Back in late August, UC Davis student Thomas Matzat pled no contest to having spray painted the word “parasite” at Starbucks on Orchard Road in Davis, in exchange for the Yolo County District Attorney dropping the remainder of four felonies and 15 misdemeanors stemming from a spree of protest-related graffiti, most of which involved the term “parasite.”
It was a probation-only deal with an agreement for no state prison and no jail time. As part of the terms and conditions, Mr. Matzat’s felony conviction would be reduced to a misdemeanor upon full payment of restitution. The misdemeanor conviction would then be expunged from his record.
On Wednesday, Mr. Matzat had a restitution hearing, after the two sides were over $2000 apart in terms of their estimation of the amount that Mr. Matzat was reasonably responsible for.
Defense Attorney Alexis Briggs made two essential arguments – first that some of the clean-up charges were for graffiti that was significantly different from Mr. Matzat’s graffiti which focused on the term “parasite.”
Judge Rosenberg, during the restitution hearing, asked how he was to determine which graffiti Mr. Matzat was responsible for and also whether it even mattered in terms of the amount of labor it took to clean up a bathroom, when Mr. Matzat had taken responsibility for part but not all of the graffiti.
As Judge Rosenberg asked – how do we know that it would not be the same cost? In addition, how do we not know that the spray paint by Mr. Matzat did not induce someone else to add their graffiti later?
Ms. Briggs countered that the broken window theory has had mixed results in various studies.
Judge Rosenberg noted that they had just charged Mr. Matzat for the labor, not the equipment.
The second point Ms. Briggs argued was that a $1043 charge was double charged and already included. However, it appears that it was merely coincidence that there were two charges of $1043, one referring to the Shields Library spot, which Deputy DA Michael Cabral said needs to be painted in order to fix it, and the other refers to the Social Science Building in which the university spent $1259 to acid wash the painted graffiti away.
Judge Rosenberg noted in his ruling, “Usually in restitution hearings we try to reach amicably between the parties. The People have the burden by preponderance of evidence by the claim of the victim. The claim supported by the invoices claims originally made have been charged by the Regents. Court finds people have preponderance by Regents of $5547.66. The court finds $5107.78 restitution amount. I have reduced the amount by $264.88 and by $175.”
Mr. Matzat will be sentenced on November 6. At that time, he will be able to set a payment schedule. The Vanguard was informed that Mr. Matzat is one of the plaintiffs in the pepper-spraying lawsuit and would be entitled to some settlement money though it was not clear when that money would actually be paid.
Mr. Matzat faced five felony counts of vandalism where damage exceeds $400 under Penal Code 594. There are 14 additional counts of vandalism where the damage does not exceed $400 under the same penal code. And there is a misdemeanor count of possession of tools or marking substances with intent to commit vandalism.
Given the plea agreement offered to Mr. Matzat, from the perspective of his attorneys, facing five felony counts, it was a no brainer to plead this down to a single count that could be removed from his record ultimately.
In July, Mr. Matzat’s defense attorney Tony Serra attempted to strike a search warrant of Mr. Matzat’s campus residence, arguing that it “was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment in that it was a fishing expedition, subject to a facially deficient warrant that was not based on reasonable or probable cause.”
Mr. Serra argued before Judge Rosenberg that the warrant was not based on reasonable or probable cause in that, in part, it was based on a surveillance camera that reportedly captured Mr. Matzat going in and out of a campus restroom during a time period when graffiti occurred within that restroom.
He argued that the video only shows Mr. Matzat going in and out of the restroom for a period of time consistent with normal “bodily functions.” He argued that the graffiti term “parasite” is generic.
On August 10, Mr. Matzat’s legal team provided evidence of the lack of evidence on the security footage. The footage, shown in court, only shows a hallway leading to an area where the graffiti was found.
Defense argued that when the UC Davis police filed an affidavit to search Mr. Matzat’s residence, they created a false timeframe in which the graffiti occurred which eliminated about half an hour of footage from the video. During the time in question at least four other potential suspects are seen walking past the video, including another young male with a large bag.
The police are alleged to have not investigated these other suspects.
The defense argued that there were several errors and omissions of truth in the affidavit the police filed. However, while Judge Rosenberg acknowledged at least two errors, he denied the defense’s motion.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
In the end Mr Sera had an undeniably guilty client and the DA’s office did the right thing.
Perhaps. The evidence that I saw was very circumstantial. But given the offer and the exposure, the plea made sense.
Scott Petersons conviction came from very circumstantial evidence there was never any doubt. This evidence was better. No question.
I pointedly disagree. They had him going into a bathroom at roughly a time the graffiti might have been done. I saw the video and am unconvinced.
David wrote:
> I saw the video and am unconvinced
Did you hear that similar graffiti stopped showing up at the Junior College he went to after he moved to Davis?
[quote]I saw the video and am unconvinced.[/quote]
I can add this to the list of things that did not put a look of shock on my face.
“Did you hear that similar graffiti stopped showing up at the Junior College he went to after he moved to Davis?”
That doesn’t mean the evidence in this situation was enough to prove he was guilty.