Last week, five people in Yolo County were acquitted by juries, another person the jury hung on, and a seventh person was convicted but only after acquittal on the most serious charge.
Last week, Rodney Snow, an alleged member of the Vagos Motorcycle Gang, was acquitted on three counts of possession of a firearm, despite the fact that they found the weapon in the car wrapped in a shirt he had been wearing earlier in the day, and one officer testified that he had confessed to possessing the weapon.
However, there were some mistakes. The officer acknowledged lying to Mr. Snow, attempting to get him to confess, they found no fingerprints on the weapon, and they failed to record the interview.
In the end, she was acquitted in part because of discrepancies between a video and the testimony of police officers.
As we have noted, while we lack the official statistics, the number of cases that have resulted in outright acquittals have soared over what we saw last year.
What has changed? There has been a prolonged public campaign arguing that we spend too much money incarcerating what are perceived to be less than the most egregious and dangerous crimes.
In May, the US Supreme Court upheld a California court’s ruling that ordered the state to find ways to reduce the state’s overflowing prison population. The state is currently paying $9.8 billion on the prison system alone.
And what are people getting for that money? California has the highest recidivism rate in the country, despite a string of draconian measures such as three-strikes, that put people in prison for increasingly long terms.
The voters have started to express concern over costs. According to one poll, over 60% of voters in California favor reducing sentences for “third-strike” cases that involve property crimes or other non-violent crimes. Another 69% favor releasing individuals convicted of low-level non-violent offenses from prison at earlier dates. Both Republicans and Democrats agree in large numbers that the state should not be cutting government services in education and healthcare in order to pay for prisons.
Still another poll from earlier this year found that 72% of Californians supported reclassifying low-level possession of drugs from a felony to a misdemeanor.
Voters are even turning away from the death penalty, as they see billions going into a system that has only executed 13 individuals since 1978.
And yet, the Yolo County DA continues to exude resources to capture people who are far less than dangerous. A recent case involving the Kalah family illustrates the fundamental waste of resources.
Yolo County Deputy DA Ryan Couzens attempted to argue that the properties at 481 and 501 Walnut Street in West Sacramento were a hotbed of Asian gangster activity over the years.
The police and Prosecutor Ryan Couzens had conducted six months of surveillance on the property, however, when they raided it, there were pills that turned out to be caffeine pills, powder that turned out to be Ibuprofen, and 1.4 grams of meth.
After weeks of trial, the judge dismissed charges against Det Kalah, and Saengphet Onsri was convicted on charges that will likely result in 7 to 12 years in prison for in essence possessing 1.4 grams of meth for sale, and there were two hung juries.
Mr. Onsri conceded the possession of meth, but claimed he was personally selling it to make ends meet. Dom and Anthony Kalah would take plea agreements rather than face similar sentences as Mr. Onsri.
Was that a good use of police and DA resources? Ryan Couzens, charged by the defense attorneys with wasting public resources, shot back.
In his closing statement, Mr. Couzens even acknowledged that this was a small-time operation but he called it a gang, selling drugs, despite really a complete lack of evidence that this was anything other than Mr. Onsri selling drugs.
He admitted that he is very aggressive about gangs and crimes. He said the same for his office. He admitted that they did not find evidence of a huge drug operation – that they only found 1.4 grams of meth.
But he said that if he allow “specks of methamphetamine” to go unchecked, if we allow a fledgling gang to go unchecked, just because it is a fledgling operation, that “that’s throwing in the towel.”
He said that it is irrelevant that Sacramento or Stockton would charge this crime as a misdemeanor. He said that it is on them, and their problem. He said this is Yolo County and we do things differently here.
But what Mr. Couzens is ignoring is that the people of Yolo County may be turning against this very policy that many people consider to be overcharging. And so, perhaps because of this attitude, as embodied in the words of Mr. Couzens that probably spoke more truth than the DA’s office would have liked, we see Mr. Snow acquitted on gun charges and others acquitted on drug charges.
The amazing thing is that this has been occurring all year, across juries. The DA’s office is actually quite fortunate that the jury they had in the Kalah case was willing to convict at all. Some of the other juries we have seen have not.
While it is mainly smaller cases where we are seeing acquittals, it is not exclusively so. The Niazi case, from earlier this year, represented almost a decade’s worth of missteps and overcharging by the DA’s office and ended in almost the complete acquittal of the defendants on all charges but one misdemeanor.
