In January the Vanguard launched a project to monitor court cases in the Yolo County court system. The purpose of this program was to look into problematic cases, monitor them through the court system, and report about any abuses, overcharging, and other problems in the system.
By analyzing individual cases, we hoped to be able to determine, on a more systematic basis, the problems facing the Yolo Judicial system. While this report does not represent a comprehensive review of the court system or the DA’s Office, it does provide some insight into problems that we face.
While this is far from a comprehensive or definitive list, the cases do present a reasonable cross-section of problematic approaches by the DA’s Office to prosecuting cases. We see minor offenses that result in lengthy sentences. We see cases where it is questionable that a crime ever existed, but was charged. We see cases where the defendant appears to be the wrong individual. And we see the fixation of the DA’s Office on charging gang charges and publicizing the fact that individuals are gang members, when that fact is largely irrelevant to a case.
We could pretty much do a top-20 list of cases in 2010 alone. However, we decided to limit the number to the top ten, with an honorable mention. Two that will be considered next year because they have not been fully adjudicated are the case involving the CASA director where the DA failed to properly research her criminal history, and the Memorial Park case where evidence came out during the Gang Injunction Trial that the victim, at the very least, precipitated the event.
And then we cheat, putting three cases together that involve Nugget Market in Woodland and lengthy prison sentences for minor crimes.
Honorable Mention – A Case of Mistaken Identity
Our honorable mention is the case of mistaken identity that led to several months in jail, awaiting trial, for a man whose only crime was having a common Hispanic name – Juan Garcia.
Juan Garcia lived in Long Beach with his common-law wife and three children, the youngest of which was only two weeks old in July. He had been with his wife for five and a half years. On June 4, 2010, according to his wife, he was pulled over by Long Beach police for no reason. During the course of the police search it was determined that he had two outstanding warrants.
One of these warrants was for a failure to appear in a ten-year-old case from Long Beach that was quickly resolved, and the other a warrant for his arrest stemming from a domestic violence incident in West Sacramento on December 18, 2009.
The problem was Juan Garcia had never even been to West Sacramento or Yolo County until he was arrested and transported to the jail.
Based solely on name and birthdate, he was arrested, transported to the Yolo County Jail and held there for nearly two months.
Deputy Public Defender Dean Johansson told the Vanguard, as well as the court, that he had informed the District Attorney’s Office of the case of mistaken identity almost from the start. It is unclear why it took so long for the DA’s Office to finally look into the issue, send an investigator to the woman’s residence, and find out that indeed this was the wrong guy. Instead Mr. Garcia was kept away from his wife and family, and missed the birth of their third child.
Finally, the DA’s Office dropped the charges and offered a sincere apology. Why it took two months to figure out is the reason this lands on the list as an honorable mention.
Some people on our list may be innocent, but the woman here at No.10 is not one of them. Maria Pastor was arrested for possession of meth as she went through the security screening in Department 9, which is the arraignment court across Third Street from the main court building in Woodland. As she went through security, the Deputy at the screening line, Sgt. Batista, noticed something suspicious in a purse going through the scanning machine. He saw something that looked like a smoking pipe. He found a pipe and a bag of white powder that turned out to test presumptively positive for meth.
The problem is that the amount of the meth in the pipe was only 0.018 grams. Nevertheless she was arrested for being in possession of the meth and the case went to trial.
One of the critical questions in this case is what is a usable amount of meth? In this case the amount of meth was literally scraped off the back of the pipe. What is the legal limit of usable? We learned in this case that there is no legal definition and that number is up to the discretion of the jury.
She was quickly convicted by the jury, despite a story that appeared implausible that she had borrowed the purse from her friend. Nevertheless, this case makes the list at No.10 for a waste of court time and county money.
Case #9 – Misdemeanor Domestic Assault Ends in Eight-Year Prison Sentence
Jesse Garcia was sentenced in August to an eight-year prison sentence after the DA’s Office took a minor incident and turned it into a major criminal act.
The act itself was simply a misdemeanor assault charge, that would have netted him six months in prison at most, and most likely would have been suspended and turned into probation. What really nailed him was the “violation of probation” which netted him 3 years, and the two felony counts of dissuading a witness, which turned what should have been a six-month sentence into a seven-year and eight-month sentence.
According to the police report, the victim Raquel Iniguez had been involved in a relationship with Jesse Garcia for a year when the incident occurred. She had a four-year-old son Dominic. She went to the suspect’s house to give him a ride the next morning. Mr. Garcia “started acting stupid” so she told him she was going to leave. The suspect told her he was going to take her car and drop her off at her house.
As they were going to her house the suspect started accusing her of lying to him. He told her that he was going to pull over on the freeway and beat her “ass.” Then he pulled over on the freeway and made her get out of the car, started to leave her there, but her four-year-old son was still in the car. He let her back into the car and told her that the next time she lied to him, he was going to “f-ing kill” her. He took her to his brother’s house, while still yelling at her. He hit her twice on the left side of her face.
On the stand, Ms. Iniguez indicated that she was just angry at him because he wanted to take his stuff back from her car and they were breaking up. They were fighting over some financial matters. He had given her money and she had used it for other things.
During sentencing, Ms. Iniguez took the stand once again and indicated that she would give the same testimony on this day as she did when she originally testified. During her victim impact statement, she was crying, begging the judge for mercy. “This was taken way out of proportion,” she said. She described Mr. Garcia as a good man who has been a good father to her son. She said this was something that all couples go through.
The Vanguard spoke to Defense Attorney Charles Pacheco, who was angry about the verdict and the sentencing. “It was a nothing, it was a misdemeanor nothing and they even got him on child endangerment because the kid was in the car when he supposedly slapped her.”
