By Ryan Gonzales
After deliberating for four hours, the jury in Department 7 of Yolo Superior Court in Woodland found the defendant, Patricio Rosas, guilty of all counts of rape and incest of his daughter during the period of December 4, 2013 to October 14, 2015. Previous testimony in the trial had indicated the defendant’s relationship with the complaining witness was not biological, and the charge of incest was not mentioned previously.
Due to the victim not being present, Judge Samuel T. McAdam asked Deputy District Attorney Michelle Serafin to notify her of the guilty verdict.
Furthermore, Judge Samuel T. McAdam arranged the date of Patricio Rosas’ sentencing to be held on January 24, 2017.
Previous article: Closing Arguments in Sexual Assault Case
By Ryan Gonzales
On December 12, Judge Samuel T. McAdam presided over the closing arguments in the People v. Patricio Rosas. Mr. Rosas is being charged with multiple counts of rape by force, rape of a minor and incest.
“Patricio Rosas had been raping his daughter for a year,” stated Deputy District Attorney Michelle Serafin in the opening statement of her closing arguments. Throughout the prosecution’s closing argument, Ms. Serafin focused on the “reasonability” of the case’s evidence.
Foremost, Ms. Serafin discussed the seminal stains found on the carpet of the utility shed at the Ridgewood Apartments, the workplace of Patricio Rosas. Ms. Serafin told the jury that not only did the semen stains test positive for Mr. Rosas’ DNA, but the alleged victim’s DNA was also located within one of the stains. Furthermore, the DNA of the complaining witness had two possibilities of donation, either through saliva or vaginal fluid.
Thus, Ms. Serafin explained that by taking into account the complaining witness’ testimony, there is no “reasonable” explanation on how the stains ended up on the carpet, other than that Mr. Rosas took his daughter into the shed and raped her.
Ms. Serafin then recited the pretext phone calls between the alleged victim and Mr. Rosas. “Did you come inside me?” stated the complaining witness, to which Mr. Rosas responded “no.”
“That response is not the response of a father, but of a man who is raping his daughter,” stated Ms. Serafin.
She continuously asserted that there was no “reasonable” evidence that the complaining witness was lying about the sexual assaults; that there are many circumstances that alluded to rape taking place. For instance, Ms. Serafin recounted the witness’ testimony and how there were nights where her mother would be kicked out of the bed to sleep with her brothers, and the witness would be left alone with Mr. Rosas.
Furthermore, Ms. Serafin explained how the boyfriend of the complaining witness expressed immense pain during his testimony of the alleged rape. “His testimony conveyed pain, because what happened to her was real,” solemnly stated Ms. Serafin.
“There is no evidence that she was lying. She wanted to have a family to have a little bit of normal. There is no evidence that gives you a reasonable reason that she is lying. She told you the truth,” reaffirmed Ms. Serafin when she brought up the defense notion that Mr. Rosas not wanting his daughter to have a boyfriend gave her a reason to lie about the rape.
Ms. Serafin advocated to the jury that the alleged victim’s detailed testimony of being raped in her father’s car, shed and empty apartments was too detailed to be a fabricated lie.
“Evidence that proves the case is in her (the alleged victim’s) testimony, no other evidence has not been given. If you have questions look to DNA evidence, either way Patricio Rosas is guilty of all counts,” concluded Ms. Serafin.
As reasonability was Ms. Serafin’s main focus, Deputy Public Defender Peter Borruso focused on the credibility of the evidence during the defense’s closing arguments.
Mr. Borruso indicated how the boyfriend (of the complaining witness) and the complaining witness were not credible sources. He explained to the jury that this couple testified that they engaged in sexual relations on May 3, 2016. However, in the Detective (Matt) Jameson testimony, he stated that the boyfriend said that they were involved in a sexual relationship in November of 2015.
Due to similar testimony regarding the date that the complaining witness and her boyfriend had sex, Mr. Borruso indicated that, if they colluded with each other on this matter, we don’t know what else they colluded on.
He later suggested that the boyfriend simply testified to avoid being charged with statutory rape, as he is 19 years old and the alleged victim was a minor.
Moreover, Mr. Borruso discussed the credibility of the text message testimony. The boyfriend of the complaining witness testified that she (the complaining witness) had texted him that she was about to get sexually assaulted by her father.
“If you tell your boyfriend that you were about to get raped by your father, wouldn’t you do something about it, but he did nothing. Is that credible?” asked Mr. Borruso.
Mr. Borruso then explained how the next day after the text message exchange, the boyfriend did not remember talking about the alleged rape, thus Mr. Borruso asked again if that was a credible response.
The defense then focused on the irregularities of the complaining witness’ testimony. The witness testified that she was fearful of Patricio Rosas. However, Mr. Borruso asked how can a person be fearful if she testified that she threatened to call the police on Mr. Rosas? “That is not consistent with fear,” stated Mr. Borruso.
Furthermore, the alleged victim testified that she wanted to be homeschooled to avoid school altogether, but Mr. Borruso found that testimony to be irregular. He asked the question that, if a person is being sexually assaulted by their father, wouldn’t they do everything in their ability to avoid the person, not spend more time with them?
Lastly, Mr. Borruso questioned why the complaining witness denied the examination of the doctor just four days after she reported being sexually assaulted. Thus, Mr. Borruso concluded that there is reasonable doubt that the rapes ever occurred.
“I believe you will find reasonable doubt that she (the complaining witness) fabricated this story and Mr. Rosas is not guilty,” stated Mr. Borruso.
In the prosecution’s rebuttal, Ms. Serafin stated, “The defense is looking at individual trees, not the entire forest.” Mr. Serafin asserted that the matters of when the couple had sex or the complaining witness not participating in an examination are all insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
Ms. Serafin concluded that nothing has changed – the case is still about a girl being raped by her father for two years, not about a girl who fabricated a story.