The four-defendant mayhem case we covered last year was quite serious, and because of witness identification problems, two defendants were acquitted, a third one the jury hung on, and the fourth was convicted but not on the mayhem charge.
It is easy to blame poor quality of video on the acquittals, and that is part of the story, for sure. But the other problem is that, despite mounting evidence on the unreliability of witness identification, law enforcement agencies are still conducting very sloppy witness identifications, using photo lineups and getting inconsistent results.
In the past, that has led to wrongful convictions. In the future, if this is not fixed, it may lead to the opposite, namely acquittals in cases where there was ample evidence of wrongdoing.
It is easy to point to jury acquittals and use them as evidence that the system has worked, but the problem is that is an expensive check on the system. It requires a full trial, utilization of court resources, in many cases jail space, and investigations. All of that runs up a huge bill.
But that is only the start here. The toll it takes on the lives of the people – victim and defendant alike, is immeasurable. We watched Jose Valenzuela get acquitted of attempted murder for one person last year, the jury hung 11-1 for acquittal on the second, but he has now been in custody for almost three years and they have yet to come close to a conviction.
This is a kid who may be innocent, who has been held in custody for three years of his life. How much of a toll is that going to take on his future? So, the process working out in the end does not make it a good process.
The DA’s office needs to re-think its approach. They got away with overcharging for a long time, and now those policies, as expressed by Ryan Couzens, may make them their own worst enemy.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I made this comment on another blog, but it may be more appropriate on this article.
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 if they are truly guilty, 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
[quote]As we have noted, while we lack the official statistics, the number of cases that have resulted in outright acquittals have soared over what we saw last year.[/quote]
If you don’t have the statistics, then all you have is conjecture…
[quote]Mr. Onsri conceded the possession of meth, but claimed he was personally selling it to make ends meet. Dom and Anthony Kalah would take plea agreements rather than face similar sentences as Mr. Onsri.
Was that a good use of police and DA resources? Ryan Couzens, charged by the defense attorneys with wasting public resources, shot back.
In his closing statement, Mr. Couzens even acknowledged that this was a small-time operation but he called it a gang, selling drugs, despite really a complete lack of evidence that this was anything other than Mr. Onsri selling drugs.
He admitted that he is very aggressive about gangs and crimes. He said the same for his office. He admitted that they did not find evidence of a huge drug operation – that they only found 1.4 grams of meth.
But he said that if he allow “specks of methamphetamine” to go unchecked, if we allow a fledgling gang to go unchecked, just because it is a fledgling operation, that “that’s throwing in the towel.”[/quote]
Yes, Onsri sounds like a real upstanding citizen – he only sells drugs “to make ends meet”, as if that somehow makes it all better.
Obviously the DA’s Office has a low tolerance for dealing drugs. I would guess the voters of Yolo County as a whole must agree w that stance, or they would not keep voting Jeff Reisig into office…
If you don’t like the DA’s policies, then mobilize forces and vote him out…
[quote]It is easy to blame poor quality of video on the acquittals, and that is part of the story, for sure. But the other problem is that, despite mounting evidence on the unreliability of witness identification, law enforcement agencies are still conducting very sloppy witness identifications, using photo lineups and getting inconsistent results.[/quote]
Gee, I wonder if this could have anything to do w law enforcement being short handed and low on funds? Did you know the investigators are having to do ministerial duties now, including driving witnesses to the airport and serving subpoenas on top of all their other duties? These are tough times folks, and you are going to see a severe degrading of gov’t services in all agencies…
ERM “Obviously the DA’s Office has a low tolerance for dealing drugs. I would guess the voters of Yolo County as a whole must agree w that stance, or they would not keep voting Jeff Reisig into office”
This last round he ran unopposed – we are stuck with him.
ERM “If you don’t like the DA’s policies, then mobilize forces and vote him out…”
I dont think David is trying to force him out but rather have him be open to change…
technichick opined [quote]I dont think David is trying to force him out but rather have him be open to change[/quote]
Oh, I get it – The aformentioned elected official ought to make law enforcement decisions based on a left-leaning blogger’s take on the world? Is that it, really?
