Last week, Yolo County jurors acquitted five defendants in four different trials, hung on the verdict of another, and convicted just one, acquitting on the most serious charge of aggravated mayhem in the case that we covered earlier this week.
Rodney Snow, an alleged member of the Vagos Motorcycle Gang, was acquitted on three counts of possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a felony, carrying a loaded firearm in a public place or vehicle and receiving stolen property. He also faced gang and weapons enhancements that were not considered, due to the acquittals.
Officer Pelle went to a convenience store in Woodland to check whether or not their video surveillance system captured video of the defendant from earlier in the day. Officer Pelle obtained video of the defendant wearing a T-shirt that matched the T-shirt wrapped around the .45 caliber handgun.
Mr. Snow acknowledged to Ron Cordova of the Woodland police department that he had been a Vagos for four years. He, however, denied knowledge that the gun was stolen. He also told investigators that he was in the process of retiring from the club because he wanted to spend more time with his four-month-old daughter.
Mr. Snow said that he was “floating” and not in a particular chapter, but had at some point been associated with the North Sacramento chapter. Mr. Snow said he was not familiar with Woodland and was not well acquainted with the people with whom he was detained.
Officer Cordova testified Mr. Snow had been wearing the green shirt at some point and had removed it because he did not want to get it dirty while he worked on the car, showing the interrogators the dirt on his hands.
While the surveillance video shows Mr. Snow wearing the green shirt earlier in the day, the vehicle in which the gun was found did not belong to Snow nor is there evidence of his ever driving it. Meth and syringes were also found in the car, but Mr. Snow was not charged with their possession.
Detective Perez testified that Mr. Snow said he did not know the gun was wrapped in his shirt, said the gun was given to him by a friend and that he did not know it was stolen.
Detective Perez said he lied to the defendant, saying that the defendant’s fingerprints were found on the gun in an attempt to get him to confess, but Mr. Snow simply said he accidentally touched it.
Detective Perez never conducted a recorded interview.
This should have been an open and shut case. Mr. Snow even admitted during a police interview to having received the gun from a friend of a friend. The gun’s value was $900 and the prosecution argued that this was not something that would simply be given to someone.
The investigator found the same ammunition, as was found in the gun, hidden in the defendant’s jacket at the residence he was staying at.
The defense, represented by Public Defender Teal Dixon, argued that there was no evidence that Mr. Snow showed the firearm to anyone. There is no evidence as to when or how he obtained the gun, what his ownership interest in the firearm was, or whether he had it with him when he came to Woodland. The only evidence is that he had it at the site of a vehicle where he was changing a tire.
The defense also argued that there was no evidence that the defendant had knowledge of the stolen nature of the gun. The only evidence was that Officer Cordova ran the serial number on the gun and it was listed as having been stolen. No evidence showed whether it had been stolen recently or years before.
Ms. Dixon pointed out that the interview with Mr. Snow was not recorded, and that there was no fingerprint linking Mr. Snow to the gun.
The prosecutor countered that it was not necessary for the police to conduct a perfect investigation when it was so obvious Mr. Snow was guilty. Unless the police were conspiring (lying that he admitted to association with the gun), in the end Mr. Snow must be found guilty.
But the jury did not see it that way. There were flaws in the police investigation, including the lack of recording of the interview and lack of fingerprints, as well some inconsistencies in Officer Pelle’s report on the scene, apparently.
On the other hand, if one believes the police account, Mr. Snow admitted to receiving the gun and there was no reasonable alternative to his owning the gun, unless you consider the possibilities that the police were lying or that it was owned by the woman.
The police lying aspect probably comes into play due to Office Perez’s admission that he lied to the defendant in attempting to trick him to confess. Moreover, you have to take the police’s word about the statements that Mr. Snow made. The lack of fingerprints, perhaps, put enough reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury to acquit.
It is also possible that the girlfriend owned the gun, and wrapped it in Mr. Snow’s shirt. It is bolstered by the fact that she fled the scene when the police came, but Mr. Snow did not.
Ms. Dixon used that argument, but prosecutor countered that “ex-cons often know it’s not in their best interest” to leave the scene and flee.
In the end, the jury was skeptical about the police reports and wanted more evidence. While the prosecutor can argue that an investigation does not need to be flawless, it seems that more and more juries want to see actual physical evidence in order to convict.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“In the end, the jury was skeptical about the police reports and wanted more evidence. While the prosecutor can argue that an investigation does not need to be flawless, it seems more and more juries want to see actual physical evidence in order to convict.”
It might also be that DA offices with an institutional history of questionable conduct have created institutional skepticism in their jury pools .
PS If the DA and Sheriff want to take on a real gang, the Vagos are perhaps the most violent biker gang in America right now .
Looks more like a flawed jury than a flawed investigation.
