By Anthony Rascon-Ramos
Deputy DA Refuses to Provide Name to Vanguard: In the jury trial of People v. Luna the jury reached a verdict on Tuesday morning (August 27, 2013) and found the defendant guilty on count one of possessing an illegal switch blade.
The main argument of the deputy district attorney (who declined to have her name exposed) was that the defendant’s knife was a switch blade knife because it had a spring mechanism that allowed the knife to forcefully open up with the touch of a button. On the contrary, Deputy Public Defender Ms. Aguero’s main argument, in contrast, was that the knife Mr. Luna possessed was, in fact, a pocket knife and that the way to open it was by applying pressure on the knife itself.
The first and only witness to take the stand on Monday afternoon was the prosecution’s witness, Patrol Deputy Keister of the Yolo County Sheriff’s Department.
The DDA began the questioning by asking Officer Keister if he had obtained consent by the defendant to be searched. Officer Keister answered yes by stating he had asked Mr. Luna, who was at the Yolo County Jail parking lot, if he could search him.
The DDA then went on to ask what the defendant had told him before he searched him. Officer Keister replied that Mr. Luna had told him that he was carrying a pocket knife. Thus, as Officer Keister searched him he found a knife in the front pocket of Mr. Luna.
The DDA then asked Officer Keister what he thought of the knife that Mr. Luna possessed. Officer Keister replied that he immediately saw that it was a switch blade knife.
Thereafter, the DDA asked Office Keister if he could measure the knife to see if it was longer than 2 inches, which is the legal length of a switch blade. With the ruler provided by the prosecution, Officer Keister measured the knife to be 3.5 inches.
There was no cross-examination provided by the defense since Ms. Aguero believed the search conducted by Officer Keister was legal.
The witness was consequently excused and both counsels then turned to give their closing statements. The DDA began by stating that the case was simple since the case was about the community’s and Officer Keister’s safety.
The DDA claimed that the defendant intentionally knew he had a knife, since he admitted to Officer Keister that he had one. She also added that the defendant carried the knife on his person, so there was no doubt that he had the knife.
Ms. Aguero went over the definition of possessing an illegal switch blade and argued that the pocket knife Mr. Luna possessed was not a switch blade, since you have to apply pressure to the blade of the knife itself in order to open it up. She also added that there is no mechanical button that automatically opens the knife.
In addition, she stated there was no evidence that her client knew that the pocket knife he carried was an illegal switch blade knife.
The DDA’s rebuttal argument consisted of explaining how dangerous the blade was since it opens up so quickly due to the spring that it has inside of it. Additionally, she stated that if the “pocket knife” did not have a spring then it would open slowly.
Lastly, the DDA stated that the defendant did not need to know that the blade was illegal. Logically he had to know that he had a knife that had characteristics of a switch blade.
UPDATE: Mr. Luna was granted a year of probation with a fine of $867 instead of getting prison time.
Editor’s UPDATE: The Vanguard Court Watch subsequently identified the Deputy DA as Melissa Opper using the court computer, thus illustrating the absurdity of her refusal to provide her name. She was admitted to the State Bar on December 3, 2012. She went to Columbia University for undergraduate school and Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, according to her publicly available record on the California Bar Association website. Her bar number: 285408.
“There was no cross-examination provided by the defense since Ms. Aguero believed the search conducted by Officer Keister was legal.”
How do you know this was the reason that there was no questioning of the only witness? Why was the stop and search legal?
“…the deputy district attorney (who declined to have her name exposed)….”
What else did you ask the DDA? Did she provide any responses to any questions? Is it possible she actually was just refusing to respond to any questioning from the Vanguard? That seems much more likely than she really “declined to have her name exposed.” Of course, anyone else in the court also could have provided the DDA’s name upon request.
This seems like an open and shut case if there were no questions about the search. Once the defense attorney read the “definition of possessing an illegal switch blade,” it seems that it would be difficult to argue “that the pocket knife Mr. Luna possessed was not a switch blade.” It must be obvious when someone looks for such a knife to buy that there could be a problem since they’re illegal to manufacture and sell.
It’s a shame that there’s such an unreasonable, misdirected bias against swithblades since the time they were revealed to be so cool (and dangerous) in “Rebel without a Cause.” Too bad that the knife makers’ lobby was so weak and the NRA gunmakers’ lobby was so strong–a lot more people would be alive today.
i think it’s odd that a deputy da would attempt to hide her name? what is she trying to hide and why did she think she would get away with it?
just saying: is that sarcasm on the knife issue?
You mean on the gun issue?
I suspect that it could obvious what Ms. Opper was trying to do when we see the context of the discussion between her and Anthony. It’s obvious that she didn’t think she’d be able to keep from having “her name exposed” since she was operating in an open courtroom.
I was so impressed and misguided by James Dean’s reluctant switchblade prowess that I lived for years with idea of knives’ deadliness until Raiders of the Lost Ark clarified the issue with a single shot.
Don’t ask for context of the conversation or specifics about the request, the tagline is juicer without it.
[quote]Pocket Knife or Switch Blade Knife[/quote]Is that posed as question even after the verdict?
Mr. Obvious:
First, I apologize but Anthony finished with us last week, so he won’t be able to answer questions unfortunately.
Second, on the title, he gave it that title and it seemed appropriate as that was the point in question during the trial. There is no question mark in the title, but it seemed appropriate.
Agree with David that this (pocketknife or switchblade?) apparently what what was offered to the jury as a defense. The headline seems appropriate to how it plated out.
Since there’s no one to dispute my speculation, I’ll guess that the DDA wasn’t answering any questions from the Vanguard reporter. So, the emphasis on a refusal to give her name might have been misleading. It’s not right that the DA’s office isn’t responsive to Vanguard inquiries, but that’s a whole different issue than supposedly going incognito at a trial (which makes no sense at all).
Maybe David and the DA can shake hands at the annual awards banquet and publicly agree to start communicating openly and productively.
“I’ll guess that the DDA wasn’t answering any questions from the Vanguard reporter. “
Sorry, meant to address that – you are correct. At this point, I don’t have much optimism on the situation changing, which I think is unfortunate.