A Woodland resident in his early 20’s, Jose Valenzuela, from a Salvadorian family, was acquitted of attempting to kill one man and was nearly acquitted of attempting to kill the other man, but the jury hung 11-1 for acquittal.
Nevertheless, the DA is attempting to refile charges and it will be determined in January whether Judge Stephen Mock allows the trial to move forward again.
Mr. Garcia had significantly less serious wounds, but nevertheless was stabbed in his back twice.
DDA Trudgen described during trial that Mr. Alvarez had been “butchered,” and the photos showed certainly look that way. However, both men recovered and were able to testify during the trial.
The trial itself took on the appearance almost of the Jesus Solis trial, where it was clear from the start that the DA likely had the wrong individual and that the actual perpetrator of the attack is likely at large.
Prosecution’s Case
Mr. Trudgen claimed that Mr. Valenzuela had admitted to police that he was “jumped in” at 10 years of age for 30 seconds. The night of the incident, he was wearing a red shirt and a red cloth belt, which were produced as evidence of gang affiliation.
Mr. Trudgen continued that Mr. Valenzuela and a small group of friends had gone to the taco stand on the corner of Bush Street and 1st Street outside the La Finca bar. The prosecution said he began making fun of a group of people outside the bar, one of whom had stumbled and fallen. They say this was the group containing the victims. The victims were cousins who’d gone out with other cousins and friends for the night.
Mr. Trudgen argued that one member of this group talked back to Valenzuela, telling him to stop making fun of them They say Valenzuela took this as a sign of disrespect, an altercation ensued, and that Valenzuela then committed the stabbing.
The prosecution said Mr. Valenzuela and his small group of companions ran and hid on the property of his family’s restaurant, which was just across the street. It was here that, minutes later, the police found them, Valenzuela hiding in a taco truck parked in the back and the others in a shed. Valenzuela was arrested.
Shortly after he was put in jail, Valenzuela made a series of phone calls that were intercepted, recorded and played as evidence in the trial. The individuals on the recordings spoke in both English and Spanish, and translations were provided.
In one call to his brother there was a discussion about the removal and destruction of an object that was hidden inside the restaurant between vegetables.
In another call, Valenzuela said that every one of his friends involved in the case needed to be told what story to tell the police and that if they didn’t help, that he would return the sentiment once he is out. “You know that when I talk shit, I mean it,” he added on the recording.
“NO ACT OF DISRESPECT CAN GO UNPUNISHED,” is the gang slogan that DDA Trudgen repeated throughout his opening statement. After hammering the jury over the head, so to speak, with gang culture and violence, he stated, “That leads us to May 18 2008.”
Defense’s Case
They agreed that Valenzuela did in fact go to the taco stand outside La Finca. They said that prior to that, he and three or four of his friends had been hanging out across the street at the back of the restaurant owned by his family. The defense claimed the group had been drinking beer and smoking marijuana, and that they had gotten the munchies and come to the taco stand to eat.
While they waited for their order of tacos, a few feet away the doors of La Finca burst open and out poured a drunken rowdy crowd. A fight had broken out inside the restaurant and that crowd was ejected because of it.
Mr. Valenzuela, wearing headphones, was punched by an individual from the crowd and fell. Mr. Valenzuela and his friends were then engulfed in the fighting, they struggled, broke free from the crowd and moved away across the street.
According to the defense, there was more than one fight taking place out there and the stabbing must have occurred in an area away from where Valenzuela was. They say that when, in the midst of the fighting, it became apparent that someone had been stabbed, it was the security guard at La Finca who had pointed at and directed the crowd towards the defendant, who was moving across the street. They say that the crowd pursued the defendant and his group,who jumped a fence and hid on the property of Valenzuela’s family’s restaurant until the police came and found them there a few minutes later.
With regard to the phone calls from the jail, the defense said that the reference to the hiding and destruction of evidence was about marijuana belonging to Mr. Valenzuela, which had previously been hidden inside the restaurant. They said that what seemed like threats of retaliation toward his friends were misunderstood because of the Salvadorian Spanish he speaks, which is different from Mexican Spanish.
The defense claimed that the police, led by Detective Ronald Cordova, did a pathetic job in the investigation. The police did not properly preserve the crime scene or make a record of the clothing of various detainees. They say that no other groups were questioned, other than those of the the victim and Valenzuela.