Wow, if someone from Broderick would have ADMITTED they were part of a “gang”, there not only would have been a conviction, but gang enhancements, another injunction….the whole bit. All I can do now is shake me head.
[quote]This should have been an open and shut case. [/quote]
How so?
[quote]On the other hand, if one believes the police account, Mr. Snow admitted to receiving the gun and there was no reasonable alternative to his owning the gun, unless you consider the possibilities that the police were lying or that it was owned by the woman.[/quote]
It is not well understood by the public, but the police/DA are permitted to lie in order to get a confession or plea deal. It is a perfectly permissible law enforcement tactic. There is an excellent article on the subject at the following link:
http://web.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/FindLawFearFactor11-02.pdf
[quote]In the end, the jury was skeptical about the police reports and wanted more evidence. [/quote]
Is this supposition? Usually when jurors are talked to after the case it is mentioned? Were they skeptical or did they somehow fail to find beyond a reasonable doubt when they guy admitted to having the gun?
“Looks more like a flawed jury than a flawed investigation. “
Perhaps although have you not in the past intimated that a jury’s decision is sacrosanct when I have suggested they erred in the other direction?
“Is this supposition? Usually when jurors are talked to after the case it is mentioned? Were they skeptical or did they somehow fail to find beyond a reasonable doubt when they guy admitted to having the gun? “
We did not talk to the jury, but we did overhear some of the conversation and apparently the intern talked to the prosecutor who passed on what the jury told him.
The officer testified that the guy admitted to having the gun, but there was no recording of the conversation.
“How so?” Because you caught a guy with a gun in a car he was using wrapped in his shirt.
“It is not well understood by the public, but the police/DA are permitted to lie in order to get a confession or plea deal. It is a perfectly permissible law enforcement tactic.”
Permissible can still be seen as a dirty trick. From my reading of this case, I think it came down to the fact that the officer lied to the guy and the jury got upset about that, failed to find fingerprints on the weapon, and didn’t record the conversation. The jury probably thought it was conceivable that if an officer would lie to get a confession, he’d lie to get a conviction. Whether it is legal or not, that is something police may want to think about.
[quote]Permissible can still be seen as a dirty trick.[/quote]
You obviously did not read the article in the link I provided. It discusses the many issues around law enforcement being able to lie, e.g. it tends to generate false confessions, etc.
[quote]The jury probably thought it was conceivable that if an officer would lie to get a confession, he’d lie to get a conviction.[/quote]
This is pure conjecture…
“This is pure conjecture… “
It’s not pure conjecture, it did however move from a known set of opinions as expressed by the jury to a conclusion. Which is why I used the term “probably” rather than implying that I knew for sure.
“You obviously did not read the article in the link I provided. It discusses the many issues around law enforcement being able to lie, e.g. it tends to generate false confessions, etc. “
Interesting – That’s a concern as well.
“The jury probably thought it was conceivable that if an officer would lie to get a confession, he’d lie to get a conviction. Whether it is legal or not, that is something police may want to think about”.
Right on David! My sentiment exactly! Crooked is as crooked does!
Cops will use a ruse to push people for information. It has long been supported by every court.
Chick is saying its not OK for cops to lie. Is it ok for defendants and defense attorney’s to lie?
Mr Obvious – In the search for truth and justice (keyword there being truth) it is not acceptable for anyone in our judicial system to lie. Should a jury believe word for word being the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Attorney’s can question the credibility of witnesses.
[quote]In the search for truth and justice (keyword there being truth) it is not acceptable for anyone in our judicial system to lie.[/quote]
Remember that next time you hear the “not my pants” or similar defense.
“Remember that next time you hear the “not my pants” or similar defense”
I think we are steering away from the subject here. Although I would agree that not all defendants are credible. Speaking for myself only, if I were on a jury and in hearing a policeman’s testimony, he admitting to telling lies to coerce a confession, that would ruin all credibility. There have been plenty of documented cases and especially with young people, mentally ill and the list goes on…that the invetigators tactics of lying have brought out false confessions. If an invetigator lies and states that he has someone’s fingerprints or dna when in fact he does not. The person in the interview may feel compelled to try to offer some kind of reasonable explanation, not a confession. The reasonable explanation is then considered a confession. If the investigators are going to use that tactic they better have some other convincing evidence to back it up.
“Cops will use a ruse to push people for information. It has long been supported by every court. “
It may have, but if the cost is losing the jury, is it worth it?
Look there were five acquittals last week and frankly I have seen a lot stronger defense cases in this county lose. So something is going on.
[quote]So something is going on. [/quote]
I would agree. Juries are getting some cases wrong. It happens. Mr. Snow said a friend gave him the gun. Sounds like a felon in possession of a firearm.
