Is It A Good Time To Be A Woman In San Diego?
Posted: February 23, 2012 Filed under: General | Tags: crystal harris alimony, Diana Gonzalez stabbing san diego, Diana Gonzalez Strangulation Act of 2011, domestic violence restraining orders, ex-wife alimony abusive husband, rebecca zahau, san diego police code of silence, san diego police officer sexual bribes, san diego police rape kits, san diego women safe, spousal abuse san diego Leave a comment »Are women safe in San Diego? You tell me.
A woman is found hanging from her wealthy boyfriend’s balcony naked, bound and gagged and the San Diego Sheriff and medical examiner call it “suicide”. Would any woman let alone a missionary’s daughter kill herself and display her naked body in public? While a second independent autopsy indicated that she had four unexplained bumps on her head and her neck wasn’t broken or even fractured, the law enforcement’s response, case closed. Rebecca Zahau, rest in peace.
After being kidnapped, raped and strangled over a 3 day period, a woman reports the incident to the San Diego Police Department and her husband is arrested and booked into jail but, the District Attorney declines to prosecute and her husband is set free. Two weeks later the woman is found dead in the men’s bathroom at SD City College, where she was attending classes, after having been fatally and brutally stabbed by her husband. Apparently, the husband was just found this week in Tijuana, 16 months after the killing, and now the husband is charged with murder by the DA. Yet, could her death have been prevented? The arrest report in the kidnapping incident indicated physical injuries including the tell-tale signs of strangulation, “tiny red spots” (broken capillaries) on her face, as well as 20 prior incidents of abuse, and one prior domestic violence incident reported to the police. And, the husband’s arrest record would have also indicated that he had been arrested for choking his prior wife, all cases the DA declined to prosecute.
Yet, a local judge and the California Legislature saw it differently. The judge attempted to protect the woman when she granted the woman’s request for a restraining order after the kidnapping. And, in response to the woman’s death, it was the California Legislature that stepped up to provide more protection for women by passing the Diana Gonzalez Strangulation Act in 2011, which now allows juries to be told that the risk of death goes up 7 fold after the first choking incident and a conviction carries additional jail time. But, what good is the law when a DA declines to prosecute? The DA made a tragic mistake, but, when it comes to domestic violence, mistakes are deadly. The DA is currently running for mayor, you’d think someone would ask her how this happened, what changes have been made and how can she assure other victims who come forward that they will be believed and protected. Let’s hope this tragedy doesn’t discourage other victims from coming forward, obtaining restraining orders, and whatever help they need so that they can leave a violent relationship and stop the cycle of violence. Diana Gonzalez, rest in peace.
And, recently an 18-year veteran of the SDPD was just sentenced to 8.8 years in prison for multiple counts of sexual battery by restraint, soliciting sexual bribes and sexual assault and battery by a police officer involving 5 women whom he stopped for traffic violations. According to his sergeant who testified at his trial, the officer was “known to target women”, “display their beauty” and had a nickname the “Las Colinas (women’s jail) transport unit “. Yet, to this day, it doesn’t appear that there has been any investigation or discipline of any officer, including the sergeant, by the SDPD to determine who was aware that the officer targeted woman or knew of his nickname and did nothing. Instead, the City (taxpayers) are left with the bill for the damages and so far, one victim has filed a lawsuit alleging a “code of silence” in the police department while 10 other women are contemplating a lawsuit. Just last Friday, the sergeant retired after 26 years and only after an internal police investigation involving allegations that he got rid of 2 traffic tickets for 2 deputy district attorneys. Seriously, I’m not making this up. But, maybe, the Police Chief has his hands full given that 11 other officers have been charged with various criminal allegations including some involving women (rape, stalking, domestic violence) and some not (DUI, excessive force). Ladies, my apologies.
And, San Diego can also be “proud” of a certain judge in family court who has the national and first-ever distinction of ordering an ex-wife to pay alimony and attorney fees to ex-husband who was convicted and sentenced to 6 years in prison for sexually assaulting her. But, hey, the judge did stay the alimony while the ex-husband is in jail. Wow, nothing like having a financial obligation to your rapist hanging over your head for 6 years. I guess re-traumatizing the victim or having a basic understanding of the domestic violence dynamics of power and control, is not his judicial concern. And, the judge also has the distinction of being the only family court judge in San Diego to have a defendant transported from jail to attend each court hearing and undoubtedly, at the taxpayers expense. Wow, you’d think he’d get disciplined or recalled for such conduct. Crystal Harris, my apologies.
