By Dylan Ferguson

WOODLAND – A day before the holiday last week, Yolo County Superior Court Judge Peter Williams was not a happy camper. Not once, but twice.

Attorney Johnny L. Griffin waited on the court’s livestream for at least 30 minutes before Judge Williams asked him why he was there.

Griffin said he was appearing as a co-counsel with Attorney Martin Tejeda for co-defendants Dom and Jensen Falk. But there seemed to be confusion over whether their case was even on the calendar.

When the defendants were arrested back in August, they were ordered to court on Nov. 25, and attorney Griffin said that he called the court and the DA’s office in the morning and “We could not find it on the court’s calendar.”

Also confused, Judge Williams said “I confess. I have nothing on my calendar and madame clerk has nothing on her calendar either.”

“I guess we will log off and the DA can send us a summons with charges and filing changes,” said Griffin.

Not entirely satisfied, Judge Williams asked Deputy District Attorney Alvina Tzang if she knew anything regarding this case.

Tzang answered, “Yes, I do. We need more time to go through the evidence before filing criminal charges.”

But she did not acknowledge any possible reasons why the defendants and defense attorneys were not informed about being taken off of the calendar.

Later in court, Judge Williams was not a happy camper – again – when defense attorney Shelley Dwyer appeared on the behalf of the defendant who had been accused of using an unauthorized vehicle and receiving a stolen vehicle.

DDA Tzang requested a search for stolen property as a condition of release by own recognizance (OR)/no bail required.

At first, Judge Williams said “Yes. I think that is reasonable,” but then retracted his statement, adding, “We encounter this a lot… When the DA requests a search for stolen property, but when the stolen property is a car, what would they be searching?”

Tzang timidly responded with “I don’t know… Like stolen keys?”

Not convinced by the DDA’s response, Judge Williams said, “I don’t think so. No.” And released the defendant without that condition for OR.

Dylan Ferguson is a second-year at Westmont College, majoring in kinesiology with a minor in Spanish. She is from Las Vegas, Nevada.

To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9

Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:

The post Yolo Judge Not Happy Camper – Twice – After Court Mix-ups appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

Hey all –

Today is #GivingTuesday.  That means that today, your tax deductible donations will be doubled.  That’s right – doubled.

• Expanded court watch to include 50 to 70 interns from across the state covering at least four different counties
• Created the Vanguard at UC Davis publication run by UC Davis students, an all-female editorial board and 30 writers
• 5 to 7 local articles each day, plus up to 15 to 17 total articles including Court Watch
• Exclusive coverage of CDCR-COVID with an impressive investigative piece about to drop today
• National Criminal Justice podcast talking to some of the top people in the criminal justice reform movement including DA Chesa Boudin, Larry Krasner, and Public Defenders Tracie Olson (Yolo) and Mano Raju (SF)

The post We have raised $3865 So Far – #GIVING TUESDAY – DONATE TO THE VANGUARD – DONATIONS WILL BE DOUBLED appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Koda Slingluff

WOODLAND – A felony arraignment domestic violence charge became somewhat convoluted here, with conflicting assessments of risk and even interruptions of the judge by legal counsel in the Yolo County Superior Court department.

Expressing a sentiment likely shared by many in the world right now, Judge Peter Williams quipped, “When you’re on Zoom it’s really difficult when you don’t let the court finish and then we have to repeat everything.”

Defendant Rodney Edmonson pleaded not guilty, requesting to be released on his own recognizance. Deputy Public Defender Ron Johnson added that “if he does not get out by Wednesday he’s likely to lose his job,” which would make it challenging for him to pay child support.

The defense counsel, anticipating a protective order, proposed applying a GPS device to Edmonson for added security.

Although the probation report assessed Edmonson as low risk, an Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment test (ODARA) test showed him as a high risk for reoffending domestic violence. ODARA is a scoring system developed used for assessing the risk of reoffending in domestic violence scenarios.

In addition to these conflicting assessments, the alleged victim just four days prior had asked that the defendant be held in custody due to fear for herself and her daughter. Judge Williams called the report a “mixed bag” before addressing the victim’s concerns.

“On these domestic violence cases, almost always the primary concern of the court is the safety of the victim,” Judge Williams said.

“And here the victim is asking for him to be held in custody because she’s in fear, and that is fairly unique in these cases in the sense that a lot of the time the victim walks back what they told the police on the day of the arrest. So I understand where it says low-risk, I understand your [defense counsel’s] pitch for the GPS plus a no-contact protective order, but I have the victim stating concern for safety,” he added.

PD Johnson responded that he wanted to speak with the alleged victim, suggesting that she should be made aware of the GPS to help her feel secure.

However, the Deputy District Attorney Robin Johnson said a victim witness advocate had already explained the protective orders, and “the victim was still afraid of the defendant and did not express that she wanted him released.”

In the end, the judge started to say he may reduce the bail to help the defendant return to work.

But at that point, the prosecution interrupted Judge Williams to claim the defendant’s initial bail was higher than stated due to a prior misdemeanor in San Joaquin County.

Judge Williams responded, “Let me finish—Ms. Johnson…when you’re on Zoom it’s really difficult when you don’t let the court finish and then we have to repeat everything.”

Judge Williams was soon interrupted again, this time by defense counsel, stating that he did not believe the court could have a GPS as a condition of bail.

“We’re getting too many moving parts here,” Williams said with finality. “I am going to set bail at $25,000, there won’t be any GPS issues, but I’m going to sign a criminal protection order.”

Though a bit convoluted, Judge Williams’ decision ensured a decision that would both allow the defendant to get back to work and ensure the safety of the alleged victim.

Koda is a junior at UC Berkeley, majoring in Philosophy and minoring in Rhetoric. He is from Ventura, CA.

To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9

Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:

The post Despite Interruptions and ‘Too Many Moving Parts,’ Judge Emphasizes Priority of Safety for Alleged Victim appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

by Cory Wiegel

Imagine that you’re a teacher or service provider for some of the neediest and most at-risk students in Yolo County. There’s a pandemic going on and no one knows when the needs of your students and their families will be fully addressed. You’re overworked, your program is underfunded, and you can’t find the support you need in a reasonable amount of time. You go to sleep at night worrying about your students’ mental health and their academic deterioration. You shop on the weekends for foods and materials to help your students succeed and pay for it out of your own pocket. You spend your lunch breaks searching the internet for do it yourself repairs in your classroom. You beg, borrow, and steal from other professionals to meet ends meet. You solicit families and the community for essential supplies like Kleenex, sanitizing wipes, paper, and pencils. You cry on your spouse’s shoulder, wondering if you can do this heart-breaking job for another year.

Ask yourself… What do you want for Christmas?

What if I told you it was just to have a student’s puke on the carpet in the corner of your classroom, which has been drying for months on end, to finally be cleaned up? What if I told you it was to just finally have the therapeutic equipment you need to reduce a student’s sensory dysregulation delivered to you after sitting in maintenance storage for months? How about if it was just to have your air conditioner fixed or the holes in your wall covered? Maybe to get a new chair for your desk because the twenty-year-old one you’ve been sitting in keeps breaking on you? What if it was to have a proper restroom for your medically fragile student to use instead of the bucket in a closet that was provided to you? Can you imagine just wanting to have the carpets vacuumed once in a while?

These simple wishes and more go unfilled every year for teachers throughout Yolo County. Our superintendents and their deputies, our directors, and our principals, and the administrative support teams are instrumental in ensuring that these wishes – which in reality should be essential tasks – are granted. We submit requests and they seemingly disappear or simply aren’t addressed for months on end, sometimes years. We follow-up multiple times and are told to be patient. We talk to our supervisors and they tell us it’s our responsibility to hold them accountable despite repeated inquiries. We talk to their supervisors and they tell us these problems don’t exist, and that everyone’s doing a fantastic job. We sit in board meetings where superintendents and their deputies suggest students are doing well, all of the teachers’ needs are being met, and families are being cared for during the biggest crisis we’ve seen in decades. We involve the union, we prove that they are not telling us the truth and they promise to do better, and then to add insult to injury they grant an “employee of the month” award to the very people we challenged to do better for our students. They celebrate the people who fail us. They embrace toxic positivity while we agonize over the reality of teaching in Yolo County.

One thing has become clear to many teachers throughout this county. We can no longer expect our current elected officials and educational leaders to collaborate with us in a respectful and meaningful manner. We can no longer expect them to just tell the truth, which should be the bare minimum public service requirement. In this public health crisis, they are more concerned about their reputations, their images, and their long-term career prospects than serving us. Teachers can, however, ask that the public take action. Ask questions. Make public information requests. Demand answers and accountability. Challenge superintendents and board members for their jobs. Our students and families, and the people who care for them with all of their heart and grit, need the public to step in and make their expectations clear. Help give it to them.

Maybe this is how all of our wishes are granted this year.

Cory Wiegel is a Special Education teacher with the Yolo County Office of Education and Organizing Chair and Shop Steward, Yolo Education Association

Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:

The post Guest Commentary: All Teachers Want for Christmas appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By David M. Greenwald

I caught a story on KCRA where a salon owner was interviewed about the likelihood that her salon will have to shut down again.

“I feel defeated. I feel lost. I feel scared,” the owner said. “Not only do I have myself and my family to think about, but I have all of the people that work for me, work in my salon, to consider.”

While I sympathize with small business owners, from Wednesday to Friday in the US, nearly 9000 people died of COVID.  I can imagine that their loved ones felt lost, scared and ultimately defeated.

Even more so because we know how to slow the spread of this disease, and if people would simply take the reasonable precautions of wearing a mask, social distancing, and avoiding social interaction we could contain the spread of this disease until we get the vaccine—which is just around the corner.

Instead, we are headed for something potentially catastrophic.  Deaths are now at a record high level.  And while people can argue that the actual death rate is relatively low, that analysis misses the law of high numbers.  When you are approaching 15 million cases, even a low death rate will produce a lot of deaths.  People’s loved ones, family members, people that we cannot bring back.

But while many have focused on death—and understandably so—there is little we know about the long term health implications of this.

And now the looming crisis is the lack of ICU space.  That is what the current round of stay-at-home orders is based on.  Governor Newsom’s order takes effect today.  There is controversy here in that they are doing it by region, rather than county.  And so some counties relatively lightly hit will have to lock down even though they have excess capacity at the ICUs.

Regional stay-at-home orders “will require Californians to stay at home as much as possible, close operations for certain sectors and require 100 percent masking and physical distancing in all others.

“Residents are required to stay at home as much as possible and minimize mixing to reduce unnecessary exposure, while still being able to do important things like go to the doctor, buy groceries, pick up take out, go on a hike, or worship outdoors. K-12 schools that are already open can remain open and retailers can operate indoors at no more than 20 percent capacity to reduce exposure risk.”

Greater Sacramento: Alpine, Amador, Butte, Colusa, El Dorado, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, Sierra, Sutter, Yolo, Yuba.

Regions will remain in the Regional Stay at Home Order status for at least three weeks once triggered.

Counties are eligible to come off the Regional Stay at Home Order after three weeks if their hospital ICU capacity projected four weeks out reaches 15 percent.

“We are at a tipping point in our fight against the virus and we need to take decisive action now to prevent California’s hospital system from being overwhelmed in the coming weeks,” said Governor Newsom.

He said, “We know what a struggle this pandemic has been for so many California families, but our actions have saved countless lives,” said Dr. Mark Ghaly, California Health and Human Services Secretary. “This targeted action will preserve vital ICU beds for people who need them — whether they’re COVID-19 patients or someone who has suffered a heart attack or a stroke.”

As of Thursday here was the ICU capacity in the five regions:

• Northern California 18.6%
• Bay Area 25.3%
• Greater Sacramento 22.2%
• San Joaquin Valley 19.7%
• Southern California 20.6%

One report calculated that Greater Sacramento would hit 15 percent within the week.  The danger of low ICU capacity is that there would be a lack of resources to treat people in need of potentially life-saving medical attention.  That presents a danger not just to people with severe cases of COVID but also other potentially serious health ailments.

In the end this has been a failure of our public health system—but particularly at the top—to contain the virus.  Defenders of the president have pointed to two policies—one, his shutdown of the borders and banning travel from China in late January and second, the prioritization of research to push forward a vaccine in record time.

But research that emerged this week, in a study published on Monday, found evidence that COVID was in the US as early as mid-December of 2019.

The study, published on Monday, examined blood donations to the Red Cross in nine states and found evidence of the virus in 106 of 7,389 collected between December 13, 2019, and January 17, 2020.

That means COVID was already in the US at this point and shutting down the border had little effect.

You can debate of course over the role the administration may or may not have played in the development of the vaccine, but the fact remains that the president has minimized in public statements the severity of this crisis, he shirked the use of masks—and even ridiculed them, and hosted large events where people were not wearing masks.

Moreover, in the time since the election, he has done next to nothing about COVID even as he continues to throw out wild allegations of election fraud.

This week, for the first time, the CDC recommended the “universal use of face masks” as a key step to fighting the coronavirus pandemic, warning the U.S. has “entered a phase of high-level transmission.”

They recommend that state and local levels “issue policies or directives mandating universal use of face masks in indoor (nonhousehold) settings” as one strategy to combat the virus.

On Thursday, Senator Mitt Romney, a critic of the president called the president’s rhetoric on the COVID a “great human tragedy.

“Well, this hasn’t been the focus of his rhetoric, apparently, and I think it’s a great human tragedy, without question,” Senator Romney said.

The senator added that the “extraordinary loss of life is heartbreaking—and in some respects unnecessary.”

And so here we go again, headed back into another lockdown.  One segment of society is complaining about the loss of economic livelihood while another laments the unnecessary continued loss of human life.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:

The post My View: Headed for Another Lockdown appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Jose Medina

WOODLAND – Evidence in court is a mighty sword—but Judge Peter M. Williams told a defense attorney he didn’t have it, and ruled against his motion.

Last week defendant Jeffrey Christian Nelson—charged with battery that caused serious bodily injury and assault with a deadly weapon—was present in Yolo County Superior Court for a motion to dismiss one of the two counts.

Nelson’s defense attorney argued his battery with serious bodily injury charges should be dismissed because he was only acting out of self-defense.

Nelson is accused of trying to gain entrance to the alleged victim’s home. After the victim asked Nelson to leave, Nelson then allegedly broke a window and stood outside in a boxing stance while brandishing a knife, provoking the victim even further. The victim said he lunged at Nelson in an effort to protect his family, and was stabbed by Nelson.

