes a difference to me who divined such insights as these: [quote]”Deputy DA Robin Johnson appeared to be texting rapidly on her phone as Judge Mock returned to his chair. It seemed she was communicating the latest developments to the DA’s top brass and awaiting instructions on how to proceed.”
“It was almost a ploy to hang the jury and get another shot at it.”
“DDA Johnson then stated, in what seemed like a recited line, words….”[/quote] It’s more than just helpful to know whose observations are being “reported by David….” That’s why I’m hoping that he’ll clarify [u]The Vanguard[/u]’s reporting standards and practices.
Just Saying: You are asking a far more complex question than I can really answer. A portion of a story is based on someone taking notes, a portion is based on my observations in most cases I’m there for portions of the hearings, a portion is based on additional research I do, and a portion is based on other conversations I have on or off the record. It really doesn’t matter who is taking the notes, because it is still my story. I’m the one putting it together and telling the story whether I am the one taking the notes on what happens or someone else.
I was a deputy district attorney in Sacramento County and was taught it was unethical to represent that the DA was going to re-try, or try a case when I did not have the witnesses I needed to prove it.
I also believe (although it was a long time ago) that this is what I learned in ethics (Professional Responsibility) in law school.
ERM: no research necessary — call the State Bar Ethics line.
And common sense should tell you that if there is any question about it an officer of the court should bring the matter to the attention of the judge and counsel in chambers and let the judge decide. Not keep it a secret!