In June of 2005, Ernesto Galvan and his brother Fermin were out on Riverbank Road in West Sacramento when they were approached by Officer Schlie of the West Sacramento Police Department.
What would ensue would leave Ernesto Galvan badly beaten and disfigured after police unleashed a series of baton blows to his head. The District Attorney’s office would charge the men with obstruction and delaying a police officer as well as misdemeanor counts of battery on a police officer.
The first trial would end up in a hung jury with a single juror holding out for acquittal. The DA’s office would refile and try them again in February of 2010 and once again, a single juror, held out for innocence.
In November and December of 2010, the DA would try them a third time. This time the verdict was demonstrably different with Fermin Galvan nearly acquitted and Ernesto, the more badly beaten of the two brothers, getting 7-5 hung juries in favor of acquittal.
Under pressure, the day’s office determined not to seek a fourth trial.
“After the third trial, the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office conducted a careful, thorough, and deliberate review of the case and the three jury trials,” the statement read. “We determined there is sufficient evidence to establish proof of each defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; that 27 of the 36 jurors who have examined the evidence have agreed with us that there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to most counts; and that the officers acted within the confines of permissible use of force based on the circumstances and the defendants’ actions.”
However, ultimately they were convinced that there was a decreasing likelihood of obtaining a unanimous verdict of 12 members of the community in this matter. “Therefore, it is our intent to seek a dismissal of all charges and to not proceed to a fourth trial,” the statement concluded.
A year and a half after the DA dismissed the case, Ernesto Galvan still faces charges on a misdemeanor DUI charge. Mr. Galvan’s attorney Anthony Palik questions the point of pursuing criminal charges on the seven-year-old case at this point. It is a misdemeanor case, and the injuries from the beating mean that Mr. Galvan will never drive a vehicle again.
The DA’s office has offered a reasonable deal of house arrest for 30 days. Mr. Palik told the Vanguard the problem is that the beating has left Mr. Galvan with diminished capacity.
He is therefore unable to understand the terms of the deal due to psychosis he suffers due to his head injury. He reportedly hears voices, sees angels, and communicates with the Pope telepathically.
“When this sort of thing happens, the attorney for the defendant is required to “express a doubt” as to his client’s competency to prevent an injustice because, of course, an incompetent defendant cannot assist in his own defense,” he said.
The lengthy Yolo County advisements coupled with Mr. Galvan’s reduced mental capacity means that he simply would not be able to focus for the 30 to 45 minutes process to complete the form with a foreign language interpreter.
The court appointed a psychiatrist and the report indicates that Mr. Galvan has no understanding of anything that is happening to him. However, the County Department of Mental Health disagrees with this conclusion, despite never having examined Mr. Galvan.
So on Tuesday, barring a deal, the matter will be set for a jury trial where by law the proponent of incompetency has the burden of proof – ostensibly to prevent defendants from gaming the system.
But this entire legal technicality misses a fundamental point – why try this case to begin with?
“It is very disappointing when prosecutorial discretion is not exercised in a manner that effectuates the ends of justice,” Anthony Palik told the Vanguard. “Prosecuting a seven year old DUI case, with no victims, against a young man who can no longer drive because of injuries he sustained as a consequence of excessive force wielded by officers in another case where no conviction could be obtained; this is a vendetta, not justice.”
According to the DA’s Office’s version of events in the beating case, on June 14, 2005, at approximately 3:33am, Officer Schlie of the West Sacramento Police Department noticed a car parked on Riverbank Road in West Sacramento.
The release continued, describing that as Officer Schlie approached Riverbank Road, he noticed two men standing in the road. Officer Schlie exited his patrol car and contacted the two subjects, later identified as Ernesto and Fermin Galvan.
Upon contacting the two men, Officer Schlie noticed Ernesto Galvan was sweating profusely, was fidgety, and would not look him in the eyes. Officer Schlie suspected that Ernesto Galvan was under the influence of a controlled substance and attempted to detain him to conduct a further evaluation.