But as he pointed out, “But when you look at the evidence from the fireman, who is an EMT himself, he said there was no injury, she wasn’t hurt in anyway, not even red marks. You take a simple misdemeanor and you blow it up to proportions that just spin my head.”
To make matters worse, the DA released a press release entitled, “West Sacramento gang member sentenced in domestic violence case,” which seems inappropriate in a case where being a gang member had nothing to do with the crime. This case makes the list for the efforts by the DA’s Office to turn a minor incident into a life-changing sentence of eight years in prison.
Case #8 – Yolo County Gang Member Acquitted on Attempted Murder Charges
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.
The trial was marred by lack of evidence, a poor investigation by police and detectives on the crime scene, and from the start of the trial it seemed rather clear that the DA had prosecuted the wrong individual, with the actual perpetrator of the attack likely at large.
The first problem in this case is that no witnesses except the security guard at La Finca (the Woodland bar where the incident occurred), 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.
On the stand, Mr. Valenzuela attempted to explain that a phone call made by him on the jail phone was considered out of context. 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 were violations of his probation conditions. He said that he had instructed his brother to get rid of marijuana hidden in his family’s restaurant across the street from La Finca when he learned that the police were searching for the weapon used in the attack there. He was found by police hiding in a taco truck behind that restaurant, but said he had been hiding because he had run from the bar brawl, fearing being harmed by the drunken fighters.
However, that 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.
Bottom line, the DA wants to re-prosecute this case despite the fact that there is no chance of convicting Mr. Valenzuela on the second attempted murder charge and unlikely they would convict him on the lesser charge of assault with a deadly weapon. The case makes the list because it is one of several whodunits where the DA went for the more convenient, but less likely, suspect.
Case #7 – Simple Domestic Dispute Becomes a Criminal Burglary Matter
A Yolo County Jury acquitted a young man charged with burglarizing the Davis home of his former girlfriend, in a case that was highly questionable as to whether it should have been criminally charged in the first place. The DA’s Office charged Daniel Estep with grand theft and first degree burglary, with an enhancement because the girl’s roommate was in the house at the time of the burglary. Mr. Estep faced five years in prison if he were convicted.
Daniel Estep thought he was in a long-term relationship with his girlfriend Chelsea Stewart. They had met over the winter of 2007 in Oroville when Ms. Stewart was home for the holidays from a UC Davis study abroad program in Sweden.
Upon their break up, they did like most people would do and set a time to meet at the place where they were residing for Mr. Estep to collect his belongings.
He arrived late on the Friday in question, and since it was late, they agreed that he should come back the next day. According to Mr. Estep, Ms. Stewart said she’d leave the key of her place under a plant pot in the morning as she left, so that he could enter. That way, he could wait in her room for her, since after he checked out of his motel in the morning he would not have anywhere else to wait for her. She said she had a commitment the next day but would try to get away and come home to meet him there.
However, Ms. Stewart failed to show and Mr. Estep waited inside all day, claiming that he had obtained entrance by retrieving the key from under the potted plant as arranged, and that the roommate had seen him Finally, having to leave and failing to contact her, he collected his belongings and left. Ms. Stewart was later to say that there had been no arrangement about the key, and that she arrived home later that day, only to find her key missing from her key chain and had to call the roommate to let her inside.
“Unbeknownst to him, a couple of days after that, not even that day, she filed a police report saying that he had robbed her house,” said his mother Robin Rowe in an interview with the Vanguard. “What was a domestic dispute, no more than that, turns out with him possibly facing at least five years in prison.”
In this case, the jury, despite a number of twists and turns, did not agree. Mr. Estep was acquitted. The case makes our top ten list for the sheer fact that this should have been mediated rather than become a criminal matter. It is not clear that a crime occurred and the evidence was she said/he said, at best.
Case #6 – Davis Rape Trial Ends in Acquittal on Main Charge
This is a well-read case on this site, the case of Michael Artz, a graduate of Davis High School, who was found not guilty of forced oral copulation for an incident that occurred more than two years ago involving another Davis High student who was 16 at the time. However, they did find him guilty of two felonies, oral copulation with a person under 18 and contact and communication with a minor with the intent to have sexual relations.
Mr. Artz had just turned 18 at the time of the incident and was just a year ahead of the victim in school. Yolo County Deputy DA Tiffany Susz was unable prove that the encounter was non-consensual, and instead was only able to prove that Mr. Artz received oral sex from a minor. For that transgression, he may now have to register as a sex offender for life.
The jury simply did not believe the accuser’s claims that she was forced to orally copulate Mr. Artz. And they very reluctantly convicted him of two counts that involved sexual acts and conversation with a minor.
Adding fuel to the fire was a DA press release that failed to acknowledge the acquittal on the main charge and stated as fact the accusation of force that Mr. Artz was acquitted on, essentially imbuing it into the third charge as “sextortion.”
Defense Attorney Kathryn Druliner told the Vanguard, “[The DA’s press release] absolutely misstates what happened. He was acquitted by twelve people of the only charge over which the jury had discretion. That is the charge that he forced [the victim] to engage in any sex act.”
“Count two is a statutory rape charge which means an 18-year-old boy had sex with a 16-year-old girl. The jury had no choice but to convict him of that and they said so – the jurors I talked to said so,” she continued. “The ones I talked to said they really felt bad about that. They had no choice but to convict him of that, and I’m not that concerned about that. Because it is stat-rape and it’s not registrable under Megan’s Law.”
This was confirmed by one of the jurors who posted comments on the August 30, 2010, Vanguard article. Under the name “shetazz,” the individual wrote, “I was one of the jurors for this case. This case made me sick to my stomach everyday!”