The victim’s sister arrived at the scene and proceeded to strike Nelson with a baseball bat after she noticed the victim was covered in blood.

Deputy Public Defender Joseph Gocke insisted that the defendant acted in self-defense, based on surveillance footage that the prosecution’s witness viewed of the incident. Gocke argued that Nelson used the knife only when the victim lunged towards him, who according to Gocke is physically bigger than Nelson.

Gocke also argued that the use of a bat against Nelson justifies Nelson’s use of his knife as an act of self-defense.

Deputy District Attorney Stephanie Novelli strongly disagreed with Gocke’s arguments, asking the court to look at the totality of the incident and stated that “we have a series of events that I believe show that Nelson was not acting in self-defense and that he provoked this attack and that he escalated unjustifiably.”

Judge Williams concurred with Novelli’s statement by saying “the defendant appears to have tried to gain entry into the house, then broke a window, then waited outside which is almost an implicit invitation for conflict and falls under a mutual combat scenario.”

Judge Williams also noted that Gocke was grasping at straws and told him “you are not putting on your own direct evidence which is the most effective way of making your own affirmative defense.”

He continued by reminding Gocke that “self-defense affirmative defenses are fact specific arguments and the facts set forth by the preliminary transcripts show that this is more akin to mutual combat.”

The court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss battery charges.

Jose graduated from UC Davis with a BA in Political Science and has interned for the California State Legislature. He is from Rocklin, CA.

To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9

Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:

The post Self Defense Motion Fairs – Judge ‘Schools’ Defense Attorney on Worth of Evidence appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

Compiled by Eric Trochez   

The Davis Vanguard is an online news forum that provides coverage of criminal justice reform and courts throughout California and the nation. In 2006, the Davis Vanguard began to cover Davis and Yolo County groundbreaking, local news concerning government and policy issues affecting the city, schools, and county. In the past few years, the online news source has been able to expand to Sacramento and the surrounding regions.

The team encompasses roughly 40 to 50 interns who monitor and report on live court proceedings in more than six different counties throughout California, from the State Capitol of Sacramento to the Greater San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley and Southern California.

The following is a synopsis of just a few of the stories covered this week, Nov. 30 through Dec. 4, 2020.

Alameda County Superior Court:

Reporter Manqi Lu: Most of the proceedings were pre-trials and arraignments. A common theme was requests for pretrials to be delayed to a later date due to new discovery. One attorney stated that he had recently received DNA evidence that makes it strongly clear that his client is innocent. In another case, a pre-trial was set at a later date with a behavioral health court because the defendant was assessed and found to be suffering from a mental disorder. There was another case in which the attorney mistakenly attached a discovery to the wrong case and thus needed to continue dialogue with the DA. Two defendants also expressed interest in representing themselves. During his arraignment, one tried to correct the judge regarding the status of his driver’s license. The judge promptly advised him to refrain from speaking further, clarifying that the DA can use anything he says against him and that he should have the public defender’s office sort out the situation instead. After hearing his arraignment, another defendant decided to fill out a court form to see if he can qualify for self-representation for future court hearings.

*  *  *

Reporter Lauren Smith: Alameda 702 Public Defender Stephanie Clark declared doubt on defendant Juvonte Owens. As Judge Lilly Tran-Garde suspended criminal proceedings, the defendant kept interrupting her trying to talk but she would not let him. Eventually, she did because the defendant stated that he wanted a new attorney. There was some confusion as to whether the defendant can file a Marsden motion after the court has declared doubt and stopped criminal proceedings; however, they did allow it and scheduled a Marsden motion hearing on Monday.

Fresno County Superior Court:

Reporter Emma Phillips: Fresno County Superior Court heard many cases under Judge Francine Zepeda. However, the most notable may have been of defendant Nicholas Chapman. Represented by Attorney Roger Nuttall, Chapman explained to the court that he has been going to classes at Marjaree Mason Center after being charged for domestic violence. The judge then ordered the matter to continue on March 23  so Chapman could bring back a new report, but not before the victim in the case asked to make a statement to the court. When asked how she was, the victim answered “blessed”, and went on to explain how she was appearing on behalf of herself, her children, and Chapman. She has two little girls with Chapman and thinks that her family is ready for peaceful contact with Chapman. She claims that her home is a sober environment and her family frequents church.

Judge Zepeda agrees to modify Chapman’s order, allowing him one week of digital communication with his girls and the victim starting on Dec. 18 (after he has completed 10 classes). The judge highlighted that Chapman would be able to see his family, albeit digitally, over the holidays, but he would not receive a full peaceful contact order until his next court date in late March of next year.

*  *  *

Reporter Cailin Garcia: In Fresno Dept. 12, Judge Monica Diaz presided over many preliminary hearings, most of which involved defendants accepting plea deals from the District Attorney’s office. One defendant, Victor Guerrero, caused a lot of confusion in the courtroom after attempting to accept a plea deal from Deputy District Attorney Brian Exline. Guerrero is being represented by public defender Tonya Lopez in three cases, but he is also involved in several other cases, including a felony case, in which he is planning to represent himself. He appeared in court to accept a plea deal regarding the three cases involving Lopez and pleaded no contest to DUI charges. But near the end of the proceedings, Judge Diaz realized that Guerrero’s plea deal could cause serious issues for his other cases, especially his pending felony charge. “I don’t necessarily think it’s a good idea for you to enter any plea right now, being that the felony is outstanding. Because what could happen, sir, is that you remain in custody, serve your time, and then go right back in because you picked up another felony,” Judge Diaz explained to Guerrero. The plea deal with Exline was scrapped and the judge ordered the DDA to “track down” information regarding the pending felony charge.

*  *  *

Reporter Julian Navarro: Julian covered Fresno Dept 10 where he heard a total of 32 cases. There were no newsworthy stories due to most of the cases being continued for another date. However, a press release that talked about how the death penalty has failed in the U.S. was quite interesting. Some of the main points were systemic racism and constitutional concerns and how this differentiates the United States from others. In order to solve this problem they instead announced that their mission is to implement clemency to the group of individuals who are certainly scheduled for federal execution in the upcoming months. If clemency is done people who are waiting for execution will face life imprisonment with parole instead of being executed by the death penalty.

Reporter Roxanna Jarvis: In Fresno Superior Court Dept. 1, Judge Jeffrey Hamilton, Jr. made the decision to release defendant Sandra Contreras on her own recognizance despite the plea to keep her in custody from DDA BreAnne Ruelas. Contreras is accused of two counts of possession of a controlled substance, one count of battery, and one count of shoplifting.

Her attorney, PD Mackenzie Reid asked Hamilton Jr. to release Contreras since she is the sole provider for her 11-year-old daughter, who is currently with her grandfather. DDA Ruelas argued against releasing Contreras, stating that “there will be more FTAs (failure to appear)” as she has a history of FTAs.

Judge Hamilton Jr. weighed these options by noting her history of incidents and acknowledging that she lost her job at the time. “Yes, I lost my job then and had a very tough couple of years,” confirmed Contreras. If released, Contreras stated she would take care of her daughter and try to get her ‘life together.’ Hamilton Jr. made the decision to release Contreras on her own recognizance, saying that he hopes she appears. “It will make me look bad if you don’t,” he joked.

“I will give you my word, I’ll see you again,” Contreras said.

Merced Court:

Reporter Dalia Bautista Rodriguez: Dept. 6 of Merced covered a defendant who failed to appear in court. Defendant Ramos had vein surgery recently and Judge Slocum stated if she fails to appear in next court date, he will issue a warrant for her arrest. He found it irresponsible of her to decide to have vein surgery on the day of her court date as she had a 12-day notice.

Judge Slocum moved on to a DUI case of Luis Solis. The Judge just went over the case with the defendant and that he needed to reimburse the victim of any losses. The defendant also needs to complete a three-month DUI program and he needs to remain away from the first victim and maintain peaceful contact with the second victim. The Dept. ended with setting a trial setting for Dec. 18 on the George Eddings case.

Sacramento County Superior Court:

Reporters Ozge Terzioglu and Sally Kim: In Dept. 60 of Sacramento County Superior Court, defendant Mervin Dunford was supposed to be in court for a pretrial release hearing, but he was out on medical. The bailiff said it was a “special kind of medical,” by that he meant the defendant was in quarantine. The defendant has been in custody for 7 days, and the judge continued his case to Dec. 7, at 1:30 p.m. DDA Jenna Saavedra reminded the judge that this is a 3 strikes case, but with the new emergency bail plan, the bail should be set to $1 million. She asked for the bail to be set at $1 million so that the defendant doesn’t bail out on $50,000 between now and the next court date. The judge agreed and set his bail to $1 million.

In defendant Jovi Vang’s case, the judge reduced the bail from $50,000 to $10,000, issued a peaceful contact order, and set the matter to Dec. 7 at 8:30 a.m.

Defendant Nicolas Madrid was in court because on Nov. 18, 2020 he allegedly went to the victim’s workplace, who he was in a 4 month long dating relationship with, and drank too much. He went to the victim’s house and got angry and banged on the front door because the victim’s dad locked him out. Defendant Madrid broke the bedroom window because he wanted his stuff back, and he told the victim he was going to go after her and her kids while indicating that he had a knife on him. The victim said she believed the client was acting like this because he was drunk, and he has no prior domestic violence cases. The judge issued a no contact order, he was banned from possessing a firearm and ammunition. Madrid pleaded no contest in exchange for one year of probation and 90 days in the county jail.

In defendant Semaj Meyers’ case, he pleaded not guilty to 8 counts alleged against him. From March 25, 2020, the charges against him are as follows: PC 273.5, felony corporal injury that left trauma to a victim who he had a dating relationship with and PC 236 felony violation of victim’s personal liberty with violence, menace, fraud, or deceit. On March 5, 2020, defendant Meyers allegedly violated PC 166 (a) (4) willfully disobeying a process admitted by a judge. On May 14, 2020, the defendant allegedly violated PC 273.5 again and PC 422 making criminal threats. On June 2, 2020 the defendant allegedly had a felony violation of PC 1085.1, vehicle theft. On June 10, 2020, Meyers also allegedly violated PC 273.5 for the third time, spousal abuse, and a misdemeanor violation of PC 148 (a) (1) resisting peace officers. With his prior conviction of burglary from June 3, 2018, he meets the requirements for the 3 strikes law. On April 9, 2020, defendant Meyers allegedly violated PC 11351.5 possession of a cocaine base for sale, a felony violation of PC 11370.1 unlawful possession of cocaine and a loaded 9 mm handgun, and a felony violation of PC 2900 (a) (1) possessing and controlling the 9mm handgun with a prior felony conviction for burglary. Defendant Meyers’s jury trial is Jan. 19, 2021 at 1:35 p.m. in Dept. 60.

*  *  *

Reporter Evie Sun: On Nov. 30, in Sacramento County Superior Court Dept. 61, Judge Michael Sweet charged Defendant Lorenzo Fernandez with six counts. He was charged with the unlawful possession of psilocybin mushrooms, while armed personally with a 9 millimeter handgun. On Aug. 12, 2020, the Defendant committed a felony violation of Vehicle Code 2800.2 by unlawfully evading and pursuing a peace officer. The Defendant also committed a violation of Health and Safety Code 11378, as he possessed three pounds of psilocybin mushrooms with the intent to sell them. However, the judge decided to suspend the execution to place the Defendant on five years probation to include 364 days in the county jail, half of which will be in custody. In the interest of justice, the judge also decided to waive all other fines, fees and costs aside from a $300 restitution fee and a $40 court security surcharge fee per each of the six counts.

*  *  *

Reporter Tiffany Devlin: On Monday, Nov. 30, I monitored Sacramento County Superior Court Dept. 61 and Dept. 63. While Dept. 61 consisted of numerous continuances and dismissals in the interest of justice, defendant Vicki Briggs argued with her public defender, Tatiana Cottam, about her status as incompetent to stand trial.

“That’s crazy! I’m fully competent. This is out of control,” Briggs said in response to Cottam’s claims to the court about defendant’s allegedly incompetent status. Briggs also demanded to discuss this with Cottam further, as she believed this decision was incorrect.

In Dept. 63, defendant Seara Dix entered a plea to PC 148.9 (a) and HS 11364. When Judge Patrick Marlette asked if she agreed to waive her rights, she actually waved her hand to the camera.

In another case in this Dept., defendant Lionell Gillespie expressed concerns about the extent of confidentiality between himself and his private attorney, John Wenrick. Gillespie claimed that due to Wenrick’s high risk status for contracting COVID-19, he is not able to see Gillespie in person. Gillespie explained that everything is monitored, and was concerned that his case would not be confidential.

While Judge Marlette asked Wenrick if Zoom attorney visits were an option, Gillespie interjected and explained that Zoom visits are not allowed unless the attorney was a public defender. Wenrick agreed with Gillespie about how Zoom visits are not set up for private counsel.

He attempted to assure Gillespie that there was a system that is being worked on, however Gillespie grew impatient and exclaimed, “That they’re working on? So the system’s not up and running?”

Wenrick continued to explain that the system is on-and-off due to technical issues, but it is “close to coming into play.”  Judge Marlette then stopped Gillespie from discussing his case further. The case will return on Jan. 25.

*  *  *

Reporter Manqi Lu: On the morning of Dec. 1, Judge Shelleyanne Chang in Sacramento Dept. 21 ruled in favor of the people’s motion to consolidate all three of defendant Adrian Kushner’s charges into one trial on the basis that the “characteristics and attributes” of each case are similar. Kushner was found in illegal possession of firearms and a substantial amount of drugs for each case. Both Judge Chang and Prosecutor Alexandra Sanders believe that examining the charges together will reveal a “pattern of continued behavior”. Judge Chang also ruled against Attorney Stephen Hirsch’s motion for zero bail for each of the charges. She believes that since previous bails have not had much success in changing Kushner’s behavior, a new bail would be unnecessary.

Later in the morning there was another defendant in Dept. 21 who was charged for illegal possession of ammunition. Called to testify against defendant Andrew Johnson, officer Michael Case from the Sacramento Police Dept. claimed that when he and his partner detained Johnson, they found keys on his persons that belonged to an apartment which contained his mail and a magazine for rifles. When questioned if he had asked Johnson whether he lived at the apartment, the officer replied no. He later identified Johnson as an East Side Bloods gang member, whom he had validated back in 2017.