In Our View:
The first problem in this case is that no witnesses except the security guard at La Finca, Gabriel Bautista, could identify Mr. Valenzuela as the attacker. Luis Ruiz, who had testified that he had argued with the attacker, said that the defendant looked 80% like the attacker. Another member of his group was shown a photo lineup hours after the incident and picked someone other than the defendant.
Mr. Bautista, in his statement to the police right after the incident, said he was positive Valenzuela had done the stabbings on both the victims. However, Mr. Ruiz stated that the second stabbing had been done by a different person wearing a grey top, who was much taller than the first attacker.
The defense asserted that Mr. Bautista and Mr. Valenzuela had a feud, stemming from Mr. Valenzuela dating and impregnating the daughter of Mr. Bautista’s close friend. They argued that Mr. Bautista and Mr. Valenzuela had a hatred for each other, and that was a motive for Mr. Bautista to blame Mr. Valenzuela for the attack. Mr Bautista denied that on the stand.
Mr. Valenzuela himself testified in this case, which we believe is a defense tactic that should be more frequently used The jury is instructed that the defendant has the absolute right not to testify and that no conclusions on culpability are to be drawn from the exercise of that right. But it is only natural for people to believe that those without anything to hide are more likely to speak up for themselves, as in everyday life.
On the stand, Mr. Valenzuela attempted to explain what was heard out of context on the jail call. He told the jury that he had been on probation at the time of the incident, and that wearing a red belt and possession of marijuana was a violation of his probation conditions. He said that he had instructed his brother to get rid of marijuana hidden in the restaurant when he learned that the police were searching for the weapon used in the attack there.
However, this portion of the jail phone conversation [regarding the marijuana] came right after he mentioned the police searching for a weapon. Mr. Valenzuela is heard on the recording saying that if they find “it” he is screwed, so the defense contends that it just wasn’t clear that he was referring to the marijuana. He also testified that he did not threaten his friends to lie for him.
He said that, in Salvadorian Spanish, what he said meant that if they were not loyal friends to him, he would not be loyal to them. He said that he did hide his red belt, tried to remove the marijuana, and told his friends to help him. He stated that in 2007 he had been arrested and questioned for seven hours for a crime he could not have done because he was working in his family’s restaurant. He said that because of that he had a distrust of the system. For the 2007 case, he was released and not charged, and other individuals were convicted.
The defense countered the reference to destroying something simply by referring to the arrest and booking log. The log stated that Mr. Valenzuela had only one key on his person at the time of his arrest. Mr. Valenzuela testified that this key was to the front door of his house and that he did not have access to the restaurant – and the key could be tested.
The defense argued that this ruled out the possibility that he could have gone in to the restaurant building that night to hide anything in there. David Valenzuela, his older brother, testified that only he had the keys to the restaurant and that the defendant did not. He stated that he had had to open the restaurant up for the police to search through.
The lack of physical evidence in this case is also crucial.
Mr. Valenzuela’s clothes were tested and only two drops of blood were found. The blood belonged to him. The defense asserted the impossibility that Mr. Valenzuela could have been the attacker, based on this.
Some of the wounds on the first victim occur underneath clothing but the wound on his right wrist, where flesh appears to have been removed, would have flicked blood everywhere. In fact, witnesses say that the wounds on the back of the first victim’s head had blood gushing out of them. People in the vicinity of the attack were covered in blood.
The defense said that a live Mexican band had played at La Finca that night. The band members testified that they remember playing there that night because it was an important show for them and they had checked their calendars to that effect. They say that a fight had broken out inside the restaurant after a girl had spilled beer on a guy while dancing. They said they were afraid because it turned violent quickly. The band testified that the crowd had been ejected out onto the street. This testimony discredits and rebuts the prosecution witnesses, who all stated that no trouble happened inside the bar. It also puts into question whether some or all of the stabbing took place outside or inside La Finca.
Once again, we see a poor job by law enforcement at collecting evidence on the scene.
Detective Ron Cordova of the Woodland Police Department was assigned to investigate this case and was, in effect, the operational manager, though Officer Davis was the overall supervisor.
Police arrived quickly on the scene, and Officer Cueva was the first there. He had barely become an officer at that time, and Det. Cordova stated that had he been the first responder he would have done things differently. However, he stated that he would not criticize a fellow officer at all.
Officer Cueva’s primary concern, after the safety of everyone, was to quickly question witnesses and try to apprehend the suspect. The suspects were apprehended minutes later, yet the police did not secure the bar or the area outside where blood would have been.
