“Norteño gangs” were the first words that Deputy DA Garrett Hamilton uttered in the opening statement for the prosecution – that was no accident, as Defense Attorney Hayes Gable noted in his closing arguments.
Among the most problematic elements of the current criminal justice system are liberties prosecutors and gang experts get in promoting gang charges. As Mr. Gable would note in his brilliant closing statement that thoroughly dismantled the gang charges, the gang expert’s testimony was based on smoke and mirrors – rumor and innuendo, unnamed sources and unprovable allegations backed by the expert’s “training and experience.”
To the surprise of no one, the Yolo County jury charged with deciding the guilt phase of the Marco Topete case came back in less than a day and convicted Mr. Topete on all charges, special circumstances and enhancements.
Those convictions include first degree murder for the 2008 shooting death of Sheriff’s Deputy Tony Diaz, with four special circumstances – murdering a peace officer, murder in order to avoid arrest, lying in wait and a gang special circumstance. He also faced an enhancement for the use of the gun to commit murder.
Analysis of Closing Arguments Part One: Prosecution and Defense’s Discrediting the Gang Charges
After over three years of waiting, and months of trial, the case of Marco Topete accused of the shooting death of Yolo County Sheriff’s Deputy, Tony Diaz, finally went to the jury. And while the odds may be clearly stacked against the defendant in this case, his defense made a surprisingly strong case for second degree murder.
Mr. Topete faces, among his seven charges, murder in the first degree with four special circumstances – murdering a peace officer, murder in order to avoid arrest, lying in wait and a gang special circumstance. He also faces an enhancement for the use of the gun to commit murder.
The Topete trial’s guilt phase will likely end today as both the prosecution and defense are expected to give their closing statements.
Last week brought an interesting twist, as Marco Topete unexpectedly pondered whether or not to testify on his own behalf. His defense attorneys were clearly caught off guard by the possibility of their client testifying.
There is just something not right about an election involving judicial candidates. Part of the problem is that judges by their nature should not exercise their opinions, they should be listeners and they should take steps to make sure that the law is being followed and that all sides are given a fair chance to present their perspective.
I bring this up, because what is emerging in Yolo County is a full-on pitched battle between the bench and the prosecutor’s office.
The Field Poll conducted earlier this month and released yesterday shows consistent and substantial public support in California for keeping the death penalty as a form of punishment for capital crimes.
68 percent of those polled support the death penalty, which just 27 percent favor doing away with.
The case of Troy Davis and his execution amid serious doubts about his actual guilt focused the nation on the death penalty last week, but the truth is the focus has been on the death penalty for a lot longer than that.
A month ago, opponents of the death penalty launched an effort in California to commute all death sentences to life without parole, to put more resources into law enforcement efforts, and to work to help the families of murder victims.
The October 1 date is rapidly approaching. That is the date when AB 109 takes effect, the date that whole classes of low-level offenders get sent to local counties, where there is not the capacity to handle them, and no one knows exactly what that means.
At the local level, we have heard much in the way of conjecture, rumors, and idle talk. It is a wholesale change in strategy. What we had hoped is that the transfer of prisoners who commit drug and other non-violent crimes would mean that local District Attorneys would be less likely to prosecute such cases, that we would turn away from the punishment model of low-level criminals and toward rehabilitation.
We Cannot Answer that Question Now – But Enough Doubts Exist That We Should Never Have Executed Him –
The execution of Troy Davis should haunt any reasonable person that is concerned about the possibility of executing an innocent person. This is not a case of Cameron Todd Willingham, where we know for a fact that the forensic evidence used at the time of his execution to determine that it was an arson fire was flawed.
But an evaluation of the evidence in the Troy Davis case is enough to make a reasonable person concerned that we sent an innocent man to his death.
Billy Wolfington and Shannon Silva were in court on Thursday before Judge Janet Gaard, as their attorneys asked for a four to six week continuance due to what they said was new discovery.
The suspects stand accused of stabbing a 29-year-old black male at the Town House Motel, located in the 900 block of West Capitol Ave. The victim was transported to the hospital and later died from his injuries.
