Michael Reyes Faces Life, After Conviction for Attempted Murder

photo by Lauren King, Court Watch Intern
photo by Lauren King, Court Watch Intern

Two Co-Defendants Convicted of Accessory After Fact

A Yolo County jury returned Monday with guilty verdicts for Michael Reyes, Lisa Humble and Liberty Landowski, in the culmination of a lengthy Yolo County trial.

Michael Reyes, 25, faces life in prison after being found guilty of Attempted Murder, Assault with a Semi-Automatic Firearm, Felon in Possession of a Firearm, Felon in Possession of Ammunition, and multiple Gang and Gun Enhancements.

The jury also convicted co-defendants, 22-year-old Lisa Humble and 21-year-old Liberty Landowski, of Accessory After the Fact with a Gang Enhancement. Both Humble and Landowski are, like Reyes, from West Sacramento. The jury found them not guilty on two other crimes charged in the case.

On November 18, 2014, at around 8:00 a.m., the two victims were riding their bikes in a residential neighborhood in West Sacramento. Mr. Reyes confronted one of the victims, who was a dropout gang member and who had previously been selling drugs and had had a physical altercation with Mr. Reyes’ step-father.

Mr. Reyes waited until the victims had their backs turned and were riding away before he began shooting directly at one of the victims. Reyes shot a total of six times and hit one of the victims with three of the bullets. That victim was rushed to UC Davis Medical Center in Sacramento. He suffered from three gun shot wounds, one of which went directly though the middle of his back, cut his aorta and lodged in his lung. He nearly died.

According to a press release from the DA’s office, Ms. Landowski had driven Mr. Reyes in her vehicle at the time and fled the scene after the shooting. Ms. Landowski switched cars and hid the Mustang she had driven, which has not been located.

According to the press release, “Jail calls intercepted after Humble and Landowski were apprehended showed that they were still actively concealing the Mustang after their arrest while in custody. Witnesses testified at trial that Humble and Landowski sent Reyes audio recordings of police scanner information via e-mail after the shooting in addition to renting a motel room in Sacramento to conceal Reyes’ location after the shooting. When contacted by police at the motel room, Humble had the gun that Reyes used to shoot the victim.”

Deputy DA Amanda Zambor was quoted in the release.

“This is a prime example of why gang crimes need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” said Ms. Zambor. “Such brazen crimes, committed in broad daylight, do not just affect gang members but all of those around them in the community.”

The three defendants are scheduled to be sentenced on August 31, 2015. Mr. Reyes faces 68 years to life, while the two co-defendants face anywhere from probation to seven years in prison.

Friday’s Closing Arguments by Harald Kirn

Closing arguments were completed Friday in the attempted murder trial of Reyes, Humble and Landowski.

Michael Reyes’ attorney worked simply to convince the jury of the unfairness of the gang enhancements placed on the charges against his client, while the attorneys for Ms. Humble and Ms. Landowski attacked the credibility of two of the prosecution’s key witnesses. About Detective Hererra and the woman who witnessed the shooting personally, the attorneys called the detective overzealous in his pursuit of gang crime, and the woman a drunk.

The attorneys also claimed that their clients’ apparent aid to the defendant and Eric Lovett did not have to do with their gang affiliation, but with their life-long immersion in the “street-life.” They called attention to the testimony of Michael Reyes himself, claiming it honest and forthright, and that the evidence was faulty at best.

The attorneys for the women called for a dropping of all charges.

The prosecution, on the other hand, used statistics regarding Detective Hererra’s classification of criminals as gang members, and the lack of alcohol on the woman’s person, to draw the attention of the jury to what DDA Zambor perceived to be faulty reasoning.

Zambor described the testimony of Michael Reyes as aloof, cocky and evasive, and tried to shift the attention of the jury back to the evidence she had presented, rather than the testimony of the defendant, alleging that the women involved knew exactly what they were doing when they invited the two men to their North Highlands/Sacramento hotel room. She called for them all to be found guilty on all charges.

About The Author

The Vanguard Court Watch operates in Yolo, Sacramento and Sacramento Counties with a mission to monitor and report on court cases. Anyone interested in interning at the Courthouse or volunteering to monitor cases should contact the Vanguard at info(at)davisvanguard(dot)org - please email info(at)davisvanguard(dot)org if you find inaccuracies in this report.

Related posts


    1. David Greenwald

      We have not been able to ascertain what happened. The computers in Yolo are quite primitive and did not reflect the verdict the last time we checked.

  1. Alan Miller

    “This is a prime example of why gang crimes need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” said Ms. Zambor. “Such brazen crimes, committed in broad daylight do not just affect gang members but all of those around them in the community.”

    I don’t understand the logic behind “gang crimes”.  Should not the president of a grocery chain, or the mayor of a small town, or a postal worker, or a bat scientist, face the same consequences when pulling out a gun and shooting people in broad daylight, and would it not also affect all those around them in the community?  Then again, I don’t buy the logic behind “hate crimes” either.

    1. Frankly

      I’m with you on this Mr. Miller.

      Such brazen crimes, committed in broad daylight do not just affect gang members but all of those around them in the community

      Ok, then add enhancements for brazen crimes done in broad daylight, not gang enhancements.

      It is really kinda’ sucky as these kids are generally without a strong male role model, and then the crappy school system puts them on the street without job skills.  So they join gangs and get harsher penalties.

      I am for harsh penalties for attempted murder and accessory to attempted murder, but let’s get rid of the gang enhancements and do something else to make a life as a gang member much less attractive compared to the alternatives.

      And let’s get rid of hate crimes too.  As most of the people demanding them are just spewing hate themselves.

      1. sisterhood

        “It is really kinda’ sucky as these kids are generally without a strong male role model, and then the crappy school system puts them on the street without job skills.  So they join gangs and get harsher penalties.”

