by Antoinnette Borbon
On August 16, 2012, two 20-year-old residents of UC Davis started partying by the pool and later ended up in downtown Davis for “Thursday Night Party Night.” After drinking enough alcohol to reach more than double the legal limit for driving a motor vehicle, the two young adults decide to end their evening at the bar/restaurant called Our House near the train station.
Two Davis police officers responded to a call near Tres Hermanas in downtown Davis, also near the train depot. While they were on the scene, a bystander told them there was a couple that appeared to be engaged in sexual intercourse near the train tracks.
Officers Ralph Piro and Janell Bestpitch walked along the railroad tracks until they were about 30 to 40 feet away, according to their separate testimnoy, when they could make out the couple and determine that they appeared to be having sex.
As they moved closer, Officer Piro testified that he was able to hear a female’s voice saying, ‘No, stop, no, no, stop’ and that the female’s arm appeared to be pinned to the ground.
Thaddeus Jay Sonne would be arrested on a count of rape by force.
However, Deputy Public Defender Dan Hutchinson argued that videos show Mr. Sonne being led out of Our House by the victim.
Under cross-examination, Officer Piro acknowledged that Mr. Sonne seemed to be taken by surprise by the accusation and arrest, and that Mr. Sonne maintained that he believed the sex to be consensual.
The victim testified that she had been drinking heavily and does not remember much from the night. Witnesses include police officers, friends of the two, and the bystanders who witnessed the couple engaging in intercourse outside near the tracks.
Time after time, there were discrepancie and changing stories regarding exact memories of the alleged rape. Mr. Hutchinson tried hard to ferret out only the truth from each witness, in an exact verbatim way.
By lunchtime Thursday, the defense had learned that an extremely important witness, one of the alleged victim’s grandparents, was fighting hard to stop the granddaughter from testifying. It seemed to be a way of protecting her from her ugly past, coming from the grandmother.
The testimony given by the grandmother, who testified, by use of words, with a slightly different recollection of the event than her husband, was visibly upset and crying when leaving the courtroom today. The defense attorney had probed into the testimony searching for an apparent specific answer .
While viewing my previous notes taken from an officer’s account, I discovered his story, compared to that of the grandmother/witness, did not match.
In fact, so far each witness told a different story, interestingly. Today, Juror #12 was brought in and questioned about her physical contact with the grandmother/witness, outside the courtroom.
Mr. Hutchinson asked the court to excuse her from the jury, but it was denied. The defense felt that maybe the DA’s office had a way of swaying the couple’s granddaughter from testifying, but that later was proved to be false.
The prosecutor, Deputy District Attorney Amanda Zambor, stated, “We are staying out of this, this has nothing to do with the situation.”
Mr. Hutchinson then asked what he could do to make sure the granddaughter would be there tomorrow to testify. The judge said to make sure someone went to the airport to make sure the witness was in attendance for testimony.
The next witness was the victim herself. She seemed calm, smiling, laughing a bit and joking with the defense, during her testimony. I was a bit taken aback by her demeanor.
She began to tell her side of the story but showed no emotions when the defense slowly introduced questions about the alleged rape. Her story was quite perplexing to me.
She stated that she had been with friends in the early afternoon, approximately noon, and began drinking. She claimed she must have drunk half a bottle of tequila and three pints of vodka.
She testified she caught the bus to her home and changed her clothing, remembering what color bra she put on but not remembering what color underwear she had on, and noticed she had started her second period of the month.
She then took the bus to her friend’s house, where the defendant was present, and began taking shots of tequila once again. She and all the other friends decided to go downtown for “Thursday Night Party Night” in Davis. After going to Bistro 33, City Hall Tavern, they ended up at the bar/restaurant called Our House near the Amtrak station.
She testified she had at least 4-5 hard alcohol drinks from the time she was at the Bistro to the time she was at Our House. She then stated she could only remember walking to Our House and searching, with a friend, for the defendant to see if he was okay.