*  *  *

Reporter Julian Navarro: Julian covered Sacramento Dept. 17 where a total of three preliminary hearings were held. The first being People v. Frank Swanson IV which was a homicide case. In this case, due to an argument, the defendant had an altercation with his grandfather it was alleged that he hit him with a bat. This led to the murder of his grandfather as the defendant called dispatch to render aid for him. The defendant seems agitated and scared when talking to dispatch. He advised them that he lost it and someone is now dead. Sacramento Sheriff Dept. were dispatched to the scene where they noticed the incident and at the same time located the defendant of the case. Prior to the incident, Swanson proceeded to act out and started yelling, throwing things, destroyed wires that controlled the video cameras of the home, stopped taking his prescribed medication, and even threw out all his medication in the trash. This occurred because he owed money from a social security check when he was incarcerated prior to this event. This played a role in why this incident occurred in the first place.

*  *  *

Reporter Hannah Skepner: In Sacramento County, Dept. 9, there were 25 cases heard, 24  were continuances either due to the need for further investigation, or to work towards a resolution. In most cases in which the matters were presumed to be on their way to resolution, they were sent back to their home court in order for the plea to be withdrawn. The one case that was on the calendar that did not get continued was with co-defendants Edgar Romero and Elijah Smith represented by Tamara Soloman and Addie Young respectively. However, this case had a lot of information that was not allowed to be on the record, and so the livestream was stopped several times to accommodate. This made it very difficult to gather the details of the matter.

Sacramento County, Dept. 9, there were 19 cases heard, and of those cases were continued out for reasons including further investigation, possible COVID symptoms, or the potential to resolve the case. Two cases were dismissed for insufficient evidence. One case, involving defendant Victor Franksen, had some issues due to the fact that Franksen was in custody in Placer County with no anticipated release date. Defense council, Eliza Hook, has been unable to get in contact with his attorney in Placer County, so asked Judge Helen Gweon not to consider this as a failure to appear. However, the people, Kristin Hayes, requested a bench warrant be issued so that the defendant would be transferred over to Sacramento once his case was resolved in Placer county, and so was the order. The last case that I heard involved defendant Vanessa Chavez, and this was a case on for a plea. There was a negotiated disposition in this case that Chavez would plead no contest to count 1 of her matter in which on or around Jan. 4, 2020, she committed a violation of penal code 4573.6 in that she willfully and unlawfully had in her possession a glass methamphetamine smoking pipe while in the Sacramento County Main Jail. In line with the deal presented by the people, represented by Kristin Hayes, Chavez pled no contest to this charge and was placed on two years of formal probation, 120 days in jail, and the payment of the minimum fines and fees.

Reporter Alana Bleimann: This week (11/30-12/4) Alana attended Court Watch twice in Sacramento County Superior Court. She saw over 25 cases including many domestic violence cases. Notably, the case of defendant Jamal Pridgon. In Sacramento Dept. 60 public defender Joseph Cress was able to get Pridgon sentenced to three years of formal probation after attempting to strangle his girlfriend in front of their young child. The victim was additionally punched two to three times in the back of her head resulting in severe bruising. Deputy district attorney Lal requested a peaceful contact order be given in addition to the formal probation and battery treatment program classes.

Reporter Koda Slingluff: On Dec. 2, Judge Patrick Marlette presided over a large number of cases. Majority of cases had PD Crouse and DA Stephenson. For about the last hour, all of the  defendants were absent (mostly unexplained and not in contact with PD) resulting in many decisions to revoke probation and bench warrants for no bail. Some standout scenarios: someone allegedly beat up his neighbor, someone attempted to drive off with someone else’s Nissan, and two defendants were quarantining in jail. Judge Marlette was in a lighthearted mood and complemented PD and DA for moving through the day’s  heavy caseload so quickly.

*  *  *

Reporter Ozge Terzioglu: In Sacramento County Superior Court Dept. 60, three defendants on the court docket were in custody but not present in court because they were all in quarantine. All of their cases were continued either to the next week or the next day.

Defendant Paul Ballejos was in court today for an alleged violation of probation, which he was placed on for five  years starting on Feb. 1, 2018 for violating PC 273.5, corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant. He was sentenced to 60 days in the county jail. The first count he faced today was for failing to pay fees and fines, count 2 was for not paying the victim restitution, and count 3 was for failing to notify the probation officer about his change of address. Public defender Joseph Cress defended his client, and said that he was moving back and forth between two addresses, but he wasn’t fully moved out from the address he put on file with the probation office. Ballejos also didn’t know he had fines, but he has a job as a landscaper so he can start paying. The temporary judge noted that the defendant has been doing well on probation and adhering to his conditions, and he’s nearly finished with his AA classes. DDA Renishta Lal piped up and said if the defendant can bring in proof of one payment and proof of contact with probation, then his allegations can be dismissed. The judge agreed that “that’s a fine resolution for this case given the circumstances,” and then she clarified that she will not revoke probation. Defendant Ballejos’s next court date is on Dec. 9, 2020 at 8:30 a.m.

In defendant Timothy Garcia’s case, he accepted a plea deal where he pleaded guilty in exchange for doing a work project and adhering to a 10 year long no contact order. Defendant Garcia was found guilty as a result of this plea deal by the temporary judge for stalking and harassment. DDA Lal read the facts and told the court the victim was in fear for her life. The victim and Garcia dated for six months 10 years ago, and haven’t seen each other since. The victim started receiving threats over social media and via text messages from defendant Garcia. He admitted it was him and apologized to the victim. However, from Oct. 2018 to May 2019, his threats continued. He threatened to kill the victim and her family, going so far as to threaten to slit the victim’s throat. He even told her to kill herself. Defendant Garcia left a voicemail on the victim’s phone where she recognized his voice. DDA Lal reiterated that the victim fears the defendant’s threats and her safety because he’s been fixated on them for years. Since defendant Garcia lives with his dad, the judge assumed he wouldn’t be able to pay the fine, so she waived the $300 fine, but she said if he violates his probation, he will have to pay the fine.

*  *  *

Reporter Kianna Anvari: Judge Steve White called Jess Burwell’s case in Dept. 4. Burwell, represented by Joshua Olander, appeared in court for his preliminary hearing, while DDA Emilee Divinagracia appeared via Zoom. Burwell is out on bond and facing two felony counts, including assault upon another person with a deadly weapon other than a firearm, and assault using force likely to produce great bodily injury. Divinagracia questioned the alleged victim and four deputy sheriff’s. Olander called Burwell to the stand for questioning. The alleged victim claimed that Burwell struck him with a wine bottle, while Burwell stated that the victim hit himself with the bottle. The alleged victim did not deny asking for $5,000 from the defendant, but Judge White thought a scam was highly improbable. Judge white also found it improbable that he hit himself in the head with the bottle. Burwell is ordered to answer at trial and remains out on bond.

Judge Michael Sweet called Timothy Harrington’s case. Harrington, represented by Thomas Clinkenbeard, appeared in court, while DDA Brian Morgan appeared via Zoom. Harrington does not have an active criminal case and cannot be prosecuted because he was found to be incompetent. Clinkenbeard and Morgan agreed that Harrington’s best option would be for the court to direct Jail Psychiatric Services to perform a grave disability evaluation of him. Judge Sweet agreed to do so.

*  *  *

Reporter Nicholas Kwok: In Dept. 63,  there was one case in which defendant Demetrius Lewis was charged with vehicular manslaughter while under the influence of alcohol. During this court appearance the District Attorney’s Office had no offer or real stance on what the sentence should be for Lewis. This confused the judge as to why they had no stance. This led to a lot of questions from Judge Marlette to the District Attorney Ashley Pane because he wanted a clear stance from the DA. Judge Marlette was also confused because in the previous case the DA also had no stance, so he concluded that it must be some type of policy.

In Dept. 61, there was a case in which defendant Hazem Mabrouk, who is charged with loitering with intent to commit a crime and resisting the police, needed to see his doctor in order to be released from custody. Mabrouk was being held in custody and had not seen his doctor, but the court needed this to happen if he was to be released. Public Defender Michael Mullen requested that he be released because he lives with his parents and has access to a car so he can come back to court. This was allowed by Judge Goodman with the stipulation that he needs to see his doctor before the next court appearance.

*  *  *

Reporter Kalani Gaines: In Dept. 2, Public Defender Isaac Choy, continued defendant David Williams case due to the fact that he is quarantining for having been exposed to someone with COVID. Williams and District Attorney Danny Lee were fine with continuing his TRC to February. as they also had more records that needed to be obtained in the meantime.

Defendant Charlton Coates exclaimed at the end of his hearing “How do I remove my lawyer?” after he agreed to the date that his case would be continued to. Judge Michael Savage said that he would have to talk to his lawyer about it. Coates repeated and shouted, “I’m talking to everybody right here, how do I get rid of my lawyer?”. One Judge Savage said that he can talk to him at the end of the calendar, Coates quieted down.

Judge Savage sighed with impatience with District Attorney Stephanie Aarseth as he stated ““I don’t know what the concern with the DA is. If you put on a motion for 1:35 and don’t show up until 2:20 I’m not waiting for you.” In the end, Aarseth showed up and the defendant’s bail hearing was successfully rescheduled.

*  *  *

Reporter Emma Phillips: Judge Patrick Marlette heard the case of defendant Michael Dobbs in Sacramento County Superior Court Dept. 63. Along with Deputy District Attorney Stephanie Aarseth, Defense Attorney Steve Plesser proposed a resolution to the court based on Dobbs’ charges.

The defendant was charged with two counts of committing a lewd and lascivious act on a child under the age of 14, one count of possessing material portraying a child under the age of 18 who is personally engaging in or simulating sexual conduct, and two counts of annoying or molesting any child under the age of 18. The child in question was Dobbs’ granddaughter, who was between the ages of seven and 11 at the time of the incidents in which her grandfather grabbed her bottom, called her sexy, and expressed that he wanted to see her naked.

Judge Marlette agreed to the resolution, which explained that Dobbs would enter a new and different plea of new contest to one of his charges, in exchange for the low-term sentence of three years. Counsel explained that the sentencing hearing will be contested and take a considerable amount of time, as there will be victim testimony. Dobbs’ sentencing will occur on Feb. 5, 2021. He is ordered to personally appear at this time, and report to the probation Dept. in the meantime.

*  *  *

Reporter Dalia Bautista Rodriguez: In Dept. 37, a preliminary hearing proceeded for a defendant who was in possession of a firearm as a felon and in possession of ammunition by a felon as well. The People brought in one witness who was a Detective part of the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Dept.. The Detective was the one who contacted the defendant and had him arrested. He was in possession of knives and a handgun. There were a total of 10-15 officers on this search warrant. The officers had arrested all adults that were in sight and after had gone into the household to search. They ended up finding another weapon and ammunition in the household. The other defendant was seen leaving the property the same day and was eventually arrested. They were both charged and a trial case was set at the end of hearing.

*  *  *

Reporter Lauren Smith: In Dept. 37, I saw a preliminary hearing for defendant Luis Lopez. During the prelim, the victim in the domestic disturbance case testified that the defendant was banging on her doors and windows and peeking through the cracks trying to talk to her and get inside her apartment. While she was testifying, the defendant blew kisses at her on the zoom screen. The judge did rule that the defendant can be held on the charges.

*  *  *

Reporter Evie Sun: In Sacramento County Superior Court Dept. 60, Judge Laurel White ordered the level two pretrial release of defendant Tajia Thelusma after defense attorney Alicia Hartley stated that the defendant displayed no prior criminal record, with the exception of an out-of-state shoplifting misdemeanor charge from 2014. Judge White posed a series of conditions following the defendant’s release from custody. These conditions included: no contact with the victim and an order to report to the probation Dept. for an evaluation of the defendant’s mental health status and comply with any requirements imposed by the Dept.. Thelusma will return to court on Dec. 21 at 8:30 a.m.

Then, defendant Kesean Willias was charged with four courts related to the felony violation of California Penal Code 4960(a): Receiving Stolen Property. First, the defendant was charged with allegedly aiding in concealing, selling and withholding a 2003 Kia Spectra. Second, the defendant was charged with a misdemeanor that took place on or about Nov. 20, in which the defendant violated Penal Code 12500 (a), driving a motor vehicle on highway without holding a valid driver’s license issued by the state of California. On Oct. 12, the defendant was also charged with violation of the Penal Code section 226i(c) in that he unlawfully by means of threats, violence, promises, persuaded and encouraged a minor to become a prostitute. On or about June 3 in Sacramento County, the defendant allegedly committed the felony violation of Penal Code Section 273.5(a) in which he willfully and unlawfully inflicted corporal injury on a minor.

Afterwards, Judge Laurel White made a deal with defendant Domenick Vaticano, stating that if the defendant admits that he failed to appear and provide proof on Oct. 19 of having enrolled in the necessary AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) and anger management meetings, the Judge will revoke his probation but reinstate him on probation and ordered him to serve as a condition of probation for 45 days. To comply with the terms and conditions of probation, the judge re-referred the defendant to the battery treatment or anger management classes. Vaticano will return to court on Dec. 28 at 8:30 am with orders to have proof of him being enrolled in an anger management class and have proof of the classes that he has attended.

*  *  *

Reporter Kelly Moran: In Dept. 15, there was a preliminary trial for a defendant accused of trying to hit his cousin with his car. The judge declared that there was sufficient evidence to bring his case to trial. Judge McCormack  in Sacramento County Superior Court told the defendant, Antwan Knight, “I am really, really uncomfortable with you out in the public.” Despite the long fight Knight’s public defender, Damian Jovel, put up, Judge McCormack agreed with Jennifer Gong, who represented The People, in suggesting his dangerous past was too much to put this incident aside. Knight;s criminal history included an incident 11 years ago, when he was under the age of 20, when he became involved in a fight that left a male adult and an eight year old girl with cuts on their faces from Knight’s knife. ” Jovel stated, “this is not a troublesome guy, he’s had trouble in the past, this is a troublesome case, I agree, but it was within the family confines, and I believe that the bail would ensure that he would come to court”. Jovel referred to the high bail of 1 million dollars set for his client. Given the defendant’s history, the judge did not modify Knight’s bail.