The individual continued, “We had to follow the law on the 3 counts! We could not go with our feelings! There was no question she was a minor on count 2! Count 3 he clearly said and wrote things to her that made it illegal! Do I think he is a rapist? NO WAY! But he was a stupid 18-yr-old that did some stupid things that will follow him forever!”
“I am sick about that! I was one of those people that talked to the lawyers afterword’s! But as a young person you have to know the laws when your 18 yrs old! You are a adult and if you choose to have sex with anyone under 18 it is illegal! Not for one minute did I think he forced her! She was dating a girl that was 6 months older then Michael and THAT was OK! Makes me sick!,” the juror concluded.
The juror later pointed out, “The girlfriend was 6 months older then Michael!! And it was made clear that the girls spent many weekends together! But she wasn’t charged!”
While this case had a number of twists and turns, we are most concerned with the poor investigative work by both the Davis Police Department as well as the DA’s Office, the fact that Mr. Artz who was 18 and in high school would be charged with crimes of sex with a minor when they were essentially peers, and the misstatement of the verdict by the DA’s Office in their press release which led to some interesting conversations and side-stories by the Sacramento Bee and Woodland Daily Democrat.
The only reason this case ranked only at No.6 is because Mr. Artz was acquitted on the main charge and probably will not get prison time, though that remains to be determined.
Yolo County Judge Stephen Mock sentenced Rudy Ornelas on Thursday morning, August 12, 2010, to 45 years in prison following his July jury trial in which he was found guilty of unpremeditated attempted murder, use and possession of a firearm and assault with the firearm.
Mr. Ornelas had been accused of chasing and firing at Abel Trevino, a man he had known for many years, with a loaded 9mm handgun belonging to another acquaintance, Claudio Magobet. The prosecution’s position, with some of the testimony and most of the police reports in support, was that Mr. Ornelas and Mr. Trevino had a dispute over drugs and money.
The defense, however, argued an alternative scenario, supported by witness testimony, including some witnesses who contradicted what they had told the police. In that fact pattern, Mr. Ornelas was really just tagging along while Mr. Magobet, owner of the gun, was looking for Mr. Trevino, who had been involved the night before with Mr. Magobet’s then-girlfriend. Also portrayed as a motive for Mr. Magobet being the shooter was that the girlfriend had taken his wallet, then left to go party with Mr. Trevino.
This is a case where the chief witness literally remembered nothing about the case one day, then the next day he suddenly remembered intimate details. He claimed he was never spoken to by the police or the DA’s Office, but he was in custody and the change was extremely questionable.
For Defense Attorney Rodney Beede, this case was difficult to swallow.
“My most intensive grounds for appeal are that the courts are permitting people to testify under plea bargains and under intense pressure to say what the prosecution needs them to say,” said Rodney Beede at the Yolo County Court House following the sentencing of his client.
“If you go back and look at the paperwork, and you find Claudio Magobet’s paperwork, you will find that plea bargain and a caption in it which says, ‘he promises to tell the truth,'” Mr. Beede continued, “But think about it for a moment, if you’re promising to tell the truth, you don’t have anything that supports the prosecution. They’ve got nothing to offer. So the truth has to be the one [that the prosecution wants said].”
He continued, “The old expression is that the truth will set you free. Well, the truth, for the purposes of Claudio Magobet, are whatever he needs to say to get out of this.”
“The complaint that we defense attorneys have is that the persons that say that they saw these things, [then] say these things, are under intense pressure to resolve the cases and not serve the life sentences,” Mr. Beede said.
In a comment clearly made by someone close to the DA’s Office, it was offered that even if Rudy Ornelas were not the shooter in this case, he had it coming because there were a number of other crimes [allegedly committed by him] they just could not prove.
This case makes No.5 because the DA pressured witnesses into pointing the finger at Ornelas, rather than the most likely shooter and the more dangerous Magobet. That Mr. Ornelas is an accused gang member who had a long history of minor crimes is irrelevant to the facts of this particular case. Mr. Beede filed the notice of appeal immediately after sentencing, and an appellate attorney has been assigned.
Case #4 – DA Attempts to Leverage Prison Wine Into Prison Time
The Vanguard followed Jesus Arias’ initial trial in August where he was convicted of possessing a stolen weapon, violating probation and gang enhancements, all on a kid who had literally just turned 18.
The weapon was discovered when the Gang Task Force of Sargent Dale Johnson, along with Hernan Oviedo and Hector Bautista – the same trio involved in the shooting of Luis Gutierrez-Navarro in 2009 – conducted a probation search of Mr. Arias’ home that he shared with his mother and sister. They asked him if he had any weapons and he pointed to a rifle in the closet of the room he and his mother shared.
While we clearly disagreed with the jury on the gang enhancement charge, Deputy DA Ryan Couzens used a posting on Mr. Arias’ MySpace page which invoked a Sureno pledge, along with contacts with law enforcement, in which a 16-year-old drunken teenager bragged to police that he endeavored to be an OG (“original gangster”) and to put in work for the gang to move up the ranks. Nevermind that the predicate offense had nothing to do with Mr. Arias’ supposed affiliation with a gang, Vario Rbuckle Trece, located in Dunnigan.
Detective Bautista said, “a gang member without a gun is like a carpenter going to work without a hammer.” That nexus proved enough for the jury to find him guilty of a gang enhancement. However, the probation report downplayed the significance of the crime and recommended no prison, only probation.
That is when the fun started because Deputy DA Ryan Couzens, apparently angry that there was no prison time associated with the probation report, attempted to parlay a deal in which he would drop new charges of possession of pruno, prison wine, in exchange for prison time.
