UC Student Tests Right to Trial; Case Showcases ‘Overzealous’ DA’s Office, Taxpayers Pay the Price
By Crescenzo Vellucci
Secreted away in the courtrooms of most any U.S. courthouse – and Yolo Superior Court is no exception, and may even be the “poster courthouse” – little to nothing “crimes” are over prosecuted by overzealous, and sometimes vindictive, district attorneys.
Take the case – if you can call it that – of a University of California, Davis, student who was arrested at the last Jan. 13, 2017, UCD appearance of Milo Yiannopoulos, British commentator and author associated politically with the Alt-Right.
While it’s true that several hundred demonstrators pressured the campus to cancel his appearance that night, there was no violence or property destruction, according to campus police. They also reported there were no arrests. That turned out to be wrong.
Noah William Benham was at the protest and although he didn’t block doors like some did, he was “swept up” by campus police and jailed. And it’s 
not as though Noah William Benham is a career criminal – he has no record, other than maybe his transcript record as a UC Davis student.
The same day Benham turned down a plea deal, the DA added a felony battery charge – he has four charges now. That’s not a coincidence. Defense lawyers say it’s a form of punishment for not playing “the game” – the DA, they say, acts like judge, jury and executioner if someone, even one not guilty, doesn’t play “the game.”
In Benham’s case, he’s charged now with felony battery and misdemeanor battery on an officer, resisting arrest and refusing to obey an order. The battery reportedly came when an officer, he claims, incurred a half-inch scratch on his arm/hand when he arrested Benham. And “resisting” can be charged if someone simply asks an officer a question during an arrest.
While this case may now just have to play out in a Yolo County courtroom to see if Benham is guilty, the cost to taxpayers for trials (costs include the jury, courtroom staff, lawyers, the judge, etc.) is mounting. A typical, low level short day trial, according to studies, would cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars. Or more.
But, Yolo County is no stranger to felony trials, as pointed out in a Vanguard story in September, where the Judicial Council’s 2016 Court Statistics Report noted that Yolo County has more felony trials in absolute numbers than Alameda and Fresno.
Yolo County, the report noted, has more than twice the number of trials per 100,000 than Kern County, which is next highest. It has nearly four times the number than Los Angeles and about five times that of Sacramento.
And maybe the worst news for Noah William Benham – who maintains he won’t plead guilty to a crime he didn’t commit – is that he doesn’t have the resources, as a student, to hire his own private lawyer. He’s using the public defender’s office.
While there are some great PDs, the Vanguard has found that not only are there many more deputy DAs than deputy public defenders, the DA’s office has about five times the number of investigators, clerical and other support than the PD’s office has (21 for the PD v. 82 for the DA).
But everyone has a right to their day in court. Benham – who doesn’t appear to be a threat to society based on his appearance in court – insists he’ll press forward in the case despite those overwhelming resources by the DA’s office, even if there’s not a ton of evidence against him.
Stay tuned. The next court date is Nov. 7 in Dept. 13.
Don’t worry about the budget of the public defenders office. Given they can fly expert witnesses around to testify that sleep-raping is a “thing” they must have plenty of money. In the meantime you may want to look at this:
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/quotation-marks/
“And “resisting” can be charged if someone simply asks an officer a question during an arrest.”
Totally false. You’re getting far too caught up on this onslaught rhetoric. Show is an instance where this has happened. Better yet, cite some case law in support.
A few names, dates, and things called, tangible evidence, would help raise this story to the threshold to credibility. Defense attorneys (none named) are not necessarily the bastion of objective and fair reporting of court process. They all complain about all cases lost.
I was able to quickly find through google a number of cases where the claim was made that arrests occurred due to asking questions (one case identified in the NY Post: http://nypost.com/2014/03/28/law-student-calls-out-cops-gets-wrongfully-cuffed-lawsuit/). Also I’d point out that Cres has about forty years of experience as a protester and legal observer and probably has seen numerous examples to back up his comment.
I have to agree with Phil. When the thrust is that he must be innocent of unspecified charges due to something that happened to someone else some other time it’s hard to take it seriously. Adding that the author is profoundly biased does not help.
“I have to agree with Phil”
Shocker
Hi Phil,
“Defense attorneys (none named) are not necessarily the bastion of objective and fair reporting of court process. They all complain about all cases lost.”
I am wondering if this is not likely to be just as true of prosecuting attorneys ?
My experience has been that defense attorneys will rarely draw the media’s attention to a case unless they believe there is something rather grievous going on there and in my experience – which goes back a decade at this point – I’ve not had a defense attorney who drew my attention to a case waste my time on something mundane. So I patently disagree with Phil Coleman on this point.
David Greenwald agrees with all claims made by defense attorneys–Shocking!
That’s not exactly what I said. I said defense attorneys will rarely draw the media’s attention to a case unless they believe there is something rather grievous going on. And I’ve not had them draw my attention in a case that was a waste of time. That is not the same thing as saying I agree with all claims made by defense attorneys. Not even close.