Later on, both Judge McCormack and Damian Jovel returned to court with a new defendant, one who is accused of threatening to kill his female housemate. Willie Patterson, who has been held in custody since the incident, faced his alleged victim as she testified to the court via Zoom. The victim admitted that she was scared to testify because, referring to Patterson, she said “he’s very dangerous.” The victim detailed the alleged attack, yet Jovel seemed more interested in her living situation. He asked her if she was paying rent, and if she had any proof of previous rent payments to his client who originally owned the house they both lived in together. Despite Jovel’s suggestions that the victim is a squatter rather than a renter, and may be testifying to keep Patterson in jail to benefit her, Judge McCormack settled on a trial date for Patterson on Jan. 19, 2021.

In Dept. 18, defendant Vyjon Huggins was sentenced to two years in prison due to violating his probation one time too many. Huggins is also charged with resisting a police officer, adding to his “very long history, a lot of it has to do with resisting police, and resisting officers,” stated Brandon Jack for The People. Judge Stacy Eurie   in Sacramento County Superior Court settled on the two year sentence for Huggins, while the prosecution pushed for four, and cited her concerns for Huggins as him violating his probation numerous times, and not being able to abide by all laws while under probation. During the incident when police were called to the scene and tried to detain Huggins, Huggins had a spit mask placed over his head, which his public defender, Ben Williams, confirmed with testifying officer Cumberland, “he was spitting but not at you or the other officers that were arresting him?” Williams also stated, “Mr. Huggins did not threaten the officers; there’s no evidence of that.”

Yolo County Superior Court:

Reporter Dalia Bautista Rodriguez: In Yolo County Dept. 2, the case consisted of issuing the question of whether the defendants were able to obtain their driver’s license. If they were not able to obtain them, the judge set them in on payment plans to cover the cost of their ticket and for not having an official driver’s license. The defendants were issued to take safety classes or cover traffic school. One of the defendant’s cases covered the fact that he has not been able to obtain his driver’s license as he does not have a job now due to COVID. The only payments he is obtaining is every two weeks and the judge has made an extension on his payment plans.

Two of the cases were reduced from a misdemeanor to an infraction. Another defendant wanted to take the use of traffic school to get rid of the point on her license, but that consisted of having 60 days to make a full payment of her tickets. The last defendant covered obtained her driver’s license but did not obtain proof of insurance as she believed she did not need it as the vehicle was not under her possession anymore. Judge stated she still needs valid proof of insurance to have coverage in case she does handle any vehicle and that her fine would be reduced once she does have insurance.

Eric J. Trochez is a recent graduate from UC Davis. He is from Los Angeles, California. He majored in Political Science and Italian. His hobbies include video games and YouTube. Subscribe to my channel @Tromanzo ND (lol).

To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9

Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:

The post The Vanguard Week In Review: Court Watch (Nov. 30 to Dec. 4, 2020) appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By David M. Greenwald

Last week we presented a critique of DA Jeff Reisig’s homelessness proposal.  One of his more controversial planks was: “Amend California law to mandate state-funded treatment for seriously addicted drug users, including involuntary residential treatment, when appropriate.”

But there are questions about whether this in fact represents an evidence-based approach.  Critics point out that “involuntary and immediate” cessation of use often does not lead to lasting recovery, as it only deals with the chemical side of the equation and fails to address the underlying reasons why the person turned to drugs in the first place.

More troubling is evidence that mandatory drug treatment is not effective in reducing drug use to begin with.

Researchers in a 2016 Boston University Medical Center study looking at current global evidence found “mandatory treatment for people with substance use disorders is not effective in reducing their drug use.”

They found, “mandatory treatment, which is defined as treatment ordered, motivated or supervised under the criminal justice system, done without a patient’s informed consent violates their human rights and does more harm than benefit to the patient.”

Instead, Bulat Idrisov, MD, MSc, and Karsten Lunze, MD, MPH, DrPH, from the Clinical Addiction Research and Education Unit at BMC and Boston University School of Medicine argue “that in order to reach successfully reduced substance use disorder rates, countries should consider implementing approaches that have been shown to be effective in rigorous scientific studies.”

“These strategies include community-based opioid treatment, including methadone and buprenorphine. In addition, they suggest that offering harm-reduction programs like needle exchanges and providing education about overdose medications such as naloxone to people with substance use disorders, as well as to their friends and family members.”

“The evidence presented in this article provides additional argumentation supporting the position of all UN organizations that mandatory treatment settings do not represent a favorable or effective environment for the treatment of drug dependence,” said Fabienne Hariga, MD, MPH, senior adviser to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime during the recent meeting in New York.

The doctor added, “The United Nations therefore calls on States to transition from mandatory drug treatment and implement voluntary, evidence-informed and rights-based health and social services in the community.”

The 2016 study backs up evidence cited by a study publish by the NIH which found: “Despite widespread implementation of compulsory treatment modalities for drug dependence, there has been no systematic evaluation of the scientific evidence on the effectiveness of compulsory drug treatment.”

Their meta-study found, “Evidence does not, on the whole, suggest improved outcomes related to compulsory treatment approaches, with some studies suggesting potential harms. Given the potential for human rights abuses within compulsory treatment settings, non-compulsory treatment modalities should be prioritized by policymakers seeking to reduce drug-related harms.”

The mandatory component was the first of five proposals put forward by Yolo County DA Jeff Reisig as a plan to reduce homelessness.

“Homelessness is an exploding humanitarian crisis affecting almost every community in California. Too many people suffering from severe mental illness and crippling addiction are being allowed to languish in filth and perish on our streets from disease, overdose and violence,” Reisig writes. “They need help.”

He argues: “Meanwhile, the quality of life for all Californians has dramatically declined as the crime and despair associated with the crisis has seeped across our state. There are real potential solutions to this crisis. They are not easy and they are not cheap. But, if California ever hopes to turn the tide, dramatic action is required.”

The other four points are:

• Expand conservatorship laws – make it easier to allow the seriously mentally ill and addicted to be conserved by loved ones and health professionals.
• Establish permanent drug courts and mental health courts in every county, where judges can collaborate with health professionals and all the parties to oversee a comprehensive treatment and rehabilitation plan.
• Build addiction and mental health facilities that can serve as secure treatment focused sanctuaries, not jails or prisons.
• Develop a statewide chain of drop-in-centers to provide free ongoing support and Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) to those on the path to recovery.

Maya Schenwar and Victoria Law in their book, Prison by Any Other Name, express concern that drug courts and state-mandated treatment are expanding the scope of the criminal justice system to treat people who actually may not need to be treated.

“Most people are not debilitated by physical dependence on the substances they use, whether they be alcohol, caffeine or heroin.”

But more importantly the solutions to those who are, may not be effective.

They found, “Graduating” from a state-mandated treatment program does not necessarily equal real recovery and healing.”

They argue: “Even if a treatment sentence doesn’t end in incarceration, there’s no guarantee it will transform a person’s life.  In fact, if the underlying causes behind the drug use – poverty, trauma, the enduring impacts of racism and other oppressions, and so forth – aren’t address, the recovery may not last.”

Our chief criticism of the DA’s plan last week is that while they put forth a large number of enforcement-based remedies, there is no provision for rebuilding their lives, job training, counseling and affordable housing.  Without those kinds of programs, they may remove the drug-component or potentially the mental health component without allowing them to move forward.

And this research suggests that these approaches are not evidence-based, with no firm research to suggest that such treatment actually works.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9

Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:

The post Monday Morning Thoughts: Research Suggests Mandatory Treatment Ineffective appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Tanya Decendario

WOODLAND – Defendant Larry Tillman—in custody for more than 60 days—has yet to receive treatment or admission to a state hospital. He has been languishing in county jail.

The Yolo County Superior Court department appeared stunned after learning Tillman’s place on the waiting list at Napa State Hospital, and Judge Paul Richardson asked, “Obviously, there has been no movement here. Where are we in this case?”

Deputy Public Defender Ronald Johnson said, “I haven’t heard any status updates about where he is on the list.”

Judge Richardson turned to Brenda Ray, representative of Department of State Hospitals and asked, “What can you tell us regarding his position on the list?

Ms. Ray glanced at her notes, claiming, “As of yesterday, he’s number 121 on the waitlist for Napa State Hospital.”

Judge Richardson exclaimed, “121?!” And then added, “Is that going backwards from where we were last time?”

Absent in the last court appearance, Ms. Ray answers, “To me, he’s going in the right direction but I wasn’t in the last court appearance.” She estimated April 2, 2021, would be his approximate admission date.

For a minute, the courtroom went silent.

In disbelief, Judge Richardson declared, “That’s a long way off ma’am. This is just unacceptable. We can’t have him just sitting in jail.”

Mr. Tillman interrupted, pleading, “Please, I didn’t [even] do anything. I didn’t [even] do the charges in the first place.”

Ms. Ray suggested, “We are hoping that the impending vaccine may speed up the estimated date of admission for Mr. Tillman and others. We are going to shortly be circulating a proposed order for Telehealth to see if we can get Mr. Tillman on that.”

Mr. Tillman continued to intrude in the conversation: “We know why I’m here okay.”

Deputy District Attorney Chris Bulkeley implored him: “Mr. Tillman,” in an attempt to calm him down.

Judge Richardson said, “Hold on Mr. Tillman.”

Tillman cried out, “No, no not hold on. Mr. Bulkeley District Attorney, you know why I’m here okay?”

Again, Judge Richardson tried to halt Tillman with, “Hold on Mr. Tillman.”

Mr. Tillman shouted at everyone, saying, “So, F*** you, F*** you, and F*** you!”

Judge Richardson responded nonchalantly, “That’s fine.”

For the last time, Mr. Tillman continued to yell “F*** you” to all before being taken out of the court.

PD Johnson attempted to get the conversation back on track: “I don’t know what else I can say on this. If we’re talking about an April admission date that’s more than seven months since the order and he’s been in custody a lot longer than that.”

He explained his frustrations, saying, “It’s becoming too normal to come in here and see that they’re gonna take eight to nine months to get someone into the state hospital… I mean it’s unacceptable and I’ve said this over and over and I don’t know what else I can say.”

Judge Richardson agreed, noting, “Well, this is the problem. I thought we were moving forward in this case…to hear that he is 120 plus on the list at this point. Mr Johnson, how many days in has it been for Mr. Tillman in these cases?”

Aimed at Ms. Ray, Judge Richardson explained his concerns: “April date at this point, given the fact that today is Dec. 9. Mr. Tillman is entitled to some kind of treatment… it’s just too lengthy.”

He added, “I would ask if there’s anything that can be done but I don’t think April is at all in the ballpark and it is not at all what was agreed to between Yolo County and the state regarding the handling of these cases.”

Ms. Ray reassured the court, “We do have a proposed order for Telehealth which may help Mr. Tillman…that would give him some relief when he’s in the county jail.”

Judge Richardson ordered Ms. Ray to distribute Telehealth materials to the court and asked all parties to schedule a hearing for this Friday, Dec. 11, to further discuss the matter.

Tanya Decendario is a third-year student studying Legal Studies at UC Berkeley. She is originally from Sonoma, CA, but currently resides in Albany, CA.

To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9

Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:

The post Defendant Languishes in Jail for Months Waiting for Treatment – Upset Judge Calls It ‘Unacceptable’ appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

by Tia Will

On 12/10/20 I attended the Yolo County Health Council. What follows are the major points made as I saw them followed by my observations about our current situation. As I write this, we are almost 4 hours from the official imposition of California’s new COVID-19 stay at home order. I have not included the details of the order since they are widely available on line and on the county’s dashboard.

The meeting began with a concise presentation by our Yolo County Health Officer Aimee Bisson who provided the following updates:

1. As of this morning, there were zero ICU beds available in Yolo County.

Some county health systems are reporting a 15-20% shortage of workers.

2. The recommended time for self-quarantine has been reduced from 14 days to 10 days for the general population but 24 days for those in skilled nursing facilities.
3. Yolo County has been approved for an additional testing site.
4. An ultra- low temperature freezer has arrived for storage of the Pfizer vaccine which will be distributed to providers from the Health Department. After removal from the main freezer, vaccine doses can be stored at normal clinic refrigerator temperatures for five days.
5. Yolo County will receive an initial allocation of 975 doses of Pfizer vaccine which requires two doses administered 3 weeks apart.
6. An additional 1500 doses of the Moderna vaccine are anticipated to arrive near Christmas
7. Sisson is holding networking sessions by teleconference with county providers to arrange the details of vaccine distribution when available.
8. CVS and Walgreen’s pharmacies have formed a partnership to provide the vaccine to skilled nursing facilities which will be treated as pods to guarantee second dose administration on time.
9. Reminder systems are currently being devised for the general public.

A subcommittee of the Health Council has researched means to improve communication between the Department of Public Health and the public. Their initial recommendations include:

1. A dashboard provider page
2. A link to SNF information potentially updated weekly
3. A section for frequently asked questions

I give a great deal of credit to the Public Health Department, the Health Council and its subcommittee whose time is volunteered to improve our pandemic response. We have fared as well as or better than many of our surrounding counties with Davis faring better than other communities in our county. However, it is my feeling that we remain locked into the cycle of tightening restrictions, measurable improvement followed by a collective sigh of relief and premature declaration of victory which leads us to attempt a too rapid “return to normal”. I would like to stress that it is my opinion that there can be no return to normal prior to a full distribution of the vaccine first to hospital personnel, first responders, to vulnerable populations and finally to the general public. Unfortunately, I am concerned that inconsistent messaging, some avoidable, and some not, has hampered our ability to achieve an adequate acceptance of the vaccines to have an optimal outcome. If this is true, we would need a continuation of distancing, masking and increased sanitation as a societal norm rather than exceptional short-term efforts. To date our efforts have been largely reactive with “flattening the curve” portrayed as a major goal rather than a short-term temporizing measure. As a primary care provider, my preference would be a proactive approach stressing the stop of community spread rather than “flattening the curve” as the primary and necessary goal.

Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:

The post Commentary: We Are Where We Are Because… appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Layla Mustafa

WOODLAND – There was more than a bit of confusion here late during Thursday afternoon arraignments in Yolo County Superior Court, Dept. 1 as defendant Rodolfo Ruiz was called for a review of the charges filed against him.

But he maintained he already done so. He was right, but the court was confused.