There ensued some embarrassing turns for the DA’s Office, including the filing of a vindictive prosecution motion by Deputy Public Defender Dan Hutchinson. In his motion, he included declarations from 14 attorneys in the Public Defenders Office, each of them attesting to the fact that they had never had a client charged with possession of pruno.
Public Defender Tracie Olson, who was not among those filing affidavits, had previously told the Vanguard that she had never before heard of pruno prosecution in this county. “I can’t recall a single case.”
The DA’s Office subsequently charged a couple of other individuals with pruno possession in an apparent effort to make that claim go away, although they would later drop these charges.
A behind-the-scenes deal was apparently reached between the Public Defender’s Office and the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office. The deal, which can be largely viewed as a victory for the defense, made the pruno charge against Jesus Arias go away and puts Mr. Arias on schedule to receive probation rather than prison time for his August convictions of possessing a stolen weapon and violating probation, each with a gang enhancement.
This case makes the list at No.4 for the sheer pettiness of Deputy DA Couzens’ actions.
Case #3 – DA Dismisses Case Against Accused Murderer Solis
This is another case that we covered quite a bit. It is always a problematic case when one of the key witnesses looks out from the witness stand into the courtroom and asks where the killer is.
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.
Now Judge Mock ordered Mr. Solis freed and the charges against him dropped.
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 the individuals named Martin Ventura and Rosie, getting their statements and then figuring out who actually did shoot the victim.
The September/October trial was thusly complicated because Martin and Rosie had 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 Deputy Public Defender Dean 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.”
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 after the trial to maintain that Mr. Solis was the shooter.
Ms. Johnson had 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.
This case makes the top ten list at No.3 because the DA’s Office clearly got the wrong person, could never admit it, changed their story midway through the trial, and then when they knew they lacked the witnesses to put up another trial still tried to extract a 16-year sentence from the defense.
Case #2 – Stealing from Nugget Market Leads to Massive Prison Time in Three Different Cases
There is probably a story to be told at some point about the nexus between Nugget Market and lengthy overblown jail sentences. A good case could be made with the Ferguson case – better known as the cheese thief, which could stand alone and be No.1 for the year. But we put these three cases together because they form a pattern and because the No.1 case is much worse in our view.
First we have the case of James Davis, a 46-year-old wrote two checks to Nugget Market that were returned for insufficient funds. Mr. Davis says in his declaration that he was down on his luck and trying to buy food and necessities for his family.
“The two checks written to Nugget Market were written for food and necessities for my family,” Mr. Davis wrote. “I continue to struggle with a lack of job opportunities, both because I am a laborer with spine injuries and because I suffered felony convictions with jail and prison sentences at a young age. However, I have tried to do the best I can and continue to do what I can to take care of my family. My family always comes first even, like now, when I must take the consequences for my actions.”
As Mr. Davis’ attorney, Lisa Lance from the Yolo County Public Defender’s Office, explained in a motion, the combined total of the two checks was $215.94. According to the law, a bounced check for $200 constitutes a felony.
“Neither check was close to the $200 required to make this felony conduct, so the district attorney combined the two incidents, making the total $215.94; $15.94 cents over what would have remained misdemeanor conduct even combined,” Ms. Lance wrote.
However, James Davis then made a huge mistake, he skipped out on turning himself in after a plea agreement. He should not have faced those felonies to begin with, but he compounded his own problems by skipping town. What did he do during that time? He worked to put his family’s financial affairs in order and make sure his wife and children were taken care.
For that, he got nine years in prison, after facing 30 years to life as part of a three-strikes deal.
Yolo County Man Lands 7 Year Prison Sentence for Stealing Chinese Food
Judge Timothy Fall sentenced Michael Caddick to seven years in prison for being the lookout in a shoplifting heist that saw him aid and abet the stealing of Chinese food from the Woodland Nugget Market.
Mr. Caddick’s conviction stems from two separate but related incidents, in which he accompanied a woman entering the Nugget, she ordered Chinese food, then she stashed it while behind a display before taking it from the store without paying.
Four days later, they did the same. The woman, both times, was the individual who took the food. The DA claims Mr. Caddick acted as the lookout.
Mr. Caddick was charged with burglary, conspiracy to commit burglary, and petty theft for the two incidents. He was acquitted of the first three charges that occurred on January 22 but found guilty of burglary, petty theft and conspiracy for the events on January 26.
The jury had found reasonable doubt for the first day’s events, but not for the crimes on the second day when they ruled he knew what he was doing – that he entered the store with the intent to steal and that the intent was not formed once inside the store.
And then “the Cheese Case”
Judge Thomas Warriner sentenced Robert Ferguson to seven years and eight months in prison in part for the crime of stealing less than four dollars worth of cheese in addition to another petty theft that saw the theft of a woman’s wallet.
It could have been a lot worse, however, as originally the District Attorney’s Office was arguing for conviction under the three strikes law.
While the District Attorney’s Office had already determined that they would not seek a life sentence (or an effective life sentence, given the age of the defendant) under the state’s “three strikes” law, they continued to urge Judge Warriner to consider at least one of his prior strikes in order to sentence him to prison.
Deputy District Attorney Clinton Parish argued that, given Mr. Ferguson’s long history of being in prison for a total of 22 years, he has not learned from his mistakes.
Mr. Parish told the court, “The people gave him another shot, yet here we are again… Simply put, this defendant is a career criminal.”
Both the probation officer and a doctor strongly recommended that the judge strike all three strikes against Mr. Ferguson.
Deputy Public Defender Monica Brushia argued that many of Ferguson’s prior burglary convictions occurred 30 years ago. She noted that the nature of the crimes were not violent in any way. No weapons were used or injuries caused.