I have to agree with Phil too.
What Phil said is not what I said. So I’m not sure what you’re agreeing with.
If true, these seems rather disgusting. How long after the original charges was the new “felony” charge added?
Assuming the reporting here is accurate and complete, where are the protests? (Why no “energy”, such as that surrounding the Picnic Day defendants? Is it solely because some believe that racism was involved, regarding Picnic Day?) Sorry to say it, but does one have to be a “person of color”, to generate interest? (I have no idea what “color” this person is.)
Got to admire someone who is willing to take the risk to fight charges that might not be justified. (And, I’m stating this as someone who is appalled by some of the tactics used by more extreme protestors.)
I do understand the issue of overcharging, particularly by the Yolo County DA. But:
– I’m failing to see how this case has been “secreted away.”
– Not appearing to be “a threat to society” does not determine whether charges are warranted.
– Overwhelming resources by the DA’s office compared to the PD could be cited in any case.
– The asserted fact that “there’s not a ton of evidence” against someone is not a very convincing argument that the charges were unwarranted. That’s not the standard. Even half a ton would be a lot of evidence.
“Over-charging” is one thing. But, over-charging as a “punishment” for not taking a plea deal is another thing entirely.
If jurors suspect that this is occurring, it seems more likely that they might “punish” the prosecution (by dismissing all charges – warranted or not).
But, things like this cannot be determined from a single article. I’d like to know if this is actually occurring.
All good points Eric. Also “Tests Right to Trial” sounds like he is some kind of explorer. As David has noted in other articles trials are not hard to come by in Yolo.
Yes – trials aren’t hard to come by and the reason is the charging decisions such as in this case. Be interesting to see if vindictive prosecution holds up here.
The charging sequence seems odd. What I am used to is they start with lots of extremely serious charges, 47 counts of felonious assault on a peace officer for example and then offer a deal which is a misdemeanor. The basic idea is threaten you with charges they will not have to prove in court as they expect you to make a deal.
If you decline the deal then they change the charges to what they really expect they can make a case on and that usually means a reduction in charges, not an increase.
So they start with the puke charges, offer the nosebleed drop, and then settle on reality as they would like others to see it.
This would argue for adding the felony before the deal was offered, not afterwards.
One of the problems in Yolo is that the offers are not good enough for the defense to recommend their clients taking them, so they go to trial and about half the time or so they improve the outcome of what was offered pretrial.
Wondering if this might essentially become “Pie Guy, Round 2”?
Good comparison.
Good, I’m glad we’re finally prosecuting some of these people who go overboard while shutting down free speech.
You mean Selectively prosecuting one person who played an unclear role in what you described
Mostly it’s an “unclear role” as you chose to run an advocacy piece rather than a news item. And on what basis are you alleging selective prosecution?
Why is a single person facing charges in this case? Why did they increase the charges to felony status?
“Why is a single person facing charges in this case? Why did they increase the charges to felony status?”
Since you do not know the answers you allege something unethical? On what basis?
I’m asking you as you seem to know it’s not selective prosecution – if it’s not why were there many individuals partaking in a given behavior and yet only one arrested and tried.
There could be many reasons. Maybe he was more belligerant than the others. You obviously don’t know the answer either but yet want to weigh in.
I don’t *know* the answer as I haven’t watched a preliminary hearing or trial. I’m waiting to see the vindictive prosecution brief. But I have been told enough that it seems very odd that there was enough problems at UC Davis to shut down Milo from speaking and yet there is only a single person prosecuted for it and he was charged with a misdemeanor until he refused to take a plea agreement and the charge was upped to a felony. I’m not at liberty to say more at this time, but it will come out.
Ahhh . . . more “I know a secret” reporting by the Vanguard.
I am skeptical because there is only one side given. I am skeptical because there is, once again, no bio on the author, and an aside of forty years experience as a protestor doesn’t make much of a resume. I am skeptical because this is an advocacy piece as first-0ut-the-gate on a story I’ve never heard of.
I would possibly be sympathetic to the cause if I was given background on the story and shown that this was a good example of the problem. As it is, we are asked to believe with no credible information.
Alan: Sorry you don’t know who Cres Vellucci is. we hired him last week as our Court watch reporter.
I missed the memo.
https://twitter.com/davisvanguard/status/913863304157605889
“Sorry you don’t know who Cres Vellucci is. we hired him last week as our Court watch reporter”
In this position is he supposed to write “Who-What-Where-When-How” or “running dog lackeys of the capitalist roaders” type prose?
Most of the interns who have had this position are more fact based so perhaps he is a transition to a different style?
Yes, it also seems to me it’s to be a very one-sided article. I would rather just have the facts and not opinion when it comes to court reporting.
David, is this supposed to be an opinion piece or a fact based court article?
I think he was intending it more on the opinion side
Maybe you should title it that way.
I ran it as he sent it. I’ll examine the next one more closely.
Except that they do.