After Judge Peter Williams detailed the counts under Ruiz’s case, the defendant spoke up, informing the court he had already appeared in court days before and bailed out on the matters listed.

Deputy District Attorney Caryn Warren silently nodded in agreement via the Zoom livestream.

According to Ruiz, he had been present in court on Dec. 3, and had his next hearing set for Jan. 28, 2021.

DDA Warren unmuted to confirm Ruiz’s statements, but court confusion still prevented the court from immediately accepting these statements.

Ruiz’s Deputy Public Defender, Hendrick Crowell, was not on the Zoom call despite the active review taking place, but returned to the Zoom.

According to the court, there was yet more confusion.

It seemed that Ruiz had an outstanding case he had not yet been arraigned on. Confused, Crowell asked DDA Warren if this was a new matter. Warren replied that she believed the bond was reinstated on Nov. 5 for the case in question. According to Warren, the “new case” the court referred to was one Ruiz had already bonded out on.

Warren requested that they simply continue with the already set date of Jan. 28. PD Crowell interjected to inquire whether Ruiz could be released, as he had already posted two active bail bonds.

While Warren agreed to Ruiz’s release on the existing bail bonds, the court clerk interjected as another obstacle arose in the proceeding, noting that for one of the cases, the bond they claimed was active was not visibly present to the court.

At this time, the bail bondsmen stepped forward to confirm that the matter was taken care of on Nov. 5. He said he had asked Judge Timothy Fall to remove the warrant from the system at that time. Bail was then reinstated on Nov. 5 for $100,000.

The court ordered to maintain the Nov. 5 bail, rather than reinstating a new one of the same amount. For Ruiz, it was another court appearance with the same verdict as one only a couple of days prior.

Ruiz will return to court once again on Jan. 28, in Dept. 11 at 9 a.m. Exactly as he informed the court in the first place.

To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9

Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:

The post Defendant Correctly Reminds Confused Court That He’d Already Been There appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

Compiled by Linh Nguyen

The Davis Vanguard is an online news forum that provides coverage of criminal justice reform and courts throughout California and the nation. In 2006, the Davis Vanguard began to cover Davis and Yolo County groundbreaking, local news concerning government and policy issues affecting the city, schools, and county. In the past few years, the online news source has been able to expand to Sacramento and the surrounding regions. 

Today, the team has grown, encompassing about 40 to 50 interns who monitor and report on live court proceedings in more than six different counties throughout California, from the State Capitol of Sacramento to the Greater San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley and Southern California.

This week, the team covered dozens of courtrooms across four county Superior courts, monitoring sentences, continuances, arraignments and preliminaries. They also covered various webinars on criminal justice reform and hearings in Shawnee County, Kansas, in which an attorney is being tried for prosecutorial misconduct from a murder case and a sexual assault case.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

Reporter Evie Sun:

On Dec. 7, in Sacramento County Superior Court Dept. 60, defendant Emmanuel Deloney was denied release on his own recognizance due to domestic abuse allegations. He was charged with a felony violation of Penal Code Section 273.5(a) — corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant. Assistant Public Defender Alicia Hartley asked the court to consider releasing the defendant on his own recognizance. However, after reviewing the court report, Jenna Saavedra from the District Attorney’s office objected to the OR release, requesting to leave the defendant on $50,000 bail, which was originally scheduled. She noted that the defendant allegedly attacked the victim several times and destroyed approximately $3,000 in property belonging to the victim. Given these details, the court found that release of the defendant on OR conditions to be not appropriate. Judge Scott L. Tedmon maintained bail as set without prejudice to further bail review. Defendant Emmanuel Deloney’s next court appearance date is set for Dec. 14 at 8:30 a.m. in Sacramento County Superior Court Dept. 60

* * *

In another hearing, defendant John Sandoval was granted an own recognizance release following a mix-up in court regarding his probation violation. After speaking with the defendant in a separate breakout room, Assistant Public Defender Alicia Hartley pointed out that he allegedly was never given notice of the Dec. 3 date to appear in court, and on that day, he in fact was speaking with Visions Unlimited, Inc. Mental Health Center regarding the requirements given to him by court orders. In addition, Hartley found that the defendant had not moved addresses, despite the basis of the violation of probation being a failure to alert probation regarding his change in address. Judge Scott L. Tedmon decided to release the defendant on his own recognizance, recall the 364 days previously proposed and re-refer him to Visions Unlimited, Inc. He stated that if the defendant’s public defender confirms, the court will dismiss his violation petition. The judge said that, upon his release, the defendant must contact Visions, as well as probation to provide them with his current address.

* * *

On Dec. 11 in Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Scott L. Tedmon presided over Dept. 60 with Deputy District Attorney Teal Ericson and Public Defender Sameera Ali. Defendant Christopher Savage was charged with a felony complaint in violation of stalking and violation of a restraining order. The defendant will return to court on Dec. 16 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 60 with notice for bail evaluation.

Reporter Julian Navarro:

On Dec. 8, in Sacramento County Superior Court Dept. 4 and 61, I heard a total of eight cases. One of the cases was People v. Marques Watkins, where the defendant has two separate, active cases on him. For the first case, the defendant allegedly attempted grand theft of a delivery driver just outside a Quick Stop in Sacramento County. The defendant asked the delivery driver if he could buy methanol cigarettes from him. The victim of the incident replied, “I can’t sell them.” Watkins proceeded to enter the trailer as he grabbed a box of cigarettes that had a value of more than $950. Once the delivery driver noticed this he locked the back of the trailer and waited for the Sacramento Police Dept. to arrive at the scene. Lastly, the defendant was also charged with another incident where he was in possession of a stolen vehicle and was in possession of a controlled substance.

Reporter Alana Bleimann:

This week Alana attended court twice in Sacramento County Superior Court and saw over 20 cases. In Sacramento County Superior Court Dept. 60, Judge Tedmon heard the case of Cary Chleboard. The defendant was accused of possession of firearms, in which the victim received multiple threatening text messages. In the messages, Chleboard attached images of the firearms and stated, “hmm which one should I use” and “go f yourself.” The victim believed the defendant still owns these firearms and was scared for her safety, according to District Deputy Attorney Jenna Saavedra. Public Defender Michael Wise needed more time with the defendant in order to further discuss the case, and Judge Tedmon placed further proceedings for later this month.

Reporter Hannah Skepner:

On Dec. 10 in Sacramento County Superior Court Dept. 60, the most notable case was regarding defendant Henry Hernandez. His case was on a plea and sentencing regarding the charge that he had unlawfully violated the personal liberties of the victim when he found her, locked himself in her car, drove the two of them to an unknown location and held her there against her will overnight. He pleaded no contest to this matter and was sentenced to three years of formal probation in which 180 days in county jail were included. However, the defendant already has served 192 days, so he will be released to start the probation immediately. Finally, he was served a no contact order on behalf of the victim.

Reporter Koda Slingluff:

Judge Scott L. Tedmon presided over Dept. 60 in Sacramento County Superior Court on Dec. 10. The court session lasted less than two hours. Interestingly, four different defendants did not appear due to medical concerns. Deputy District Attorney Anissa Galata prosecuted most of the cases, which were primarily domestic violence related. The day ended with the case of defendant Traisean Wallace, who was requesting that the medical records of the alleged victim be released to his defense. He was not present and an arraignment date was set for Dec. 24.

Reporter Macy Lu:

Judge Steve White presided over a restitution hearing between a homeowner victim and unlicensed contractor, defendant Michael O’Brien in Dept. 4 of Sacramento County Superior Court last Thursday. The victim claimed she contacted O’Brien after an acquaintance highly recommended him to her. Prior to the start of the remodeling process, O’Brien gave her an estimated quote of $30,000-35,000 for the entire project. The victim ended up paying $49,000 total before O’Brien walked off the job after she said she would withhold payment until he finished what he said he would finish with the $49,000. The defendant later testified that he was hired to do odd jobs day-to-day and paid $250 an hour, that he never offered a quote, nor did he give an estimated completion date. Deputy District Attorney Douglas Whaley requested the defendant pay for “the finishing and correction of the project that was contracted with Mr. O’Brien,” which amounted to a total of $40,764.70. Assistant Public Defender Brennan McGee reminded the court that “the only thing we’re here to decide is actual economic loss sustained by [the victim].” He claims that is $900-$1000 “even if we factor in the cost to repair and subtract it from the value she received when the job was completed.” Judge White agreed there was an agreement made as the victim stated and will be issuing a written restitution order to the defendant.

* * *

In Sacramento County Superior Court Dept. 60 on Friday Dec. 11, there were a total of 43 progress report hearings. The judge reviewed how far along individuals are in their Batterer Treatment, which is a year-long probation program after sentencing on domestic violence cases. Most of the individuals who appeared were either half-way through or have completed the program. Several times the judge commended an individual for their “excellent progress.” There were 15 people who failed to report to court. To each of them, the judge issued a bench warrant of $10,500 and revoked their probation.

* * *

In Dept. 15 in Sacramento, co-defendants Logan Woods and Jesse Swafford entered a plea of no contest for their shared case as well as for their other separate cases. The felony committed was a first degree burglary on Jan. 30, 2019. They drove to the victim’s residence in a rental moving truck, broke in while the resident was in the shower, then fled when the resident saw them. Woods also pleaded no contest to another charge that accuses him of unlawfully possessing more than 10 people’s IDs with the intent to defraud them. Swafford also received sentencing on three other cases of burglary all committed in 2019. Because each defendant’s records show a prior strike, their total sentenced times were doubled. Woods will serve eight years total for the burglary and the attempt at identification fraud while Swafford will serve 28 years and eight months for the burglary and three other burglary charges.

Reporter Jose Medina:

On Tuesday in Sacramento Court Dept. 15 I witnessed the Donald Griffin preliminary hearing be trailed to another day due to prosecutor Sterling Wilkins’ learning that one of his witnesses may not have been a percipient witness to the identification of the defendant. It was unfortunate for Griffin’s due process to be stalled due to the prosecutor’s failure to get everything prepared for the preliminary hearing. However, it was clear that Wilkins felt remorse for his blunder as he apologized to Judge Kevin McCormick for the inconvenience this misstep had caused.

FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

Reporter Julian Navarro:

On Dec. 10, 2020, I was in Fresno 10 and I also heard a webinar from Appeal News titled “Trump Set to End Presidency With Execution Spree.” During this webinar the host Alana Sivin and both her guests Representative Ayanna Pressley and Sister Helen Prejean spoke about their own opinions on Trump’s administration. They believe that Trump is trying to get his way by using “force and intimidation” in order to get his own way. Both Brandon Bernard and Lisa Montgomery face execution in the last days of Trump’s presidency. Bernard was executed on Dec. 10, as his lawyers and people like Prejean, Sivin and Pressley fought to stop execution. Trump’s administration is leaving as they came with a last attempt to show they were hard on crime.

Reporter Tanya Decendario:

On Dec. 8, 2020, in Fresno County Superior Court Dept. 1, a majority of the hearings were scheduling pre-trials conferences, trials and sentencing. In one of the two major cases, 19 year-old defendant Victor Reyes was charged with a DUI after being found in an abandoned home in a car. In the other major case, defendant David Honeycutt was questioned why he received a second DUI. He explained that it was due to an incident on Labor Day when he was driving to work in Napa from Bakersfield. He had a “situation with [his] truck” and it ran off the road.

* * *

On Dec. 9, 2020, defendant Desi Estrada did not appear in court to avoid being remanded to the county jail because he was showing COVID-19 symptoms. The judge sympathized with the defendant and explained how the virus impacted her family and community. The judge stated that she believes in the honor system and took the defendant’s word. The deputy district attorney explained that the defendant should try scheduling a virtual symptom appointment to prove his COVID-19 claims. The judge agreed and will issue a warrant on Friday if no proof is given by then.

Reporter Jose Medina:

On Tuesday, Fresno Court Dept. 12 had many short arraignment and plea hearings. One that stood out the most was Abel Gonzalez’s plea hearing. The hearing was bombarded with a series of communication problems that made the hearing longer than it should have been. Gonzalez seemed irritated at the charges he was facing. He interrupted the hearing to ask Judge Monica Diaz if he could raise charges against the person charging him for throwing away items in a public place. Judge Diaz immediately shut down Gonzalez’s request stating that the hearing revolves around his plea and nothing else. Before the hearing could finish it had to be trailed so that Gonzalez could have some time to speak to his attorney, thankfully the hearing concluded on the same day after Gonzalez spoke with his attorney.

YOLO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

Reporter Tanya Decendario:

On Dec. 9, in Yolo County Superior Court Dept. 12, defendant Larry Tillman needed treatment, though a representative from the state hospitals said he is number 121 on the waitlist. The representative predicted Tillman will be admitted in April 2021. The judge and public defender said this was unacceptable. The defendant interrupted the hearing to shout profanities towards everyone.

Reporter Kianna Anvari: 

Judge Paul K. Richardson called 30 matters on Friday, Dec. 11 in Yolo County Superior Court Dept. 12. The majority of the cases were either pre-trial conferences or pre-hearing conferences that were continued to later dates.

Reporter Jose Medina:

On Friday, I witnessed short pre-trials and arraignments in Yolo County Court in Dept. 1. One particular hearing revolved around a defendant experiencing a mental health crisis. The defendant was Gregory Andrew Allman, he refused to appear in court and was represented by his defense attorney in court. The defense attorney asked for Allman to be released on Monday, on his own recognizance, so that he may be given an evaluation and transported to Woodland Memorial Hospital for treatment. Judge Peter M. Williams granted the request for Allman to be released on Monday so that he can be evaluated.

Reporter Layla Mustafa:

In Yolo Dept. 1, a man was called into court despite having already bailed out on the charges in question days prior. He left court with the same verdict.

RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

Reporter Mia Machado:

On Dec. 11 in Riverside County Superior Court Dept 2H, defendant Daniel Carlos Garcia, representing himself, filed a motion to dismiss his case due to a lack of a speedy trial. Garcia explained that the prosecution never set a trial date, but only the last date a trial could be set. Although Garcia had originally submitted a general time waiver in one of his earlier hearings, he explained to the court that it was properly withdrawn in front of the court. Given this, Garcia explained, the trial should have been set within 60 days but “that did not occur.” Garcia also referenced the emergency orders in response to the pandemic, explaining that “implicit in the Chief Justice’s orders, any delay must be attributed to the COVID-19 emergency, it can’t just be arbitrarily imposed just because the court didn’t take the matter to trial within the statutory period.”

