By Vanguard Court Watch Interns
Kevin McCarty’s trial came to a close on Monday afternoon, when the jury found him guilty of misdemeanor resisting arrest and obstructing a public officer. He was found not guilty of the other counts, including battery of an officer, battery of another person, and a hate crime.
In the early morning hours of May 18, 2012, Mr. McCarty had been celebrating his 21st birthday at Tres Hermanas in Davis when he got into a bar fight with an acquaintance. The victim was identified as a Sikh and wears a turban. During the commotion, the victim’s turban was knocked off when Mr. McCarty took a swing at him. Mr. McCarty, who had blacked out, later refused to cooperate with police. In attempts to restrain him, police slammed Mr. McCarty to the ground and he was knocked out.
Additionally, Mr. McCarty was found guilty of driving under the influence, which was a violation of the terms of probation that he had received in 2010. He had been trespassing and climbing on a tractor before he attempted to run away from an officer. Mr. McCarty also failed to appear for a 2010 court date.
For resisting officers and violating his probation, Kevin McCarty was sentenced to 30 consecutive days in county jail, beginning on April 3rd. He also received 12-month summary probation and $812 in fines.
For additional information on this case, go here
DA Prosecutes Two Individuals with Diminished Mental States
By Vanguard Court Watch Interns
Deputy District Attorney Ryan Couzens is prosecuting two men in which their mental competency is called into question.
The two men are Juan Ayala and Loren Poirier. Both these cases are actually independent of each other; by no means is Ayala’s case related to Poirier’s case.
Mr. Johansson represents Ayala. Johansson informs the court this case is a “waste of time” because all the doctors involved in the case agreed Ayala had a mental psychotic break.
Couzens reports receiving the news about Ayala “hearing voices” late, therefore a conference will be held on March 18 at 9a.m. in Department 6 to further discuss the mental psychotic break.
Ayala is charged with bringing weapons to a campus.
Poirier, on the other hand, is charged with a number of felonies, including attempted murder and assault.
Mr. Sage argued on behalf of Poirier and stated to the court that while two doctors had evaluated Poirier’s mental status, only one had completed an evaluation.
Sage said one of the doctors failed to complete the evaluation because Poirier felt uncomfortable with the doctor’s questions. Poirier felt these questions were steering him in a certain direction, whereas Poirier felt more comfortable answering the open-ended questions of the other doctor.
The court ordered the doctor to re-evaluate Poirier and asked Sage to ask the doctor if Sage could be present during the interview. This way Poirier may feel comfortable answering the questions, while his attorney is present.
Poirier’s case will be on for review on March 15, 9a.m., in Department 6.
In 2010, Mr. Poirier faced a third strike for a vandalism incident.
Preliminary Hearing Concludes in Gang Possession Case
By Vanguard Court Watch Interns
In Department 1 on Friday, March 8, the court heard the rest of Deputy Bautista’s testimony concerning the preliminary hearing for the Rodolfo Charles and James Gonzales case. Both men are accused of transportation and possession of marijuana for sale, as well as gang enhancements.
On June 27, 2011, Detective Bautista stopped the defendants because he knew them to be Norteño gang members who were prohibited from associating with other members of the gang as part of their parole agreements. Mr. Gonzales smelled like marijuana, so Deputy Bautista searched the vehicle, which belonged to Mr. Charles’ wife. A total of one-half pound of the controlled substance was found, an amount that gang expert Deputy Bautista believed to be intended for sale. However, on the date of the incident, Mr. Charles was a valid medical marijuana card-holder, although this status had not been approved by his parole officer.
Both men have served time in prison, where they identified with the Norteño gang. However, there is no evidence specifically linking either defendant to a gang crime on the street. Mr. Gonzales grew up in a Norteño gang neighborhood and has been associated with the criminal street gang since childhood, as has Mr. Charles. In prison, inmates with gang associations are housed with other members of that gang for their own safety.
As a gang expert, Deputy Bautista believes that the marijuana found in the car was intended to benefit the Norteño gang, and based upon the defendants’ phone records, Deputy Bautista infers that they were en route to sell it in a high-crime area of Sacramento.
