After nearly three weeks of trial, the federal civil rights trial on the shooting death of Luis Gutierrez finally closed this week. In the coming days, the Vanguard will analyze critical portions of the testimony and what we learned. We begin with the closing statements, which represent how the attorneys on both sides view the evidence as it came out in the case.
Unlike in a criminal trial, the burden of proof is at the level of preponderance of the evidence – that means that the plaintiffs in this case, the family of Mr. Gutierrez, only need a 51% belief that police acted unlawfully.
Did Chief Probation Officer Rist Resign Due to This Scandal? – In response to a citizen’s complaint, the Yolo County Grand Jury investigated the Yolo County Probation Department.
The Probation Department had a contract for risk assessment software and training to use in determining the risk of re-offense by clients. The contract is with Assessments.com (ADC). The Grand Jury found that a high-level YCPD manager was the sole contract administrator for the contract and had a personal relationship with the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of ADC.
Jimmy Ducote is probably not the most sympathetic of all figures. He has sat in custody for nearly three years for an arrest that occurred on December 23, 2009. A good deal of that is his own doing, as in September he was unsuccessful for the third time in attempting to dismiss his legal counsel, Public Defender Tracie Olson.
Mr. Ducote was facing 50 years to life in a case that remains highly questionable. He is charged with a Penal Code section 245(c), “Assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury and assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm upon a peace officer” and evading a peace officer in violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.2(a).
One of the critical questions regarding the propriety of the shooting of Luis Gutierrez on April 30, 2009 by three Yolo County Sheriff’s Deputies is the propriety of the consensual stop and encounter. One of the persistent questions we have had is whether Mr. Gutierrez – a non-native English speaker, reasonably knew that he was running from police officers.
To answer some of these questions, the plaintiffs brought in expert Stephen L. D’Arcy, currently a Criminal Justice Department faculty member at Sacramento State and a retired undersheriff of Placer County as recently as 2007.
Back in late August, UC Davis student Thomas Matzat pled no contest to having spray painted the word “parasite” at Starbucks on Orchard Road in Davis, in exchange for the Yolo County District Attorney dropping the remainder of four felonies and 15 misdemeanors stemming from a spree of protest-related graffiti, most of which involved the term “parasite.”
It was a probation-only deal with an agreement for no state prison and no jail time. As part of the terms and conditions, Mr. Matzat’s felony conviction would be reduced to a misdemeanor upon full payment of restitution. The misdemeanor conviction would then be expunged from his record.
Governor Jerry Brown has been a bit different his second go-around as governor than he was his first time. Some of that is to be expected in the difference between a man in his 70s versus one in his 30s. But nowhere more stunning is the difference than on the death penalty.
Back in March, Jerry Brown was interviewed by the San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board and asked if he had “considered naming a panel to look at death row and recommend any cases deserving of a commutation.”
Juan Meléndez-Colón Speaks of Faith and Redemption and the Corrupt Justice System He Fought Against for 17 Years – It was hard to imagine that on May 2, 1984 when Juan Melendez was first arrested, not only was he wrongly accused of murder and eventually sentenced to be executed by the state of Florida, but he could neither speak or read English, other than a few swear words.
It took him 17 years, 8 months, and one day to be, not only exonerated, but to find his voice. Despite his heavy accent, Mr. Meléndez gave a powerful and spellbinding speech for an hour on Sunday afternoon, depicting how he survived and many others, through execution or suicide or neglect, did not.
Last week, the ACLU released its one year report on California’s historic prison realignment plan. They argue, “The state has failed to adopt the kinds of reforms necessary to ensure its success and a lasting reduction both in the number of people behind bars and recidivism rates.”
“New polling data released by the ACLU today shows overwhelming public support for evidenced-based, smart-on-crime reforms like alternatives to incarceration for low-level, non-violent offenders and defendants charged with low-level crimes while they await trial,” the ACLU said in a press release. “But fearful of being labeled ‘soft on crime’ by the state’s law enforcement lobby that maintains a knee-jerk, over-incarceration view and is aggressively fighting any change to the failed public safety status quo, such reforms have so far failed to garner the support of state legislators.”
The three strikes law was a reaction to heinous crimes such as Richard Allen Davis’ murder of young Polly Klaas back in the early 1990s. Mr. Davis was a lifetime offender who had just been released.
Three strikes laws were designed to keep those dangerous criminals locked away. But the reality is that most of the people actually caught in this net are not the Richard Allen Davis’ of the world.
The headline reads: “Anaheim Mayor Wants Citizen Oversight of Police.” This is the Orange County Register writing, “Mayor Tom Tait has asked the city’s top administrator to move forward with plans to establish a citizens’ committee to review police actions and misconduct allegations. Community leaders called for such a committee over the summer after police shootings killed two Latino men and sparked weeks of unrest.”
“The time has come,” Mayor Tait said. “It would be good for the city to have a trusted group of citizens look into any allegations of misconduct.”