        Hear, hear.

        “Let’s get rid of hate crimes too.”
        Re: hate crimes, I have mixed feelings. I worry that it will become a politically correct way to prosecute borderline cases in a “cash for convictions” system. On the other hand, I believe certain crimes used to not get prosecuted at all, and now we’re playing catch-up. What comes vividly to mind were cops who beat gay men, after Harvey died, during the White Night protests in the Castro. Black men hung from trees, lynched, tar and feathered. Prostitutes killed by serial killers.

        It used to be if a gay man or woman was beat up, he didn’t even report the crime. My lesbian friend was attacked by a hateful man on the streets of L.A. in the 90’s, (her girlfriend’s exhusband tracked her down) in broad daylight. Not once motorist who drove by stopped to help her or even bothered to call 911.  She fought back but never reported the crime. She didn’t like cops.
        My other friend was beaten until he almost passed out by two brothers who didn’t know he was a drag queen and thought they were flirting with a woman. He was really beautiful, stunning, when he wore his makeup. This happened New York in the late 80’s. He did not call the cops. Perhaps many gays didn’t used to report beatings out of fear that they may be hauled away to jail, then be beat again? Perhaps out of fear they would be outed in the newspaper and lose their job & friends? I don’t know all the reaons. Seems like some crimes are just so filled with hate that perhaps the hate crime enhancement is truly worthy. Jury’s out with me on that one.

    2. NoneYaBidness

      I believe it’s because we really need to get rid of gangs, they are actually the biggest cause of crime, they are a constant, they are organized, they get away with many crimes that are not reported, they are not just random, they are the product of drugs, prostitution and money laundering. They are not single crimes, and they span across our country’s borders. They steal our young no matter what race. They are a mold on our society. So they need to be dealt with much more harshly.

  2. daveyjones

    I was on this jury.  After the trial, I googled Reyes and Liberty, and I found this website.  I’m very impressed with the coverage.  It is excellent. From now on I’m going to be reading the Vanguard.

    However, there may be some confusion. The two acquitted charges were with respect to Reyes.  The women were found guilty of all their charges that were given to us.

    It was indeed a four week trial.  I’m not sure exactly why it took so long.   Speaking personally, I was a little frustrated that so much time and effort went into a crime of one gang member shooting another.  But I also understand the reasons why it is necessary.  You can’t let gang members shoot each other with impunity, because if you do, then they will feel free to shoot at the general public.

    At the end of the trial, the jury was left with lots of questions.  I’m not sure if all trials end like that.  However, I think our verdicts were fair.

    1. NoneYaBidness

      You think it was fair to give the girls gang enhancements? How do you know they even knew Reyes was a gang member? How did you not have doubts about that? At least on the part of Landowski.

      1. betatstr

        I wonderd about this too. Reyes testimony read as though he admitted being in the gang. But I did not see the women’s gang testimony (perhaps it was not printed as I think not every detail of the case was printed). So I googled what the requirements are to add the gang charges and there are two different charges:

        Under Penal Code section 186.22(a) pc, only someone who is an “active participant” in a gang can be charged with a sentence enhancement.  Whereas under section 186.22(b), even someone who is not an active participant can receive a sentence enhancement, such as in a case where the person is not a gang member but committed a crime for the benefit of a gang.


        1. David Greenwald

          Gang charges only require that the individual commits the crime for the benefit of a criminal street gang, it doesn’t necessarily mean they have to be a member of the gang.

        2. NoneYaBidness

          My point is, I believe you have to have knowledge that what you are doing is for the benefit of the gang.

          So for example, say hypothetically , an arson decided to burn down a building for the joy of it. Then it turns out it is the “drug house” of a gang. He had no knowledge that it was a gang house, he just likes to burn things. So can he be convicted of a gang crime because he was helping the rival gang by burning down this building?

          If either of the girls did not know that they were assisting a gang member, or were not intending or aware that they were doing anything for the benefit of the gang. How can they be convicted of a gang charge. In my opinion, there should have been some serious doubts about that.


      2. NoneYaBidness

        Davey won’t answer this. Because he doesn’t know. And the verdicts were not fair. This trial was based on a prosecutor fabricating a story that fit her needs and jurors that fell for it. You would have to be blind to not see. I’m sure you did have a lot of questions. Because most of what they said doesn’t make sense. Smoke and mirrors. We all want crime to stop. We all don’t want gangs. It’s obvious Mike Reyes is a criminal gang member. He is a worm that deserves to be locked up. But in this case, you over charged/convicted an innocent woman for no reason. The jury was left with a lot of questions because the stories changed, the evidence was not clear and misleading. The defense attorneys were inept, and the prosecutor does not care about justice one bit. The prosecutor cares about “wins”, not justice. Liberty made some stupid mistakes in an effort of self preservation, that is it. There is a reason you had so many questions, but you ignored them. Then because you were bored and thought it should be a simple case, you voted to convict. I hope you can sleep at night.

    2. sisterhood

      Hi Daveyjones.

      Can I be blunt with you? Your statement  “It was indeed a four week trial.  I’m not sure exactly why it took so long.   Speaking personally, I was a little frustrated that so much time and effort went into a crime of one gang member shooting another….” scares me.

      You see, I sat on two juries.  Also, a close friend of mine was arrested for a crime he absolutely did not commit. After explaining to him my experience with juries in Yolo and Sac Co., and his own stint as a juror in Sac Co., discussing the matter with his children, praying about it, and taking advice he rec’d from several close lawyer friends, my friend plea bargained & wound up spending six months in county.

      So, you see, when you state that you don’t understand why it took four weeks out of your life, when the man in question in this trial, Mr. Reyes,  may wind up spending decades in state prison (not the relatively easy time my friend spent, partly in solitary confinement, in county) I am annoyed and afraid. If you are an inpatient soul, that is fine. Just don’t sit on a jury.