The Vanguard spoke with DPD Monica Brushia. She said that while she is satisfied with the ultimate outcome, she does not believe that a crime like this deserved jail time at all.
“I would have wanted to see the District Attorneys not to pursue this as a life case,” she said. “People should realize that a minor case like this should be a misdemeanor, not a felony. The only reason this case is a felony is that he has a priors. The system should look at it isolated from other charges, that would help a lot.”
Ms. Brushia went on to point out that while there are many people in prison under the three strikes law who have committed bad crimes, there are also a lot of people just like Mr. Ferguson. These are people who have not committed violent crimes at all. Instead they end up spending the rest of their lives in prison, or an exceedingly long amount of time for very minor crimes.
These policies, she said, cost the taxpayers a lot of money, both in terms of incarceration and prosecution.
That is right, three crimes that will put three individuals in prison for a total of 24 years for what? The first guy bounced about $215 worth of checks, the second guy stole Chinese food, and the third stole cheese. So for likely less than $300 worth of thefts to the Woodland Nugget, California’s taxpayers are paying about $1.2 million to put these individuals in prison. But for that travesty of justice, it only lands it at No.2 on the list.
The worst case: DA Moves For Fourth Trial in a Case of Officers Beating the Galvan Brothers
For the third time, a Yolo County jury has hung on charges against Ernesto and Fermin Galvan. But this time it was different. The Galvan brothers, who have been prosecuted since 2005 for resisting arrest and battery on police officers, in the two previous trials had seen 11-1 splits in favor of the prosecution. That prompted the DA to refile charges twice and continue pursuit of the case.
However, this time it was very different. Fermin Galvan, who was the less active participant and the brother less badly beaten by the police, was nearly completely acquitted. He was acquitted of the misdemeanor charge of resisting detention by then-Officer Jim Reeder, who dropped him to the asphalt with a leg sweep. The jury hung, 11 to 1 in his favor on the misdemeanor charge that alleged he had caused interference or delay to Officer Donald Schlie’s detention of his brother.
Ernesto Galvan, badly beaten, with permanent injuries including a 17-mm realignment of the front part of his skull and a huge indentation to the top of his skull, has been charged with two felony counts, one each against Officer Schlie and Officer Justin Farrington, of resisting detention/arrest, and with two misdemeanor counts of battery on the same two officers. The jury could not reach a verdict on any of these counts, and were hung 7 to 5 to acquit on all four counts.
This is a marked change from the first two verdicts and it puts the prospects of trying the case for a fourth time in serious doubt. Judge Fall had first questioned, immediately after the mistrial, why the DA believed he could prevail after these three attempts, and the prosecutor, Deputy DA Carolyn Palumbo hedged and said that they were reserving their right to re-try.
The brothers have been charged with resisting arrest and battery during a 2005 incident with police officers in West Sacramento. The altercation occurred on June 14, 2005, around 3:30 am on Riverbank Road along the levee in West Sacramento. Both brothers were injured and hospitalized, with Ernesto Galvan’s injuries being the most severe, resulting in permanent damage and disfigurement.
The fact that the DA would prosecute this case, where both brothers face charges unlikely to lead to prison time, is bad enough, but that they would repeatedly re-file puts this case over the top.
That the DA would refile a fourth time prompted anger from both defense attorneys in this matter.
In an interview with the Vanguard, Defense Attorney Anthony Palik indicated, “I believe that the Prosecutor is pursuing a selective prosecution in violation of my client’s rights under the 14th and 5th Amendments of the Constitution, with regard to the denial of his equal protection under the law.”
He argued, “If this were not a Latino defendant then they would not continue to prosecute a case that cannot be won.”
Likewise, Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira was stunned by the DA’s decision to retry the case.
She told the Vanguard, “I know I have only been an attorney for seven years, but I have never in my life seen a misdemeanor trial being tried four times. My client has been hung on a misdemeanor three times. The idea that the District Attorney is going to file or try it a fourth time is disheartening.”
She was particularly dismayed due to the professed limited resources that both her office and the DA’s Office have and the seeming waste of taxpayer money.
“As a person who lives in this county and pays taxes in this county and owns property in this county – it is really disappointing to see that the District Attorney’s Office would think that [it is logical to be] using our really limited resources in such a matter – because that’s disappointing,” Ms. Sequeira told the Vanguard.
She added, “It seems to me that the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office is more interested in representing the police officers in their individual capacity of the West Sacramento Police Department than they are in representing the people of California, specifically the residents of Yolo County.”
Michael Vitiello, a professor at Sacramento’s McGeorge School of Law, spoke extensively with the Vanguard and said he’s never seen such a case, where it was tried four times.
“I’ve never seen one,” he said.
While Professor Vitiello does not think there are statistics kept on such things, he said, “Anecdotally, okay maybe two, maybe three, but four trials seems to me to be extraordinary.”
Stanford Law professor Robert Weisberg called the move “unbelievably unusual” in an interview with the Sacramento Bee, but also added, “There is no constitutional limit on it whatsoever.”
Professor Vitiello said in fairness that after two 11-1 votes in favor of conviction, he could see why the DA’s Office would pursue a third case, which they did. Such votes would suggest that the case is quite strong
However, Professor Vitiello said, “Now that you have a 5-7, it seems to me that the case is not getting stronger and at some point you just say wait a second.”
“One, can we really devote these resources, and then the other thing is [that] at some point defendants are entitled to be free from the repeated efforts to convict them – the anxiety, the resources that are devoted to defending themselves in court.”
Professor Vitiello stressed that this is not a problem of double jeopardy, but it begins to take on similar implications.
“The underlying policies are similar,” he said, and “at some point people are entitled to be free from the pressures associated with repeated prosecutions. The state has far more resources than most people.”