FAI wrote: [quote]The DA’s office needs to charge a crime for what it is. Don’t stack the charges on and on.[/quote]
Please, from where you sit define “stacking.”
When an offender commits and is arrested for 10 offenses, the PD submits a compliant to the DA and the charging Deputy DA elects to file a felony complaint with the court for all 10 of those offenses; how is that “stacking?”
AdRemmer: Here is a perfect example of stacking charges.
In the Noori case, the DA charged 63 counts for one night/once incident of rape. There were three guys so they each had 21 counts against them for one alleged rape at a party.
By the way, the Nooris were found innocent, but you tell me how do you get 21 charges for one incident?
Adremmer: “Oh, I get it – The aformentioned elected official ought to make law enforcement decisions based on a left-leaning blogger’s take on the world? Is that it, really”
The District Attorney is supposed to be representing “the people”. Do you really think that the people want to see innocent people go to prison for the sake of the DA being eligible for grant money? Do you think that the people want to see someone go to prison for life over cheese? Let’s be fair about this. The DA’s business practices are criminal. Over reaching charges is fraud. Five acquittals in one week? Obviously the left leaning bloggers are not the only ones who have this opinion. It’s time to wake up and smell the coffee. The DA has gotten away with this for far too long. Times are changing.
“If you don’t have the statistics, then all you have is conjecture…”
I said I don’t have the official statistics. I know what the count was a few months ago, and I know what has happened since then.
Also I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that your response to statistics is often, “there are lies, damn lies, and statistics,” as you would say, “you can’t have it both ways.”
I was going to make the same point, don’t worry about the opinion of the left leaning bloggers, worry about the opinion of the jurors. Are they not speaking?
” he only sells drugs ‘ to make ends meet’, as if that somehow makes it all better”
Of course that does not “make it all better”. But it also does not make it gang activity and that is the real point. Do we really want to pay for the incarceration, both in financial terms, and in the human cost to the family of Mr.Onsri, for a small time drug deal because a prosecutor wants to enhance his tough on crime reputation ? And yes, Elaine, I would say in this case, their is enough evidence from his own words and actions to infer the DA’s motivations. This is not a matter of mind reading, but of observation of his stated goals.
[quote]In the Noori case, the DA charged 63 counts for one night/once incident of rape. There were three guys so they each had 21 counts against them for one alleged rape at a party. [/quote]
Obviously you don’t understand how the law works. The DA charges for every conceivable crime that was committed, and it does not matter one whit if it was based on one incident or twenty. For instance, if a young woman is taken off the street, taken to the woods and raped, then robbed, the perp can be charged with kidnapping, rape, robbery – 3 crimes for one incident. This is a very simplistic example, but you get my point. This allows the DA to push for CONSECUTIVE sentencing, which will result in a longer prison sentence. The defense, on the other hand, will push for CONCURRENT sentencing, which will result in a shorter sentence.
[quote]Also I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that your response to statistics is often, “there are lies, damn lies, and statistics,” as you would say, “you can’t have it both ways.”[/quote]
No statistics is pure guesswork… Theories bases on statistics may or may not be premised on lies, damn lies, and statistics. But at least there is SOME BASIS for the theory…
There is a basis for the theory, see Tracie Olson’s comments from March, if anything there has been a higher rate of acquittal since then. At that point there were 11 acquittals in 20 trials. But that was March. The other point is last year we covered a lot of cases that ended in conviction that we did not think should have, this year there are a number of cases that are rather weak that ended up in acquittals that probably would have gone the other way last year. Can I quantify it right now? No. But I presented annecdotal evidence, I mentioned several trials here, that certainly belies your point that it is pure conjecture. I think you throw that out haphazardly.
In terms of how the law works, you certainly described how this DA works. It’s not clear that’s how every DA works or even how they should operate.
[quote]” he only sells drugs ‘ to make ends meet’, as if that somehow makes it all better”
Of course that does not “make it all better”. But it also does not make it gang activity and that is the real point.[/quote]
Medwoman is exactly right, Elaine has lost site of the point in question which is not whether selling drugs was okay if it was for personal use, but rather it was whether it should have been charged as a gang crime and therefore given a several year enhancement to each charge. I think the Kalah case was an overreach and I think other juries that we have seen this year, might have acquitted Onsri except on the charges he admitted to. Other than him being a gang member, there is no evidence that his sales was done to fund some criminal enterprise as alleged by Couzens.