After clarifying that no COVID-19 related issues may have caused a delay, he reaffirmed the need to dismiss his case. Judge Anthony Villalobos, however, disagreed. He explained to the defendant that whenever the prosecution was ready to proceed, Garcia expressed that he was not ready for trial, continuously refusing to tell the court when he would be ready. Judge Villalobos even referred to a time when the defendant told Judge Villalobos that if he called in a jury panel, he would be “running a circus” because Garcia would not participate. Judge Villalobos claimed that it appears he has been “playing games with the court” by telling the court he was ready to proceed even when he was not “several times”. He also found no good cause for Garcia to have withdrawn his time waiver in the first place. For these reasons, the defendant’s motion was denied.

Reporter Ramneet Singh:

On Dec. 11, 2020, reporter Lauren Smith and I observed Dept. 2K of the Riverside County Superior Court. Through the morning session, the court presided over arraignments that were to be continued at later times. Interestingly, Judge Emily Benjamini and both attorneys were confused over a defendant’s legal name, something that consumed a portion of the time and a matter that was later resolved.

Reporter Lauren Smith:

In Riverside County Superior Court on Dec. 11 in Dept. 64, Judge John Molloy was unprepared to hear arguments on resentencing for defendant Yolanda Bourassa. He stated that he had a “complete memory loss” due to current events. Judge Molloy also stated that there was a “workplace outbreak” of COVID-19 that led to a loss of “four courtrooms and five judges and the staff that go with them.” He repeatedly apologized to both the defendant and counsel for being unprepared and set a new resentencing hearing in Jan. where he promised he would read the briefs thoroughly and be able to rule on the resentencing at the next hearing.

SPRALDING HEARING:

Reporter Alana Bleimann:

I attended live Zoom hearings in Kansas in which former Shawnee attorney Jacqie Spradling is being tried for alleged prosecutorial misconduct in the murder case of Dana Chandler and sexual assault case of Jacob Ewing. The hearing will last until the end of the week in which attorneys, judges, lawyers and witnesses will testify and review evidence.

Reporter Dalia Bautista Rodriguez:

The afternoon session consisted of bringing in those who had taken part in writing reports on the case. The basis was to cover all the information gathered and dictate whether it was still persistent. The first witness brought in was Mr. Redmon, who has been an attorney for 22 years. He oversaw reviewing transcripts, files, and complaints. The report he had filed was not consistent with the one made by Mr. Pasquel. Redmon mentioned there were still issues between the oral argument and opinions of the court, being why the reports were not consistent with one another. After the Supreme Court clarified their opinions and identified the issues, he was confident enough to proceed with his report. At first it was confusing for him, but his goal was to obtain enough evidence for the record. One of the judges ruled there was a PFA [protection from abuse] order under file, but in the report, there seemed to be no PFA in file. The second witness was Shanning Felt, an attorney who works the CJ resource council for Kansas, but during the report administered the CJ panel.

Mr. Redmon asked for her assistance in the case as she had some prior experience. Her tasks included assisting in preparing for interviews, looking at dockets and documents relating to the prosecution. John Kite was another witness to this case. He is retired but worked for the KBI as a senior special agent, at the time of the case. He was in the cybercrime unit and specialized in computer forensics. He worked on the computer of Dana Chandler and examined the hard disk drive and reported on them. The copy of the report, produced in October 2002, states he examined a total of five hard disks. He described one as “bule” and the other as “coldwell.”

The last witness is Jody Lipmon, who has worked in an attorney general office since 2016. She worked for the Shawna District Attorney Office in 2011, where she oversaw appellate work. She took part in the State v. Chandler appeal and she reviewed the briefs. In her report, it describes that Chandler learned about Sisco’s engagement with Karen and there was a protection of abuse order. The copy of the state’s brief is signed by three attorneys, Chad Taylor, Jacqie Spradling, and Jody Lipmon.

Reporter Nickolas Kwok:

Day two of the Spradling hearing on Dec. 8 gave more context to the case of Dana Chandler, who was accused of murdering her ex-husband and his fiancée. The witness that was brought in was law enforcement officer Richard Volle, who was the detective investigating the case of the murder and was the first on the scene of the crime. Volle went through his theories about how he suspected Chandler went through Nebraska to get back to her home in Denver. This would make it possible for her to have committed the murders. However, all of the evidence that Volle presented was circumstantial. Volle ended his testimony saying that he believed Spradling was a good prosecutor that always did her best.

Reporter Layla Mustafa:

On Day 4 of the proceeding, Spradling testified to a panel that while she admits to errors made during her time as Shawnee County DDA in two high profile cases, they were unintentional. Both cases had to be overturned. Towards the end of the questioning, Spradling became teary-eyed as she underlined her commitment to the pursuit of justice. Multiple members of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorney’s hearing panel noted their belief in Spradling’s hard work as a prosecutor. These comments were made in spite of the fact that Spradling was in court to be held accountable for the alleged mistakes she made as a prosecutor. The closing arguments were heard on Friday. The panel will determine whether or not it is necessary to commit to any disciplinary action against Spradling’s alleged misconduct.

OTHER COVERAGE

Reporter Ozge Terzioglu:

George Gascón was sworn in and inaugurated as Los Angeles County’s 43rd District Attorney on Monday, Dec. 7. After the official swearing in took place, Gascón announced sweeping criminal justice reform that his office will immediately execute. Among his policies are ceasing the charging of juveniles as adults, not requiring victims to testify to receive victim services, and extending victim services to families of people killed by law enforcement. He is also creating a review board that would recommend use of force cases to be reviewed, eliminating cash bail, resentencing people on death row to life in prison, and ceasing the filing of first time misdemeanors for offenses associated with poverty. Gascón noted multigenerational incarceration, poverty, racism inherent in the death penalty, and his job as a police officer 40 years ago as some points of inspiration for his unprecedented policies. On Dec. 8, the new District Attorney, George Gascón released more details on his death penalty policy. Most notably, his office will stop requesting the death penalty as a punishment and will immediately begin to review every death penalty case in LA County to revoke the death as a punishment in cases where they can.

Reporter Nickolas Kwok:

The Academy of Arts press conference on Dec. 7 introduced a college freshman, Syon Green, who was able to finish his high school career with a scholarship provided by inmates at Soledad CTF. Green attended a private school, the Palma School, but he was not able to provide all funds for his final years. While at the Palma School, Green joined a program that would bring together inmates and students who would discuss novels and life lessons with each other. One inmate, Jason Bryant, helped to raise over $30,000 for Green to be able to finish his education.

Reporter Kianna Anvari:

On Dec. 10, the Sacramento Press Club, a non-profit educational organization, hosted a panel via Facebook Live entitled, “What’s Next in Criminal Justice Reform?” Robert Greene from the L.A. Times and Marisa Lagos from KQED posed questions to three prominent panelists: L.A. County District Attorney George Gascón, campaign strategist Dana Williamson and executive director of Californians for Safety and Justice Jay Jordan. The conversation covered topics from bail reform and recidivism to defunding the police.

Linh Nguyen is a third year Political Science student at UC Davis, also pursuing a minor in Professional Writing. She is an aspiring investigative journalist from San Jose, California, who also shares interests in literature and baking

To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9

Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:

The post The Vanguard Week In Review: Court Watch (Dec. 7 to Dec. 11, 2020) appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Julian Verdon 

As expressly stated in the Constitution, a speedy trial is one of the fundamental rights, for every American citizen, when facing criminal charges. However, the pandemic has stalled that process. Today, defendants could wait for months, and even await trial in COVID-19 infested jails. 

As the pandemic carries on, many courts throughout the country have struggled to respond. The libertarian magazine Reason reported that, “All circuit court jury trials in South Carolina were suspended just this week after resuming in September. New Jersey did the same last month amidst a surge in COVID-19 cases.” 

Big cities also lagged when it came to carrying out jury trials. According to a report in the New York Times, the state and federal government in New York City could only complete nine trials since the pandemic hit in March. 

The Times story also reported that over four hundred defendants have resided in New York City jails for at times up to two years. The pandemic has slowed their cases to an even slower grind than usual. 

The inability to complete jury trials affects the whole country. Kirsten Tynan, the Fully Informed Jury Association executive director, said that 16 states have suspended their jury trials. The ones that still operate can only function at a diminished capacity. 

The Supreme Court of Illinois waved off concerns in an emergency order that kept defendants in jail for months longer than usual. The report stated that “such continuances shall be excluded from speedy trial computations.” 

“The continuances occasioned by this Order serve the ends of justice and outweigh the best interests of the public and defendants in a speedy trial,” the Illinois Supreme Court elaborated. 

Other courts have administered similar orders throughout the nation, often citing that it is in the court staff’s best interest. However, such decrees fail to recognize the danger many defendants are put in. COVID-19 has ravaged jails, with many institutions recording over a thousand cases, even when operating with fewer inmates. 

One such occurrence happened over the summer at Fresno County Jail. In June, the number of COVID-19 cases was 13. By August, the total number exceeded 1,100. 

Also, many inmates in jails complained they were denied tests even when they requested one. Moreover, places like Camden County Jail in New Jersey initially issued masks to infected inmates. It was not until June that the other inmates were given masks. 

Reason Magazine stated that a lack of court dates for a defendant meant they could be stuck in jail for months or years, which can be dangerous in a pandemic. Research conducted at the University of Texas at Austin said that in Texas, “80% of people who died in jails from COVID were not convicted of a crime.”

Some courts have tried to accommodate defendants awaiting jury trial with remote meetings. In November, Seattle’s federal district court became the first to reach three trial verdicts, all done through Zoom conferencing. In an interview with Law 360, the presiding judge explained how they accomplished it. 

“What happened in June,” said Judge Marsha Pechman, “is I had a bench trial that I thought could be pulled off with a remote trial. We were using the WebEx platform at that time, and the parties said that they were game. So I basically took the testimony, heard the arguments, got the exhibits, and I decided this bench trial.

“That basically caused the chief judge in our district, Judge [Ricardo] Martinez, to ask if I would chair a committee that would put together a handbook for doing Zoom bench trials,” Judge Pechman elaborated. 

When obtaining jurors, the court allowed them to take home the necessary equipment for Zoom conferencing. The court did this to ensure that it was not just those wealthy enough to participate in the process. 

Other courts have attempted to socially distance jurors during a trial. 

“These protocols include reconfiguring courtrooms and jury deliberation spaces to allow at least six-feet of social distancing by participants, the liberal use of masks or transparent face shields or both, the strategic placement of plexiglass barriers, vetting prospective jurors for health vulnerabilities or fears of exposing loved ones, reliance on technology to present evidence, and the constant cleaning of furniture and surfaces,” according to the United States Court’s website. 

Judge James C. Dever, of the Eastern District of North Carolina, decided to go through with two jury trials after concluding they could be done in a safe manner. Judge Dever said that he and other judges were aware of how important a right to a speedy trial was. 

“There is no pandemic exception in the Constitution, and the Constitution has stood the test of time for more than 230 years,” stated Judge Dever.

Although some courts have tried to accommodate a defendant’s right to a speedy trial, many still have not. Thus many defendants have been withheld their right to due process as they sit behind bars indefinitely. 

Julian Verdon is a senior at UCLA majoring in English. He is from Los Angeles California.

The post Many Defendants Denied Right to Speedy Trial Because of Pandemic appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By David M. Greenwald

George Gascón last week week was inaugurated in as Los Angeles’ DA.  On day one, he unveiled a revolutionary plan on a host of fronts—one of the most spectacular was his resentencing proposal.

Immediately, he recognized that the sentences “we impose in this country, in this state, and in Los Angeles County are far too long.”  He noted, “Researchers have long noted the high cost, ineffectiveness, and harm to people and communities caused by lengthy prison sentences; sentences that are longer than those of any comparable nation.”

What he plans to do about this is extraordinary, noting that Model Penal Code “recommends judicial resentencing hearings after 15 years of imprisonment for all convicted people: The legislature shall authorize a judicial panel or other judicial decision maker to hear and rule upon applications for modification of sentence from prisoners who have served 15 years of any sentence of imprisonment.”

His policy: “Accordingly, this Office will reevaluate and consider for resentencing people who have already served 15 years in prison. Experts on post-conviction justice recommend that resentencing be allowed for all people (not just those convicted as children or as emerging adults) and some experts recommend an earlier date for reevaluating continued imprisonment.”

That’s right—George Gascón’s plan will be to reevaluate all sentences of people who have already served 15 years.  That doesn’t mean that all people incarcerated will be released or that this is a get-out-of-jail-free card.

It wasn’t just Gascón either.  On the other coast, Baltimore Prosecutor Marilyn Mosby unveiled a similar resentencing plan.

Mosby acknowledged, “Our state has a mass incarceration problem…which are disproportionately imposed on people of color.”

Not only is it mass incarceration, it skews toward Black and brown people.  The State Attorney’s Office cited data from the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services to underscore the severity of the problem.

They found “almost 80 percent of the 2,200 prisoners currently serving life sentences throughout our State are Black…94 percent of the more than 800 prisoners sentenced to life in Baltimore City are Black.”

Already Mosby’s office “has been successful in reducing the number of people entering the jail system by almost 45 percent due to our decarceration policies and by supporting the early releases of certain individuals.”

But she is going to go further, by releasing those who pose limited to no public safety risk to the community—particularly those who are over the age of 60 who have spent more than 25 years in prison and those who committed the crime as a juvenile who have served more than 25 years.

They note crime stats that show that people over the age of 60 are responsible for just three percent of all violent crime arrests nationally.

Compare that to what we saw last week from DA Jeff Reisig in Yolo County.  Over the summer, Reisig chafed at the notion of racial disparities in the local jails, and has never demonstrated a commitment to wholesale resentencing.

On the day when George Gascón was inaugurated with sweeping changes to the LA DA’s Office and a day when, across the country, Maryland State Attorney Marilyn Mosby put forward an aggressive sentencing review unit to reduce prison population amid COVID-19 crisis, local DA Jeff Reisig put out a release about the work his office has done.

According to their release, last week, Yolo County Assistant Chief Deputy District Attorney Ryan Couzens was in court to ask visiting Judge Roy Hashimoto to take five years off the 14-year prison sentence of 26-year-old Gabriel Eugene.