This case makes it to number one for a lot of reasons. One is that the DA chose to prosecute the brothers in this case when it appears that the police officers clearly used excessive force. Second, that the DA is persisting in retrying a fairly minor case for a fourth time. There is also the implication of motive by the DA’s Office to delay or derail the civil case the brothers have filed against West Sacramento, the police department and the individual officers. The civil case remains on hold, pending the outcome of this criminal case against the Galvans. Bottom line, this is a waste of money by the county, and appears aimed less at justice and more at protecting some police officers and the West Sacramento Police Department.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I’m going to play devil’s advocate here, and ask some questions that may/may not attack some of the underlying assumptions and conclusions in this article, and present an alternative point of view:
Honorable Mention: Mistaken ID – “Finally in July, the DA’s Office dropped the charges and offered a sincere apology. Why it took two months to figure out is the reason this lands on the list as an honorable mention.”
What would have been a reasonable amount of time in your mind? Do you know what the complexities/difficulties were in resolving the identity problem or what the glitch might have been?
#10 – Meth Possession – “She was quickly convicted by the jury, despite a story that appeared implausible that she had borrowed the purse from her friend. Nevertheless, this case makes the list at No.10 for a waste of court time and county money.”
Is it possible she will now get the drug treatment she needs, which otherwise would not have happened if she had been let go? The jury convicted w/o hesitation. The judge imposed the sentence he thought was appropriate – so how is the DA at fault here for charging this woman with a crime that was clearly a crime, even if they had to scrape the meth off the pipe? What difference does it make how they had to obtain the meth – the defendant had it in her possession which was against the law?
#9 Misdemeanor Domestic Violence – “This case makes the list for the efforts by the DA’s Office to turn a minor incident into a life-changing sentence of eight years in prison.”
The defendant violated probation, attempted to tamper w a witness, and put his wife out of the car on the freeway, while endangering their child. Minor incident? People can agree to disagree w this one. Obviously the judge agreed that it was NOT a minor incident. So did the jury.
#8 Alleged Gang Member Acquitted on 1 Murder Charge – “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.”
It is possible the DA thought they had the right man, but evidence came out at trial indicating otherwise. This is one the DA probably should throw in the towel and not refile… poor police work was involved if I remember correctly.
#7 Domestic Dispute/Burglary – “In this case, the jury, despite a number of twists and turns, did not agree. Mr. Estep was acquitted. The case makes our top 10 list for the sheer fact that this should have been mediated rather than become a criminal matter. It is not clear that a crime occurred and the evidence was she said/he said, at best.”
It is possible the DA believed the woman in this case, who claimed the defendant burgled her house and stole items. The legal system worked as it was supposed to, and cast doubt on her story (that is what trials are all about), and the defendant was acquitted. Suppose the woman’s story had been true? Would you feel differently?
#6 Artz case – I have many problems w this case. This 18 year old defendant was no saint. Whether the girl in the case had an 18 or 19 year old girl friend does not seem relevant to me – the girlfriend is not on trial. The jury could not find guilt BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. An interview with a one, two or a few jurors does not tell you what all the jurors were thinking. Is it possible the DA’s Office is trying to send a message (pardon the pun) that extortion via threats to publish sexually explicit photos via cell phone/computer will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?
#5 Wrong Shooter – “This case makes No.5 because the DA pressured witnesses into pointing the finger at Ornelas rather than the most likely shooter and more dangerous Magobet. That Mr. Ornelas is an accused gang member who had a long history of minor crimes is irrelevant to the facts of this particular case.”
This case certainly points up the inherent conflicts in the plea bargaining system.
#4 Pruno Case – If you can be charged for having pruno in your possession while you are in prison, you can be charged. If you don’t like it, push for a law that does not allow possession of pruno in prison to be a crime. Ultimately the legal system came to a reasonable resolution however, and the charge went away – as probably cooler heads prevailed in determining pruno possession was much ado about nothing in the particular situation.
#3 Solis case – “Another case that we covered quite a bit. It is always a problematic case when one of the key witnesses looks into the courtroom and asks where the killer is.”
Is it possible truth came out at trial, but the DA was convinced they had the right man? After all, that is what trials are for, to get at the truth, to put the prosecution’s evidence to the test. The DA has a right to change the theory of the case as evidence at trial unfolds, but does have a higher duty to the citizens of the state to be more interested in getting at the truth than at getting a conviction. But we cannot get into the minds of the DA and what they believed at the time of trial. The extraction of the 16 year sentence by the DA knowing the evidence to convict just isn’t there is troubling (unless viewed in the light the DA is absolutely convinced the defendant was involved)… This case shows clearly the need for any DA to take as an objective view of any case as possible, not wed himself/herself to a successful outcome if the evidence at trial does not support what was originally charged. The DA has a higher duty than the ordinary lawyer to “get it right”.
out of how many cases filed?
