VANGUARD COURT WATCH: Man Faces Six Counts of Worthless Checks

By Alexandra Rose

On the morning of Wednesday February 13, 2013 in Department 6 of the Yolo County Superior Court, the judge and jury were seated and ready to hear the opening statements in the case of the People of the State of California versus Gurmej Singh.

Charged with six counts of writing worthless checks, dating back to several dates in April of 2009, Gurmej Singh is represented by his defense attorney, Lisa Lance.

The People of the State of California, represented by Ms. Young, made a clear and concise opening statement.  Beginning on April 15, 2009, Gurmej Singh made several purchases of a variety of auto parts from Hanlee’s Nissan in Davis.

In total, seven checks were written, and each of those checks bounced.  After being contacted by Hanlee’s Nissan by phone and through letters, Mr. Singh made no legitimate attempts to make good on his checks.  The People filed this case in April 2012.

In the opening statement for the defense, Ms. Lance simply highlighted the extreme difficulty that the People would have in proving Mr. Singh guilty beyond reasonable doubt.  This opening statement was actually quite effective in terms of reinforcing this important concept for the jury.

After the presentation of opening statements, the People called Jerald Quinlan to the witness stand.

Ms. Young opened her round of questioning by establishing Jerald Quinlan as a witness for this case.  In April of 2009, Mr. Quinlan worked for Hanlee’s automotive group.  His primary role was to control and coordinate the business practices of several different dealerships, including Hanlee’s Nissan in Davis.

The jury heard Mr. Quinlan explain that the parts manager had notified him of about $5000 of returned checks from Gurmej Singh, and after being unable to contact him by phone or through letters, Mr. Quinlan contacted the District Attorney’s office.

The cross-examination of Mr. Quinlan by Defense Attorney Ms. Lance uncovered that the address on the parts invoices were, in fact, different than the address to which he sent the letters.  There were no further questions for Mr. Quinlan; he stepped down and the judge stated that he was subject to recall.

The People called Tam Nguyen to the witness stand to explain his role in the case as parts manager at Hanlee’s Nissan in April of 2009.  Mr. Nguyen confirmed that the items in the People’s exhibits were the parts invoices, checks, and bounced checks in question.  He testified to having seen Mr. Singh pay for parts with the checks that were later deemed worthless.  It is interesting to note, however, that in November Mr. Nguyen claimed that the defendant “kind of looked like him,” but in Wednesday morning’s trial, he said that he was “better about to recognize” Mr. Singh.  Mr. Nguyen was set to take the stand again in the afternoon session.

Just before noon when the morning session was to end, the judge ordered the jury and Mr. Nguyen back at 1:30 PM and kept the attorneys and defendant present.

Ms. Lance brought to the attention of the judge the fact that Mr. Quinlan and Mr. Nguyen were observed speaking to one another outside of the courtroom in close proximity of several of the jurors.

Ms. Lance expressed her concern that these jurors could have overheard the two speaking with each other, which could affect their judgment on the case at hand.

The judge decided not to act upon this information other than following up with Mr. Nguyen, asking him what the two talked about and making sure the topic was unrelated to the trial, then advised him and Mr. Quinlan to limit their communication until the trial ends.

Wednesday Afternoon

By Vanguard Court Watch Interns

The afternoon session in Department 6 on Wednesday, February 13 began when Mr. Tom Nguyen resumed the stand to finish his testimony.

Mr. Nguyen, who worked in the parts division of Hanlee’s Nissan in Davis, confirmed that he had accepted the checks written by Mr. Singh.

He assumed that the checks had cleared because he never received an overdraft or insufficient funds notice, in which case he would have notified his boss.

The next witness was Ms. Shelly Abbott, who works for the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office as an enforcement officer for the check prosecution office.

In 2009, Ms. Abbott received a complaint from Hanlee’s regarding Mr. Singh’s checks. Ms. Abbott has the authority to make phone calls, send letters, and request bank records, all of which she did.

The bank records revealed a plethora of insufficient funds/overdrafts beginning in March 2008.

When Ms. Abbott was finally able to make telephone contact with Mr. Singh over a year after the incident, he told her that he had returned the merchandise in question to Hanlee’s.

However, Hanlee’s reported that Mr. Singh had not done so. Ms. Lance’s cross-examination sought to demonstrate that reasonable doubt existed in the case, namely that someone else could have written the checks, or that Mr. Singh was not aware of his bank account balance.