    3. betatstr

      I too have sat on juries and there are times when everyone thinks, “why is this taking so long?!?”  I’m sure in this case that must have been true because the main defendant’s testimony read as though he confessed. And, yes, there are always questions…I for one wonder what became of the getaway car, the white mustang, whoever hid it must have done a good job. But after reading the articles, I’m just surprised that the two women made such poor decisions…I can’t imagine witnessing the near murder of someone and then helping the guy who did it…I think I would have taken off for another part of the country! Anyhow, thanks for doing your duty by being on the jury as a lot of people try to get out of serving.

      1. sisterhood

        Hello betastr,

        Thanks, also, for your civic duty, and serving on a jury.  My point was that four weeks might seem like a long time, but not to someone (and that someone’s loved ones) about to be sentenced to possibly decades in a state prison, or even his entire lifetime. It is the duty of the jury to weigh all the evidence, even if it takes four weeks, or longer.

        I wonder about “cash for convictions”. I wonder if the D.A. gets additional funding, based on gang enhancements. Or perhaps the D.A. gets a grant that must be used to aggressively prosecute possible gang-related offenses? The reader who goes by the nickname “Davis Progressive”, or David G., may know more about this practice.

        1. betatstr

          I think one can express surprise at the length of the process and still be able to do their duty. It sounds like your jury services were not the best. I found my experiences to have moments of frustration but mostly very fair and thorough efforts. It’s not easy voting guilty (or not guilty) knowing how big of an impact it will make on the defendant’s life and the victim(s) as well.

          As to the cash or funding for gang enhancements, I would find that interesting if proven. I know there are some over-zealous prosecutors (heck, some defense attorneys are equally gung-ho)  but the evidence has to be there (or not).

  3. sisterhood

    ” It sounds like your jury services were not the best. ”

    First experience: Sac Co. Man was accused of DUI and driving while impaired. Man had a valid workers comp acid splash burn, well documented, to both eyes. Cop pulls him over & sees his very slightly scarred red eye balls. “Have you been drinking today?” Yes, officer, I had 3 wine coolers around lunchtime in my garage. Otherwise, no other drinks. It was evening, he was driving to a neighborhood market because he realized he was out of dog food. Breathalizer put him exactly on the cusp. The jury discussions went along these lines:

    “I’ve told everyone repeatedly I have non-refundable hotel reservations in Tahoe for the weekend. The judge wouldn’t accept that as a reason for me to be excused. All of you better decide quickly. I’m not about to give up my 3 day weekend in Tahoe. The cop wouldn’t have pulled him over without a reason. I can vote right now: he’s guilty.”

    Another juror:

    “Did you see that linen suit that lawyer is wearing? It’s all wrinkled. Why didn’t she iron her suit? She looks awful. That suit doesn’t fit her properly. She has awful taste. No, I don’t want to go over that stuff that guy said about calibrating the breathalizer.. it’s too complicated. I agree, the cop wouldn’t have pulled him over if he wasn’t drunk. I’m ready to vote right now. I don’t care how much he weighs. If I drank 3 wine coolers, I couldn’t drive. I don’t care how many hours went by. I vote guilty. (Smiles and giggles. )You all are wasting my time.

    “Yeah, she’s right. This is a big waste of everyone’s time. No, I don’t want to read his doctor’s report about the acid splashing in his eyes. Do we have to read it? I have to get on the road. The mountain traffic is already backing up. You people better not make me miss my long weekend.”

    The other trial was grand theft auto, in West Sac. Yolo county. I was the alternate juror. The entire deliberation took 45 minutes for them to convict him of a felony.
    What about the jury you were on? Care to discuss that? I’d like to hear a positive experience! Thanks.

    1. Napoleon Pig IV

      Sisterhood, thank you for describing your experience on that jury. It sounds really bad, and I hate to think how often jurors might take their responsibility so lightly. I think your point about the importance of each trial to the defendants is a very, very important one.

      I was also on a jury once, a second degree murder case. Like some others, the trial was pretty long, but not four weeks. Both the prosecution and the defense attorneys made both good points and stupid observations, but the evidence was laid out systematically and reasonably clearly – although who knows what was not allowed to be presented to the jury.

      Once we began deliberations, we had to sort through a lot of material to be able to deal with the main charges and the enhancements. I must say I was impressed with how seriously everyone took their responsibility. No one ever commented about trying to rush or end by a certain time due to other things they wanted to do.

      We did not agree on many things at first, and probably took longer than the people waiting for our decisions would have liked, but we discussed, debated, and even to some degree argued, but again I was impressed by the respect shown for the importance of the process. At some points a few people even cried, because the case was nothing like a simple case of “this is a bad guy who has to be put away.” It was very hard.

      Ultimately, we voted to convict, but not until everyone had spoken many times and had many opportunities to second guess their own reasoning, explain their reason for their vote to the other jurors, and seriously consider whether they had any doubt about their decision. I’m quite certain that as emotional as the process was, by the time we reached a verdict, there was no reasonable doubt left in anyone’s mind.

      So my conclusion is that the system can work, but often doesn’t. The propaganda is that ours is the best in the world. However, our system has many, many flaws, one of which is how expensive and slow it is, and the other is how often people are intimidated into accepting a plea bargain when they are in fact innocent but can’t afford to fight. We have a long way to go before any of us should have real confidence in the fairness of the status quo. Oink!

      1. sisterhood

        Thank you, Napoleon. I needed to read your words today. I did not mention another indirect experience I had with a juror many many years ago He was an ex Sac Sheriff Dept. employee (only a few years) who sat on a gang related murder trial. Can’t for the life of me understand how that guy passed the voire dire, unless the lawyer did not ask him about every single job he ever had, and unless the lawyer did not ask him his opinion & his experience w/ gangs, criminals, & people of color. I worked briefly w/ this guy & was appalled when he bragged he got jury duty. He was giddy: kept saying things like, “You’ll be reading about this one in the Bee. But I can’t say more than that!” After the trial, when I heard it was a murder case, I felt sick to my stomach. He even laughed when he came back to work and bragged, “Well, that’s two less gang bangers on the streets now. The one that got killed and the one that killed him.

