Woman Convicted in Davis Hit and Run Accident; Jury Hangs on Father’s Role

A Yolo County jury convicted 27-year-old Noelle Warren for her role in a 2007 accident which seriously injured Jonathan Pinkerton.  She was convicted of felony hit and run, causing serious permanent injury.   The jury hung on the verdict for her father, 52 years old, for being an accessory to a felony for his alleged role in attempting to conceal the crime.

According to the DA’s press release, on August 27, 2007, Noelle Warren was driving a Chevy Tahoe SUV when she ran into Jonathan Pinkerton and Kyle Daubert, who were riding their motorcycles. According to the two victims and a third uninjured motorcyclist, the motorcycles were going between 40 and 60 mph on Russell Blvd., west of Davis toward Winters, when they were violently struck from behind.

Jonathan Pinkerton suffered serious injuries, including the loss of his spleen. He was found 434 feet from the point of impact after the crash, while his motorcycle was dragged nearly a mile beneath Ms. Warren’s SUV. When Mr. Pinkerton finally did come to rest in the ditch, Mr. Daubert’s motorcycle came to rest on top of Mr. Pinkerton, making it more difficult to find him.

The case against Ms. Warren was relatively straightforward.  There was evidence that Ms. Warren was the one who usually drove the Tahoe.  The Tahoe itself suffered considerable damage and Mr. Warren took what the DA considered to be unusual steps to repair it, leading to the case against him for allegedly attempting to conceal the hit and run.

While the DA’s office did not bring an expert forward to testify about the damage to the vehicle, the mechanic who worked on it would attempt to testify that the damage to the Tahoe was consistent with the damage to Mr. Pinkerton’s motorcycle.

Moreover, as Deputy DA Clinton Parish attempted to show the jury in court, the damage to the front grill of the pickup truck seemed to match the damage to the rear of the motorcycle.

Defense attorney Steve Sabbadini, for Ms. Warren, attempted to seize on a poor investigation by CHP officers and unreliable and inconsistent testimony by key witnesses after the fact, to create reasonable doubt.  He called the CHP officers’ investigation biased and called this case a travesty of justice.

He argued it was dark at the time of the accident, therefore the witnesses on the scene did not get a good look at the driver.  The one witness who did see the driver, a close friend of the victim, changed his description at least three times – first describing the driver as a male, then a woman, then a woman with blonde hair.

Mr. Sabbadini showed evidence that Ms. Warren, who currently has bleached blonde hair, was in fact a brunette with streaks of blonde four years ago, at the time of the accident.

The defense brought in a renowned psychologist to testify that the brain mixes things up and the memory decays over time.  Moreover, further reporting impacts the memory and the mind is subject to the influence of details added on later.

Here he was attempting to argue that the key witness had added on details of the female with blonde hair, influenced by media accounts and by the fact that his good friend had a civil suit pending against Ms. Warren.

The defense also pointed out that the mechanic whom the prosecution had testifying was not a TAA (Trade Adjustment Assistance) – certified expert in accident reconstruction, and that Judge Fall would not allow him to testify that this truck hit this motorcycle.

However, while the defense put on a valiant effort, they could not overcome the simple facts of the case, which were that Ms. Warren was the usual driver of the car (the defense would argue this was the family car and multiple people drove it), that the car was involved in an accident, that Mr. Warren took unusual steps to repair it, and that the damage seemed to match that of the motorcycle.

Where the prosecution was stretched in this case was in their attempt to get 52-year-old Lorin Warren as an accessory to a felony for his role in what they said was an attempt to conceal the crime.

The key came down to what Mr. Warren knew about the accident and when he knew it.

From the prosecution’s perspective, Mr. Warren covered up, concealed, aided and abetted the driver of the maroon Tahoe, attempting to cover up the hit and run.

Mr. Warren stored the maroon Tahoe on his property for several days and he did not take it to a licensed mechanic, and also got parts from an unlicensed dealer in Rancho Cordova.

After an article appeared in the Davis Enterprise a few days after the accident, Mr. Warren got nervous and pushed for hasty repairs.

Mr. Parish would argue that these are not the acts of an innocent person.  He did not call about his policy, did not go to the DMV and did not even inform his insurance of the damage.

When he eventually went to the police to talk, after the heat was growing, Mr. Parish alleges he made up a lie about his daughter hitting a tree, lied to police about the date, said he was out of state in Las Vegas, and then broke down into “fake” crying.

David Dratman, representing Mr. Warren, countered that the steps Mr. Warren took were all legal steps and the DA is trying to put together a bunch of explicably innocent acts to concoct a story about Mr. Warren’s cover up.

He called this case, “One conclusion jumped to after another.”  He added that there was no evidence that his client did anything with the knowledge that a crime had been committed or attempted to cover up a crime.

Mr. Parish seized on the fact that Mr. Warren waited to repair the vehicle as evidence of a cover up.  But Mr. Dratman countered that there was no proof that Mr. Warren knew of the accident, or even knew anything about the newspaper article a couple of days later.

Mr. Warren, he argued, did not want to pay the $1000 deductible, as this was the second accident that the vehicle had been in, in recent years.

Mr. Parish argued that because the Tahoe was parked on the property, and the property had trees, that Mr. Warren was attempting to conceal the vehicle.  However, as Mr. Dratman pointed out, where else was Mr. Warren going to put the vehicle but on his own property?

The prosecution made a big deal about the unlicensed mechanic and the fact that the parts were paid in cash.  However, as Mr. Dratman pointed out, there is nothing unlawful about going to an unlicensed mechanic, and he argued this was an effort to save money.  Moreover, he showed documentary evidence that, in fact, the parts were paid for by Mr. Warren’s credit card.

Critical evidence for the defense was the meeting that Mr. Warren had with police.  Two CHP officers and the DA investigator met with Mr. Warren, but they failed to take notes on the meeting and they failed to record it.  This put the testimony in serious doubt as to what Mr. Warren said.

Mr. Dratman read the jury instruction on oral statements to police, which tells the jury that they must consider such statements with caution.

As Mr. Dratman argued, “You would think someone would turn on the tape recorder to collect the evidence.”

Instead, there was conflicting testimony that was not easily explained.  One officer testified that Mr. Warren broke down crying, while another had no recollection of his having done that.  As Mr. Dratman showed, the police could not even agree on the date of that interview, much less the content.

Mr. Dratman argued that this was not an investigation, it was not a search for the truth, it was an attempt to fit the facts to a neat theory.  He argued there was no evidence that Mr. Warren knew there had been a hit-and-run injury accident before he took steps to repair it.

In the end, it would appear that most of the jury simply could not establish that Mr. Warren knew that his daughter had been in a hit-and-run injury accident or that his actions after the fact were an attempt to cover up.

There will be a hearing on August 16 to determine whether the DA’s office will continue to prosecute Mr. Warren.

Ms. Warren will, at the same time, have a hearing to set the date for her sentencing, which could range from probation to prison time.

Mr. Parish stated in the DA’s press release, “I am honored that I have been able to help justice arrive for Jonathan Pinkerton, even though it is almost four years after the crime.”

Reflecting on the nearly four-year investigation and numerous trial continuances, Mr. Parish praised the victim, “Jonathan and his family have been vigilant, yet patient to reach this goal. I am proud to have worked with them and every other person involved in reaching this verdict and attaining justice.”

Mr. Sabbadini could not be reached for comment and Mr. Dratman declined comment to the Vanguard.

—David M. Greenwald reporting