By Vanguard Court Watch Interms
Editor’s note: The following is sequential coverage of the trial of Ryan Baird who is charged with2nd Degree Murder, Gross Vehicular Manslaughter and Driving Under the Influence of both alcohol and drugs for his role in an accident that resulted in the death of one of the passengers his vehicle. Closing arguments concluded on Friday and the Jury broke for the day on Friday and will continue their deliberations on Monday.
Testimony Continues in Baird trial
By Catherine McKnight
The trial jury continued of People v. Baird on Wednesday, May 8 in Department 7. Oscar Rodriguez was called to the stand. Ms. Zambor questioned him on the night of January 6, 2012 before they had gotten into the vehicle. Mr. Rodriguez said that Mr. Baird, Bobby, James, and himself had all taken double shots around the table in the living room before leaving.
He then stated that they all left to go to Par’s house, or so he thought. He said it would have been shorter to take the residential neighbor rather than getting onto the freeway; he was not sure why Mr. Baird chose to take the freeway. Ryan took I-5 and entered at Main Street in Woodland. He remembers being in the car for a few minutes before the accident occurred.
Mr. Rodriguez said he was on the front passenger and was not wearing a seatbelt. He does not remember if anybody was drinking in the car, but did not witness it if it did happen. He claims the defendant was driving fast, his estimate was about 80 mph. Before they got on the freeway, Mr. Rodriguez said that Ryan was driving normally in the residential area.
He said Ryan did try to slow down on the off ramp and they got around the first curb. Mr. Baird could not slow down enough for the second curb, he said. Next, the car went off the side of the freeway and he ended up outside of the car near the sidewalk. He sustained neck, back, and arm injuries. He said he still gets uncomfortable from his injuries, at least once a week.
On cross-examination, Mr. Rodriguez said he vaguely remembers talking to anybody at the scene of the accident. He recalled the night at James Blacks’ residence. He said that one of James’ parents poured the shots and that nobody was asleep, as was said in previous testimony. After the double, Par had left. He claimed that Mr. Baird did not appear drunk and that he would not have gotten into the car with him if he thought he was. He was not concerned with Mr. Baird’s driving until they got onto the freeway and he started going faster.
He is then showed the exhibit of the off ramp and the changes made after construction. Before the construction, it was only a single curve. After construction, there was an added curve.
After Mr. Rodriguez was excused, Judge Gaard announced the stipulation that Mr. Baird’s previous DUI’s should not be considered as evidence for any other purpose than showing implied malice or gross negligence.
A MAIT investigator, Mr. Nirashimi, was called to the stand and considered an expert in accident reconstruction. His testimony revolved around the exhibits of large maps showing the off ramp and arrows directing the motion of Mr. Baird’s Mitsubishi.
He described how all of the wheels locked on the vehicle and it slid across both lines of the off ramp. The vehicle then became airborne and he said that any steering would not have had any effect after the car started to slide.
Based off of a speed analysis, the calculated speed before it became airborne, he said, is a conservative calculation of 71 mph. He was also able to calculate the speeds before the airborne phase (the sliding phase). He did this by looking at the friction value once the wheels had locked. The estimated speed at that time was 89 mph.
He also created a 3D simulation of the scene and Ms. Zambor showed the jurors the videos; there was a bird eye’s view and the driver’s perspective. She first showed the slowed down version and then the real time version.
There was a juror’s question about whether or not Mr. Baird could have done anything after the wheels became locked. The MAIT investigator said that given the circumstances, nothing could have been done by the driver. So, if he had been steering after the first curb, it would have had no effect on the result.
After the witness was excused, there is another stipulation. There is a recorded phone call between Mr. Baird and his mother that occurred on January 1, 2012 – four days after the accident. Judge Gaard said that this is to be considered accurate and true.
During the conversation on the recording, Ryan said they started drinking as soon as he got to Woodland. He said he blacked out when he was there, at James’ residence. He was planning to stay the night wherever and has no idea why he left James’. His mother keeps asking him questions about the night but he kept saying that he blacked out and does not remember leaving James’ house. He thinks that Bobby was drinking Crown Royale and that James’ parents bought beer.
The day ended before the afternoon and the trial resumed on May 9, 2012. Closing arguments are expected to finish by the afternoon.
