By Lois Yoo and Jeramie Gutierrez
ALAMEDA, CA – The Alameda County Superior Court Department 706 ongoing trial regarding a sexual assault case reconvened this week—the victim, two bystanders, and an officer came in to testify in the case against defendant Sean Jetter.
Defense Attorney Patrick Ewing Clancy questioned Bystander A, who knew the victim from high school. They had met when Bystander A was a junior in high school. Bystander A was two years older than the victim and was in a choir program with the victim in school.
Bystander A was with the victim on April 20, 2017. On this day, he said, they had consumed marijuana together. Eventually, an ambulance was called for the victim.
Bystander A stayed with him on the sidewalk until he was put into the ambulance because he did not want to leave him alone in that condition. Bystander A claimed to have gone home after instead of going to the hospital with the victim.
He claimed to have met the victim’s mother before, but didn’t know anything about the victim’s relationship with the defendant.
After Bystander A graduated high school, he stayed in touch with the victim. He said they did not have a strong or deep relationship, however. “To a minimum extent, we kept in touch.”
Deputy District Attorney Connie Rae Campbell pointed out that Bystander A had initially confirmed to a defense investigator that the victim had consumed a marijuana brownie, but then later changed the story to smoking marijuana together at the park.
After taking a long pause, Bystander A admitted to changing the story but claimed the latter was the truthful version.
He claimed he lied initially because he was concerned about the victim’s mother finding out that he had provided her son marijuana. “It would be embarrassing for me that I had gotten one of my [choir] section members high. It probably would have led to me getting kicked out of the program.”
Bystander A kept expanding on his answers to the attorneys’ yes or no questions, so DDA Campbell asked him if he consumed marijuana before the hearing. Bystander A said he had not.
Once again, Campbell brought up the fact that Bystander A had continued to provide marijuana for the victim even after he had graduated high school. He explained, “I think I probably cared less because I was no longer a choir student.”
After he graduated, he explained he had met with the victim less than three times.
After the victim was taken into the ambulance and sobered up, he texted Bystander A thanking him. It was also then revealed that the victim had briefly mentioned his abuse to Bystander A.
Next Bystander B was called to the stand to testify. This bystander has known Bystander A for about five to six years and is currently a registered college student.
Bystander B was with the victim and Bystander A at the park on April 20, 2017 when they smoked marijuana. By that time, Bystander B had already graduated high school. He is three years older than the victim.
He stated that he was friends with the victim but they did not hang out very often. They did not hang out personally one on one, but they were in the choir together. He claimed April 20, 2017 was the first time they hung out outside of school.
He stated he did not see a marijuana brownie or hear the victim mention it. But he could tell he was under the influence.
At the park, Bystander B thought the victim “was having a good time. He got a little worried about getting home because of his parent’s reaction.”
Bystander B claimed to not have met up or spoken with the victim since that night on April 20, 2017.
Next, the alleged sexual assault victim testified. The court deliberated on who the victim informed of his own sexual assault by the defendant and when was the first time he informed someone. The victim claims to have told his mother first and then to his friend in little detail.
This order contradicted his testimony during the preliminary hearing where he claimed he told his friend first about his sexual assault.
He went more into detail about his sexual assault and relationship with the defendant: ten cases of rectal bleeding, martial arts training by the defendant for victim and his brother, lack of discussion with mother about blood in underwear, defendant breaking into his family’s new home, and defendant bathing victim after each bleeding.
Furthermore, on May 22, 2021, the victim—“really upset, pretty triggered, angry”—sent the defendant a text at 2:15 a.m. The defendant claimed the victim had the “wrong number” which led to more rage and a follow-up text.
Lastly, the patrol officer who arrived at the victim’s house testified he noticed, at first, the locking mechanism on the front door was installed backwards. This would have caused a front door that malfunctioned and not have properly locked.
The resident claimed she had found the door open at 1 a.m., closed it, and then found it open a second time at 5 a.m. Fearing her home had been broken into, she called the police and gave them the defendant’s name as her suspect of the break-in.
Upon further questioning, the resident revealed, however, that she never saw the defendant near her house. Also, when the officer advised her to contact the landlord to properly install the lock, the officer then testified that he never saw the resident discuss with her children the notion of actually doing that.
The case goes to final arguments later in the week.