by Marisa McCune
Two prosecutorial witnesses took the stand on Wednesday in the jury trial of Jesse David Lucas.
Lucas is facing six counts that include drug possession with intent to sell, possession of a concealed firearm in a vehicle, and transporting a loaded firearm.
According to Yolo County Deputy District Attorney Deanna Hays, Lucas has failed to appear in court for previous charges filed against him, and Yolo County is the first jurisdiction to get Lucas to trial.
The charges against Lucas in Yolo County are for events that took place on February 6, 2015.
The trial’s afternoon session started with a closed evidentiary hearing that was followed by an expert witness for the state, Boyd Lasater, a senior criminalist with the Bureau of Forensic Services, Sacramento Regional Laboratory, the scientific arm of the California Attorney General’s Office.
Under direct examination by the prosecution, Lasater testified that he used a method of scientific laboratory testing combining gas chromatography and mass spectrometry (“GC/MS”) to conclude that 7.908 grams (approximately 0.277 ounces) of heroin were found in a vehicle Lucas was driving on January 25, 2015.
Lasater went into great technical detail about scientific drug testing methods. Most of his testimony centered around the difference between laboratory GC/MS processes and field NIK® tests. The latter are presumptive tests that may indicate the presence of some narcotics through a color-changing chemical identification process, while the GC/MS tests are confirmatory, for positive identification.
Lasater explained that the NIK® tests used by police departments are not considered legally conclusive, but that the GC/MS method his crime lab uses confirms NIK® test results more than 90 percent of the time.
During cross-examination, Deputy Public Defender Teal Dixon probed Lasater as to whether non-narcotic substances in a sample could affect NIK® test results and whether these tests were subject to interpretation by field officers.
Lasater explained that NIK® tests are “qualitative not quantitative,” meaning that the test only determines that a drug may be present in a sample but does not determine the drug’s quantity or purity.
After cross-examination there was no redirect examination by the prosecution.
The next witness called to the stand was Deputy Greg Almos of the El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office.
During direct examination, Deputy Almos testified that, on the afternoon of January 25, 2015, he witnessed Lucas and two passengers parked at a gas station and acting in a suspicious manner. Almos noted that the vehicle Lucas was driving was missing its front license plate.
Deputy Almos initiated a traffic stop and spoke to Lucas. Lucas did not have his driver’s license and told the officer his license was suspended.
Almos said he proceeded to search the vehicle and found a loaded .22 caliber “auto handgun” in the glove box. According to Almos, Lucas said he had recently purchased the gun.
Upon further inspection of the vehicle, Almos found a bundle of over $1,500 in cash and a hypodermic needle in the driver’s side door. He also found two backpacks, one behind the driver’s seat and one in the trunk, both containing what he believed to be heroin and methamphetamines packaged for sale, as well as hypodermic needles. One backpack also contained marijuana.
A preliminary field drug test (the NIK® test) conducted by Deputy Almos suggested the presence of heroin and methamphetamines.
When asked by Deputy DA Hays if the bags had any identification in them, Deputy Almos said no, but that Lucas told him neither bag belonged to his passengers. Almos went on to say that Lucas “wanted to assume ownership” of the bags.
During cross-examination, Deputy Almos was asked about a “glass dish” he found in the search, which he suspected contained heroin. Almos explained that the amount of suspected heroin in the dish appeared to be “a moderate amount for personal use.”
Continued cross-examination of Deputy Almos by Deputy Public Defender Teal Dixon will resume on Thursday, January 21, at 9:00 a.m., when court reconvenes. Judge Samuel T. McAdam will be presiding.
the vanguard court watch is really kicking into high gear. quality of the reporting is improving as well.
I agree. Quality and attention to detail in reporting prosecution of artificial “crimes” derived from bogus laws is an important thing in the pursuit of longer-term justice.
Drug prohibition (as opposed to regulation) is not only a failure (and has been for decades), but a major contributor to a “justice” system in name only (sort of like a “defense” department that bombs cities and murders people with drones thousands of miles away).
This dude may have broken a few “laws,” but doesn’t appear to have done anything wrong. Oink!
So, Yolo county prosecutes the El Dorado county case? Else, why so many “witnesses” and Law enforcement officers from El Dorado county? If Lucas is being prosecuted for “failure to appear” is this the case, or another case? Or are they lumping them all together?
Other people in the car were his accomplices, or customers? OR will this be in the next installment of the trial? Having seen this “take the rap or we prosecute your friends/family/customers” on TV, I wonder what they are striving for?
Napoleon may have a point about “prosecution” and this really Oinks on the surface… It does underscore that drugs are crossing County boundaries, and why is it not Prosecuted by the State, or the Feds (mailing envelopes with drugs?) Is this another plea job? I will stay tuned!
Napoleaon
“This dude may have broken a few “laws,” but doesn’t appear to have done anything wrong.”
Unless of course you consider selling heroin “wrong” knowing its addictive and life destroying tendencies. But then, one has to remember that I also consider selling cigarettes “wrong” and selling more alcohol to the already inebriated “wrong”.
But then that is just me. I am well aware that some of you believe that responsibility is a one way street with all the burden on the purchaser/user. I think that some responsibility for these dangerous behaviors also lies with the individuals who choose to make their living purveying the known destructive goods.
I consider both selling and buying heroin to be bad choices, but insufficient to justify the establishment of a government-sanctioned black market to enrich certain participants, satisfy demand that might be lessened through regulation and treatment, and expand the ability of government minions to engage in selective enforcement and civil forfeiture.
I consider the morality of the CEO of any of the world’s largest tobacco companies to be no different from the morality of any given heroin purveyor. The main difference, given that they are both selling people what they want and perhaps helping to stimulate that want through propaganda, is that one has the “law” on his side and the other does not.
Oh, I almost forgot, there is also the matter of the loaded gun. The nature of black markets sanctioned, but not regulated, by government is that they are highly profitable and also highly dangerous. I see nothing wrong with possessing a loaded gun no matter what the “law” might have to say about it. As for the rightness or wrongness of using said gun, well, that depends on the circumstances.
Napoleon
The points that you have made are largely responsible for me having gone back and forth ( flip-flopped, perhaps through the years ) on the pros and cons of legalizing all drugs and then heavily taxing them and using the funds to counter the propaganda with truthful education and programs to discourage their use and promote more constructive activities.
Tia
We are probably more in agreement than not despite what might seem to be extreme comments at times on my part. I also see the serious and insidious damage caused by drug abuse and do not encourage even mild recreational use. I also see the failure and injustice created by the simple-minded (or corrupt) approach of government and do not believe that if I close my eyes and hum loudly enough, it will go away.
I suppose I’ve adopted the Napoleon persona and obvious references to things Orwellian as a way to better emphasize the absurdity of some of what we take for granted when the noose is around someone else’s neck. Oink!