Last week, a Yolo County jury convicted 22-year-old Charles Quillin of first degree murder for the death of Mathew Smith on August 27, 2011.
According to a press release from the Yolo County District Attorney’s office, on August 26, 2011, Charles Quillin, Mathew Smith, Mr. Smith’s girlfriend, and two other friends went to Mr. Quillin’s trailer in West Sacramento to drink and hang out. Sometime after midnight, Mr. Quillin wanted one of the girls to leave his trailer after she vomited all over his living room.
Mr. Quillin’s desire to end the party caused an argument between Mr. Quillin and Mr. Smith’s girlfriend inside the small kitchen within the trailer. Mr. Smith intervened in the argument between Mr. Quillin and Mr. Smith’s girlfriend. Mr. Smith asked his girlfriend to leave the trailer and wait for him outside.
As Mr. Quillin and Mr. Smith were a few feet apart arguing in the kitchen, Mr. Quillin pulled out a revolver from his pants pocket. Mr. Quillin shot Mr. Smith in the head five times before leaving the trailer, placing the revolver in a bush 160 feet from the trailer, and calling his dad. Mr. Quillin surrendered to police when they arrived on scene.
Charles Quillin and Mathew Smith were friends, but they also had a history of trouble. Both had extensive and violent histories. Mr. Smith, in fact, was a validated Norteño Gangmember. Mr. Quillin, the prosecution alleged, was a member of the Peckerwood gang.
The defense did not dispute that Mr. Quillin killed Mr. Smith, but they argued that it occurred due to self-defense. The defense argued that everyone has a right to self-defense and that right is heightened in one’s own home.
The defense depicted the relationship between the two young men in their early twenties as one that was not so much an equal friendship as one where Mr. Smith dominated over Mr. Quillin. Mr. Quillin wanted to end the party when Mr. Smith’s girlfriend vomited in the living room. This is what triggered the fight, according to both the defense and prosecuted.
When Mr. Quillin wished to end the party, Mathew Smith sent the young ladies outside while the men got into a heated discussion. Mr. Quillin pulled out his gun and placed it on his lap.
Prosecutor Carolyn Palumbo argued that at this point, Mr. Quillin had escalated the fight. One does not get to claim self-defense under the law, if they are themselves the instigator of the fight according to the law, she argued.
Deputy Public defender Amber Poston argued on the contrary, that despite the gun, Mathew Smith remained in control of the situation. He told the girls to get out of the trailer. He was unfazed by the firearm. Ms. Poston argued this was his way of telling everyone that he was the one in control and this suggested that he was the instigator.
The girls went outside and waited patiently in the car. According to Ms. Poston, they did not call the police. Rather they waited for Mr. Smith to come out. She argued that this was because they knew Mr. Smith was the one in control. She argued if they had thought for a second that Mr. Smith was in danger, they would have called the police or, at the very least, left the scene.
What happened next is really the core issue that was in dispute. Deputy DA Palumbo argued that the women could see what happened because the curtains in the trailer were thin, and they were only twenty feet away. They saw the two men approach each other, Mr. Quillin extended his arm out, and fired the weapon five times.
A third man was in the kitchen, and when he heard the first gunshot go off, he ran out of there. He got out of the place by the time the last shot was fired and estimates about a ten-second lapse in time. The prosecutor argued that this meant that Mr. Quillin had enough time to consciously decide to pull the trigger, which had to be re-cocked and squeezed with twenty pounds of pressure for each round. This was not a gun that fired off multiple rounds or was not on a hair trigger. Each shot fired therefore, she argued, was a conscious and premeditated decision which made this a first degree murder rather than either manslaughter or self-defense.
Ms. Poston and the testimony of Mr. Quilliin himself indicated that Mr. Smith started to come at him, they were extremely close and Mr. Smith reached out and grabbed Mr. Quillin by the throat. Importantly, Mr. Smith not only seemed in control of the situation, but he continued to block Mr. Quillin’s exit point.
When Mr. Quillin fired the first shot, Mr. Smith seemed to lurch forward toward him and as Mr. Quillin fired off the next four rounds, his head landed in Mr. Quillin’s lap and he fell to the ground.
The prosecutor at this point would argue that their expert testified that Mr. Smith was incapacitated after the first shot which rocked his head back and Mr. Quillin would stand over him to finish him off. Ms. Palumbo pointed to the lack of blood, arguing that if Mr. Quillin had the head, that had five holes in it, land on him he would be drenched in blood and there were only small amounts of blood on his shirt and he had not changed clothing when he turned himself in.
The defense argued that this explanation was controverted by their crime reconstruction expert. Mr. Quillin had smears of blood rather than splatters on his clothing, and Ms. Poston showed the crime photos that she claimed depicted that there was not an overwhelming amount of blood in the room and that the blood on his shirt was not insignificant.