        As you know, if you’ve read my comments over the years, my dad was a cop. But when something really bad happened at work, he was detached at the dinner table and he would say things like “I had to deal with a lost soul today. It was hard.” My dad never ever joked about the “lost souls” he had to deal with.  My dad would never ever joke or brag if he had been on that jury. He would have probably said a few Hail Marys at Sunday Mass for the lost souls.

        Thanks so much for taking your jury duty seriously and in a dignified way, the American way. Oink back at ya.


    2. betatstr

      Sisterhood, those do sound like frustrating experiences. I served on a criminal assault with a deadly weapon case (knife). It was a long trial with a very strong defense attorney. It seemed as though the defense attacked every little detail and while it was impressive, it never really made any true damage to the strong case that the prosecution put on. We convened and took a quick poll to see where we stood. Then we went through the case. Some jurors lapsed into CSI (the TV show) type issues that had not been presented and that was probably the most frustrating part. The jury was very diverse and there was tension at times but Everyone took their job serious and we were in agreement to convict on all charges. The other case was a civil medical malpractice. Very technical and the jury was largely professional types. It was also very lengthy but it was a shorter deliberation.

    3. tribeUSA

      sisterhood–that sounds awful; I shudder to think of such characters determining the fate of anyone.

      I suppose if there are one or two obnoxious, belligerent or piggishly selfish jurors on the jury panel, the rest of the jurors will also want to rush to judgement in order to avoid spending time with such ‘peers’! (although personally I wouldn’t want to belong to any club that would have me as a member….)

  4. Lowell Landowski

    Nortenoes do not move up by shooting people in the back, at approximately 50 feet. No shot caller authorized the shooting. He should have got out, and punched him out.
    Coward. More gang members than ever, because as the Gang Expert says, more police than ever? They officially tag our neighborhood, branded with an official B. The officials dilute the quality of the Boys, and all the neighborhood little kids claim, North Side. That is the West Sac gang strategy, some strategy; it is not working very well at all. They try to say we are all gang related. Everything is relative, is depends who your relatives are. Sometimes it is personal. A personal vendetta by a clown, and a coward.

    This was not an action of the gang, it was a personal beef.  The jury did not hear the whole story.  The defense did a very poor job, and the prosecution hid the truth.  I was shut out of court till the final arguments.  I should have been allowed to sit in on the whole trial.   The judge said, because I may be called back, but I was not.  As I told Liberty, I know they got it wrong, but don’t laugh, it looks bad.  I told her sometimes they get it totally wrong, and you get convicted anyway.  She is not laughing now, but she won’t cry, she is out of tears, and so am I.

    1. NoneYaBidness

      Why was Liberty associating with such low-life people in the first place. And why did she go back and help him? Is it normal for her to associate with meth addicts, gang members, and low-life criminals?

    2. NoneYaBidness

      I’ve never in my life seen someone that had so much going for her, and everything to lose, completely and utterly destroy her life over someone that obviously did not even respect or care enough about her to handle his business on his own, with out ruining her life as well. And then for some reason she chose to go back to him and help him. It is sad and makes no sense. Not to mention it basically sounds as though he threw her under the bus in every way possible during his testimony.

    3. NoneYaBidness

      Also, According to Mr. Reyes testimony (full of lies as it may be) he claims that after Liberty saw him shoot, she took off. But then not only did she meet back up with him, took him to in & out, took him back to the hotel,she bought him toiletries, meth pipes?!!!, lottery tickets, hung out with him for hours, and then had sex with him. That is the most shocking and bizarre thing I have ever heard. Why, why, why?!?!?!

    4. betatstr

      I’m sorry to hear of your daughter and your sorrow. I can only imagine how hard it would be for a parent to hear their child is convicted. What do you believe was hidden? I was hoping one of the women would testify but I would imagine the defense would recommend against that. With 3 defense attorneys, I wonder if they were not united in their efforts.

  5. NoneYaBidness

    I just  hope the judge is lenient on her at sentencing, and I hope she appeals this conviction. And I hope that Michael Reyes gets life, so that the worm that he is can rot.


    1. David Greenwald

      Given her limited role and her lack of record, I’d be stunned if she got more than probation. But then again, I’m a little surprised she’s gone this far.

      1. NoneYaBidness

        I believe the PC32 is a wobbler?  It would be nice to see it changed to a misdemeanor, and for the gang enhancements dropped. I know that won’t happen, but it should.

  6. daveyjones

    “Each one was smiling and they were speaking among themselves. The behavior of each individual did not appear typical for a person charged with a serious crime and consequently facing serious repercussions.”

    I took that from an earlier article in the Vanguard.

    As a member of the jury, I hope Liberty gets parole.   But my god, such poor decisions she has made.   I hope she is able to learn from her experience.

    I mentioned earlier, there were lots of questions left by this case.  This probably is not important unless you were in the courtroom, but why did Mr.  Landowski report his car stolen when he knew his daughter had it?  My best guess is that he wanted the police to find his daughter before she got in more trouble.


    1. betatstr

      Daveyjones, earlier you said the women were convicted of all charges. Other than aiding after the fact and gang enhancement, what other charges were there? Just curious as I thought that was the only charges mentioned in the article.

      1. daveyjones

        Yes, those were the only two charges.  The ones that you mention are the only two.  The confusion started when someone said the women were acquitted of two charges.   This wasn’t true.  It is possible that there were more charges that were dropped before the trail started.  I would  have no  knowledge  of that.  Hope it has become clear.