Det. Cordova, who said he was called out to the scene about an hour after the event happened, said that by the time he got there, no blood was at the scene, apparently washed away already. He stated that he was told by officers that Mr. Valenzuela had been “positively identified.”
However, a few hours later at the hospital when a photo lineup was shown to a member of the victim’s group, that individual selected a photo other than that of Mr. Valenzuela. Mr. Valenzuela had been wearing a red top that night which is how most of the victim’s group identified him, but Det. Cordova could not answer as to how many other people who’d been detained had worn a red top.
Det. Cordova did not send out any CSI to the scene or ask any photos to be taken, though he stated he had those options available to him. As a counterpoint, the defense highlighted the conduct of supervisory Officer Davis who had gone to the hospital the next day to show another photo lineup to a witness.
Officer Davis had learned that the car transporting the victim was in the hospital parking lot, and then proceeded to take meticulous photos of it and the drops of blood leading in to the ER. Defense highlighted that in collecting evidence, the police should keep possibilities open because they don’t know how a case will unfold. Officer Davis agreed and his methods were in keeping with that.
Det. Cordova denied that he would selectively collect evidence in support of implicating an individual. However, when asked if he spoke to anyone other than the group of the victims and the group of Mr. Valenzuela was with, he said no.
When asked “Did you even try?” He replied, “No, Sir.”
This case is eerily reminiscent of the Jesus Solis case. In both cases, there was a serious crime, the police attempted to pin the blame on the easy target, but the evidence simply was not there.
Let me get this straight. The DA spent thousands of dollars, had his investigators and gang experts put hundreds of hours on this case, he picked the jury and with all his resources he could only convince ONE juror that voted maybe they did it?
Perhaps the jury pool is wise to “slick tricks” and “lack of ethics” at the DA’s office. If the DA is unable to get guilty verdicts, the people will wake up, get rid of Reisig and maybe get some trust back in the system.
And now, after the DA has wasted all this money and time, he is trying to re-file and waste more money, court time and resources. This, like most poor decisions by this DA is about EGO and not justice.
dmg: “It seems highly unlikely they would get a conviction in a future proceeding, and at times DDA Trudgen appeared less than enthusiastic about the case. At the same time, he was also heard shouting in chambers when discussing whether the case could be refiled.”
This is an example of where the DA is stuck with evidence gathered by lousy police work…
dmg: “Mr. Valenzuela himself testified in this case, which we believe is a defense tactic that should be done more frequently. The jury is instructed that the defendant has the right not to testify and that they should not draw conclusions from that. But it is only natural for people to believe that those without anything to hide are more likely to testify.”
Generally this is a very risky proposition for a defendant – invariably s/he will be tripped up by the prosecution when under cross examination. Prosecutors are very good at what they do…
ERM said
“This is an example of where the DA is stuck with evidence gathered by lousy police work… “
You have entirely too much faith in the DA’s office – I used to be like you until I started paying attention. Honestly, I think the DA encourages this type of “investigation” – they do not care who they get as long as they get someone, in these crowd related altercations. The MO is charge somebody (anybody) and then go to anyone else involved to see if they will provide corroberating testimony. They even offer reduced sentances to other suspects as long as they are willing to throw the “chosen one” under the bus. They do not care if they get the right person as long as they get a conviction.
You may not believe that – draw you own conclusions, but look for the pattern I described.
Alphonso: “You have entirely too much faith in the DA’s office – I used to be like you until I started paying attention. Honestly, I think the DA encourages this type of “investigation” – they do not care who they get as long as they get someone, in these crowd related altercations. The MO is charge somebody (anybody) and then go to anyone else involved to see if they will provide corroberating testimony. They even offer reduced sentances to other suspects as long as they are willing to throw the “chosen one” under the bus. They do not care if they get the right person as long as they get a conviction.”
In this particular case, it appears evidence at the crime scene was not properly gathered. It looks like a rooky officer did not follow proper crime scene procedure. That is not the DA’s fault – he has to work with the evidence he is presented with. In a sense, the more senior police officers have to present to the DA whatever evidence they do have, even if mistakes were made. Whether the DA made the right choice in his/her discretion to try this case or do more investigation is an entirely different matter.