Ms. Palumbo would also counter that the witnesses had a clear view of the room where the shooting occurred from the outside and no one saw Mr. Smith attempt to grab Mr. Quillin’s throat.
A jury would convict Mr. Quillin of first degree murder. With the 25-year gun enhancement, Mr. Quillin will spend at least the next 50 years of his life in prison.
Given Mr. Quillin’s violent past, likely white supremacist tendencies that were alluded to throughout, Mr. Quillin was hardly a sympathetic person or someone the jury was likely to sympathize with. Not that Mr. Smith was any better.
Nevertheless, this conviction troubles us. The defense hired a crime scene reconstruction expert to attempt to determine the sequence and trajectory of shots. This was the crucial physical evidence that, if conclusive, could tell us whether this was self-defense or unjustified murder.
The defense could not come up with one scenario. Based on the trajectory, they came up with three scenarios that suggested Mr. Quillin’s version of event was at least plausible. However, the expert had a problem. In order to determine definitively where the shots came from and in what order, they needed to be able to analyze the blood spatter pattern.
Unfortunately, the collection of the evidence at the crime scene by the West Sacramento CSI was wholly inefficient. The photos were too dark to analyze spatter patterns and they were out of focus. There were two bullets missing that they were never able to find. And they did not even test the blood until March 12 of this year, just weeks before the trial.
Had the photos been properly taken and the bullets found, they could have determined the position and likely timing of the shots. As it was, they could not.
The prosecutor’s expert argued that the first bullet would have dropped Mr. Smith, but the problem is that no one knows which shot was first.
What we do know is that the defense could not definitively offer one sequence of shooting, though Ms. Poston does believe that the first shot was straight on and upward, which she claimed was consistent both with the analysis by her expert and the account of Mr. Quillin.
She argued that the prosecutor’s account does not make sense and that it was inconsistent with the expert’s testimony.
The fact that West Sacramento’s CSI would mess up the crime scene, unfortunately, is not surprising and not an isolated incident. We have covered a number of trials involving West Sacramento, and the CSI there has been at best sloppy in multiple cases, if not worse.
With the physical evidence not only inconclusive, but botched by the prosecution, we are left only with the testimony of eyewitnesses. The problem in this case is that all of the witnesses were not only heavily intoxicated to the point where one had thrown up prodigiously, but they were all biased against Mr. Quillin and had reasons to be angry with him.
The two female witnesses outside were Mr. Smith’s girlfriend, who had instigated this problem and had a history of not getting along with Mr. Quillin, and her friend. Given that, the fact that the girls never saw Mr. Smith grab Mr. Quillin’s throat is hardly definitive. Moreover, their testimony that they saw Mr. Smith raise his arm with the gun is consistent with both versions.
Based on this, we believe that the defense, at the very least, achieved probable cause. The prosecution is required to prove beyond a reasonable double that the shooting did not occur due to self-defense. At the very least, the defense had the fall back of an imperfect self-defense that could have resulted in a manslaughter conviction.
The jury ended up choosing the maximum and, quite frankly, we don’t see it.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]”The prosecution is required to prove beyond a reasonable double that the shooting did not occur due to self-defense.”[/quote]Which, apparently, the prosecution did. That’s why we have the right to trial by jury, to assure that the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt. Which the jury did.
There’s always an alternative scenario presented by the defense. That’s their job. Even when the facts seem open-and-shut against the defendant even to a casual observer.
Usually the prosecution does not have a video of the act. (If it did, the defense still would have a non-guilty alternative to present.) So, it’s also the defense’s job to point out where the evidence is not 100% complete.
I’ve never seen a trial where the defense didn’t come up with some alternative or “missing evidence,” possibly due to inadequate investigation or unfair prosecution. With an excellent public defender like Amber Poston, I suspect the jury had every possible “fallback” alternative offered up for their consideration.
Sometimes people are guilty of the charges brought against them. Mr. Quillin fits in this category–the jury decided beyond reasonable doubt.
Just Saying: I did not argue that Ms. Poston did not do an honorable job representing her client. In fact, brought a number of interns to watch the trial because it was in a way a battle of two excellent litigators. However, that does not change my conclusion that (A) the CSI unit screwed up the physical evidence and (B) the jury got it wrong.
[quote]Nevertheless, this conviction troubles us… [/quote]
No surprise there… it does not seem as if the Vanguard can ever view a case other than through defendant colored glasses…
[quote]Based on this, we believe that the defense, at the very least, achieved probable cause. The prosecution is required to prove beyond a reasonable double that the shooting did not occur due to self-defense. At the very least, the defense had the fall back of an imperfect self-defense that could have resulted in a manslaughter conviction.
