By Stephanie Yang
Day two of the Medel trial revealed several pieces of evidence that sheds light on the three different burglaries that occurred in the summer of 2011 in Davis. Witnesses who confirmed the evidence included police officers and detectives from the city of Davis, and bystanders from the time of the burglaries.
On July 14, 2011, at the time of the defendant’s arrest, the police found the defendant’s SUV filled with property. This was the same dark-colored SUV with the same license plate that was reported to be at all three burglaries.
After full investigation, the detective was able to match the items in the defendant’s car to the missing items from the Holder home on Baywood Lane. After being detained, the defendant admitted in his recorded interview that he took his wife to work in Davis on the morning of July 13, 2011 and headed toward the house on Stanford Street.
In the recording, the defendant asked the detective whether, if he returned some tools, it would help with his situation. He admitted to taking some tools from the garage of the Stanford home but did not go inside the house nor take anything else.
A search warrant was issued and these tools, such as the drill and saw that the defendant admitted to, were in fact found in his house. When asked what the defendant took from the J Street house on June 22, 2011, he said he did not have anything to do with the burglary on J Street.
After the defendant’s arrest, Mr. Sullivan, the owner of the J Street house, was contacted to identify some of the items that were discovered, but denied anything belonged to him.
The pieces of the puzzles are finally coming together and today, the third and last day of the trial, began with closing statements. Deputy District Attorney Robin Johnson summarized for the jury the burglary that occurred on June 22, 2011 at the Sullivan home on J Street where Sullivan saw the defendant taking his computer and possessions from Sullivan’s home into his car.
Ms. Johnson then reminded the jury of the second burglary that occurred on July 13, 2011 at the Dodd home on Stanford Street, where music teacher/summer house worker Bjerke witnessed the defendant taking belongings from the house into his car.
Ms. Johnson emphasized that the detectives found Mr. Dodd’s missing tools in the defendant’s home, including the toolbox with Mr. Dodd’s name on it. Then finally, the last evidence that Ms. Johnson presented was the burglary on July 14, 2011 that occurred at the Holder home on Baywood Lane in which neighbor Keller witnessed and called the police after seeing the defendant take multiple items from the home into his car.
Ms. Johnson stressed the same exact SUV with the same license plate number in the same exact pattern of the car being backed up into the driveway of the houses during all three burglaries. Ms. Johnson argued that all these are circumstantial evidence that lead to a conclusion that the defendant is guilty of all three counts on June 22, July 13 and July 14, 2011.
Public Defender Tracie Olson closed by asking the jury to think about the ‘Beyond A Reasonable Doubt’ standard. She said, arguing from the evidence, there are three things to be certain about.
First was that neighbor Keller obtained a license plate of the defendant’s car, which was seen and contained property from the Holder home. Though the defendant said, “I guess I did break into it [Holder home on Baywood Lane],” he never fully admitted to it.
Secondly, the same dark SUV had been seen at all three burglaries. Ms. Olson pointed out that after walking the dog, Sullivan from the J Street home could not identify anyone in the court as the suspect on the day of the burglary that occurred at his home on June 22, 2011. Because of this lack of identification, it could be anyone.
Finally, on July 13, 2011 at the Dodd home on Stanford Street, Mr. Bjerke, who saw the suspect drive away, stated in his police report that the suspect was a Hispanic male in his 20’s. When asked if the suspect was a younger version of Mr. Medel, Bjerke said yes.
Ms. Olson said that the mind tends to convince you otherwise, so Bjerke called the police officer the next day and said he was wrong and that the defendant had in fact been the person he saw.
With regard to the toolbox with Dodd’s name, Ms. Olson argued that it wasn’t found in the defendant’s home with the other tools that Medel had listed; it was found elsewhere in the house.
She highlighted that the defendant did not even mention anything about a toolbox and that if he had taken it, he would have told the detective, in hopes of probably helping his situation.
She insisted that the defendant only admitted to the burglary on July 13, 2011 because it could’ve been his son, who also drives the SUV.
Because of the lack of identification from Sullivan on June 22nd and the uncertainty of identification from Bjerke on July 13th, Ms. Olson concluded by saying that when there are two reasonable conclusions, there is also reasonable doubt.
After about two and a half hours, the jury arrived at a verdict. Mr. Medel was acquitted on Count 1, but guilty on Counts 2 and 3.
Though the verdict on Count 1 and Count 2 was quite as expected, with the evidence provided, the decision of guilty on Count 3 (1st degree burglary on July 13, 2011) remains questionable.
Is it coincidence that Bjerke’s first description of the suspect sounds like the defendant’s son but he later changed the description? If the defendant had not admitted to Count 3, would the jury still have found him guilty?
Though the evidence is enough to arrest the defendant, does it warrant a guilty verdict? Many jury members sought the public defender after the trial ended to talk about the case and Count 3.
Judge Mock will review everything and decide on appropriate sentencing, which will take place on February 15, 2013, at 8:30am in Department 3.
He was guilty of parking his car in the driveways of homes, breaking down the door of the home and then making repeated trips to fill up the car with items, with witnesses. The items were found in his home and he admitted the crime. The only thing this article does is imply that his son or another family member was also involved. His wife, who works for the City, must have been aware of these activities, in my opinion. Loser family. The jury got it right, I think.
Who was his wife? and how does she work for the City?
Does any one know the full name of the defendant Medel ? Was there perhaps a previous article about day one that imparted this information ?
Jimmy Medel. Yes there was a previous article, but that should have been included in this one.
David, A Jimmy Medel, Dixon, CA appears on the sex offender registration list for child molestation.
I didn’t know that, but it doesn’t surprise me, I suppose.
And Medel has two prior strike offenses for violent offenses (thanks to the complete reporting of the Sac Bee). I can’t believe the DA’s offices so overzealously went after Mr. Medel.
I didn’t see anything unreasonable in the charges in this case and I didn’t see anyone complain about them. (The Bees reporting was the DA’s office’s press release). The only question anyone had was the third charge where it appeared Mr. Medel’s son was the one originally identified.