Judge OKs Rape Trial Despite Big Questions

Share:

By Crescenzo Vellucci
Vanguard Sacramento Bureau

SACRAMENTO – “Shauku” is a fine name. But, Shauku Daryl Barksdale has had plenty of names – more than dozen to be exact over the past nearly three full decades, according to court records.

Conversely, the woman that Barksdale is accused of raping is now, under court rules, only going by “Doe.”

That much was clear late last week when Barksdale was the subject of a preliminary hearing to see if he should stand trial for rape.

But because prosecutors and defense lawyers try to “hide the ball” – not provide with the opposing side with any more information than necessary until trial – not much else was all that clear at the preliminary hearing.

At the end of two days, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge James McFetridge did enough evidence, though, to order Barksdale to stand trial, sometime probably in March.

According to Sacramento Police Officer Emily Griffin, “Doe” and Barksdale were roommates in a home with three other people in early February 2019, when “Doe” said Barksdale raped her.

“She said she was sexually assaulted by her roommate (and) that he had been sexually aggressive previously,” said Griffin. She said “Doe” was in the home alone after she and her boyfriend had a “heated” argument and he left the house along with all the other roommates other than Barksdale.

“Doe,” said Griffin, reported that Barksdale approached her from behind, made sexual advances and then forced himself on her. Apparently, noted Griffin, there were no locks on the bedrooms doors – only a wedged screwdriver kept the door closed.

“Doe” later called the police and went to the hospital.

Another SPD officer, Casey Dionne, said another statement was taken at the hospital and “Doe” was hysterical.

And SPD detective Marcos Massingale confirmed that “Doe” claimed Barksdale had raped her, but said that when we listened to calls Barksdale made from Sacramento County Jail, the defendant denied – to another roommate in the same house, that he had done anything wrong.

The detective said that DNA collection showed that the DNA found on “Doe” “was the same as defendant.”

But “Doe” also, as private defense attorney Michael Hansen pointed out in his cross examination of the police officers, was also “doing meth.”

“There are inconsistencies in the statements” taken by officer Griffin, said Hansen. He also questioned Massingale about on whose “authority” did he seize (the defendant’s) phone. The judge sustained the prosecutor’s objection.

The detective, under cross by Hansen, did recount how “Doe” admitted “she could be dramatic and that she was smoking meth.”

Hansen also suggested to the court that there may have been some kind of burglary that day in February 2019 at the house, possibly by the boyfriend of “Doe” or even “Doe.”

To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9


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

Share:

About The Author

Disclaimer: the views expressed by guest writers are strictly those of the author and may not reflect the views of the Vanguard, its editor, or its editorial board.

Related posts

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

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