The jury ended up choosing the maximum and, quite frankly, we don’t see it.[/quote]
What is this “we believe that the defense, at the very least, achieved probable cause? Is this a new standard in self-defense cases, where the defense has to show there is “probable cause” the crime committed was in self-defense? I’ve never heard of such a self-defense standard before! Please cite proof this is an existing standard…
I would contend that it would be virtually impossible to make a plausible argument of self-defense when the defendant shoots the victim no less than five times. Seems like over-kill to me (pardon my pun) if all the defendant was doing is protecting himself! To think otherwise you have to suspend common sense…
“I would contend that it would be virtually impossible to make a plausible argument of self-defense when the defendant shoots the victim no less than five times.”
That’s an argument more for imperfect self-defense. I could have lived with that verdict and may even agree with it.
The defense argued (and the shots all came very quickly, the defendant was drunk and high on meth as was the “victim”) that the first shot brought Smith into a position of collapsing onto the shooter and the shooter may have interpreted that as a continuation of the attack.
One of the things I learned once is that it’s pretty easy to squeeze off a high number of shots very quickly if one is in a state of panic.
“Mr. Smith, in fact, was a validated Norteño Gangmember.”
Really? A validated gang member in West Sacramento? David, I thought there was no such thing? Why aren’t you calling into question the accuracy of the victim’s gang validation? Oh, wait, he’s not the defendant, he’s the victim……nevermind……
“Mr. Quillin, the prosecution alleged, was a member of the Peckerwood gang.”
So, victim Smith was the (exceptionally rare) validated gang member, but Defendant Quillin was only “alleged” to be a member of the Peckerwood gang? Do we see a double standard here? Why not call both into question, or accept both based on what is presented at trial? Why give the defendant an editorial pass, but not the victim?
Lastly, let’s use some common sense, just as it seems the jury did. If you shoot someone in the head 5 times, chances are it’s not self-denfense.
“A validated gang member in West Sacramento? David, I thought there was no such thing?”
really? Can you substantiate your statement that there are no validated gang members? Now I have questioned the validation process, I have questioned whether some who are validated are actually gang members, but I have never questioned the fact that there are people in West Sacramento who have been validated as gang members.
BTW, I think there is a typo, I think they said he was a Sureno not a Norteno. I’ll have to look at my notes again.
“Why aren’t you calling into question the accuracy of the victim’s gang validation? “
As they say in court, it was not introduced by me for the truth of the matter, only painting the picture of the claims made in court.
Also, both sides seemed to agree that Smith was a validated gang member but the matter of whether Quillin was, was a subject to dispute.
“So, victim Smith was the (exceptionally rare) validated gang member, but Defendant Quillin was only “alleged” to be a member of the Peckerwood gang?”
“Why not call both into question, or accept both based on what is presented at trial? Why give the defendant an editorial pass, but not the victim? “
As I said, one was accepted by both, the other was a matter of dispute. You make a fair point and I agree with you, I should have explained that better in the piece.
“Lastly, let’s use some common sense, just as it seems the jury did. If you shoot someone in the head 5 times, chances are it’s not self-denfense. “
Perhaps. Imperfect self-defense means that he was defending himself and did not need to use deadly force in order to defend oneself. There is also the fact that the defendant may have believed the threat was still coming and not sure when the threat has actually subsided.
Me: “A validated gang member in West Sacramento? David, I thought there was no such thing?”
Your reply: “really? Can you substantiate your statement that there are no validated gang members?”
David, I was being facetious. It’s true that you have never questioned the fact that there are people in West Sacramento who have been validated as gang members, but frankly David, the impression that you leave us with is that it is always someone else, some unnamed person, that is the gangmember (rather than the defendant).
“There is also the fact that the defendant may have believed the threat was still coming and not sure when the threat has actually subsided.” I guess it is possible that the defendant interpreted the victim’s twitching body to be threatening, necessitating a few more bullets to the head.
I enjoy reading your blog, and your criticism of the D.A.’s office is usually right on point. (I’m in fact surprised that you didn’t offer a negative opinion of Ms. Palumbo’s performance, considering this was such a clear-cut case of murder, given the fact that the defendant shot the victim in the head FVIE TIMES, that even a blind squirrel could have found THAT particular nut in a snowstorm.) However, unlike the defendant, your aim was off this time…..
Against that I’ll offer an interesting anecdote.
I thought Palumbo’s closing statement was very good. I thought her rebuttal was halfhearted, overly angry, and glib. There was one point when she decried the swearing saying that she didn’t normally speak that way and that she was merely using the language of the defendant and victim in quotes. By the end, every other word was a swear word, much of it her own and she was very natural at using such language. My favorite point was when she practically yelled, apparently quoting the defendant, “I’ll suck your…” as the public defender and five other people entered the room. I can only imagine what they must have thought at that moment.