A video was found on Mr. Gonzales’ phone depicting several men displaying gang signs and brandishing guns. Additionally, while Mr. Gonzales himself is not wearing red (the Norteños’ color) in the video, the other men were.
Officers conducted searches of both defendants’ homes. No gang-related material was found in Mr. Charles’ home. The only Norteño items in Mr. Gonzales’ home were several articles of red clothing hidden in a closet.
Defense attorneys Rodney Beede and James Granucci argued that not all crimes are gang-related, and the defendants were simply selling marijuana. Since they grew up in gang neighborhoods, Mr. Charles and Mr. Gonzales are affiliated with gang members outside of prison.
This is the third time that this case has been tried. Judge Richardson found that there was sufficient information for the transportation and possession for sale counts. The gang enhancements will also stand, since Judge Richardson believes that there is sufficient evidence that the two defendants were gang members seeking to benefit that gang. An arraignment will be held on Friday, March 22 in Department 1.
Defendant Represents Himself in Drug Case
By Ibrahim Baig
The Yolo County Superior Court of California gets quite a number of drug cases. Yet, Benito Morales’s case is a bit unusual.
This case is unusual because Morales is representing himself on charges of a controlled substance for sale.
While in court, Deputy District Attorney Michael Vroman commented on how long the trial has been postponed. Morales was asking for a continuance and an annoyed Vroman wanted to proceed to trial. Vroman further stated Morales was in custody and has all the time he needs to prepare for trial.
Morales responded that the time frame Vroman referred to for the previous continuances was when Morales had a lawyer. However, through a Marsden hearing Judge Gaard found Morales’s lawyer was not providing adequate representation and was thus fired. Morales has now chosen to represent himself, although I noticed quite a few public defenders happily conversing with Morales before his hearing.
Morales further added a few reasons to grant a continuance. The first reason is Morales’s investigator reported that results from the drug tech lab would not be done in time for the trial.
Also, Morales had motions to file on suppressing evidence and excluding certain statements. However, the judge informed Morales the last day to file motions had passed.
According to Morales, the delay in filing motions was due to being in custody. While in custody, any paperwork Morales requests takes a while for him to receive it.
Regardless, the judge stated the only good cause for a continuance is the fact results from the drug tech lab will not be received before the trial can begin.
The judge granted a continuance for Morales, and his trial is pushed back to March 25.
So how much money did this hate crime kangaroo court cost the tax payers?
Don’t the “Vanguard Court Watch Interns” have names? Why are they not given?
It was a good move to credit the interns rather than to have them go unacknowledged in stories attributed to David. Time to move to the next step and provide a name for each person who does the bulk of the writing (with a note that “Sally Smith and Jim Jones also contributed to this report.”).
I’d also like to see more oversight and editing of intern reports. Kudos to David for providing this opportunity for learning and experience.
JS, i have the tail-end editing, once the article is ready to post and is posted…i have usually been getting my questions answered shortly after one run-through, which is not always before some readers are up, as you know. Hopefully i am checking on everything that the readers would question, also. I have not been changing much of the interns’ style and narrative, so long as it doesn’t really cross into wrong grammar, etc.
This monitoring of court activity, btw, is how i got involved with the Vanguard…i was in the first batch of interns, right after becoming a paralegal…i had the Galvan brothers’ trials, Ornelas, and Artz, among others…those courtroom narratives were partially written by me, partially by David, but i also started doing the copy editing…we did not see reason to expand upon the byline…your suggestions for thorough crediting of the reports are in process, i believe
We have been very slowly completely revamping the Court Watch Program over the last year. The first six months or so of changes was mostly internal in terms of work requirements, but the next two major changes are public. The first part of that is the interns writing the bulk of the court watch pieces, while I take on more of an editorial road. The second part will be launched in April and will be announced shortly.
That all being said, while I am open to considering putting names on the pieces – right now I leave it up to the intern – I want to hear a compelling case for requiring their names be on the pieces.
I really don’t see a reason for the interns to be required to give a name. If this was a news organization site or the interns claimed to be reporting I would say they should identify themselves. Since the court watch side of the Vanguard is a one-sided account and agenda driven I don’t think it’s that important. The only reason to give a name at this point would be to gain credibility with with this who also follow the agenda.