And, lastly, there are over 1200 untested rape kits at the San Diego Police Department. A rape kit is done on a rape victim to collect the rapist’s DNA (hair, blood, semen, etc.) which is used to identify and convict the rapist. And, in many instances, the San Diego Police Department doesn’t even test rape kits in cases of date-rape. What? Date-rapists don’t rape just once. They are predators and many times are involved in other crimes as well. They can’t afford to test every rape kit, the police claim. But, a rape victim is expected to submit to a 4-6 hour intrusive and humiliating exam to collect the DNA, which may or may not be tested and sit on a shelf somewhere. It reportedly costs $1000 to process a rape kit. San Diego Sheriff tests every rape kit. Recently, Los Angeles started testing their backlog of untested rape kits and has made over 400 positive hits to other cases. And, San Francisco passed an ordinance in 2010 requiring all rape kits to be tested. Even, fiscally ravaged Detroit is testing their backlog of 11,000 untested rape kits. Can San Diego afford not to gather critical evidence that may solve other crimes, monitor convicted rapists and add the collected DNA to the department of justice database to convict or connect perpetrators to other crimes? Besides, what message does it send to rapists? And, to the women you are hired to protect? Ladies, maybe, you don’t want to date in the city limits.
For many years, I was a domestic violence prosecutor in San Diego and maybe, that’s why I am sensing that San Diego may have a problem. Maybe not, but, I’m still asking the question. Are these incidents just an awful coincidence or is there a much larger problem in San Diego? Is it a good time to be a woman in San Diego? You tell me.
Simply my opinion, what say you?
George Huguely Trial: What’s The Defense
Posted: February 17, 2012 Filed under: General | Tags: dating violence, domestic violence, george huguely, George Huguely defense, george huguely trial, UVA Lacrosse Murder, yeardley love 3 Comments »2/23/2012 Update:
Huguely convicted of second degree murder. Jury recommends 26 years in prison. Maximum sentence is 40 years. Sentencing in April 2012. Jury deliberated 9 hours.
In response to this tragedy, Virginia now has a new law allowing protective orders in dating relationships. And, according to Kristi VanAudenhove of the Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance, “Yeardley Love’s death resulted in a great awakening for many individuals in Virginia and across the country about the dangers that exists in violent dating relationships. It has also sparked conversations at colleges and universities about how to improve policies and services for students experiencing sexual and domestic violence.”
==================================================================================================
Get drunk, kick down your ex-girlfriend’s locked bedroom door, and violently shake her as her head repeatedly hits the wall and leave her in a pool of blood to die a painful death. That’s exactly what George Huguely, a 24-year-old UVA lacrosse player, allegedly admitted to, yet, the defense claims he had no intent to kill his ex-girlfriend, Yeardley Love, and his actions weren’t the cause of her death. Complete acquittal? No murder. No manslaughter. Just an accident.
The defense claims she “suffocated” in her pillow. She had a blood alcohol level of .14. She had an “abnormal brain”. And, the head injuries weren’t the cause of her death.
What?
The coroner found “blunt force trauma” to her head to be the cause of death. What explains the facial abrasions, the swollen shut right eye and the pool of blood?
Does it matter that she ended the relationship after he had her in a choke-hold witnessed by several Chapel Hill lacrosse players and that had hit her before? Does it matter that he sent her an email, “I should have killed you”, when he found out she was dating someone new?
Does the “I was drunk” defense negate intent to kill or premeditation ( first degree murder)? Isn’t ingesting alcohol a premeditated, deliberate and intentional act? And, waiting until she was home asleep in the early morning hours to kick down her door, isn’t that further evidence of premeditation and deliberation?
Or, do we give him a break because he was a jilted drunk college jock. Why? Drunk drivers are held accountable.
But, maybe, when it comes to dating relationships, murder just isn’t murder, it’s an accident. After all, I’m sure the defense will next claim, he loved her.
Domestic violence isn’t about love, it’s about power and control. And, Yeardley Love’s death is another tragic example of what happens when women leave.
Simply my opinion, what say you?
Sandusky Gets Visits With Grandkids: Drugs to An Addict?
Posted: February 13, 2012 Filed under: General | Tags: Jerry Sandusky, penn state molestation, penn state sandusky, sandusky children, sandusky grandkids Leave a comment »Bail restrictions have changed in the Jerry Sandusky case.