“He said that it is irrelevant that Sacramento or Stockton would charge this crime as a misdemeanor. He said that it is on them, and their problem. He said this is Yolo County and we do things differently here.”
Unfortunately, this is a major waste of taxpayer money for the people of Yolo County. It’s as though the DA’s office doesn’t understand where the money comes from to pay not only their salaries, but also their expenses to bring these cases to trial.
David
Have you covered, or know where to find the information, on how much the DAs office has been cut back in funding as compared to cutbacks to other services such as public health for Yolo County. I would be interested in seeing such a comparison.
It is tricky because they have used grants to augment their programs and mitigate whatever cuts they have had to make.
[quote]” he only sells drugs ‘ to make ends meet’, as if that somehow makes it all better”
Of course that does not “make it all better”. But it also does not make it gang activity and that is the real point.[/quote]
But you guys aren’t seeing the point which is that if a case can be made into a gang case, then the DA can apply for more grant money and can put in place a gang injunction using a list of all those “gang” crimes and they tell everyone how protective they are of the “upstanding” citizens of Yolo.
[quote]Can I quantify it right now? No. But I presented annecdotal evidence, I mentioned several trials here, that certainly belies your point that it is pure conjecture. I think you throw that out haphazardly.
In terms of how the law works, you certainly described how this DA works. It’s not clear that’s how every DA works or even how they should operate. [/quote]
1) Anecdotal may or may not be significant…
2) Yes, that is how THE LAW works…
[quote]Elaine has lost site of the point in question which is not whether selling drugs was okay if it was for personal use, but rather it was whether it should have been charged as a gang crime and therefore given a several year enhancement to each charge. I think the Kalah case was an overreach and I think other juries that we have seen this year, might have acquitted Onsri except on the charges he admitted to. Other than him being a gang member, there is no evidence that his sales was done to fund some criminal enterprise as alleged by Couzens.[/quote]
Some believe that allowing the sale of even a small amount of drugs is inviting trouble. It is a point of view, just as YOUR point of view is that the sale of marijuana is not harmful at all…
Elaine: you are missing the point here in a large way, “Some believe that allowing the sale of even a small amount of drugs is inviting trouble. It is a point of view, just as YOUR point of view is that the sale of marijuana is not harmful at all… ” This is not a question of drugs, it is a question as to whether these were gang crimes.
Adremmer and Elaine: For those with short memories about the charging policies of the Yolo DA, keep the following in mind. If you are white and have a connection to the DA’s office, the charges are small, and the recommendation for sentencing minimal. It is quite different if you are a minority and don’t have a connection.
Some examples,
1. Brett Pedroia, white, his mom is a court clerk. He served 10 months for a rape with physical evidence.
2. Jennifer Beeman, white, worked with the DA on sexual assault projects, get probation. Convicted of embezzling thousands and grant fraud.
3. Claudean Medlock, white, worked with the court victim advocates, offered probation even though she had a previous felony for embezzling thousands of dollars. Public outcry caused her to get 3 years.
Now here are a few minority cases in Yolo when there were no connections to the DA:
1. Noori case I already stated 63 counts for a one-time incident. Noori is from Afghan. Found innocent.
2. Khalid Berney, minority, 170 charges for goat trespassing. This case got dropped when neighbor realized what the DA was doing.
3. Ajay Dev (Nepali) 94 charges. No evidence a crime occurred–378 years.
4. Galvan Brothers, Hispanic, tried 3x for resisting arrest, the public outcry stopped the DA from a 4th trial. The Galvan brothers had committed no crime (so no other charges than resisting),and they were beaten severally by the police.
5. James Davis, minority, put in jail for 9 years for two checks totaling $215. No probation was offered.
6. And of course, there are multiple gang enhancements added–all minority.
There are multiple cases that David has covered. The point here is that charging and sentencing seems to be unfair–consistently over done for minorities. Why?
Wait till you guys see the case of transportation of cans over the state line, ala the Seinfeld episode.
FAI – permit me to iterate (to suit your numbers):
When an offender commits and is arrested for x offenses, the PD submits a compliant to the DA and the charging Deputy DA elects to file a felony complaint with the court for all X of those offenses; how is that “stacking?”
Try again if you will…