Eugene, who grew up in Davis, was convicted by a jury of a residential burglary on March 30, 2016.  At the time he committed the home burglary, Eugene was on parole after recently being released from state prison on another case involving a burglary. His prison sentence included a five-year enhancement for having been convicted of another strike-offense in the previous case.

On December 3, 2020, Judge Hashimoto reduced Eugene’s sentence by five years as a result of a motion filed by the District Attorney’s Conviction Integrity Unit (CIU), which is supervised by Assistant Chief Couzens.  Additionally, Judge Hashimoto considered a motion filed by Eugene’s attorney, Steve Sabbadini, also requesting a sentence reduction.

That is great news for Gabriel and his family.  But that is but one case.  Gascón’s press release indicates they may be looking to resentence up to 2500 people.

In fact, the very next day, DA Reisig put out another press release that Yolo County prosecutors virtually attended three lifer parole hearings for inmates in three separate prisons across the state.  According to their release, they average 15 lifer hearings a year—and according to our sources they oppose release in almost all cases.

In the release they put out, they opposed release in all three cases.  This time the parole board agreed with them, but there have been a number of times where the parole board has released the individual on parole over the objections of the Yolo County DA’s Office.

The DA in their release noted: “The Yolo County District Attorney’s Lifer Division was started by District Attorney Jeff Reisig in 2007.  When criminals are sentenced to state prison for life with the possibility of parole, they have a right to parole hearings to determine whether they are suitable for release from state prison. The Lifer Division supports victims of violent crimes at these hearings by ensuring they have an opportunity to be heard.  Attorneys in the Division also help make sure that prison inmates who are still a danger to society are not released.”

The problem of course is that, even in cases where the parole board and everyone else agrees that the person has turned their life around, the DA in Yolo County is still opposing parole.

We can see the difference in the approaches—the DA in LA County is serious about reform.  The DA in Yolo County is not.

Reisig never even talks about mass incarceration.  Over the summer, Reisig’s office talked about taking a middle path between traditional law and order prosecuting and reform-minded approaches put forward by people like George Gascón.  But what we have seen is a heavy lean on traditional approaches with a bit of window-dressing for reform.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9

Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:

The post Monday Morning Thoughts: Reisig Tried to Walk the Walk, but Couldn’t appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Hannah Skepner

WOODLAND – Defendant Christopher Appleby, a Yolo County Superior Court judge ruled Monday, had a chance for a treatment program bed, but instead will be spending his time in a COVID-19 risky jail.

Appleby faced the court on a violation of probation in which he was granted a place at a residential treatment program for substance abuse. But he failed to show up, and instead was found intoxicated, and taken back into custody.

After noting that he was on the waitlist for two programs currently, Deputy District Attorney Deanna Hays said the DA was in favor of the defendant getting into a program if he promised to stay there and receive treatment.

However, in light of prior violations, she was not ready to have him released until a spot became available.

In response, Deputy Public Defender Jonathan Opet disagreed, pointing out the risks that Appleby is facing in terms of COVID-19 by being held in custody.

He made sure to note that he had heard this morning on the radio that it is “the leading cause of death right now,” and that defendants in custody were at very high risk.

Opet continued by asking for a bail reduction from $20,000 to $0, so that Appleby may be released until a bed is found for him in a treatment center.

Judge Stephen Mock ruled that the bail set at $20,000 was appropriate, and proceeded to deny the requests for release and bail reduction.

The judge ruled that, because of the situation—in which the defendant had not been in contact with probation in months and that he refused to take advantage of the opportunity for treatment that was presented to him—the court would not be lenient.

The next date set for this matter is Dec. 30.

PD Opet requested that, if a bed becomes available in a residential treatment program for the defendant prior to the next court date, the judge allow him to be released and transported by probation to the treatment center.

Judge Mock granted this, but noted that based on where Appleby stands on the waitlists, it does not seem likely that one will become available between now and Dec. 30.

Hi! I’m Hannah Skepner, and I’m from the East Bay Area. I’m a third year this year at UC Davis, and am currently majoring in Communications and minoring in Psychology.

To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9

Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:

The post Defendant Does Not Take Advantage of Treatment Center – Now to Reside in Risky Yolo Jail appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By David M. Greenwald

While the public still does not know the full extent of the allegations against former Davis Police Officer Trevor Edens, a preliminary hearing was postponed until February, with defense counsel suggesting the possibility of some sort of resolution that might be possible down the line.

The case is being prosecuted by Solano County Deputy DA Paul Sequeira because the Yolo County DA has recused himself.  Julia Fox, private counsel, is representing Edens.

Edens faces a single allegation of PC section 424.

Judge Stephen Mock, sitting in for Judge Tim Fall on Monday, noted that there had been considerable discussion between defense and Sequeira.

“Mr. Sequeira and I have had limited discussions and we’re both of the opinion that it would be wise to give us some time to continue those discussions,” Fox told Judge Mock.  “We think that we can be pretty productive going forward.”

The matter was set for preliminary conference only—not a preliminary hearing—on February 11.

Details at this point remain vague.  On Monday, Davis Police Chief Darren Pytel told the Vanguard that he could not provide any further details at this time.

Back in September, he told the Vanguard, that in late 2018 several officers under the supervision of Edens reported that he had possibly engaged in work-related misconduct.

At that point, he was placed on administrative leave, pending a full investigation.

Administrators conducted what they considered “a standard check of Department equipment and items under the control of Edens.”

They found an anomaly that was unrelated to the original allegation.

According to Pytel, due to the nature of the anomaly—which stemmed from an event that had occurred only hours before he was placed on leave, the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office was immediately contacted.

Chief Pytel, at this point, requested a full, independent criminal investigation by an outside law enforcement agency.

The request was immediately granted and investigators from the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office and an administrator from the Davis Police Department conducted parallel administrative and criminal investigations into the matters.

The Yolo County DA’s Office, upon completion of their initial investigation, asked the Solano County District Attorney’s Office to review the case and handle the prosecution should they determine charges should be filed.

“The conduct and actions of Edens were inexcusable and entirely incompatible with being a police officer and supervisor,” said Chief Pytel. “Without question, his departure had to happen,” he added.

“Despite Edens’ breach of public trust and duty, I was very pleased that the officers under his supervision took active steps to report potential misconduct and to completely cooperate with investigators,” said Chief Pytel. “This is exactly what we expect from our personnel and what we demand as a professional law enforcement agency,” he added.

But at this point the public knows little in the way of specifics, with a distinct possibility that this case could settle before details become public.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9

Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:

The post Hearing on Edens Delayed until February, Possibility of Settlement Cited – Details in the Case against Former Davis Police Officer Remain Murky appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Jose Medina

WOODLAND – After a long day filled with arraignment hearings, Dept. 1 of Yolo County Superior Court ended on a compassionate note, despite some technical difficulties.

After successfully completing probation without incident, defendant Randall Story asked to have his case expunged. His attorney, Matthew Murillo, motioned to withdraw Story’s guilty plea from 2018, re-enter a plea of not guilty, and dismiss his case.

In 2015 Story was charged with reckless driving and evading a peace officer. In 2018, he was put on probation for two years.

Initially, Murillo experienced technical difficulties while attending the hearing through Zoom. His computer’s camera was broken so he could not be seen by the court and his Zoom crashed at the moment when Judge Peter Williams asked about the lack of a submitted declaration.

Fortunately, Deputy District Attorney Carolyn Palumbo was present in court as the prosecutor and mentioned that she had read the defendant’s declaration and supported the granting of the motion to dismiss Story’s case, noting that he has indicated that he is doing well and does not have any other law violations.

After finally receiving the declaration from Murillo, Judge Williams learned that Story is a lifetime resident of the Bay Area, went to Rice University, earned a PhD in molecular biophysics at Yale, and got a postdoc at Caltech.

Judge Williams expressed compassion toward Story, drawing a comparison between both himself and the defendant by commenting that the defendant’s academic history “sounds a lot like my educational history.”

The court granted the motion to expunge the case in the interest of justice. Judge Williams ended the court session stating that hopefully this expungement will help Story to move forward with his life.

Jose graduated from UC Davis with a BA in Political Science and has interned for the California State Legislature. He is from Rocklin, CA.

To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9

Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:

The post Judges Cites Educational Kinship to Defendant, Expunges Reckless Driving Case appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

By Kianna Anvari

WOODLAND — Trayon Finley found himself in custody on $125,000 bail here because his girlfriend—like him, a convicted felon—turned him in after an argument.

Interestingly, both Finley and the victim, his girlfriend, were in a motel room with a firearm, strictly prohibited for ex-felons.

Finley is now in custody at Monroe Detention Center, and appeared via Zoom Friday in Yolo County Superior Court for his preliminary hearing. He is facing two felony charges: domestic violence and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person.

Finley was on probation for two prior gun-related felonies when he was arrested in November.

Deputy District Attorney Deanna Hays called Deputy Mark Saunders of the Yolo County Sheriff’s Department to get a synopsis of what happened.

Saunders said he spoke to the victim at the ampm store where she works, and she said that she and she and Finley have lived at a motel for three months, and that they have been dating for four years.

She also told Saunders that there was a gun in the motel room which belonged to Finley. She said that she saw him taking photos of the gun two weeks prior.

The victim then showed Saunders a bruise on her right shoulder, explaining that it was a bite mark. She said that Finley looked as if he were leaning in for a hug during an argument the night before. Instead, he lunged toward her shoulder and bit her.

Saunders accompanied probation officers to the motel to search their room. He found a loaded firearm in a cereal bag.

During cross-examination, Deputy Public Defender Jonathan Opet asked Saunders what Finley said about the bite mark, and the victim said Finley claimed the bite occurred during sex.

Saunders told DDA Hays that Finley knew the gun was there and that they had it for about a month.

After questioning, DPD Opet read the victim’s prior felony charges to the court. Hays added that she believed it was appropriate for the court to know of these charges.

“She had a motive to lie because she herself was a convicted felon, prohibited from owning a firearm,” said Opet.

Opet added that Finley was being set up by “a witness that lacks credibility.” He stated that the firearm was not found on Finley’s person, and therefore could have been the victim’s gun.

He also argued that the domestic violence charge is highly suspect and should be lowered to a misdemeanor. Finally, he asked that Finley be released on his own recognizance.

Judge Stephen L. Mock said that if he discounted the contradictory statements concerning possession of the firearm, he would be left with proof positive that Finley was in possession of a loaded firearm.

He added that the defendant admitted the bruise on the victim’s right shoulder was a bite mark that he made. So, the question for trial would be whether that mark was made with or without consent.

Judge Mock did not reduce the domestic violence charge to a misdemeanor based on Finley’s prior felony charges, and added that there was sufficient evidence to hold the defendant to answer on both counts.

He also found that public safety is an issue for this case since Finley’s prior charges are all linked to firearms.

Finley will not be released on OR and his bail remains as set, at $125,000. His arraignment is on Dec. 30.

Kianna Anvari will earn a Master’s in Public Administration from San Diego State University in May 2021. She is from San Diego.

To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9

Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:

The post Domestic Dispute between Two Convicted Felons with Gun Lands One in Jail appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

A protest earlier this year in front of Yuba County Jail

by Juan Miranda

Truth Act: accesos a la realidad en plural

Uno de los foros comunitarios sobre las detenciones de ICE se llevó a cabo el martes 15 de diciembre por videollamada. Más adelante escribo un pequeño resumen de los testimonios multilingües que se pudieron compartir.

Carlos presenta en inglés y en castellano. Charles, es la primera persona que habla. Se introduce con un pedido de conciencia, señalando que vivimos en tierra robada. Canta una canción en una lengua que entiendo, la música, y en otra que no distingo las palabras, pero se puede sentir fuerza en la entonación. Charles fue liberado de un centro de detención de ICE después de once meses. Habla de su familia, dice que no imagina a una madre o a un padre viviendo separada o separado de sus hijas o de sus hijos, de su familia, de su comunidad. Cuenta sobre los impedimentos que tiene a la hora de tratar de conseguir empleo, restricciones innecesarias que causan estrés en la comunidad y en el núcleo de cualquier familia.

Carlos expone que estuvo hacinado con cuatrocientas personas en un establecimiento privado para cincuenta y dos, que es lo que pasó hasta que un juez sentenció una cuota máxima permitida para ese espacio. Menciona que mientras haya más personas encarceladas en instituciones privadas y más dinero se ganen las compañías carcelarias, siempre va a haber personas encarceladas. Charles habla perfecto inglés y pide que las comunidades no dejen que prime el acceso a políticas identitarias del estado por encima del bienestar de la comunidad y de las familias que la conforman. Habla para que la gente se exprese en contra de estos actos, para que alcen sus voces, para que posteen en sus redes sociales, para que compartan y para que se organicen: el cambio comienza cuando las personas toman acciones en contra de estas injusticias. Charles termina su elocución y agradece a Carlos por la oportunidad de expresarse, ofreciendo sus respetos a las personas que lo escuchan y a quienes presentan posteriormente.

Voices of Former ICE Detainees Loud Ones against Abuse of System by Government and Sheriffs

Enrique es la segunda persona presentada por Carlos. Enrique habla en castellano, se presenta a sí mismo y deja saber que va a compartir su historia. Dice que recuerda muy bien la última hora en la cárcel de Elk Grove. —El día (sic) miércoles, a las cinco de la tarde, llamaron por mi nombre; yo con una sonrisa porque al fin había terminado mi condena, porque por fin iba a estar en libertad e iba a poder abrazar a mi hija y verla—. Dice que estando todavía en la cárcel, esperando a la persona que lo iba a recoger, escuchó a un oficial llamar su nombre. Le dijo —¡Enrique! Vaya con el oficial, él lo llevará. Cuenta que empezó a tener un poco de nervios cuando el oficial estuvo junto a él, pero que la felicidad y los nervios se convirtieron en temor, sobre todo en mucha tristeza. El oficial le dijo que era agente de inmigración y por más que le suplicó que tenía una hija, que lo dejara ir…. (A Enrique se le quiebra la voz), se llevó con él. Recuerda que le dijo—You’ll be fine— (A Enrique le cuesta hablar, no contiene las lágrimas). Atado de manos y de pies, dentro de una van, tenía un miedo muy grande. Suplicaba a las personas que lo dejaran ir, que tenía una hija.

