by Ibrahim BaigPeople v. Johnathon Timothy Ganthner is a case about sexual abuse, torture, and violence, according to Deputy District Attorney Robert Gorman.
Ganthner’s charges include a sexual act with a child, torturing another person, and abusing/endangering the health of a child.
Three years after the conviction of Ajay Dev for the multiple counts of rape of his adoptive daughter and his sentence of 378 years to state prison, he and his attorney have filed their appeal.
Their appeal attacks both the facts of the case as well as the legal rulings used by Yolo County Judge Timothy Fall that the defense claims denied Ajay Dev of his right to a fair trial. This includes most notably the inclusion of the alleged victim’s interpretation of a 50-minute pretext call that meandered between English and Nepalese, the judge’s failure to properly instruct the jury on the law, and the judge’s refusal to allow potentially exculpatory evidence.
When the public discovered that Clayton Garzon, who allegedly badly beat Mikey Partida just six months after being charged with assault with a deadly weapon for actions in the early morning hours of September 11, 2012 in Dixon, had been free after posting bail, the public was outraged.
A $75,000 bail to Mr. Garzon’s family was nothing. He was free in a matter of hours, his family reportedly posting the bail in cash. The public, already angered at the brutal beating that seemed to be motivated by animus for the victim’s sexual orientation, was outraged.
When Davis Police arrested 19-year-old Davis resident Clayton Garzon last Thursday, he was arrested and booked in the Yolo County Jail, charged with assault causing great bodily injury; committing a hate crime; assault with a deadly weapon; stalking; committing a felony while on release from custody; and inflicting great bodily injury during the commission of a felony.
Despite the charges, and the looming assault with a deadly weapons charges stemming from the September 11 stabbings in Dixon, in Solano County, Mr. Garzon received a $75,000 bail and his family reportedly immediately posted bail, in cash.
by Vanguard Court Watch Interns Glynn Trial 1st Day Testimony
The trial of Michael Glynn began on Thursday, March 14. He was arrested on December 9, 2012 for stealing an $83 bottle of whiskey from a Davis grocery store. He was seen on two dates in November on the store’s surveillance video, taking the same whiskey with no evidence of purchase.
Deputy District Attorney Sulaiman Tokhi opened the People’s case, stressing that Glynn has three prior prison terms. Deputy Public Defender Richard Van Zandt reminded the jury that prior convictions cannot be used to find guilt in this case.
Last week, Yolo County Superior Court Judge Samuel McAdam granted a Pitchess motion for former Davis Police Officer Lee Benson, in a case stemming from a barfight and resisting arrest charges against Jason McComic.
A Pitchess motion is a request for information contained in a police officer’s personnel file. The motion is typically raised when defense attorneys have reason to believe that their client was the victim of police misconduct.
by Alexandra Rose On the morning of Monday March 18, 2013, in Department 2 of the Yolo County Superior Court, the sexual abuse case of Julian Marquez was set to start under the Honorable Timothy L. Fall.
Julian Marquez was charged with 10 counts of lewd and lascivious acts with a minor and 1 count of attempting to commit lewd and lascivious acts with a minor.
by Antoinnette BorbonThe day began with a lot of confusion over a mistake made by the court clerk in not notifying both parties about what courtroom defendant James Mings’ arraignment was to take place.
Defense attorney Dan Hutchinson mentioned this case has been before Judge Richardson in Department 1 but somehow ended up in Department 6 today. Neither Dan Hutchinson nor Deputy District Attorney Martha Holzapfel understood why they had not been notified about the change.
As we celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court Decision Gideon v. Wainwright, many will lament the demise of indigent defense – the many in the system who lack access to good and effective counsel, and the many who are represented by defense attorneys with indefensibly large caseloads as counties are forced to cut their budgets in the times of economic downturn, where indigent defense ranks below many other priorities.
The biggest outcome from these cuts in indigent defense is the rise of wrongful convictions – which are one of the most devastating occurrences in our legal system, for not only does it put the innocent behind bars but it allows the guilty to go free and, in many cases, to kill or injure or terrorize again.
Two years ago, in January 2011, the Third District Court of Appeals threw out the conviction of Kyle Vigil, who received a 15-year to life sentence for his role in a drive-by shooting in Woodland, after being acquitted of the first shooting, but convicted of aiding in the subsequent drive-by gunfire with gang enhancements.