Ernesto Galvan failed to comply with his requests and Officer Schlie grabbed him by the wrist.
Ernesto Galvan pulled away, swung around and struck Officer Schlie in the chin. Galvan fought Officer Schlie and another officer for nearly four minutes. The officers were unable to stop the onslaught of kicks and punches from Ernesto Galvan. During this struggle, the officers attempted to gain control and compliance from Ernesto by verbal commands, take-down techniques, the Taser and the use of batons.
The DA’s version continues, stating that it was not until the officers used their batons that Ernesto Galvan stopped fighting.
Ernesto Galvan was charged with felony resisting arrest and obstructing Officers Schlie and Farrington by threats and violence, and misdemeanor battery on the same two police officers. Fermin Galvan was charged with misdemeanor resisting arrest and obstruction by threats and violence against another officer, Officer Reeder, and misdemeanor obstructing/delaying of Officer Schlie, who was struggling with his brother.
However, as the cases drew on, clear inconsistencies in the officer’s accounts began to emerge.
As Mr. Palik told the Vanguard early in 2011, “I, personally, was very concerned during the third trial when one of the police officers claimed Mr. Ernesto Galvan was still wearing his boots at the time he was in restraints, and that being kicked by Mr. Galvan with his boots was the only way that officer could have torn his trousers during that incident.”
He continued, “This was especially concerning since the three officers who were actually involved in the altercation claimed steadfastly, through three trials, that Ernesto had kicked off his boots and took a barefoot ‘fighting stance’ prior to being subdued by the officers’ batons.”
Officer Schlie’s contention was that Ernesto Galvan appeared under the influence of a controlled substance and also he was putting his hands in and out of his pockets.
To back up the contention of under the influence of a controlled substance, the officer stated that Ernesto Galvan was sweating a lot on a night that was not particularly hot and that he wouldn’t make eye contact. However, none of the symptoms that he mentioned are official symptoms that trained officers would be looking for, according to earlier testimony.
Defense co-counsel Martha Sequeira pointed out that he was never charged with being under the influence, which is a crime and would have anchored the resisting arrest charge. Deputy DA Carolyn Palumbo tried to explain away the lack of a charge, arguing that they did not have time to administer a blood test. But the hospital certainly would have, particularly in the course of doing surgery. What testing was done in the hospital was inconclusive and was deemed of no consequence to the immediate surgery, and was, in court proceedings, excluded from evidence.
Moreover, the argument about his hands in his pockets was not backed up by other facts. Officer Schlie pointed his partner to checking out the parked car down the road rather than asking for assistance with a possibly-armed man. He never drew his weapon, and there was inconsistency about whether he clearly ordered Mr. Galvan’s hands to be shown. Instead he walked next to him, almost casually. In short, Ms. Sequeira was able to show to the jury that Officer Schlie’s actions were inconsistent for dealing with a subject he thought reasonably could be armed.
There were other problems with the officers’ stories, including the fact that Mr. Galvan was beaten so badly he lapsed into a coma and yet they argued he continued to resist. There was the testimony from Officer Reeder that Ernesto tried to kick him with his shoes when he was on the ground, except that the other officers said he had kicked off his shoes almost from the start.
There is also the problem that the injuries sustained by the officers, which include some pretty superficial cuts and a single bruise, are not consistent with an out-of-control man kicking and punching officers repeatedly.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The facts you present are not the facts of the case that he will be tried on.
The facts presented here are background on the previous case along with the questioning of what the point of proceeding with this matter given (A) he can’t drive, (B) he probably had a reasonably valid reason not to finish the last two classes, (C) seven years, and (D) he is mentally incompetent at this point in his life. Why not let the matter go? What’s the compelling community need for 30 days of house arrest assuming he’s found competent to stand trial?