Estando en el departamento de inmigración de Sacramento Enrique sentía frío, un sabor amargo en la garganta y, sobre todo, una tristeza muy grande. Pidió hacer una llamada y le dijeron que primero le iban a hacer unas preguntas y después iba a poder llamar. Esa llamada era para despedirse, pero sólo se sabía un número de memoria y era de la persona para la que fue patrón por más de trece años. Enrique le contó con lágrimas y tristeza su situación. —Todavía recuerdo las palabras de aliento que me dio, todavía recuerdo qué me dijo: “No te preocupes, vamos a hacer todo lo que esté en nuestras manos para que estés de nuevo con tu hija y con nosotros. Te queremos, Enrique—. Después de unas horas en Sacramento, lo llevaron a Woodland y por fin pudo hacer la llamada. Trató de ser fuerte y no llorar cuando tuvo la oportunidad de hablar con su hija, no quería que ella lo escuchara triste, pero le fue imposible.

En el transcurso de Woodland a Sacramento, de Sacramento a Stockton y de Stockton a Fresno y de ahí a Vacaville, Enrique sintió frío, tristeza y una sensación de incertidumbre muy fuerte sobre su futuro. Cuenta que no le importaba que las otras personas lo vieran llorar o pedir perdón por las malas decisiones que había tomado, pidiéndole a Dios que le diera fuerza, que le quitara el frío que lo estaba destrozando por dentro. Todavía recuerda ese sentimiento. Desde que llegó a la estación de inmigración de Vacaville, no había día, no había noche que no le pidiera a Dios otra oportunidad de poder ver a su hija y perdón por sus malas decisiones. Cuenta que los primeros meses fueron los más horribles, y que nunca le desearía esa experiencia a nadie. Cuenta que en inmigración asistió a clases de cristianos y católicos para aplacar la tristeza y el temor de no saber si alguna vez iba a poder ver a su hija otra vez. Enrique terminó rápido sin decir más.

Carlos le agradece a Enrique por la valentía de mostrarse vulnerable, de poder compartir y elevar su historia, de que su voz ayude a terminar con “las transferencias”.

Joe habla inglés, se arrepiente de sus malas decisiones y asume responsabilidad sobre sus actos. Cuenta que le costó años cambiar la conciencia, estudió leyes y tomó clases de rehabilitación. Seis meses antes de ser dejado en libertad condicional fue detenido por ICE y se lo llevaron esposado.  Desde el 2017 al 2020 estuvo en tres instalaciones diferentes, Elk Grove, Bakersfield y la cárcel del condado de Yuba. Cuenta que tuvo la suerte de salir con un brazalete y así poder ayudar a su familia.

Joe cuenta sobre lo dispar, en tiempo y sentencias, que ha visto como asistente legal hacia personas latinas o afroamericanas con respecto a las mismas faltas de personas angloamericanas. Habla sobre la inequidad del sistema judicial y del sistema privado carcelario. Joe también habla sobre el impacto del Covid 19 dentro de las cárceles, y cuenta que el señor Mejía fue la primera persona en contagiarse y morir detenido por ICE. Habla sobre lo inhumano de las condiciones carcelarias y del brutal acto mismo del confinamiento.

Desde los tres años es residente, tiene la Greencard. Estados Unidos es su casa, su hogar, lo que conoce. Un juez dictó a su favor, aludiendo a la situación de vulnerabilidad a la que se expone si es deportado a un lugar desconocido. La administración actual revocó la decisión del juez y lo puso en una lista de deportación inminente. Cuenta que hay pruebas de mutilaciones que han sufrido mujeres en Atlanta, y que ni siquiera bajo el conocimiento de las autoridades se toma ninguna acción al respecto. Habla de que el mayor porcentaje de niños que fueron separados de sus madres y padres todavía esperan en algún lugar frío el amor de su familia.

La Ley de revisión transparente de transferencias y retenciones injustas (“TRUTH” en sus siglas en inglés o The Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds) requiere que los gobiernos que dieron acceso a ICE a una persona durante el año celebren al menos un foro comunitario público y proporcionen información sobre el acceso de ICE a las personas. Cualquier colaboración con ICE por parte de la policía local es voluntaria, como lo subraya la negación de la Corte Suprema a la demanda de la administración del saliente presidente Trump contra California por aprobar la Ley de valores SB 54 (The Values Act- SB 54).

Juan Miranda se graduó de UC Davis en 2018 con un PhD del Depto. de español y portugués y con un énfasis en estudios de performatividad del Grupo de estudios graduados de performance.

To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9

Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:

The post Tres testimonios por los estatutos de la verdad appeared first on Davis Vanguard.

Compiled by Kianna Anvari

The Davis Vanguard is an online news forum that provides coverage of criminal justice reform and courts throughout California and the nation. In 2006, the Davis Vanguard began to cover Davis and Yolo County groundbreaking, local news concerning government and policy issues affecting the city, schools, and county. In the past few years, the online news source has been able to expand to Sacramento and the surrounding regions.

The team encompasses roughly 40 to 50 interns who monitor and report on live court proceedings in more than six different counties throughout California, from the State Capitol of Sacramento to the Greater San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley and Southern California.

The following is a synopsis of just a few of the stories covered this week, Dec. 14 through Dec. 18, 2020.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

Reporter Koda Slingluff: On Dec. 14, Dept. 10 heard Ronald Seay’s preliminary hearing. Seay was accused of homicide outside of a library in Sacramento. The victim was shot in her car 11 times. If the defendant was guilty, then his motivation was likely because the victim (who worked at the library) had just banned Seay from the premises. One witness called for questioning was a homicide detective who worked on the case.

Reporter Alana C. Bleimann: On Dec. 14 in Dept. 10, Judge Ernest Sawtelle found defendant Ronald Seay guilty of a homicide in a local Sacramento library. Seay was antagonizing the victim, the library’s supervisor, and verbally harassing other library members many times throughout a period of two months. In Dec. of 2018, after Seay was given an order of trespass from the city, the victim was found dead at the library after “multiple shots were heard” and Seay was linked to her death by way of two incriminating vehicles and guns inside them, according to prosecutor Rod Norgaard and multiple officer witnesses.

*****

On Dec. 16, Judge Sawtelle found defendant Teunie Turner guilty of a DUI car accident in which multiple victims suffered considerable injuries. Deputy District Attorney Brandon Jack and two officers testified how Turner had taken “two or three sips” of a Buzz Ball, a sugary alcoholic drink, and got behind the wheel with a BAC of .287, causing a head-on collision at a major intersection.

Reporter Dalia Rodriguez: On Dec. 15, Dept. 31 called two preliminary hearings. The first case was for possession of marijuana, stolen property, and possession of a firearm. The defendant was initially observed as nervous when he was detained. The detective was on the property doing a probation checkup. A second detective arrived on scene to help detain and identify the set of individuals. The defendant initially stated that his name was Nate, but it was Thomas. The vehicle under his possession was a renter’s and a search was conducted on it. During the search, the detective found two glass pipes used for methamphetamine and a scale, and in the glove compartment saw the butt of a handgun. The defendant stated that he was only driving because his sister had been using heroin. The second case was for child molestation. The victim had been molested from the ages of 10-15 by her mother’s ex-boyfriend. This occurred on multiple accounts when the mother was not home.

Reporter Koda Slingluff: On Dec. 16, many defendants were absent due to medical complications. One case saw Andres Gutierrez, who violated parole and a no contact order to see his children. The children’s mother, and former domestic violence victim of Gutierrez, gave a statement to the court expressing concern that he had tried to kidnap her kids and may try to again. After this case, the majority cases called were domestic violence and substance related.

Reporter Mia Machado: Representing Fatima Watson on Dec. 16, Public Defender Shelby Alberts motioned in Dept. 62 for the court to review Watson’s bail, currently set at $500,000. In the co-defendant matter, Watson is alleged to have been driving the vehicle for three other men who went to a hotel room “to do some sort of exchange.” Upon exiting the hotel, one of the three men shot and killed an individual inside the room, before returning to the vehicle that the defendant was allegedly driving. Citing the defendant’s significant ties to the community and her cooperative contributions to the case, Attorney Alberts argued Watson posed no flight risk if bail was lowered to $50,000. District Attorney Andrea Morris, however, disagreed, citing the defendant’s history of misdemeanors and failures to appear in court as grounds to assume she would flee. Agreeing with DA Morris’ concerns, Judge Savage added that if the crime had been committed a few years earlier, before California changed its felony murder rule, the defendant would have been included in the case’s more serious charge of murder. With this, Judge Savage denied her motion.

Reporter Kianna Anvari: Judge Scott L. Tedmon called Alvin Brown’s case on Thursday, Dec. 17 in Dept. 60. In a courtroom that hears domestic violence cases, Brown is being held in custody for three misdemeanor charges: one count of vandalism and two counts of resisting arrest. PD Rayla Freshwater asked for Brown to be released on his own recognizance or for bail to be lowered to $0. DDA Anissa Galata objected and asked for bail to remain set at $10,500 for each count. Galata read her reports from February and May to prove that Brown is a flight risk. Judge Tedmon stated that the Public Safety Assessment (PSA) report recommended detention. Judge Tedmon reset Brown’s bail to an aggregate of $20,000. Further proceedings for Brown will continue on Monday, Dec. 21.

Reporter Evie Sun: On Dec. 18, Judge Scott L. Tedmon presided over Dept. 60, with Deputy District Attorney Mitch Miller and Assistant Public Defender Rayla Freshwater. Defendant Travon Seymore was charged with two counts: a felony complaint in violation of bringing or possessing a firearm to the grounds of a university or college and in violation of corporal injury on spouse or cohabitant. He was also charged with a misdemeanor complaint in count one with violation of driving under the influence, in count two of driving with a blood alcohol level of .08 percent or more, in count three with a violation of hit and run with property damage, and in count four with a violation of driving on a suspended license. The defendant will return to court on Dec. 28 in Dept. 60.

YOLO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

Reporter Hannah Skepner: Dept. 11 called Christopher Appleby’s case on Dec. 14. He was on for violation of probation, in which he failed to show up at the substance abuse residential treatment program where a bed was found for him. He was later found intoxicated and brought back into custody. The DPD was asking for a bail reduction or for him to be released on OR. Both requests were denied by Judge Timothy Fall, and the bail remained set at $20,000. Appleby is currently on the waitlist for two programs, and the DA is happy to have him released and transported to one of these programs by probation once a bed becomes available. Appleby’s next court date is Dec. 30.

Reporter Kianna Anvari: Judge Stephen L. Muck called Trayon Finley’s case on Friday, Dec. 18 in Dept. 11. Finley is in custody at Monroe Detention Center and appeared via Zoom for his preliminary hearing. He is facing two felony charges: domestic violence and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. Finley’s girlfriend called his probation officer after they had an argument, telling probation that he was keeping a gun in their motel room. She also said that Finley lunged toward her right shoulder and bit her the night before. DPD Jonathan Opet argued against DDA Deanna Hayes, claiming that Finley was being set up by a witness that lacks credibility. Judge Muck said there was sufficient evidence to hold the defendant to answer on both counts. His arraignment is on Dec. 30.

RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

Reporter Macy Lu: A continued jury trial took place in Dept. 3P of the Riverside County Superior Court on Dec. 14, regarding the case of People v. Stanford James Stelle III. DA Dolan cross-examined Deputy Carter using three telephone audio recordings from Dec. 24, 2019, Jan. 5, 2020, and Feb. 14, 2020. During the examination, Judge Dale Wells frustratedly pointed out that the defense was just “plowing the same ground over again,” suggesting that they should move on to a new questioning segment. Continuously, Dolan attempted to rephrase the question, whether he believed himself capable of evaluating Stelle’s mental competency, but the DDA objected on the grounds that the matter had been previously covered. In most instances, Judge Wells sustained the objections.

Next, Dolan questioned Dr. Michael Galeski. In response to Dolan’s questions, Dr. Galeski reported that nothing in the three audio transcripts were so inconsistent as to change his opinion on the mental and communication capacities of the defendant, which he believed equal to that of an individual with an Autism disorder. In response to the DDA’s questions, Dr. Galeski said that only in some of the calls did Stelle talk primarily of the Bible — a notably intriguing subject for him and evidence for his disorder (most individuals with Autism have an area of heightened interest). The jury will return on Tuesday to receive instructions, hear both the DA’s and the DDA’s closing arguments, and deliberate.

****

In Dept. B301 on Dec. 17, there were a series of in-custody arraignments. One defendant, Ldemont Jordan, was on vacation with his girlfriend when he allegedly stole her aunt’s vehicle, slamming the door into the girlfriend’s head as he departed. Given his previous strike and his other two charges of possession of illegal substances and robbery, the court set his bail at $100,000.

****

There were a few other cases involving the illegal possession of ammunition and/or firearms. Defendants Vicente Villegas and Daniel Quevedo were involved in such a case. Villegas’ bail has been set at $10,000 and a public defender was appointed for him moving forward. Quevedo’s bail was set at $50,000 due to a robbery induced prior strike on his record.

****

In another hearing, Eliseo Claro asked the judge to lower his bail of $90,000, the DDA pointed out that a previous judge had actually signed a 1269c, increasing the bail to $213,000. The DDA then explained why he was particularly concerned about the defendant’s release: he was accused of setting fire to his belongings on his front porch while his family was in the house, dousing his living room with lighter fluid while his two young children were present, and holding a gun to his head while threatening to kill himself in front of his spouse. His arraignment will continue on Dec. 21. A criminal protective order has been implemented on behalf of the victim.

SENATE BILL 73 PRESS CONFERENCE 

Reporter Dalia Rodriguez: On Dec. 15, the press conference covered the topic of Senate Bill 73 which would put an end to jail sentences for drug possession and end mass incarceration. The meeting was held by Senator Scott Wiener, with the presence of Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon, Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo, San Francisco Public Defender Mano Raju, Jeannette Zanipatin with the Drug Policy Alliance and retired Judge from the Contra Costa County, Honorable Harlan Grossman. They all shared their perspectives on the bill and why they believe it is a positive enforcement in California. They also shared their input as to how the current policies of California target communities of color.

Kianna Anvari will earn a Master’s in Public Administration from San Diego State University in May 2021. She is from San Diego.

To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9

Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:

The post The Vanguard Week In Review: Court Watch (Dec. 14 to Dec. 18, 2020) appeared first on Davis Vanguard.