  7. NoneYaBidness

    Hiding your car, is tampering with evidence for self preservation at best. It in no way implies that you were trying to protect anybody but yourself. Unfortunately, jurors don’t think logically, they just kinda “go with what they feel” they don’t realize that they need proof. They believe the DA because they are the “Good Guys”. Well, let me tell you something, I appreciate what their job is, but they don’t care about the truth.

    1. betatstr

      Have you ever sat on a jury? People who are willing to sit on a jury are often not paid during the full course of the trial (my employer only paid for 3 days), they may have to juggle or cancel personal commitments. It’s an important duty that is taken seriously by everyone I met on the juries I sat on. And any defendant who doubts that a jury will be fair can always ask for a trial without a jury–the judge renders the verdict. Juries do care about the truth, and in this case just based on what has been presented here, Mr. Reyes is clearly guilty and the women are at least guilty of aiding him after the fact. The gang enhancements are something I’d like to know more about, but we didn’t hear all of the evidence.

      As as to hiding the car, it shows that the women knew a crime had been committed and so it is a factor in this case. Although everyone on this forum hopes for a lenient sentence for the women, it still does not mean they were not actually guilty of a crime. I wonder if they would have gotten all charges dropped or lowered if they were willing to testify? It’s just a sad situation all around.

      1. NoneYaBidness

        Matter of fact, I have Jury duty On the 17th. And you don’t know the truth. Did you sit on this Jury? Do you know what was presented? It’s quite obvious in this case in regards to Landowski that the Jury was not fair. And nobody cares about the piece of crap Reyes. He IS guilty, and a low-life, and deserves to get life.

        1. David Greenwald

          I would put it a little differently: her conviction does not seem to fit her involvement in this matter. Maybe you can argue for accessory after the fact, but I can also see that she was thrust into a position where she may well have lost control over her ability to control her circumstances.

          However, many times juries feel that the individual should not be facing charges, but feel confined to follow the law.

          That is where a judge needs to step in during sentencing to make sure justice is done. In this case, probation would seem an appropriate sentence and probably a reduction to a misdemeanor that can later be expunged.

        2. NoneYaBidness

          David, I agree, I know her and she is a sweet caring, loving person. And she does not deserve to have her life ruined by the actions of others. Unfortunately she is surrounded in life by idiots, low-lifes, and losers, and she is very susceptible to peoples opinions and “peer pressure” . I do believe that she has learned a lot from this, and she will be much more careful as to whom she trusts and listens to in the future.

  8. NoneYaBidness

    Prosecutors should be held to the same standard of telling the truth as anybody else. But they are not. They can make up anything they want, change it mid story, hide evidence, and basically be as rotten as the people they are trying to convict. It’s not right. Its shady and wrong.

  9. Lowell Landowski

    The prosecution has no obligation to put out the truth. The prosecution is there to get the highest conviction. 68 years to life for what? It was not a gang hit; it was a cowardly shooting in the back, at 50 feet.  It should have been a beat down, but he was a coward, who turned to a gun.  Even Ernie deserved better. Liberty never stayed at the Crown Plaza Motel. I reported my car “Missing and it may have been stolen.” The cop even threatened to out me, if I did not tell him what I did not know, but I am not gay, just a nerd. Liberty did not hide the car, Lisa did. Later, later the car was stolen.  We did not want to tell her, but good, Liberty should have that fancy car taken away from her. I am her father, but I was kept from the proceeding, and that is wrong. I am guilty of trying to protect my Daughter. The whole mess is based on prejudice and middle class morality. This is an insult to the bad name of the Norteno’s.  Norteno’s do not rise by shooting people in the back at 50 feet. This was not authorized by the Norteno organization, it was a personal beef gone bad.


      1. Lowell Landowski

        Really.  Yes, Norteno’s are bad, but the are some standards.   They are expected to use their hands.  This was not authorize.  He was a coward and a clown, who should have, used his hands.

    1. NoneYaBidness

      Really? Who cares about Norteno’s. (Expletive) Nortenos, are you a Norteno?  Why did Liberty deserve to have her car taken away? Why did you guys hide things from her? Why did you not tell the court that Lisa hid the car  not Liberty?  Why do you feel bad that he is getting 68 years? He ruined your daughters life, and he is a maggot. Ernie deserves better? He is a maggot too. You only should be worried about your daughter.

    2. NoneYaBidness

      “Liberty never stayed at the Crown Plaza Motel.”…………..”Liberty did not hide the car, Lisa did.” ……..”later the car was stolen.  We did not want to tell her, but good, Liberty should have that fancy car taken away from her.” And you said none of this in court?…………….Shame on you

    3. NoneYaBidness

      “Liberty should have that fancy car taken away from her.” ? she earned it, if you are jealous of your daughters success, keep it to your self.

    4. betatstr

      Mr. Landowski, you say this whole “mess” is based on “middle class morality”. Could you explain that further? I know you are a grieving father, but a man was shot in cold blood and nearly died. This was not a victimless crime.

    5. sisterhood


      Thank you for revealing such personal details of your life. I’m not surprised a cop tried to out you as gay, not that it is anything to be ashamed of. A cop threatened to send CPS to my home to bother my kids if I didn’t talk to them, even though I had no info. Then, when I felt forced to go talk to them, they made up a lie about my loved one to get me angry and talk trash. They didn’t realize I could prove with physical evidence they were lying. Then they backpedaled & said they weren’t positive, that’s why they asked me. But they did not ask, they stated their lie as a fact.

      I admire you for going to the Integrity Unit to complain. I didn’t have the courage to do that. I am not the least bit surprised that a lawyer in the DA’s office backed up another lawyer there.

      Perhaps DP or David G can explain to the readers how this complaint process works. Where can you go now, to elevate your complaint, since you did not receive what you believe is a satisfactory outcome?