I agree with David that it is a waste of time and money for a 4th trial but disagree that “superficial cuts and a single bruise, are not consistent with an out-of-control man kicking and punching officers repeatedly”. There is a big difference between “kicking and punching” and “landing” the kicks and punches. Cops (and boxers) get in a lot of fights and are very good at “not” getting hit. Cops often cross the line and give more of a beating than they should, but I have never heard of a cop starting the conflict. Just like the kid at the SF Zoo that was killed by the tiger after he threw rocks at it a couple years ago we need to remind people that if you spit at a cop you might end up on the ground with a cracked skull. I’m not saying that killing someone who throws a rock at you or cracking the skull of someone that spits at you is a sensible response, but people need to know that it might happen. If every high school kid watched the “public service announcement video” below we might have less police beatings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWGCIm4GNQE
The issue is a DUI. There are compelling reasons why the defendant could not possibly complete his DUI classes. He can no longer drive. There is no earthly purpose to trying this case that I can conceive of, if the facts are as presented here…
“The DA’s office has offered a reasonable deal of house arrest for 30 days. Mr. Palik told the Vanguard the problem is that the beating has left Mr. Galvan with diminished capacity.”
What does one have to do with the other? One would have to be pretty incapacitated to turn down 30 days in your home. If he goes to trial, I’d suspect he’ll take the deal before it’s over.
Pity the judge who has to determine which of the dueling experts to believe regarding competency. Is this just a defense tactic or a vengeful prosecutor?
This starts to sound like a battle of wills that has little to do with the crime itself. Is it possible there’s a potential civil suit lurking someplace? That would make all the difference in the world about whether the actions on both sides make sense.
The problem is that he can’t understand the terms of conditions of the 30 day sentence.
Apparently the DA has a five page form – which is far longer than in most counties, and he simply could not get through that form to understand the terms and conditions.
If Mr.Galvan is as incompetent as you describe, one would think that a family member would have been appointed by a court to be his legal guardian by now.
It seems as though there something missing from this story. Can you fill any holes that might help with context?
Are you sure there’s no prospect of a civil suit by Mr. Galvan against the officers and/or the government? If so, this is just the early salvos in such a lawsuit; it’s not really just a criminal case.
That would explain why the defense doesn’t want a plea bargain or a trial with potential of a guilty finding. That also would explain why the county isn’t about to walk away from prosecuting a legitimate case, even one that might look meaningless to others. Who are the attorneys involved in the defense? Are all criminal law specialists?[quote]”What (blood) testing was done in the hospital was inconclusive and was deemed of no consequence to the immediate surgery, and was, in court proceedings, excluded from evidence.”[/quote]It would be interesting if this issue gets reconsidered in the next trial. Maybe it could be considered more conclusive.
The problem seems to be that the county is disputing his competence. So tomorrow will be the competency trial, in front of a jury, and I will have more answers after that.
[quote]This starts to sound like a battle of wills that has little to do with the crime itself. Is it possible there’s a potential civil suit lurking someplace? That would make all the difference in the world about whether the actions on both sides make sense.[/quote]
I’m wondering the same thing – it would seem there has to be more to this than meets the eye…
Oh, please. This scumbag is very smart. Galvan knows that if he is sentenced he will be out on the catch and release program from county jail within days. This dirtball is small potatoes.
The DA is pushing 30 days of home arrest because AB109 has filled up the Yolo County Jail and has made the environment within the county jail a very dangerous place.
To make matters even worse, there is an out of control recidivism rate of about 1 in 4.
If we want to be concerned about something it should be how full the hoosegow is and WHO is being released NEXT.
Who should we be more concerned about, some village idiot who had some sense beat into him, or someone who might be wanting to burglarize our homes?
[quote]Who should we be more concerned about, some village idiot who had some sense beat into him, or someone who might be wanting to burglarize our homes? [/quote]
It seems to me that the greatest threat might come from someone who cannot differentiate being incapacitated by a beating from ” having some sense beat into him”.
“The problem seems to be that the county is disputing his competence. So tomorrow will be the competency trial, in front of a jury, and I will have more answers after that.”