#2 Chinese food case/Cheese case – Again is it possible the DA was trying to get habitual criminals off the street? There are virtually no mental health services for these people, bc of budget cuts. And under the 3 strikes law the DA has every right to charge crimes this way. The judge was responsible for final sentencing. If you don’t like the 3 Strikes Law and how it is being implemented, then I suggest pushing for legislation to tweak or do away w the 3 Strikes Law. But remember, if you don’t punish such people, they will commit their crimes again, and again, and again. And community service doesn’t seem to work very well, from what I’ve heard, bc it is not monitored well. Another interesting twist to this case is the store could have just chosen to ban this person from ever coming in the store – I’ve heard of this being done in regard to teenage shoplifters…
#1 Galven brothers – The first three trials were understandable, as the jury almost convicted. But as time has gone on, and more evidence comes out at each trial, the police officers’ version of what happened seems to be on shakier ground. The last verdict was more in favor of acquittal, but for the first time the jury was made up of a number of Hispanices. It is possible the verdict was jury nullification in the mind of the DA, and if they tried the case again with less Hispanics on the jury, they might get a conviction. But this case is also complicated by the fact the defendants are suing the police involved in this case. So one has to wonder is this case being prosecuted a 4th time more to shield the West Sac Police Dept from the defendants’ civil suit against them? Unfortunately we cannot get inside the mind of the DA – the judge will decide whether this goes to a 4th trial or not…
There is no one way to look at a trial – everyone brings their personal bias into any courtroom, including DAs, defense attorneys, the judge, the public, witnesses, media. I was not there at any of these trials, so would not offer any opinion one way or the other as to the outcome and whether it was fair or not, bc personal presence is really necessary to render a good faith basis opinion. Just listening to the defense side gives a very skewed view, just as listening to the DA’s side through press releases gives a very skewed view. I do think thought that media should not print press releases from the DA’s office w/o attributing it to the DA…
Mr. Toad: “out of how many cases filed?”
The answer to this question would give some additional interesting context…
All potential Yolo jurors should be informed about this list and read it. Many jurors go into court assuming the DA has a different set of priorities than he really has (winning cases versus a focus on justice). You can argue the merits of individual cases, but the list indicates there is a tendancy to over prosecute – that thought should be considered in the evaluation of “beyond a reasonable doubt”. The DA would like you to believe he is always right which makes it easier to win convictions. Information to the contrary helps balance the process out and improves The System.
Good Job!
There were only two (maybe three, hard to tell) visible Hispanics on this third jury (and i have noted that there appeared to be two Hispanic jurors in the second trial)…and one of the defense’s motions to dismiss, at the end of the jury selection, was a Batson-Wheeler, charging discriminatory use of peremptory challenges by the prosecution. In other words, the defense believed that several potential Hispanic jurors were excused by the People simple because they were Hispanic. caa
Elaine:
Good food for thought.
My generic response is that I think it is entirely possible that the DA is simply wrong on a lot of these cases but was not being disingenuous. I am not sure that vindicates his office for some questionable decisions.
On the meth case, she probably did get drug treatment, the success rate for most of that is exceedingly low and the cost of the trial and what not is very high. I can’t remember what she was sentenced to.
“so how is the DA at fault here for charging this woman with a crime that was clearly a crime, even if they had to scrape the meth off the pipe? What difference does it make how they had to obtain the meth – the defendant had it in her possession which was against the law? “
The small quantity and the fact it was basically residue is the key point not the method. In other words, if the meth is simply on the inside of the pipe and they scrape it out, is it really a usable quantity? It’s not all the DA’s fault, but they do have charging discretion.
“The defendant violated probation, attempted to tamper w a witness, and put his wife out of the car on the freeway, while endangering their child. Minor incident?”
In reality, the guy got into a fight with his girlfriend and if he struck her at all failed to leave a mark. So is that a violation of probation? The idea that he threatened her during the act, is questionably an attempt to tamper with a witness. And there is some question about whether he did any of the other stuff. Basically the jury believed the police report over the woman’s testimony. I think they overcharged the case. Judge actually, if I recall correctly, only sentenced on the lower term.
“It is possible the DA thought they had the right man, but evidence came out at trial indicating otherwise.”
It is possible, but that would take a leap of logical faith in my view.
“It is possible the DA believed the woman in this case, who claimed the defendant burgled her house and stole items. “
It is possible. But it is also possible that the DA should have chosen alternative means to settle the dispute over property rights, instead they charged it as a crime.
“The legal system worked as it was supposed to”
I disagree. It was a waste of court time, money, and several years of grief of the defendant’s life.
“Suppose the woman’s story had been true? Would you feel differently? “
The facts of the case suggested that this was simply a dispute between a young man and a young woman over a break up. THe need for law enforcement to charge this criminally was excessive.
Artz: I really disagree with you on this one. This is another case that should never have gone to trial. You are criminalizing a sexual relationship between peers. Reasonable police work would have shown the holes in the accuser’s story. I agree the defendant was no saint, but he was also not a criminal.
Wrong Shooter: We agree.
Pruno: Gets to the motivation of the DA, is he trying to do what the law suggests or is he trying to punish the defendant or leverage him. To me this is a very troubling case and I question the judgment of the DA.
Solis: I think the truth came out long before trial, the guys who did it were in Mexico and they had to charge someone because someone died. It was a disastrous case and the DA should be embarrassed and would be if the press had bothered to cover a murder trial.
Chinese/ Cheese: I think the law here is bad, the intent of three strikes was to get dangerous people off the streets. Putting people away for minor offenses to long terms is ridiculous. I see no reason not to treat these minor crimes as minor crimes and if they commit fifty offenses stealing cheese, so be it, it’s still cheaper to try him each time.
I don’t have major disputes with you on the Galvan case.
To dmg: What I find interesting is that it is probable two people could see the same trial, and yet come to completely different views, depending on their own personal biases. On the other hand, there do seem to be some situations that cry out for justice, and all can pretty much agree. So I suspect it is a rare DA that can keep himself/herself extremely objective, and not make mistakes in overcharging/undercharging – bc there is a lot of discretion, political considerations, and imperfect witnesses. As I have noted before, trials are very messy things. (I know, bc I have been a plaintiff, defendant, and at times a trial attorney.) On top of that you have imperfect laws that need constant tweaking, such as plea bargaining (detest this method as possibly a necessary evil) and the 3 Strikes Law (I’m not particularly fond of this law either).