      I pray for your daughter. I hope she does not get jail time.

    6. NoneYaBidness

      “Liberty did not hide the car, Lisa did. Later the car was stolen.  We did not want to tell her…..”   Ok At least you admit you knew where the car was hidden, because you knew that later it got stolen. Now…. how many other people are included in the “we did not want to tell her”……………….

  10. Lowell Landowski

    Here is a question.  Why did he keep a gun, worth $100, and they got rid of a car, worth $20,000.  Answer, because he wants to go to prison, and they do not.  Maybe, the waterway near the CHP training site, that would be a good place to dump a car.  Maybe, the car just plain vanished in thin air.  We will never know, old gs take things to the grave.

    1. NoneYaBidness

      Answer, because they are idiots. They actually thought that if they hid the car, they would not get caught. Besides liberty, the other 3 have a combined IQ of 50. That is why they live the way they do. They have a “street” mentality, they don’t take care of their children, they are drug addicts, and they are pretty much a drain on society. And everybody knows where the mustang is.

  11. daveyjones

    >  “but I can also see that she was thrust into a position where she may well have lost control over her ability to control her circumstances”

    I believe this is well put.  I had the impression during this trial, that Lisa was the more influential person between these two women, and Lisa may have led  Liberty into this situation.  It seems from what has been written here that Lisa hid the car.  It was Lisa who got the hotel room.  It was Lisa who had the gun at the arrest.  It was Lisa who sent the emails.  It was Lisa who helped introduce Liberty to Michael.  It seems to me that perhaps Lisa should receive the harshest punishment.  On the other hand, Liberty was driving the Mustang that took Michael to the crime.   So although I thought Lisa was on some level more culpable, I couldn’t prove this in the jury room.   If Liberty had taken the stand, she could have helped us understand her situation.  But she wouldn’t betray her childhood friend.

    1. NoneYaBidness

      …………….”Speaking personally, I was a little frustrated that so much time and effort went into a crime of one gang member shooting another.  But I also understand the reasons why it is necessary.  You can’t let gang members shoot each other with impunity, because if you do, then they will feel free to shoot at the general public.
      At the end of the trial, the jury was left with lots of questions.  I’m not sure if all trials end like that.  However, I think our verdicts were fair.”……………..

      Not in the least, not at all. and I think you are starting to see that now…..

    2. NoneYaBidness

      This was reported to be said by the prosecution at the opening statements…… “The week before the incident Mr. Reyes met Ms. Landowski and the two of them started dating.”    This was said in the closing arguments….”Zambor declared, Landowski must have met Reyes much before the stated time, through their strong mutual contacts.” everything changed as it went along. She is a liar, and said what ever she thought would get a conviction. ” The jury was left with alot of questions” of course you were. It’s called “reasonable doubt” and you are not supposed to convict under that. O.J. killed two people and was acquitted because of doubt, this jury sentenced an innocent girl on PILES OF REASONABLE DOUBT. Shame on you.

    3. NoneYaBidness

      “I had the impression during this trial, that Lisa was the more influential person between these two women, and Lisa may have led  Liberty into this situation.  It seems from what has been written here that Lisa hid the car.  It was Lisa who got the hotel room.  It was Lisa who had the gun at the arrest.  It was Lisa who sent the emails.  It was Lisa who helped introduce Liberty to Michael.  It seems to me that perhaps Lisa should receive the harshest punishment.  On the other hand, Liberty was driving the Mustang that took Michael to the crime.   So although I thought Lisa was on some level more culpable, I couldn’t prove this in the jury room.   If Liberty had taken the stand, she could have helped us understand her situation.  But she wouldn’t betray her childhood friend.”

      you can’t back pedal now. You had doubts, you convicted anyways, don’t try to say you “argued” in the jury room… or tried to “prove” in the jury room, you bent over and caved like everyone else. You had your vote, you failed. And you are no better than the DA, or Mike Reyes.
      [moderator] edited to remove name-calling

      1. betatstr

        I understand you are very close friends with Ms. Landowski and upset on her conviction, but I think you are not being fair to daveyjones. Just because daveyjones said Lisa was more influential, doesn’t mean that Liberty was not responsible for her own actions. Also, daveyjones said, “It seems from what has been written here….”  which means that he/she is responding to opinions made in this forum about Ms. Landowski from her father and you and NOT from the evidence which was presented at the trial.  Daveyjones has said their verdict was fair. It is in the penalty phase that Liberty’s background and other factors will be taken into account and she may very well get probation at this point if her record is clean. I hope for the sake of her baby that you mentioned that she doesn’t serve more time. Although I also hope that gangs, drugs, and guns are not a part of this baby’s future.

        1. Lowell Landowski

          The verdit was not from the community, it was from another world.  People who are scare of thugs, people who do not want to get thier hands dirty.   I was kept out of court, my attorny said, I will be there to object.  Where was she?  The judge told me, you may be asked to testify later.  I never was called again.  My civil right were violated by the system.  I answered the questions, but they, all the them, the prosecution, and the so called defense, did not ask the most important questions.   I wish the courts had never got involved, we would have taken care of it ourselves.  He would be sleeping with the fishes.  I am hard of hearing, I am a nerd, so I acted strange, because, I am different. Do any on the Jurty have a medical backround, so they could tell the I act differenty, because I hear differently?  Bias against me, because of something, I struggle with, and cannot change.  Also, biased against my community, because they do not understand the Nortenoe Organization.  It was not an authorized gang hit, it was clown, who wanted to be a Nortenoe, and the system gave him status, by over charing him, and convicting him for life, on false charges.

        2. sisterhood

          Hello Lowell,

          What are the questions you wish had been asked? I’m so sorry they did not allow you in the courtroom. I don’t understand why, maybe a lawyer out there can explain that to all of us.