If attorneys for the family of Luis Gutiérrez, shot and killed in Woodland on April 30, 2009, by three Yolo County Sheriff’s Deputies, are to make their case, three independent witnesses for the plaintiffs, who witnessed various stages of the pursuit and eventual shooting, will be critical.
On Thursday, two of those critical witnesses, along with the first of the three deputies, would testify.
Long-Awaited Civil Rights Trial Opened Wednesday, Nearly Three and a Half Years After Deadly Shooting on Gum Ave in Woodland –
Nearly three and a half years after the April 30, 2009 tragedy that saw Luis Gutierrez, a 26-year-old farm worker, shot and killed by three plain-clothed sheriff’s deputies working with the Yolo County Gang Task Force, the civil rights trial opened on Wednesday.
The start of the trial was delayed after attorneys for the defense alerted the judge to the planned protest and demonstration outside of the Federal Court Building. Defense attorney Bruce Kilday told the court that this was a highly unusual situation and he, along with attorneys for the plaintiff, were concerned about the potential for prejudicial impacts on the jury.
The news story that the Vanguard ran on Tuesday regarding the knife-slashing attack on Angelique Topete raised a number of questions. Unfortunately, the public remains ill-served by a District Attorney’s office that refuses to communicate with a media entity because that media entity has leveled criticism toward them.
In fact, that very issue is at the core of the questions regarding what would have appeared to have been a relatively routine case in which an individual attacked and slashed the face of Ms. Topete in late July.
In late July, the Woodland Daily Democrat reported that Woodland police had arrested a husband and wife who were suspected of slashing the face of Angelique Topete. Ms. Topete is the wife of Marco Topete, who was sentenced to be executed earlier this year for the 2008 killing of Sheriff’s Deputy Tony Diaz.
At the time, authorities argued that the attack had nothing to do with Mr. Topete or his crime.
For years the overwhelming majority of voters favored the death penalty, to the point where it became a bit of a political third rail that Democratic politicians would not touch. They would either proclaim their support for the death penalty, or, such was the case with Attorney Generals Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris, both pledged to uphold the law despite personal opposition to the death penalty.
But that has all changed in recent years. This morning’s release of the Field Poll shows Proposition 34, which would repeal the state’s existing death penalty law and make life in prison the ultimate penalty for a capital crime, is very narrowly trailing in the polls 45 percent opposed, 42 percent in favor, with a sizable 13 percent still undecided.
Last fall, when a Woodland police lieutenant took money from the Woodland Police Supervisors Association funds, the DA’s office was quick to charge him with embezzlement even though the defendant believed no crime occurred, as the money was re-paid through payroll deductions.
Similarly, in 2009, when a former Yolo County sheriff’s deputy sergeant got drunk and shot his dog, he was charged with illegal discharge of a firearm in a grossly negligent manner that could result in injury or death of a person, and wounding an animal. He quickly pled to the former charge.
Research Inconclusive and Claim Ignores Problems with Coercive Plea Bargaining and Wrongful Convictions –
Political campaigns, unfortunately, are times when exaggerated political claims trump the need for truthful and honest discussions. Such is the case in the recent column by Debra Saunders, dubbed the “Token Conservative,” in the San Francisco Chronicle.
After her account of Marc Klaas, she notes, “Thanks to a highly successful defense lobby and federal judges who have stalled the enforcement of California law, only 13 of the state’s death row inmates have been executed since 1992.”
This was the case that Yolo County DA Jeff Reisig and the District Attorney’s Office did not want – it put them into a no-win situation of having to anger a substantial portion of the public no matter how they proceeded. At first they tried to punt on the issue, but when the California Attorney General’s Office declined to investigate, the matter was dropped right back into their lap.
It was obvious from the start that the police – no matter what the other investigations found – would not be prosecuted criminally in this case. The question was how to do so in a politically expedient matter. They got their first break when the internal investigation was significantly divergent from the public Kroll Report.
Ten months and a day after the November 18, 2011, incident that brought world-wide scrutiny, the Yolo County District Attorney’s office did what everyone figured they would do and declined to file charges against Lt. John Pike and other officers who pepper sprayed seated protesters on the UC Davis Quad.
In a letter to UC Davis Police Chief Matt Carmichael, Assistant Chief Deputy DA Michael Cabral wrote, “Civil liability, tactics, and departmental policies and procedures were not considered. We address only whether or not there is sufficient evidence to support the filing of criminal charges in connection with the use of pepper spray by police personnel on November 18, 2011.”
DA’s Comment Ironic and Telling at the Same Time –
Every so often in a public records request for emails, you get a nugget that is priceless beyond the scope of your immediate inquiry. The Sacramento Bee reporters who uncovered and reported on UC Davis Campus Counsel communications with the Yolo County DA’s office probably had no idea what they had just uncovered and reported.
The Bee reported yesterday that Senior Campus Counsel Michael Sweeney sought input from Yolo County’s Chief Deputy DA Jonathan Raven.