Jerry Sandusky, an alleged child molester, now gets visitation with children, his 11 grandkids, ages 2 to 11, with parental supervision at his home.
Really, isn’t that like giving crack to a crack addict?
Isn’t his home where he allegedly molested some of the victims? Wasn’t there a bedroom in the basement that Sandusky’s wife didn’t even know about where some of the alleged victims were molested?
Isn’t it odd that a judge would allow him access to children when he is facing allegations of child molest? As a former prosecutor of child molest, the fact that he is asking for visits with children says something. Wouldn’t it be safer to keep the restrictions in place limiting access to children by phone call or letter? Even defendants facing alcohol or drug charges are restricted from access to drugs or alcohol, but, when the crime involves children it’s different. Why?
To convince the judge to lift the restriction, Sandusky submitted letters and drawings from his grandkids. Are the letters and drawings evidence of a healthy relationship? Or, could they be in response to the controlling and manipulative requests of a pedophile? After all, if the allegations are true, Sandusky knows how to get what he wants from children.
Think about it. Sandusky created a charity, Second Mile, which gave him unlimited access to children and his employment in the Penn State football program and games would bait any child. And, he lives next to an elementary school. Coincidence?
Pedophiles are age-specific, could his own grandkids be at risk as they are around the ages of his alleged victims?
Will the parental supervision condition ensure the safety of the grandkids? If the charges are true and Sandusky has been molesting kids for over 15 years, did his own children miss the signs or were they victimized, too? Would they even notice or recognize inappropriate behavior?
After all, it is not uncommon for victims of child molest to block out or not recognize their trauma for various reasons. And, it is also not uncommon for some victims to become pedophiles, marry a pedophile or to give a pedophile access to their own children. It’s an insidious cycle.
Surely, the judge could have denied access to grandkids. Shouldn’t we err on the side of keeping our children safe?
Simply my opinion, what say you?
George Huguely Trial: Yeardley Love’s Death Murder or Accident?
Posted: February 7, 2012 Filed under: General | Tags: dating violence, domestic violence, George Huguely murder trial, george huguely V, Lacrosse player kills ex-girlfriend, UVA dating violence, UVA Lacrosse Murder, yeardley love Leave a comment »Yeardley Love, a 24-year-old lacrosse player at the University of Virginia (UVA) was killed in May 2010. And, her ex-boyfriend, George Huguely V is currently on trial for her murder. Defendant Huguely admits to “kicking in” Love’s locked bedroom door, “shook her and her head repeatedly hit the wall” and left her in a pool of blood. He even dumped her laptop into the trash. Why? maybe, so, she couldn’t reach for help or maybe, because, it contained his threatening emails?
Yet, the defense has claimed no murder has occurred as Love’s death “was not intended, but an accident with a tragic outcome”.
What? An accident? He got drunk, kicked down her door and attacked her as she slept, just before 2:15 am on May 3, 2010.
Also, the defense has claimed that Love’s death was due to her “irregular heartbeat” caused by her taking prescription drugs and alcohol.
What? Here we go again, blame the victim.
What next? She provoked him because she dumped him? She invited him over? She led him on? He was just trying to get her attention by shaking her? Utter nonsense.
As a former domestic violence prosecutor, I’ve heard many excuses, but, there is never an excuse for violence in a relationship.If the defendant had been a stranger rather than Love’s ex-boyfriend, would we even be asking these questions? But, for some reason, when it comes to domestic violence relationships, the victim is on trial and, in this case, for her alleged drinking, taking medications and an irregular heartbeat.
But, the prosecution calls it first degree murder. Drunken rage, locked door, ex-boyfriend, broken off relationship, threatening emails and texts to Love, and allegedly, 2 prior domestic violence assaults on Love. One, broken up by Chapel Hill lacrosse players and the other, when the defendant hit Love while drunk, the incident which reportedly ended their relationship. Her death was no accident, the prosecution will claim.
Consider Love’s injuries: blunt force trauma to the head, large contusion to the right side of her face, right eye swollen shut, facial bruising, abrasion to her chin and face and, the large pool of blood she was found in. Signs of an irregular heart beat? Or, even, injuries caused by just hitting her head against the wall?
An accident, really, is that the defense? What about the felony-murder rule? If a death occurs in the commission of a felony (unlawful entry into a residence, for instance), than the defendant can be found guilty of murder (life in prison). No intent to kill (malice) is required.