I would also add that bc the DA is an elected position in this county, a DA’s conviction record becomes important for re-election. The majority of the public is going to want to see the DA as “tough on crime”. So I think there is a built in and unfortunate incentive to try cases that may not warrant it from a common sense point of view. Remember, through plea bargaining, weak cases can be “won” by the prosecution. If a plea bargain is rejected, the DA does not want to “lose face” by not moving forward with trying the case.
Another problem is that cases are rarely neat and clean. Just about every case is going to have some sort of problem with it. Messy cases make for subjective judgment calls and messy trials.
Do DA’s abuse their powers? Of course – we’ve seen it in the news. But remember, the DA is only one part of the equation. A jury decides innocence or guilt, and every defendant has the opportunity to be represented by legal counsel. A judge acts as referee, determining which evidence is relevant and admissable and what evidence is not. Criminal trials are very complex, requiring judgment calls at every turn…
Elaine: “Do DA’s abuse their powers? Of course – we’ve seen it in the news. But remember the DA is only part of the equation.”
I think you are right in part of what you say. I agree the DA is only part of the equation. There should be checks and balances such as the police, sheriffs, and judges. Unfortunately, some of these checks and balances are not working correctly in Yolo County.
One of the reasons people tend to talk about the DA’s actions on this blog is because there is no other avenue for a complaint. The County Supervisors don’t oversee them. The only action one can take if they are unhappy with the DA is to vote him out of office at the next election. So the public needs to hear about these types of things that are happening with their money. Most County DA’s in Californi run unopposed.
One of the toughest issues is prosecutorial immunity. Santa Clara University just released a study that showed hundreds of cases that were reversed at the appellate level because of prosecutorial misconduct, yet only 6 prosecutors in the last 10 years paid consequences. This study shows judges agreeing that prosecutorial misconduct took place…..but nothing happened to most of those prosecutors.
Unfortunately, the DA has been allowed a tremendous amount of power with no accountability–except what David is doing here by reporting on what he sees in court.
[quote]In this particular case, it appears evidence at the crime scene was not properly gathered. It looks like a rooky officer did not follow proper crime scene procedure. That is not the DA’s fault[/quote]
I agree. But what is the DA’s fault is charging a guy when they really don’t have a case against him and it is questionable as to whether or not he actually committed the crime. That is on the DA squarely.
I agree with another poster that the problems in the system are not just the DA, but the DA is a key player in that they have pretty much sole choice as to whether or not to charge an individual and what to charge them with.
Adding to my previous post, Elaine, I met a guy a couple of weeks ago who spent two and a half years in jail before being acquitted. What is his recourse for that?
About lack of evidence, I agree with DMG. Lack of evidence is lack of evidence. It is sort of immaterial how there is a lack of evidence. If it is because of poor police work then that’s something that the DA has to address with the police behind the scenes. Trying the case anyway is totally wrong. If law enforcement worked that way then they could potentially claim poor police work for all sorts of things as an excuse to go to trial.
The police should know by know that after they get done investigating, the next step of the process will be a minute examination of all of it. The police should remember that they are not the final deciders of who is culpable for an incident. They should leave possibilities open and gather evidence broadly.
The evidence threshold is for the most important of reasons: to keep the innocent of being convicted. No excuse for a lack of evidence should permit a trial to go ahead anyway. I can’t believe that has to be debated.
The problem here is prosecutorial discretion. A lot of you are essentially arguing that you want less. The DA should not be able to charge people on what you would consider flimsy evidence. Let me play devil’s advocate here. The 3 strikes law was an attempt to take discretion away from judges in sentencing, and look at how that has worked out. The 3 strikes law has come under attack as being inherently unfair. How do you want to address too much prosecutorial discretion? What about cases involving clever killers who know how to hide evidence. Want the prosecution to give up trying them on flimsy evidence?
Unfortunately whether to charge a case or go to trial is a subjective judgment call every time. Trials are messy creatures of human construct, with a tendency towards gross error. You also have a fickle public, who on the one hand wants law and order, but on the other hand dislikes harsh sentencing.
Personally, I see a lot wrong w the justice system, but it is not clear to me from any of this discussion how you would make it better. I would possibly favor more explicit probable cause and articulable suspicion standards, but a politician probably would have a snowball’s chance in Hell (pardon my French) getting such legislation passed.
ERM: I would also add that bc the DA is an elected position in this county, a DA’s conviction record becomes important for re-election.
Are you kidding me! So convicting an innocent person is okay with you for the sake of re-election? You ought to be ashamed o yourself or even posting this comment. WOW! You do think like them….