Remember the case a few months back where the jury acquitted the lady of transportation of marijuana when it was found in her pants after driving in a car. How else do you spell transportation of marijuana. I don’t know about you but I have NEVER had marijuana miraculously appear in my pockets.
Even if your suppositions are correct and juries are lashing out at the DA’s office they are doing it wrong. Finding guilty people not guilty isn’t the way to do it.
I don’t think it’s anger at the DA’s office per se, but I don’t think most people know anything about the DA.
I think it’s probably tied into anger at the government and concern about the amount we are spending on incarceration. I could be wrong. You are talking about 48 different people on four different panels last week seemingly making the same decision without consultation or collusion.
I think juries are making a statement here that they want to see fair practices put in place.
1. The DA’s office needs to charge a crime for what it is. Don’t stack the charges on and on. Or don’t charge a felony when it should be a misdemeanor. Don’t try to get a third strike for a minor non-violent crime (like stealing cheese). Be fair when charging minorities vs. whites.
2. Honestly talk to the jury whether you are a prosecutor, law enforcement or defense attorney. If the jury feels that one of these groups is embellishing a story or untruthful in the way they present a case, then the jury is not going to give them credit toward anything that is said.
3. Do a thorough job investigating the crime to be sure you have the right defendant, that a crime has even taken place, and to check the credibility of your witnesses.
For so long, the public has trusted that its District Attorney’s office would naturally tell the truth, only make charges that were reasonable for the crime, and only pursue cases in court that were warranted after a thorough investigation.
I do not want to see the guilty go free as Mr. Obvious stated, but I would rather see that happen than see one person who is innocent be sent to prison for life–like Ajay Dev. In his case the jury believed the prosecutor’s tactics and dismissed the overwhelming evidence that proved his innocence.
Juries need to look at the evidence presented and trust their own tuition as to who is credible or not. Do not trust the words of the prosecutor or defense attorney–they both have their own agendas.
One of the comments that the DA made, I forget which one, in a hearing earlier this year that the jurors are telling them they want a complete investigation. So when they are missing fingerprint evidence and a recording of the interview, they seem to be punishing the prosecution. I’d have to get the exact figures, but the acquittal rate this year is far higher than any previous year.
So when Mr. Obvious says they can lie to witnesses, no they can’t. Not if they want to get a conviction.
[quote]I think it’s probably tied into anger at the government and concern about the amount we are spending on incarceration. I could be wrong.[/quote]
Yes, you could be.
[quote]So when Mr. Obvious says they can lie to witnesses, no they can’t. Not if they want to get a conviction.[/quote]
Or perhaps what the DA needs to do is educate each jury that law enforcement is legally permitted to lie in order to obtain information…
Elaine: I think it is sad that you are morally o.k. with law enforcement lying. It may be legal, but it is not right.
[quote]Elaine: I think it is sad that you are morally o.k. with law enforcement lying. It may be legal, but it is not right.[/quote]
Don’t infer that I am necessarily okay w law enforcement lying. All I am saying is that it is legally permitted. If you don’t like the law, then do what you can to change it. There are many parts of the legal system I have problems with…
If it were left up to me, I would have all youngsters in the schools educated as to what their rights are, and that police officers can lie to obtain evidence. I think the public should know the ground rules…
I agree with Elaine’s preference to educate all students about their rights and would go further and speculate that if everyone was aware that
It is legal for the police to lie to obtain confessions that there would likely be two outcomes. First, there would likely be fewer convictions as police veracity came under greater doubt. Secondly, I believe there would be a demand to change the law which would surely be the best outcome. Reading the Kassin article was an eyeopener for me as I am sure it would be for many others not well versed in the law and police tactics.
Elaine: While I agree with much of what you say, I think the point made here is that the jury is saying they don’t like the law and the jury has to power in this case to “punish” officers for lying to suspects and future officers might want to take that into account.
So tell me this why is it that when this so called confession took place that they had no video or audio when the three different interviews had happen all of them were on the CD that was not used in trial? Oh yeah thats right because it was a smart remark because the so called expert in guns had touched the kimber without gloves to check the chamber and then sat it back on the trunk !!also way was when then came out to the house they had not been called when at the button of the road states that no police have access to the road unless they were called by a homeowner then goes on to tell them that he is a PAYED killer and was caught before he could do it, then also commented that he could not live in a house and land that is worth more then there homes combined?! Thats right it was an open and shut case of not doing there homework maybe the time they choose a better informant then a tweeker!!! Do your reseach before for trail they had over a year to do so!!!! what is even more shady is that they would not return his calls for his property and then supposedly desposed of it and we all know that they not going to through that vest away so who is the the bad guy the boys in boy or NORTH SAC’S FINEST??? ALL HE DID WAS HELP CHANGE THE TIRE