After she arrived at Our House, apparently, she had no further recollection. She stated the next time she had any memory of the night’s events was when she woke up in the back of a cop’s car. She stated that she started screaming; however, she was calm enough to send texts to two different friends and the person she called her “boyfriend.”
In the text, she said she thought she was being arrested, but was confused. She also stated to her “boyfriend” that she had just been raped. Further probing into her statement made to police on the night of the incident, she claims she does not recall what she told police officers or why she told them that the defendant had raped her.
She stated, “I do not recall anything or anyone being with me, I only recall being on the ground and feeling the weight of someone on me.” During her testimony, she was questioned by the defense about whether her parents knew of the alleged rape.
She responded, “No, I did not want to give my mother any more drama.”
When questioned by the defense, “Did you go to Reno with your friends the day after the alleged rape?” Her answer was, “Yes, I didn’t want to be home alone.”
The prosecution re-examined her, asking,”Did you lie about the rape because you felt bad about cheating your boyfriend Miguel?”
She answered, “No.”
The defense asked her if she drank in Reno and she answered, “No, I was told not to mix alcohol with the medication they had put me on.” Both parties rested and the court was dismissed. That wrapped it up for today’s testimonies.
On Friday, the defense will be bringing in the grandparents’ granddaughter to testify at 1:30PM.
By what’s been presented so far I could never convict the defendant of rape if I was on that jury.
I think the Vanguard show check in with the victims advocate and get their take on this incident.
I am unclear to what end.
First, the Victim’s Advocate would not be able to speak to the press.
Second, we have already seen the testimony of two officers who witnessed part of the incident and apparently according to Piro, they had just started having sex when the officers arrived on the scene and the victim herself. So in your estimation, what would talking to victim’s advocate, even if she could speak to us, gain?
If someone is too intoxicated to resist its rape. I think that is the judgement the jury will be asked to decide.
” By what’s been presented so far I could never convict the defendant of rape if I was on that jury.”
Translation: She is a filthy whore and got what was coming to her.
-Nice-. I guess you missed the part where the police officers saw her “pinned to the ground” and saying “no, stop” repeatedly. If she was too intoxicated to consent, as Don points out above, that’s a problem. That doesn’t, despite your seemingly 1950s world view, make her fair game.
Upon hearing the word “No,” it goes back in the pants, full stop.
Looking forward to a good recap after the verdict
What a mess
K.Smith:
“Translation: She is a filthy whore and got what was coming to her.”
No, that’s your concocted translation.
I guess you missed these parts of the story:
1. However, defense attorney Public Defender Dan Hutchinson argued that video’s show Mr. Sonne being led out of Our House by the victim.
2. The victim testified that she had been drinking heavily and does not remember much from the night.
3. Time after time, there were discrepancies; changed stories exact memory of the alleged rape.
4. By lunchtime Thursday, the defense had learned that an extremely important witness, grandparents were fighting hard to stop their granddaughter from testifying. It seemed to be a way of protecting her from her ugly past coming from the grandmother.
5. While viewing my previous notes taken from an officer’s count, I discovered his story alongside the grandmother/witness did not match.
6. In fact, so far each witness tells a different story
7. Once she arrived there, apparently, she had no recollection after that point. She stated the next time she had memory of the night’s event was when she woke up in the back of a cop’s car.
8. Further probing into her statement made to police on the night of the incident, she claims she does not recall what she told police officers or why she told them that the defendant had raped her.
So K.Smith, could you put someone in prison for many years based on all of these points and shaky testimony?
“Upon hearing the word “No,” it goes back in the pants, full stop.”
What we don’t know is when she said no. What if she only said no, when she saw the police approaching? I’m not saying that’s the case, but the officer did not witness the full act here.
Good point David. Maybe she saw the police approaching and was either embarrassed or thought they could get in trouble and told him to stop. So far in this trial there’s far too much uncertainty to put someone in prison. I think anyone who has any common sense can see this.
> She claimed she must have drunk half a bottle of
> tequila and three pints of vodka.