“The problem here is prosecutorial discretion. A lot of you are essentially arguing that you want less.”
The problem here is not prosecutorial discretion but rather the judge of the DA in exercising his.
valerie: “Are you kidding me! So convicting an innocent person is okay with you for the sake of re-election? You ought to be ashamed o yourself or even posting this comment. WOW! You do think like them….”
You did not read my FULL QUOTE: “I would also add that bc the DA is an elected position in this county, a DA’s conviction record becomes important for re-election. The majority of the public is going to want to see the DA as “tough on crime”. So I think there is a built in and unfortunate incentive to try cases that may not warrant it from a common sense point of view.” Look at the last sentence…
dmg: “The problem here is not prosecutorial discretion but rather the judge of the DA in exercising his.”
Assuming this is true, and of course we are substituting your judgment for that of the DA (and your judgment is not infallible either), how would you correct the problem of faulty prosecutorial discretion in this case?
[quote]This is an example of where the DA is stuck with evidence gathered by lousy police work..[/quote]
Says who?
-The press who just prints whatever the DA gives them?
-Or the DA who has never admitted one mistake and who always blames everyone else for his problems?
-Do you believe the DA would not lie or blame others so he could dodge responsibility?
-Do you believe the DA would not hide the truth or mislead the court so he does not look bad?
-Do you believe that all the scandals that surround this DA are all false and made up?
I put my money on the police.
“Assuming this is true, and of course we are substituting your judgment for that of the DA (and your judgment is not infallible either), how would you correct the problem of faulty prosecutorial discretion in this case?”
It’s my opinion more than my judgment – my opinion observing this case and several others that I just don’t see any way that the DA could ever win and yet they try them. I don’t have an answer there other than the DA has to be more honest about the state of his own evidence and selective about which cases to try.
RR: “I put my money on the police.”
Reread the article. It appears a rooky cop did not properly collect evidence at the crime scene or cordon off the area to eliminate the danger of contamination. Bc of that, blood had already been cleaned up by the time the forensics unit arrived to collect the evidence. This is what the DA had to work with.
dmg: “It’s my opinion more than my judgment – my opinion observing this case and several others that I just don’t see any way that the DA could ever win and yet they try them. I don’t have an answer there other than the DA has to be more honest about the state of his own evidence and selective about which cases to try.”
In other words, in your judgment you would not have tried some of these “weaker” cases. But that is a very subjective call. I remember the Gary Condit situation, where everyone was convinced he murdered his mistress Chadra Levy. Even I thought so. But there just was not even probable cause to bring a case. Yet everyone was sure he did it. As it turned out, DNA evidence proved otherwise years later, and another suspect was tried and convicted for the crime. It is possible in these “weak” cases, the DA honestly believes the defendant did it. I don’t know. I cannot get inside the DA’s head. And neither can you.
I don’t disagree w you that in some cases, in retrospect, it does not seem as if the DA should have gone to trial. But hindsight is always 20/20. It is much harder to make the call whether to go to trial before the trial. Trials are messy, victims/witnesses are often not perfect citizens/are problematic witnesses, evidence can be scarce or tainted or less than perfect. You cannot expect perfection or even close to perfection in trail work/doing prosecutor’s job. But often the fault you ascribe to the DA has more to do with the legal system itself, which is full of pitfalls, injustices, loopholes, etc. I could elaborate more, but my ethical canons preclude me from saying anything beyond that.
“It appears a rooky cop did not properly collect evidence at the crime scene or cordon off the area to eliminate the danger of contamination. Bc of that, blood had already been cleaned up by the time the forensics unit arrived to collect the evidence. This is what the DA had to work with.”
So knowing that they did not have that evidence, why prosecute?
“In other words, in your judgment you would not have tried some of these “weaker” cases. But that is a very subjective call. I remember the Gary Condit situation, where everyone was convinced he murdered his mistress Chadra Levy. Even I thought so. But there just was not even probable cause to bring a case. Yet everyone was sure he did it. As it turned out, DNA evidence proved otherwise years later, and another suspect was tried and convicted for the crime. It is possible in these “weak” cases, the DA honestly believes the defendant did it. I don’t know. I cannot get inside the DA’s head. And neither can you.”
That would seem to be an argument against trying such a case would it not? Wait until you have the evidence, don’t put a potentially innocent person in jail and through this long and stressful process.