Thanks. Is this a hearing to determine whether he competent to stand trial or whether someone should be appointed to handle his affairs because of incompetency? Seems that a jury is a little much in either case. Again, it sounds as though some very strategic moves are playing out here. Are you aware of any civil suit connection from your past dealings with this case?
At this point the trial is to determine his competency to stand trial. My hope is that this ultimately leads for him to get the assistance that he needs. There is a civil trial still going forward at this point in time and my guess is the city of WS is going to end up with a huge amount of liability here.
“My hope is that this ultimately leads for him to get the assistance that he needs.”
How would this hearing do that? What “assistance” does he need?
How did this get to be a jury hearing rather than a judge deciding his compency to stand trial?
Don’t you think that the civil trial going forward accounts for: 1. the competing claims about whether Mr. Galvan is competent to stand trial and risk that the impact of the guilty/not guilty finding would have on the lawsuit, 2. the defense refusal to accept what appears to be a giveaway plea bargain offer because it, too, would weaken the civil suit, and 3. the insistence of the DA to proceed on whatever prosecution that indicates what brought together Mr. Galvan and the police that day, realizing that walking away from the criminal case would help the defendant’s civil case?
This really isn’t about whether the DA is a jerk for pursuing a years-old misdemeanor case against an apparently seriously disabled person who won’t be driving unless a miracle is delivered upon him. It has to all about both sides making sure a criminal case outcome won’t disadvantage them in an upcoming civil lawsuit.
[quote]There is a civil trial still going forward at this point in time and my guess is the city of WS is going to end up with a huge amount of liability here.[/quote]
Nothing like leaving out basic information that would have given a clearer picture of what is really going on here. That is why I added the caveat of “if the facts are as presented here”. But in fact there was a huge omission – the civil lawsuit. I will echo the sentiments of JustSaying:
[quote]This really isn’t about whether the DA is a jerk for pursuing a years-old misdemeanor case against an apparently seriously disabled person who won’t be driving unless a miracle is delivered upon him. It has to all about both sides making sure a criminal case outcome won’t disadvantage them in an upcoming civil lawsuit.[/quote]
I only see this case relating to the civil suit in a very small way – if it establishes that Mr. Ernesto Galvan is mentally incapacitated as the result of the police beating. But realistically they didn’t need this case to establish that.
The trial was continued. Mr. Galvan needs to have an expert witness – the psychiatrist available to the prosecution for cross examination. right now they lack the funds for that.
“I only see this case relating to the civil suit (after all the civil suit involves the June 2005 case and this was a misdemeanor DUI case) in a very small way – if it establishes that Mr. Ernesto Galvan is mentally incapacitated as the result of the police beating.”
Wouldn’t mental incapacitation be a very critical thing for the civil suit attorneys to have established? Routine injuries vs. brain injuries that keep one from understanding 30-day home-stay plea bargain paperwork is a multi-million dollar difference if the officers are found liable for Mr. Galvan’s condition.
How can you see only “very small” relationship between these two cases? A court finding that he’s unable to be tried for this DUI or even participate in his own plea bargaining would be a bonanza for him in a suit against the officers and West Sacramento.
Elaine’s protest that you left out basic, crucial seems legit. It looks like it makes a difference in how she views the fact that the DA is is prosecuting. You had her sympathy at first, and that shows that this “small” factor might not be so small after all.
JustSaying: I will take responsibility for failing to mention the civil suit, I meant to in the course of the background and where the matter stands. I disagree quite strongly that that is what is driving this. Mr. Palik attempt to settle the matter and it was only during the course of having his client go through the form that he realized he could not do that.
[quote]I disagree quite strongly that that is what is driving this.[/quote]
But then you have a strong anti-DA bias…
“But then you have a strong anti-DA bias…”
That doesn’t have anything to do with the point being made here.
So is this about what is just….or is it about who can minimize their financial and professional risk ?