Prosecution Gives Closing Arguments in Baird Trial, Defense Must Wait Another Day
By Charmayne Schmitz
On Thursday, the trial of People vs. Ryan Baird entered its final stages. The Defendant is charged with 2nd Degree Murder, Gross Vehicular Manslaughter and Driving Under the Influence of both alcohol and drugs.
Thirty-six pages of jury instructions were read aloud by the Judge. These instructions are negotiated between the prosecution and defense attorneys along with the presiding judge. Some of the instructions are generic but often a case will have instructions honed to fit the details of a specific trial. In most cases, the jury is given the choice of finding a defendant guilty of a lesser charge along with the details of those alternate charges.
Deputy District Attorney Zambor presented closing arguments for the People. She stressed her belief that sufficient evidence was presented to preclude any need to consider lesser charges. This wasn’t an accident that could happen to just anyone. Baird wasn’t leaning over to pick up something and he didn’t look away for a second. The death and injuries were caused by his decision to drink and drive. According to Zambor, it was proven that he was the driver and his blood alcohol level was too high for safe driving no matter how it is calculated.
Zambor then approached the charge of Gross Vehicular Manslaughter with Intoxication. Gross negligence is a higher level of negligence where the act creates a high risk of gross bodily injury or death. A reasonable person would know that it would result in gross bodily injury or death. To prove this, Zambor claimed that all she needed was to prove intoxication and then prove that Baird knew what the results could be if he drove intoxicated.
Baird has two prior convictions, one of which resulted in an accident where he injured himself. He was enrolled in an alcohol education program and had a restricted driver’s license that only allowed him to drive to work and classes. Evidence of this was presented in court.
Zambor concluded by summarizing the 2nd Degree Murder Charge. She defined it as committing an intentional act. According to the Deputy District Attorney, Baird deliberately disregarded the natural and probable consequences of his actions. Baird got into the car, he wasn’t forced into the car, and therefore his driving was not an accident. He deliberately disregarded all warnings, prior convictions and his DUI education. Zambor asked the jury to find him guilty of all the charges.
Court was supposed to end at noon today. By the time Zambor completed her closing arguments it was 11:20 am. The Judge gave the jury a 5 minute break to stretch in the hallway. In the process one of the jurors accidentally witnessed the defendant being lead in shackles to the men’s room. Jurors are not allowed to view a defendant in a prison uniform, handcuffs or chains. Viewing a defendant in this state could influence a juror’s opinion of his/her guilt or maybe even stir up sympathy. After everyone returned to the courtroom Defense Attorney Dudek asked for a mistrial. The request was denied by the Judge. By that time it was too late for Dudek to begin his closing argument. The trial will continue Friday morning at 9 am.
Heated Closing Statements in Baird v People of California
By: Alexandra Rose
On the morning of Friday May 10, 2013 under Judge Janet Gaard in Department 7 of the Yolo County Superior Court, the case of Ryan Baird came to a close before jury deliberations in the afternoon.
Ryan Baird pled “not guilty” to second-degree murder, gross vehicular manslaughter, and driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs. Several prior convictions were also considered as enhancements.
On the evening of January 6, 2012, Ryan Baird was celebrating James Black’s twenty-first birthday at Mr. Black’s home in Woodland. After leaving the party, Ryan Baird was driving three of his friends, Oscar, Robert, and James, to visit another friend, Parminder, when at the I-5/County Road 102 Interchange, an accident occurred involving Mr. Baird’s vehicle. The accident resulted in the death of one of the passengers, Mr. Robert Sutherland.
This morning, closing arguments continued as Defense Attorney Richard Dudek took the floor.
Mr. Dudek prefaced his closing arguments by emphasizing the jury instructions. By thoroughly explaining the definitions of the charges, the jury really came to understand each charge what convicting the defendant of each charge would mean. Mr. Dudek repeatedly referred back to the circumstantial evidence instruction in regards to viewing each fact in the case under the terms of beyond reasonable doubt, and using the facts that pass that test to come to the conclusion that Mr. Baird is solely guilt of vehicular manslaughter.
District Attorney Zambor followed Defense Attorney Dudek with her rebuttal. Addressing the jury, Ms. Zambor argued that much of Defense Attorney Dudek’s case was built upon compartmentalization of the evidence. Instead, Ms. Zambor encouraged the jury to look at the full scope of all of the evidence and witness testimony presented to find the defendant guilty on all charges.
The jury is expected to reach a verdict in the coming days.