Deputy District Attorney Clinton Parish surprised many on Wednesday when he suddenly announced he would challenge the newest judge, Judge Daniel Maguire, appointed just last year by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
In a press release, Mr. Parish said he has criminal experience that Judge Maguire lacks. Furthermore, the prosecutor criticized, in both the Sacramento Bee and Daily Democrat, the political nature of Judge Maguire’s appointment.
Suit Alleges DA Reisig Prosecuted In Order to Cover Up Law Enforcement Wrongdoing
In the early afternoon of Tuesday, September 8, 2009, Thomas Dias received a call advising him that his niece, with whom he worked at a family-owned flooring company, had run out of gas and was on the shoulder of I-80 eastbound, east of Reed Avenue in West Sacramento.
He went to assist her with a can of gasoline. Mr. Dias put in enough gas to allow her truck to get off the freeway and then followed her to a gas station for the purposes of making sure she was all right, as well as to transfer some work materials to her truck..
One of the big questions coming into this trial was how would the defense defend a case in which there was virtually no doubt that the defendant shot and killed Deputy Tony Diaz.
For the last two weeks, the prosecution had hinted that the defense would be shifting strategy to that of some sort of diminished mental capacity. On Monday, the defense finally delivered their opening statement, and we learned for the first time what the defense would be in this case.
One of the broadest and most sweeping reforms in years is about to take place on October 1, when counties will directly assume responsibility for so-called low-level criminal offenders – those who have been convicted of non-violent, non-serious and non-sex crimes.
But that is just the start, it is not simply a prison release plan as some have both implied and feared. Instead, it is a fundamental shift in the way that low-level criminal offenders are handled, from incarceration, to monitoring, to a shift in parole violations in the county and finally to reentry in terms of job training, anger management and substance abuse programs, all in efforts to reduce the California recidivism rate that is tops in the nation at 70 percent.
Sometimes the old adage “be careful what you ask for – you might get it” is spot-on. Last week, the prosecution, citing a change in defense strategy, worked hard to convince Judge Richardson to show the jury Marco Topete’s post-arrest interview, which the prosecution saw as a confession.
The defense fought equally hard to keep it out, citing their view that the interrogators ignored Mr. Topete’s right to remain silent.
Judge Stephen Mock allowed gang charges to stand for Jose Duran, despite the prosecutor’s violation of juvenile confidentiality provisions and the testimony of a detective about a juvenile case that should not have been permitted.
During an August PC 995 hearing to dismiss charges, Public Defender Charles Butler accused Deputy District Attorney Ryan Couzens of intentionally airing confidential juvenile records in a callous disregard for the rights of his client.
NY Times Editorial Slams GOP and Governor Perry on the Death Penalty –
Last week the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the death sentence of an Idaho man convicted of killing a coworker in 1981 at a gas station near Boise, Idaho. The victim was repeatedly shot and stabbed.
Lacey Mark Sivak, for whom the court found no doubt that he was guilty of the crime, will either be re-sentenced to prison or given a new penalty trial.
In arguing for the admissibility of Deputy Tony Diaz’ photo when he was alive, the people, led by Deputy DA Garrett Hamilton and DA Jeff Reisig, characterized this case as “not a close case” in their view. The defense took exception to that.
The implication was that, for the people, they did not view this as a difficult case to establish that Marco Topete shot and killed Deputy Tony Diaz. Nothing has really happened in the first three weeks of trial to change anyone’s view of that.
Earlier this week, the prosecution in the Topete trial attempted to introduce DNA evidence that they had collected after the trial had begun, destroyed and failed to discover to the defense. Judge Richardson, questioning the fairness of the prosecutor, ultimately excluded the evidence from court – evidence that seemed ambiguous at best.
The DA seems to be scrambling a bit this week from what it called a change in strategy by the defense, including the introduction of mental health witnesses. In a motion, they claim to be “prejudiced and surprised to learn” on August 4, 2011, after the trial had begun, “that the Defense had changed its previous representations regarding guilt phase witnesses.”
Two weeks ago we ran the story on Texas Governor Rick Perry’s cover up, that he may have executed an innocent man when he refused even to grant a stay of execution for Cameron Todd Willingham.
Our chief concern was not just that he may have executed an innocent person, but that for political purposes he may have tampered with the membership of the Texas Forensic Science Commission to avoid scrutiny and a judgment.