If she had half the smallest vodka bottle made (a one ounce airline bottle) and three pints (48 ounces) of vodka she would have been dead (a high school friend died when his heart stopped after drinking half that much) and would not have been able to drink even more and go to “party night” and then out to the tracks…
Rusty,
“1. However, defense attorney Public Defender Dan Hutchinson argued that video’s show Mr. Sonne being led out of Our House by the victim.”
And this proves what? She may have led the defendant out of the restaurant for a conversation or a bit of a snog. We don’t know. Even if she ended up engaging in a hot and heavy make out session (which she may have initiated), that still does not preclude her from stopping the session at any point.
“2. The victim testified that she had been drinking heavily and does not remember much from the night.”
See note above about consent and inability to resist. She did say she remembered waking up to a “weight on top of her” or something along those lines. Being drunk does not mean you are invulnerable to rape. It may render her testimony unreliable, but that’s what the eyewitnesses (like the police officers and passers-by) will hopefully help flesh out. It will then (as someone pointed out above) be up to the jury to weigh the relative merits of each side.
“3. Time after time, there were discrepancies; changed stories exact memory of the alleged rape.”
Which would make sense, given her drunken state. Again, not a reason to necessarily discount that a “rape” happened.
“4. By lunchtime Thursday, the defense had learned that an extremely important witness, grandparents were fighting hard to stop their granddaughter from testifying. It seemed to be a way of protecting her from her ugly past coming from the grandmother.”
I’m not sure what this “ugly past” might refer to, but if it’s the garden-variety, pearl-clutching stance of “OMG!!111 She’s had sexual partners in the past!!” this has been a standard fear tactic meant to silence female rape victims and keep them from testifying against their attackers. No number of previous sexual partners renders a “No” at a future point invalid. Even a prostitute can be raped.
“5. While viewing my previous notes taken from an officer’s count, I discovered his story alongside the grandmother/witness did not match.”
This was kind of confusing. Was the grandmother there to see what happened?
“6. In fact, so far each witness tells a different story
7. Once she arrived there, apparently, she had no recollection after that point. She stated the next time she had memory of the night’s event was when she woke up in the back of a cop’s car.
8. Further probing into her statement made to police on the night of the incident, she claims she does not recall what she told police officers or why she told them that the defendant had raped her.”
These are all problematic. There’s no doubt that this is a difficult situation, and if I misread your reaction, Rusty, I apologize.
Coming so soon after all the recent tripe in the media relating to rapes of both the supposedly “legitimate” and “illegitimate” kind, your initial response just seemed to me to be immediately discounting that a rape had occurred because of the “traditional” factors: she was drunk, may have had a sexual past, may have started a make-out session that she then only wanted to take so far…etc.
And no–I don’t know that I would find it easy to sit on a jury that has the potential to put someone away for that long. I agonized over a relatively straightforward auto theft case for which I was a juror that put the defendant away for 7 years. I was just trying to point out that there are some assumptions people make (and have traditionally made) about rape victims that are wrong and harmful.
Again, if I imputed those assumptions mistakenly to your comment, that was my bad. But we shouldn’t deny that these assumptions still permeate the culture, because they certainly do.
Thanks K.Smith, I appreciate your apology. In the past if you’ve ever read any of my posts on the V. Court Watch you would find that I normally lean toward the prosecution, just ask David. Also, I have two pretty daughters and I often worry about their safety in today’s world and from something like this ever happening to them. But so far this case has too many holes in it for me to ever feel right about putting this guy away.
[i]Consenting Adult or Rape?[/i]
Based on what you’ve written here, the correct answer is ‘yes’. Given the limited amount of information you’ve provided, I don’t see how anyone can answer otherwise.