But maybe, a jury that will be swayed by his mental state (“drunken rage” and rejected), possibly suggesting a lesser charge of a “heat of passion” manslaughter (10 years prison)? Or, will that divide a jury between murder and manslaughter or even not guilty? Yet, if drunk drivers are convicted everyday of murder when they drink and kill, is there a different standard when you’re in an intimate relationship?
Domestic violence is not just a crime that occurs in troubled marriages, or even in relationships occurring after college nor is it limited to certain races, genders, ages, or even economic levels. Whether the crime is called “dating violence” or “intimate partner violence”, it is still domestic violence, a potentially deadly crime. According to the US Department of Justice, “every day in the U.S., three women are murdered by their intimate partners. Eighty-five percent of intimate partner violence (IPV) is perpetrated against women — overwhelmingly against women who are between the ages of 20 and 24″, the ages of many women in college. (aolnews.com, 5/10/2010)
Yet, domestic violence is a reality and denial of domestic violence is also a reality on many college campuses and among college students, administrators, and apparently, even, the UVA police chief, too. In the days after Love’s killing, the police chief demonstrated a lack of understanding of domestic violence when he reportedly released a letter advising students to “lock their doors” and to “walk home with a friend”. What? Love wasn’t killed by a stranger. Domestic violence isn’t a crime perpetrated by a stranger. How would these warnings have helped Love or help anyone subjected to violence in their relationship?
Maybe, there were warning signs? The defendant reportedly has a 2007 alcohol possession charge and a 2009 public drunkenness with resisting arrest requiring a taser to subdue him. He received a 60 day suspended sentence and was placed on six months probation? Yet, the defendant failed to disclose either incident to UVA.
Domestic violence isn’t about love, it’s about power and control. And, hopefully, Ms. Love’s death is a wake up call for all universities to step up and ensure that campuses and students are safe and that domestic violence is not allowed and will not be tolerated.
Simply my opinion, what say you?
San Diego Love Triangle Verdict Watch: Jennifer Trayers Case
Posted: February 6, 2012 Filed under: General | Tags: george huguely, intimate partner violence, jennifer trayers, jennifer trayers convicted, jennifer trayers verdict, san diego love triangle, University of Viginia lacrosse killing, yeardley love Leave a comment »(UPDATE 2/8/2012 Verdict: Jennifer Trayers convicted of second degree murder (just like Betty Broderick) faces 16 years to life in prison. Jury deliberated 4 days.)
It’s Day 3 of jury deliberation in the Jennifer Trayers trial in San Diego. Is today the day the jury decides? Or, maybe, it’s early for a verdict? Or, maybe, the jury is stuck on a verdict?
This is no easy case for any jury. And, deciding between murder and manslaughter is no easy task for any jury especially when a wife is accused of stabbing her Navy doctor husband to death after learning of an affair.
Typically, the decision turns on whether the jury finds the defendant acted with “malice forethought.” Did she have the “intent to kill” her husband? Was the killing a “planned attack” according to the prosecution to justify a verdict of murder? Or, was it a “heat of passion” jealous rage-induced killing after learning of an affair to justify a verdict of manslaughter?
The defendant faces life in prison if convicted of murder and up to 11 years if convicted of manslaughter.
Or, will the jury find her not guilty (acquittal) or will the jury be divided (hung jury)?
It’s up to the jury to decide what happened based on the testimony and evidence presented. Yet, to convict on any charge, all 12 will have to vote guilty. Anything less is a hung jury and a retrial is possible. Remember Betty Broderick, another San Diego case, the jury was hung in the first trial before she was convicted of murder in the second trial for the shooting death of her husband and his new wife while they slept.
And even today, another jury will be impaneled to face the same decision, murder or manslaughter in the killing of University of Virginia Lacrosse student Yeardley Love by her ex-boyfriend, Lacrosse player George Huguely after he allegedly broke into her apartment during a drunken rage and repeatedly banged her head against the wall resulting in her death.
Another terrible tragedy.
Simply my opinion, what say you?

Michele Hagan is a California trial lawyer, legal analyst, former prosecutor, defense attorney, Judge Pro Tem and trial skills expert. She has tried over 100 jury trials and supervised countless others. She trains attorneys to avoid "trial by fire" with her company, TRIAL READY®, and educates business owners and the public on the appropriate use of the justice system. Ms. Hagan provides sought after legal analysis on high profile cases, hot legal topics and today’s news.