Citing jury misconduct in the form of a home experiment conducted by a juror on a crucial piece of evidence, the court overturned that conviction based on events that occurred in June of 2007 when Kyle Vigil was just 17.
When a crash on I-5 in Woodland on August 8, 2011 left three people dead and seven others with injuries – some very serious – the Yolo County District Attorney’s office put the blame on “one man and one man only,” Gubani Roderico Rosales Quinteros.
The 42-year-old faced three felony counts of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence. The defense attorney, Chief Deputy Public Defender Allison Zuvela, called the crash a tragic accident and nothing more. At the same time, she noted the poorly planned freeway construction zone that may have played a role.
by Ibrahim BaigIt was a short trial for Ricardo Munoz this week. The trial concluded yesterday with closing arguments.
Deputy District Attorney Diane Ortiz reiterated to the jury that this case is a simple case. Ortiz walked the jurors through each charge and explained how the People have met the criterion for a guilty verdict.
By: Alexandra Rose and Catherine Woodward
On the morning of Monday March 11, 2013, in Department 4 of the Yolo County Superior Court, the domestic violence casewas set to start under Judge Rosenberg.
The Defendant is accused of the following felonies: injuring his wife, resisting an officer, attempting to remove a firearm from said officer, child abuse, and damage to power/telephone lines. He is also accused of a misdemeanor for injuring a wireless connection device.
In early 2011, then newly-elected Santa Clara District Attorney, Jeff Rosen, created a Conviction Integrity Unit. Led by prosecutor David Angel, the department was set up to review cases of alleged prosecutorial misconduct and create policies to prevent errors.
In a statement at the time, Mr. Rosen said, “Integrity is central to the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office. We will protect defendants’ rights, even as we justly prosecute them. For a prosecutor, the ends never justify the means, we do the right thing, and we do it the right way.”
By Vanguard Court Watch InternsKevin 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.
“In both cases, the mistreatment of residents stemmed from Davis police officers assuming crimes had taken place and they knew who was guilty – before conducting investigations,” Rich Rifkin writes in his Wednesday, March 6, 2013 column in the Davis Enterprise.
He continues, “They failed to treat residents of our community with respect. They acted aggressively, intemperately and without regard for justice.”
Sikh Culture Expert TestifiesKevin McCarty, a UCD student, is accused of a hate crime resulting from an altercation with another student at a Davis bar in May, 2012. During a bar fight, he knocked off the turban of a man identified as a Sikh. On Thursday, March 7, an expert was brought in by the prosecution to answer questions about the Sikh religion.
Ashveer Pal Singh is a doctoral student at Stanford and has dedicated himself to studying his own Sikh heritage. His field studies are carried out in the Punjab region of India, which is 60% Sikh.
by Antoinnette Borbon The state’s case against Kevin McCarty slowly took a different turn Thursday afternoon as three of the defendants took the stand to tell their account of what happened on the night of May 18, 2012.
First to take the stand this afternoon was Sgt. Ilya Bezloglov of the Davis Police Department. He testified to being called out to the downtown bar, Tres Hermanas, because of an altercation.
by Antoinnette BorbonOn Wednesday the state began the first day of a presumed two-day trial of a young defendant accused of assault and a hate crime. The alleged victim testified, as the state’s first witness, in front of a jury in Judge David Rosenberg’s courtroom.
He told the court that he and the defendant were at a local bar in downtown Davis, Tres Hermanas, when the defendant came past him and uttered racist remarks and hit his turban off of his head. He testified he was extremely angry and felt the defendant had intentions of striking him, so he began hitting the defendant first, in what he called a self-defense mechanism. Once the two became involved in the altercation, bouncers were summoned to break it up. But no blood or bruises were shown on either the defendant or the alleged victim.
By Jeff AdachiA group of state judges wants to persuade the public to cash in one of our fundamental rights: trial by a jury of our peers.
The idea, floated by the California Judges Association as a cost-saving measure, requires passing a state constitutional amendment to shrink juries in misdemeanor criminal cases from 12 to eight members. Paring down juries is a dangerous bargain.