          Will Liberty appeal this decision, and if so, how can she afford her legal fees, or is it all free with the public defender? Or did she plea bargain?
          Huge disservice to the whole community if this child is ripped away from her Mom.

        3. betatstr

          Sisterhood, I am not a lawyer, but having been a juror, I know it is standard procedure to not allow witnesses to sit in on a trial. This is due to the fact that their testimony could be altered if they heard the testimony of the other witnesses. In my case the victim’s family and friends who witnessed the crime were not allowed in during testimony, but they did come in for closing arguments and the reading of the verdict. I know they were not happy. So as sad as it was for Mr. Landowski, it is not discrimation against him.

      2. sisterhood

        Hello betastr,

        I never used the word discrimination.  And I’m still interested in questions and what info Lowell thinks was left out of the trial.

        1. betatstr

          Sisterhood, I’m sorry,  I didn’t mean to imply that you used the word, “discrimination”, but rather that Mr. Landowski not being allowed in the trial is something normal in the trial system. His own post seems to make it sound as though he feels that he has been treated unfairly. I hope that Mr. Landowski answers your questions.

  12. Tia Will


    First I would like to say that I have no knowledge of any of the individuals involved in this trial and only followed it through the Vanguard articles. There are a couple of points that you have made that I would like to address.

      You can’t let gang members shoot each other with impunity, because if you do, then they will feel free to shoot at the general public.”

    I believe that this is a commonly held belief about why we cannot allow gang members to shoot each other. In group violence is the norm. It is unusual for there to be deliberate violence against those outside of the gang structure ( the public as opposed to members of a rival gang) with the exception of perceived informants. There are however real risks to the community that do not involve deliberate targeting. Gang preservation is dependent upon recruiting new members which is clearly detrimental to the young folks being recruited. Gang strength is maintained by their revenue streams which often involve drugs and other activities deleterious to the individuals involved. And finally there is the risk of innocents being caught in the “crossfire”. And no, these ideas were not gleaned by watching too many police procedurals but rather by spending too many nights in a variety of ERs where one gets a direct view of the mayhem caused by gang activity and a close view into our prison system which does not effectively, as we would like to think” prevent gang activity.

    She has only seen her baby boy through glass for 9 months already.”

    Herein lies one of my major issues with our legal system. We frequently hear about the impact on the family and friends of the identified victim in legal case. But they are not the only innocent victims. Family members of the accused, usually children, are also innocent victims. To me this is a major argument for not overcharging and over sentencing. The truly dangerous should be isolated from the rest of society. The merely naive and/ or gullible should not be treated harshly but in a manner that helps them to understand where they made their  mistakes, and more importantly provides them with enabling opportunities so that they are unlikely to make the same mistakes in the future.

  13. jbosco

    This is what makes me sick about you people from davis or better yet every where else . I personally know Michael reyes and his mother. I watch this kid grow up and it not once occurred to me that he was in a gang that statement is a joke he is not in the broderick gang so his testimony is true that he is not a gang member. The victim is a dropout so when wspd found that out he assumed Michael was a gang member himself cause as you know in some gangs they kill you when you drop out but in this case it was about drugs not gangs its makes me sick that these corrupted people make  a lot of money from us taxpayers to assume stuff and get rich Michael reyes is not in a gang at all yolo county da office is a joke the judge paul Richardson is a joke yolo county court system is a joke and they wonder why people go into place like this committing a crime

    1. David Greenwald

      I’m not a fan of the gang charges in this case, but Reyes’ act itself certainly is sufficient for the life sentence, so I’m not really getting your outrage here.

    2. sisterhood

      Hi jbosco,

      I agree with your comments about Yolo Co D.A.  I don’t know the Judge in this case but I have sat in court on numerous occasions and can’t believe the attitude of those D.A.’s. Solano Co. is just as bad, if not worse.  On one occasion, in Yolo, Judge Mock asked one of them a question and she had her back to him, whispering & giggling with her co-horts, and he had to repeat himself! Can you imagine what would have happened if that was the defendant? The judge did not even admonish her in any way! I was dumbfounded. But overall I really respect Judge Mock so I’m not faulting him. The D.A.’s just seem really arrogant to me.

    3. betatstr

      I read the article on his testimony and he said several times that he is a Broderick Boys which is a part of Nortenos and so he considers himself a member of the Nortenos…     http://www.davisvanguard.org/2015/07/main-defendant-takes-the-stand-in-attempted-murder-trial/

      1. daveyjones

        Reyes said several times that he was a member of the Brodericks.   Reyes had the Brodericks “B” tattooed on his head.   He had a couple other gang related tattoos on his head.  There was no question he was in the Brodericks gang.  He posted pictures on his facebook page of him doing a Brodericsk sign with his hands.    The defense tried to say that being a member of the Brodericks boys was an innocent thing. Their defense claimed that the Brodericks was just a group that got together for social occasions.

        1. sisterhood


          At the end of the trial, if the jury had unanswered questions, why didn’t you send a note to the judge, via your jury foreman/woman? Not sure why you continued to deliberate if you had lingering questions. Care to share any of those questions here?

        2. Lowell Landowski

          Because, it was brand new to me.  At the moment, November 18th, 2014,  all I knew was my car was missing, and it may have been stolden.   It could have been Liberty, but I had my key in my pocket, so I could have been somebody else.  Later I found another key in my drawer, after the police had left.  Did you know Lisa Humble became homeless,  during the week before the incident?  Liberty tried to help out her friend, she even asked me if Lisa could move in with me, but I refused, because I knew Lisa would not get along with my son.  Liberty got sucked down the drain, trying to help help her friend Lisa. Homeless, and she has a little boy, named Wyett.   Lisa’s Boy Friend is a low level Nortenoe, but even he did not approve of the jumping.   No other Norteneo shot caller approved the shooting.  It was a cowardly act, shooting someone in the back at 50 feet.  68 years to life in prison branded as a coward, he will not last.  45 minutes to deiberate, why is it taking so much time grumbles the jury, 45 seconds for a year.  A clown, a poser, trapped for life in prison, maybe there is justice after all.