You have DA’s that are clearly corrupt, as in the Duke rape case; but other DA’s who have actually asked that an innocent convicted defendant be set free after exculpatory evidence is discovered during/post trial. A DA doing his proper job will put finding the truth above all else – as is his ethical/fiduciary duty. And how to make the system better is not an easy task – THERE ARE NO EASY ANSWERS. Note the 3 Strikes Law – supposedly that was the answer to judges who were too lenient in sentencing defendants. But look how badly that has turned out…
A good though that has not been mentioned. This indicates a pattern and way of doing business. These cases just scratch the surface. Kind of like finding a rat in your house, for every one you find there are many others that you never see.
How many other cases that were a joke to system and handled with false plea bargains or threats and intimidation. The list does not even include the countless problems with the gang injunction, the false numbers of gang members that no one can prove, it does not mention the case where Reisig hid evidence during a murder, it does not mention the case where Reisig hid gun information from the jury, it does not mention the cases that were never filed because someone knew Reisig or Reisig was returning a favor, it does not mention the many investigations that were started just to send a message to people and damage their reputations when no crime was ever committed, charged or filed, but criminal investigations were started and some leaked.
In my opinion any juror that votes guilty while DA Reisig is running the show, it just being naive. Nothing that comes from this DA’s office is believable or has any credibility, just way too much smoke for there to be no fire.
[quote]How many other cases that were a joke to system and handled with false plea bargains or threats and intimidation. The list does not even include the countless problems with the gang injunction, the false numbers of gang members that no one can prove, it does not mention the case where Reisig hid evidence during a murder, it does not mention the case where Reisig hid gun information from the jury, it does not mention the cases that were never filed because someone knew Reisig or Reisig was returning a favor, it does not mention the many investigations that were started just to send a message to people and damage their reputations when no crime was ever committed, charged or filed, but criminal investigations were started and some leaked. [/quote]
I doubt many of the victims in the cases the DA’s office takes to court believe the crimes are a joke. In what case was evidence hidden in a murder trial? When and what gun information did Reisig hide? What cases were not filed because Reisig was returning a favor? What investigations were started to intimidate people? Please expand.
“I doubt many of the victims in the cases the DA’s office takes to court believe the crimes are a joke.”
I agree, but that doesn’t prove a whole lot. During the Solis trial the victim’s advocate had the family of the deceased parading around the court, and yet most likely Solis was not the man who killed their loved one. But how is the family to know that? They weren’t there. They didn’t review the evidence. So your comment doesn’t really go that far?
“When and what gun information did Reisig hide? “
Looks like in at least two cases that’s the case. In Miranda the conviction was thrown out because of it and it was not retried. In the Halloween case, appeals are still being made.
“out of how many cases filed? “
But it’s not out of how many cases filed. It’s out of how many cases we tracked. Just in the cases we tracked, I could have gone up close to twenty. And then there were another handful that we could have tracked and found a number of cases equally troubling had we had more time, resources, been tipped off more often, etc. You are asking the wrong question precisely because we do not have any sort of exhaustive list.
I wasn’t in the courtroom for the Miranda case but am I to believe that at not time did the question of “Did you find a gun?” come up. I find that seriously hard to believe since the entire case was about a gun.
If a gun had been found it would have been presented as evidence. Without having the gun as evidence the entire case must have been been made to say there was an error on the part of the officers for not searching the car and assuming the unsearched car contained the firearm. I’m sure I’m missing some pieces because it doesn’t make sense.
What’s the deal with the Halloween case.
I wasn’t there either, but that’s what Lawrence Cobb claimed and the appellate court apparently agreed.
Cobb said: “”I left the courtroom to speak with the jury members who had remained. [The prosecutor] was already there speaking with some of the members of the jury, and from the content of the discussion it was apparent that he had been so engaged for some time.””
The appellate court ruled: “Without doubt, the presence or absence of a gun in defendant’s possession following the threat was material to the question whether the object in his pocket was a gun or whether he just simulated one. The evidence showed that, when defendant and his two companions were detained two hours later, searches revealed there was no gun on their persons, in the hotel room where they were found, in the area surrounding the hotel, or in a barn where they went after defendant had threatened the victim. This left three possibilities: the gun was left in the car; the gun was disposed of elsewhere; or there was no actual gun.”
They continued, “Certainly, jurors could infer Officer Puffer would have known about it if the car had been searched. Thus, Puffer’s testimony that, to his knowledge, the suspect vehicle was “never searched” tended to provide one reason for the void: the missing gun was left in the car. We find it quite conceivable that the jurors may have been influenced by this implication.”
Furthermore, “If the jurors were told during the trial that the suspect vehicle had been searched and no gun was found, this would have eliminated a convenient and logical explanation for the absence of a gun.”
They wrote, “Hence, our confidence in the verdict on the use enhancement is undermined by the prosecution’s failure to disclose this material exculpatory evidence to the defense.”
They ruled, “the prosecutor violated defendant’s right to due process by failing to disclose to the defense the existence of material exculpatory evidence pertaining to the issue of whether defendant used a firearm while threatening to shoot the victim. Accordingly, the trial court erred in refusing to grant defendant’s motion for a new trial on that issue, and the use of a firearm enhancement must be reversed.”
So it seems pretty conclusive that the lack of a gun never came up.
The Halloween case, the key witness testified that he identified the shooter because he could see from 300 feet away the muzzle flash.
However, when one of the DA investigators tried to replicate under identical night conditions, he was unable to do so. He was unable to see the muzzle flash from 300 feet, or even closer, he had to be within ten feet to see it.
However then deputy DA Reisig refused to discover it to the defense even though it would have shown that the key witness in a murder trial was lying.