“Today is my lucky day?”
[quote]Also, both sides seemed to agree that Smith was a validated gang member but the matter of whether Quillin was, was a subject to dispute. [/quote]
That is bc Quillan was the one on trial, not Smith…
[quote]I thought Palumbo’s closing statement was very good. I thought her rebuttal was halfhearted, overly angry, and glib.[/quote]
However, 1) we also know that you look at cases through defendant colored glasses; 2) a rebuttal by its very nature is off the cuff, unrehearsed, ad lib, and thus much more difficult to do than a closing argument…
“That is bc Quillan was the one on trial, not Smith…”
Elaine, the question was why I chose to refer to them differently and while your point is granted, the reason I chose to refer to them differently was that there was agreement on one, it was not a fact in dispute and disagreement on the other.
“However, 1) we also know that you look at cases through defendant colored glasses; 2) a rebuttal by its very nature is off the cuff, unrehearsed, ad lib, and thus much more difficult to do than a closing argument… “
It really depends on the attorney. For instance, Clinton Parish, and I think he does this improperly, reverses them. He gives the shortened version in his main closing and his best argument in rebuttal. I think technically speaking that is improper and rebuttal should be for directly rebutting. But judges are very lax with content in closing remarks.
I have seen Palumbo a number of times, and the rebuttal was by far the worst performance I have seen from her.
“I think five shots can be explained more easily than you, but perhaps that is where the jury also focused on an otherwise fairly weak case.”
A fairly weak case? HE SHOT HIM IN THE HEAD FIVE TIMES! FIVE TIMES, DAVID! Maybe the defense would have had a chance of raising reasonable doubt if the defendant has shot the victim in the head (or other approriate target-sized body part) once, maybe twice, but HE SHOT HIM IN THE HEAD FIVE TIMES! Additionally, the independant witness, according to your recount above, stated that 10 seconds elapsed between the first and last shot.
Is there something that you haven’t shared with us? Was the victim wearing a kevlar helmet? Was the gun fully automatic, or had it malfuntioned (perhaps from a broken sear) in a manner that allowed it to immediately discharge all FIVE BULLETS INTO THE VICTIM’S HEAD? Did the defendant have some sort of involuntary seizure that made his trigger finger repeatedly convulse, resulting in FIVE BULLETS TO THE VICTIM’S HEAD? Was the victim a zombie (which, as everyone who is preparing for the coming zombie apocalypse knows, would require the destruction of the zombie’s head in order to stop it’s advance)? I’m sorry, but based on the facts YOU presented there is no way that any reasonable person could say that this was a case where a claim of self defense could be believed.
Please, continue your scrutiny of the DA’s office, particularly your observations of prosecutorial misconduct, cash-for-convictions, and corruption. Your efforts are very much appreciated!
So you believe it’s plausible that someone very drunk and high would overreact when in reasonable fear for their lives and in panic keep shooting?
“So you believe it’s plausible that someone very drunk and high would overreact when in reasonable fear for their lives and in panic keep shooting?”
Based on the facts that you reported, the answer to your question is no. Based on what you reported, I don’t think any reasonbly objective person could believe that the defendant was “very drunk and intoxocated” to the point that would justify SHOOTING THE VICTIM FIVE TIMES IN THE HEAD, nor would someone conclude that the defendant was in reasonable fear for his life when he SHOT THE VICTIM IN THE HEAD FIVE TIMES, or that he was in a state of panic that would justify SHOOTING THE VICTIM FIVE TIMES IN THE HEAD. Maybe once? Maybe twice? But five times? Gimme a break……
You mention that there was a party, and that the witnesses were heavily intoxicated (one to the point of vomiting). You do not mention if the defendant was intoxicated, either on meth or alcohol, or what levels of either substance were found in his blood, or if the prosecution or defense offerred evidence of a blood test. There is no mention any expert witness testimony from either the prosecution or defense as to what, if any, the effect of the defendant’s intoxication, if any, would have had on his ability to form the requisite specific intent that is required for a 1st degree murder charge, irrespective of the fact that he SHOT THE VICTIM IN THE HEAD 5 TIMES.
It seems that, based on the facts that they heard at trial, the jury didn’t buy the “reasonable fear” argument. Also, even based on the facts that you yourself presented above, neither do I.
I wonder if the outcome would have been different had this occurred in a “stand your ground” state.
There appears to be some language that indicates some notion of “standing” one’s ground. Still, I think Mr. Anderson is correct, the five shots is probably what ultimately turned the jury.