  14. daveyjones


    there were indeed questions, but they didn’t affect the verdict.  You would need to have been in the courtroom to appreciate these questions, but I’ll mentions some of them here.   Where is the mustang?  Why did Mr. Ledowski report his car stollen/missing?  How did Lisa get a black eye?  Where did Michael get the gun?  How many people were in the car?  Did Michael get back in the car after he shot Ernie?  All these things were unknow, but they didn’t change the verdicts.  If anything, the answers would have turned some of the acquittals into convictions.   If the jury had solid evidence that Eric was in the car, then Michael would have been convicted of Gang activity.  We didn’t ask the judge about these things, because the judge didn’t know.  The only people who know the answer to these things are Liberty and Lisa, and they wouldn’t testify.  Michael did testify, but his testimony was found unbelievable by everyone on the jury.


    1. Lowell Landowski

      If you had questions, you are suppose to get back with the judge, with those questions.   How much did you decide was not important, because you discounted their testimony, because you were lead to believe they should be ignored anyway?  How much evidence and testimony was ignored?

  15. NoneYaBidness

    Here is the main thing. These decisions    were not made by liberty. They were made by people in her life that thought they knew what they were doing.

    [moderator] edited for language

  16. Lowell Landowski

    There is something called “The Conviction Integrity Unit.”  The DA used my disability, a profound hearing loss, to dicount my testimony.   I do not have sterioscopic hearing.  Meaning, a do not have direction hearing.  So, I look around alot, and the ignorant, I may appear shifty, and strange.   She used that to her advantage, and to the disadvantage of justice.  My testimony was ignored, that of others as well.  His testimony was like “Alice In Wonderland”.  But this was not a gang hit, it was a personal vendetta by a coward.  All the testimony pointed to that, but it was ignored, because the DA wanted the testimony ignored, because it did not fit her narrative.  This was a case, were to evidence to the contrary was ignored, to force a gang conviction.  A coviction of 68 years to life.  Hurry up,  we can’t have gangs shooting at each other.  But, it was not a gang hit, and you have condemed him for life, based on a false charge, and ignoring the envidence that supports that conclusion.

    1. NoneYaBidness

      Who cares if he get 68 years to life? He is the reason your daughter is in jail and is now a convicted felon. Her life is ruined because of him. I have no sympathy towards him. I don’t understand why you do.

      1. NoneYaBidness

        Who cares about him? Why do you keep defending him? He is a coward, low-life piece of trash. He is the reason why Liberty is in jail. He ruined her life. Stop defending this piece of trash. Why do you keep defending him and protesting his 68 years? Why do you care? Your daughter is in jail because of him. Liberty is now a convicted felon because of him. Her life is ruined because of him.Stop defending him.
        [moderator] edited for language. Please note that certain words cause the blog software to pull posts into the moderation queue and they have to be passed manually.

        1. Lowell Landowski

          The system is not suppose to over charge and over convict.  But, they do.  I thought good, he is going to prison for life, labled a coward, a clown, and a poser.  He will be locked up with the cowards, to keep him away from the general population.  They will try to get to him.  I think they will suceed.   I am a Christian.  While I do hate what he did, and who he did it to,  I cannot stand by while he claims he is a Nortenoe.   He is a tattoed clown, a poser.   This was not a gang hit, this was a personal vendetta, gone bad.  I finally got a hold of the Victim Integity Unit.   I got the deputy DAs supervisor, and he said she did a good job.  Good job my eye, at least I tried to point out the obvious.

        2. NoneYaBidness

          So are you saying that “Christians” believe that if you are not a true Norteno gang member, but you are just claiming to be when you try to murder someone, that you deserve some sort of compassion? I need to learn religion. LOL I’m just not sure I understand who you are defending. The Good name of the Norteno? The Christians? Michael “I want to go to prison so I can shower with guys” Reyes?

          And I do agree, they did over-charge…… Liberty. Any over- charge he got is really irreverent. He was a felon that had guns, ammo, drugs, and tried to kill somebody. So I’m thinking he is done for life any way you look at it.

  17. NoneYaBidness

    Let me ask all of you this. how was Liberties phone “pinged” at the crown when she was never there? How would they have gotten her number to ping? How did they “magically” find them right across the street? Who was the first person arrested, that just happened to have had a key to the room, just happened to be outside for no reason, and is the one person that was dropped from this case?

    Think about it.

    1. NoneYaBidness

      If Liberty and Mike “I got a face tattoo cause I’m gay” Reyes, were the only two people in the car, how did the name “Lisa Humble” ever come up? That IS how they claimed to have found that Liberty owned a Mustang. Because the wife supposedly dropped her name then “they went to Lisa’s social media account and found a picture of Lisa and Liberty in a Mustang” You have to understand that this entire case is based on lies. Anyone with a minute to invest in actually seeking the truth can see it.

    2. NoneYaBidness

      How is it that the prosecutors complete chain of evidence starts with the wife’s ID of “Lisa Humble” . That is how it starts. So tell me. 350 million people in this country, what are the odds, that if Mike and Liberty were in that car, that “Lisa Humble” would even come up? What are the odds that they even knew each other?

      How would they connect that?

  18. NoneYaBidness

    If you go back and read from the preliminary hearing to the present. The chain was, “Lisa Humble” and Mike ” I suck penis” Reyes, to Eric Lovett, then to Liberty. Why? Cause she was stupid enough to help people that she “thought was her friends.” Keep in mind that Eric is a snitch, “Obviously” Do the math. And she did not want to be involved in the first place.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
Sign up for