K. Smith, regarding your #5 question, I believe what Antoinnette meant was that the grandmother was examined as a witness (perhaps to character/credibility, and I am not clear as to which side called her as a witness) – not indicating that she was an eyewitness to the incident. I let it stand as it was…please note, however, that there have been many edits since the commenting began (I got to this a little late today – my actual job caused late hours last night!), so you may want to refresh the page. I have still a couple questions in to Antoinnette, such as verification that she means another granddaughter, not the alleged victim, will be testifying today.
[quote]K. Smith, regarding your #5 question, I believe what Antoinnette meant was that the grandmother was examined as a witness (perhaps to character/credibility, and I am not clear as to which side called her as a witness) – not indicating that she was an eyewitness to the incident.[/quote]
Thanks, Highbeam. I’ll go back and re-read it. 🙂
“…and I am not clear as to which side called her as a witness) – not indicating that she was an eyewitness to the incident. I let it stand as it was…please note, however, that there have been many edits since the commenting began (I got to this a little late today – my actual job caused late hours last night!), so you may want to refresh the page. I have still a couple questions in to Antoinnette….”
Editing should precede posting for everything but a two-sentence breaking news post. I know of no other publication (printed or online) which as standard practice dumps stuff out to its readers without review and prior to editing–resulting in hours of rolling edits for which there’s no attempt at documentation for readers. The confusion then gets multiplied when readers respond with reasonable comments that later are rendered weird by unreported, unrecorded changes in the original story.
Those who write for the Vanguard would be better served if Highbeam asks her questions and edits all stories before they are posted. Rough drafts could be emailed to her for editing and posting. Nothing the Vanguard has covered in years would suffer if posted a few hours or a few days later. What’s the competition, the occasional Enterprise?
Time to step up to the next level of professionalism.
JS, that is not under my control. We are aware of the drawbacks to posting the articles before I see them, and you can discuss it with David. I do try to get up early, every day, and edit them before they are viewed – but I am sure that I would have to be up by 4:30-5:00 every day, at the time that David is writing them…and there would still be some readers up before me. Also, we are all volunteers.
Sorry, high beam, if you feel as though I was critical of your work. Far from it. I’m recommending the Vanguard change its process, not your important contributions.
David posts at ungodly hours, that’s for sure, and some readers already have commented before any reasonable person should be getting up.
The simple solution: David emails you his stories (and Antoinnette’s and others once he’s approved publication). You do the final edit and post them.
David obviously trusts you to have the last edit since he has you do your work online. If he wants a last look, however, you could return your version to him for review and posting.
Either way, if other errors pop up after posting, there should be a way to document the changes made after a story is posted. There are several methods; check other online publications for options.
And, then, sleep in.
Ha ha! Thank you, JS. I am sure we will talk more about possible changes to the system, especially as the VG grows…meanwhile, I need to continue to try to arise before all of you!
“David posts at ungodly hours, that’s for sure, and some readers already have commented before any reasonable person should be getting up.”
Ha, that’s the best time of the day. You don’t know what you’re missing.
Did the cops have the victim give a blood sample to measure her blood alcohol content?
Or the alleged rapist?
I don’t disagree with your process recommendations, Just Saying, but I for one LIKE to read the DV at a somewhat ungodly hour…one of the first things I do….edited would be good but early is better!
I have trouble sleeping sometimes too, SODA. And, better the Vanguard than HSN or TCM.
But, even better is right at 3 a.m. Tuesday rather than wrong at 3 a.m. Monday. I just think it’s come time for the Vanguard to make this quality improvement.
JustSaying: I appreciate the feedback and I’ll think about ways we can improve.
I would like to make a few corrections on this article. I did not get to edit it so there are a few things I noticed once reading. The couple were two 21-year-olds. Also, pertaining to the, “granparents,” they were just the bystanders/witnesses to the incident along with their grandaughter. They have no relation to either the defendant or alleged victim. I would also like to reiterate that my articles in no way prove innocence or guilt or will show my personal opinion about this situation. I am merely there to report exact vebatim as to what I witness/hear while in court, nothing more. I sincerely thank my readers and for the comments and time investing their interest in this article.
Kindly, Antoinnette Borbon