Finally, Sergeant Troy Rivers of the California Highway Patrol recounted an incident in 2004 during which he made contact with the defendant.

At the time, Sergeant Rivers was working with the Sacramento District Attorney’s Office in the Insurance and Fraud Division. He was investigating a case of possible insurance fraud involving a Honda Accord that had been abandoned and doused in gasoline, but any other signs of foul play were absent.

The vehicle had been reported stolen by its registered owner, the defendant’s cousin. After discovering video surveillance that placed the defendant’s car at the scene at the same time, Sergeant Rivers questioned the two men.

Upon interrogation, both men admitted to attempting insurance fraud. This testimony helped determine that Mr. Gurmej Singh has a prior record of involvement in fraudulent schemes.

The Singh case was scheduled to continue at 9 am on Thursday, February 14.

Closing Arguments

By Vanguard Court Watch Interns

Ms Young and Ms Lance finished the trial of People v. Gurmej Singh with closing arguments.

Ms Lance attempted to illustrate the case as filled with reasonable doubt.

She asked the jury to consider an income tax return form filed in April of 2008. She stated no one knows who deposited this income tax form.

Furthermore, Ms. Lance commented on Sergeant Rivers’ testimony. She stated this testimony can only be used to determine intent on behalf of the defendant. The testimony cannot be used to paint the defendant as prone to violence or having bad character.

Ms Lance also informed the jury Mr. Singh contacted the DA’s office about the parts from Nissan. Singh said he returned the parts. Lance feels this case should not be covered in a criminal court but rather a civil court.

Finally, the defense asked the jury to take Singh’s demeanor during the trial into account – especially how Singh reacted to each piece of evidence as it entered during the trial.

Ms Young asked the jury to use common sense and life experiences.

Young stated it was reasonable, if one were to share a joint account and one individual noticed there was no money in the account, for that individual to notify the other person sharing the account when there is no money in the account.

Young also noted the defense has the same subpoena power as the People. The defense could have called Mina Singh, the defendant’s wife, to the stand to answer questions about the empty bank account. However, the defense did not do this.

Young added that the April 2008 income tax return form is a distraction from the main issue in the case.

She further described the difference between a civil and criminal case. The difference is the intent. The defendant went to Nissan, wrote checks for money he did not have, and wrote a lot of checks in a short period of time. He had the intent to fraud.

She asked the jury to find the defendant guilty on all 5 counts.

Editor’s note: On Thursday afternoon the jury came back and returned a verdict of guilty on all charges.

YONET ‘s Gary Rickert testifying for the DA in another drug related case

By Antoinnette Borbon

Today was the third time we heard testimony from our own Yolo County drug enforcement agent, Gary Rickert. Even though this was definitely one of his much smaller busts, Agent Rickert seems to be tied up in court quite a bit these days. Gary has been deemed an expert witness in these cases, having been trained first as an officer for the Yolo County Sheriffs Department, and later receiving extensive training for the drug task force to become a YONET (Yolo Narcotics Enforcement Team) agent.

In testimony today for the People vs. Johnson, Gary explained the evidence found on the defendant. Johnson was carrying enough meth on his person to convince officers and the DA it was for the purpose of sales. Gary told the court Johnson also had a scale, cash, a cell phone and a needle. The defense argued about the amount found and suggested It may have just been for the defendant’s personal use. But Gary came back with a strong statement, blowing that theory out of the water, with “that would be like a slap in the face to a dealer if you brought a scale to weigh it first.” It does sound risky!

The defendant appeared to be unmoved by Gary’s testimony.

It is disconcerting to think we have a growing number of drug-related cases in this county and even worse to know some are right here in our town. Under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, more crimes are committed; A scary thought! It is past time to utilize a restorative justice plan so we are helping these defendants turn their lives around, instead of just filling the jails/prisons with convicts who have repeated the same offense.

Prior to Gary taking the stand, he and I had a few moments to chat. More cases to come, he informed me, so I will stay tuned! I appreciate the time Gary takes to talk to me, however brief the talks may be.  I learn something each time. But I appreciate his efforts even more in the cleaning up of our community. We owe it to our children to fight for a safer, drug-free environment.

People vs. Johnson will continue on February 26th.

Categories: