by Joanna Kwong
The jury came to a verdict on the case of People v. Rodarte on the afternoon of Thursday, October 28, 2015. The defendant, Job Rodarte, was charged with 21 counts of allegedly sexually assaulting his daughter.
After two and a half days of deliberating, the jury came to the verdict that the defendant, Job Rodarte, is convicted of eight counts of lewd and lascivious sexual acts on his young daughter.
Rodarte was convicted for counts 1, 2, 3, 6, 10, 12, 15, and 18.
The jury hung on counts 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 21, and the judge ruled a mistrial for these counts.
The case will head back to court on November 12 at 9AM for sentencing, and possibly to set a new trial for the remaining counts on which the jury hung.
Previous: Closing Arguments in Child Sexual Assault Case
By Tiffany Yeh
People v. Rodarte, the case of the father who allegedly sexually assaulted his young daughter over several years, wrapped up with emotional closing arguments from both sides.
Deputy District Attorney Michelle Serafin began her closing argument by describing the nature of the crime. Child molestation occurs in the privacy of houses, in secret, protected by the victim’s shame, fear and isolation.
M’s whole life has been full of abuse, from her mother and father. According to the prosecution, from five years old to 12 years old, M had been sexually assaulted by her father, Mr. Rodarte.
DDA Serafin argued that M has no motivation to lie. M’s stepmother still loves the defendant. M would lose her family, food and shelter. She would lose everything and end up in the Child Protective Services System.
Ms. Serafin described M’s outward emotions and demeanor during M’s own testimony. She was open, direct, not evasive, and did not embellish anything. There were no cues she was lying.
M described the abuse she went through every two, three, or four months when she was five to 12 years old. There were four specific events she recalled during her testimony in court.
The defendant sodomized her, said the prosecution. M drew a picture depicting this during her Multi-Disciplinary Interview Center (MDIC) interview.
The defendant told her to “kiss his penis” (M’s words), which led to an attempt, but she ran to the bathroom and gagged.
The Tahoe incident when vaginal penetration occurred was described in detail in court.
The last incident that occurred before Rodarte was arrested was the “lap” incident where he had her sit on his lap while he pressed his penis against her. They were both wearing clothes but M recounts both of them having wet pants afterward.
DDA Serafin strongly emphasized that M could not articulate every single time the sexual abuse occurred because it “happened all the time.” The court does not require an exact date or to narrow down a date for each event.
The 21 charges against the defendant included vaginal penetration (17 charges), attempted oral copulation (1), and sodomy (3). Some charges had been amended by the prosecution.
Before, one of the charges had been oral copulation but was amended to attempted oral copulation. The Tahoe incident had changed from a charge of sodomy and vaginal penetration to only a charge of vaginal penetration.
DDA Serafin stated that the defendant had admitted guilt during a phone call with M, saying something like, “Yes. Yes. Yes. I’m stupid. I’m sorry…” The defendant then asked for forgiveness from M, saying it wouldn’t occur again.
Mr. Rodarte changed his story from never having touched her vagina and her anal area to, well, maybe playing with her, to maybe while I was sleeping. He admitted to having an erection the last time and blamed a heated laptop. DDA Serafin described this as “ridiculous.”
She entreated the jury to look at M’s testimony, review the MDIC interview, and recordings. M’s statements are true and they should find the defendant guilty on each and every crime.
The defendant’s defense attorney, Julius M. Engel, presented a closing argument that made clear that his strategy was to undermine M’s credibility and provide the jury with reasons why M would be motivated to lie.
He stated that Mr. Rodarte half-admitted to the charges during a phone call because he would do anything to “keep her from killing herself.” He was willing to admit whatever, just so M wouldn’t kill herself.
Mr. Engel dismissed the allegations against his client, saying that there was nothing wrong, they were touching while asleep, and it was horseplay.
He painted M as a “hurt, injured, traumatized child” who was abused by her mother in Mexico, then ignored by her dad sometimes in the U.S. because he was working so much.
Trying to make the mother the source of M’s problems, Mr. Engel stated that “parents can be your worst enemy… some will hurt you.” He alleged that M’s mother had tainted her. It was unclear how jurors might agree or disagree with this assessment.
He described M’s mother as the source of M’s nightmares and went on to speculate that M made up everything and that the alleged child abuse by her father was part of a nightmare.
Mr. Engel, attacking M’s credibility, described M as changing her story – for example, during her recounting of the Lake Tahoe incident. There was no bleeding to some bleeding to no sodomy. Bleeding occurred? From where?
The defense attorney’s tone while stating his point sounded sarcastic.
He framed M’s charges against her father as all a misunderstanding and as an attempt to dig for her father’s money.
Mr. Rodarte’s house has $200,000 in equity. M’s stepsister is adopting her. She’ll get Mr. Rodarte’s money after making charges against him, the defense said.
Everything’s “a big lie,” the defense asserted. Mr. Engel memorably stated, “False in one, false in all.”
Mr. Engel pointed out that M’s account of certain sexual assault events changed. “One significant lie is sodomy.” In the DVD, M tries to “seem less sophisticated.”
Regarding the last incident, where both the defendant and M had wet pants, Mr. Engel attributed M’s wet pants to urine.
Defense was critical about the whole thing, saying there’s a “devious element.” M’s grandmother passed away. M’s out to get her father’s house and his $200,000. Mr. Engel made the point that M could sell the house instead of living in it.
The whole thing is a big lie, the defense alleged. The defense argument was that once you “lock yourself in, you can’t back out.” Juveniles can’t really be charged with serious crimes.
The defense criticized M’s demeanor during her testimony. M cried at the right time – the emotion was contrived. The defense believed that M should have been angry instead, and that M was acting to convince the jury. It wasn’t natural crying.
The evidence is weak, Mr. Engel asserted. Just because it is a sexual assault case, the burden of proof on the prosecution is not lowered.
Attorney Engel raised a challenge of sorts toward the prosecution, saying that if the case is difficult to prove, then don’t bring it to court.
Mr. Engel pointed out that MDIC might be biased, because the center assumes that the child is the victim, while when Mr. Rodarte was interviewed by Detective Ford, he didn’t get that benefit of the doubt or any sympathy. Mr. Rodarte was intimidated. He’s short and Mexican-American. Because of this, he had an “okay, maybe” response, sounding like sort of admitting guilt, but not really.
The cherry on the top of defense’s closing argument was an appeal to the jury, saying that everyone has sat on their father’s lap at one time or another.
Of course, the defense was not implying that would have been in the sexual manner and positions that M described as occurring, but the statement could make the accusations seem innocuous. The jurors’ faces revealed no indication of what they were thinking.
The prosecution rebutted the defense’s argument, with fervor almost bordering on contempt. M had stated that she “wouldn’t want to live in the house her father molested her in.” Beyond that, M stated that when she came close to her father’s penis, she gagged. She was disgusted. Seminal fluid came out of the defendant’s penis.
Based on the above statements, DDA Serafin argued that M reacted and said things that people could not think up if they were trying to lie. Most 12-year-olds do not know about semen and sperm – but M could describe seeing semen coming out of his penis.
M took a big risk. She only came out with her story when she thought she was pregnant. M stated something like, “My pants were wet. Clothes were both on. My pants were wet. I think I’m pregnant.” M is a naïve child who is not lying, asserted Ms. Serafin.
DDA Serafin said that everything M said was true.
The testimony of any one witness is enough to prove a fact. In sexual assault crimes, a conviction can be based on the testimony of the claimant alone.
The two sides, defense and prosecution, had widely differing stories about the same characters. How the jury would decide and who they would believe was unknown. (Note: the jury began deliberations on Monday, October 26.)
Tiffany
I have been following and have appreciated the coverage of this trial. I have one comment which I hope you will accept as constructive criticism.
You have put into the main body of your coverage between two factual accountings of the proceedings, the following:
“In fact, listening to his statements, I thought of the defendant as M’s “worst enemy.” Perhaps his statements had backfired a bit during closing arguments.”
I think you would have a much stronger piece if you were to separate your opinion from the narrative of the proceedings. This would allow the reader to assimilate all of the facts free of your judgement, and then consider your observations after having had the opportunity to weigh the arguments of the attorneys presented intact.
Please keep writing. Your interest and time are greatly appreciated even if the court watch articles do not draw a high number of comments