Efren will have his day in court!

[Barry]

Amazingly enough, seems as though Efren will have his day (or two) in court, whether he wants to or not!

The woman must have been very resistant to bargaining and appears to be willing to give testimony. Good for her!

We just might find out what actually happened, or at least 2 very different, yet each very well supported, versions of what happened that night.

The PD article is here.

[Geoff Johnson]

Amazingly enough, seems as though Efren will have his day (or two) in court, whether he wants to or not!

The woman must have been very resistant to bargaining and appears to be willing to give testimony. Good for her!

We just might find out what actually happened, or at least 2 very different, yet each very well supported, versions of what happened that night.

The PD article is here.

It's curious that the victim, who has remained unidentified, shortly hired a lawyer, and has remained silent to date.

According to the published accounts, all she experienced was a rattling of her window blinds; later EC came to her door, and then ran away.

The most recent reports suggest that she may have known him before.

Is that all there was to it? We'll see ...

[GardenGoddess]

It does not matter if the victim has remained silent. Good for her. Articles that focus on the victim's life are inappropriate. Whether she had met the perpetrator before is of no consequence. No one has the right to harass/scare someone in their own home, whether they have a drinking problem or not.

It's curious that the victim, who has remained unidentified, shortly hired a lawyer, and has remained silent to date.

According to the published accounts, all she experienced was a rattling of her window blinds; later EC came to her door, and then ran away.

The most recent reports suggest that she may have known him before.

Is that all there was to it? We'll see ...

[Geoff Johnson]

It does not matter if the victim has remained silent. Good for her. Articles that focus on the victim's life are inappropriate. Whether she had met the perpetrator before is of no consequence. No one has the right to harass/scare someone in their own home, whether they have a drinking problem or not.

"On Wednesday, Andrian said he was prepared to go forward. He told the judge he was reviewing new evidence that suggests Carrillo and the woman had met twice before, including one time in a bar accompanied by other people. He said outside court the second meeting was at her home.

Andrian seemed to be laying the groundwork for testimony that the two were not total strangers.

The woman's lawyer, Rosanne Darling, cautioned against speculating that the two were well-acquainted. But she declined to discuss details of any contact, citing the looming trial.

'Seeing somebody in passing on a couple occasions doesn't mean you know them,' Darling said. 'It's just not what it seems. People try to insinuate one thing or another. The evidence will come out next week. All the speculation will end.'

Prosecutor Joyce Blair also warned against making assumptions about the nature of any meetings. She told the judge the two recognized each other as neighbors at the bar. She also requested the woman be referred to as 'Jane Doe,' despite the lack of sex crime allegations.

Medvigy is expected to decide that and other issues, as well as settle on a jury questionnaire, on Friday."

[Alex]

Amazingly enough, seems as though Efren will have his day (or two) in court, whether he wants to or not!

The woman must have been very resistant to bargaining and appears to be willing to give testimony. Good for her!

.......The PD article is here.

Correct, and the PD spinning, bias and favoritism has been deplorable. The PD first reported how Carrillo was actively plea bargaining for 2 full days, followed by a spin that he was too ethical a guy to seek a plea bargain.


Plea negotiations continue in Efren Carrillo's peeking case | The ...
Feb 14, 2014 ... Plea bargaining continued Friday in Sonoma County Supervisor Efren Carrillo's misdemeanor peeking case but a pre-trial settlement remains at least a week away.The two sides appeared in court and have exchanged offers to resolve the charge stemming from Carrillo’s early morning arrest last summer outside a Santa Rosa woman’s home.

Attorney: Efren Carrillo peeking case headed to trial | The Press ...
April 15, 2014: Embattled Sonoma County Supervisor Efren Carrillo will go to trial rather than seek a plea bargain in his misdemeanor peeking case, in part to dispel any notion that he is receiving special treatment as an elected official, his lawyer said Tuesday.
“Whatever settlement he might make would be looked upon as a backdoor deal,” attorney Chris Andrian said. “Efren would rather put it out to a jury of his peers and let them decide. That way he's clear of that.”


I agree that thankfully, likely, the plea bargaining failed because the victim refused to give in to the attempted obfuscation/manipulation. I suspect there will still be whitewashers and fantasy scenario excusers in denial and not being willing to admit how right the ones whose common sense called it correctly from the start were even after the ugly details are officially on the table.

[tomcat]

See the link for an interesting article about Plea Bargains printed in the PD.

Makes me think that the prosecutor and the woman's lawyer might be in this for a bit of fame and fortune, as most cases this minor are Plea Bargained away to probation rather quickly.

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...421#post178421

Correct, and the PD spinning, bias and favoritism has been deplorable. The PD first reported how Carrillo was actively plea bargaining for 2 full days, followed by a spin that he was too ethical a guy to seek a plea bargain.

I agree that thankfully, likely, the plea bargaining failed because the victim refused to give in to the attempted obfuscation/manipulation. I suspect there will still be whitewashers and fantasy scenario excusers in denial and not being willing to admit how right the ones whose common sense called it correctly from the start were even after the ugly details are officially on the table.

[jbox]

Correct, and the PD spinning, bias and favoritism has been deplorable. The PD first reported how Carrillo was actively plea bargaining for 2 full days, followed by a spin that he was too ethical a guy to seek a plea bargain.


Plea negotiations continue in Efren Carrillo's peeking case | The ...
Feb 14, 2014 ... Plea bargaining continued Friday in Sonoma County Supervisor Efren Carrillo's misdemeanor peeking case but a pre-trial settlement remains at least a week away.The two sides appeared in court and have exchanged offers to resolve the charge stemming from Carrillo’s early morning arrest last summer outside a Santa Rosa woman’s home.

Attorney: Efren Carrillo peeking case headed to trial | The Press ...
April 15, 2014: Embattled Sonoma County Supervisor Efren Carrillo will go to trial rather than seek a plea bargain in his misdemeanor peeking case, in part to dispel any notion that he is receiving special treatment as an elected official, his lawyer said Tuesday.
“Whatever settlement he might make would be looked upon as a backdoor deal,” attorney Chris Andrian said. “Efren would rather put it out to a jury of his peers and let them decide. That way he's clear of that.”


I agree that thankfully, likely, the plea bargaining failed because the victim refused to give in to the attempted obfuscation/manipulation. I suspect there will still be whitewashers and fantasy scenario excusers in denial and not being willing to admit how right the ones whose common sense called it correctly from the start were even after the ugly details are officially on the table.

Or could it be that Efren refused to cop to a plea that inflated the seriousness of the case. My guess is this is much ado about not very much and has more to do with Efren's celebrity rather than a real crime. After all Efren did knock on the door and identify himself but the woman still freaked. We'll find out next week.......

[rossmen]

your cynicism is showing. efren seems to be drinking again (just following your lead!). i don't think adrian is behind him. his former neighbor, who receives council at county expense, will have a day at court. can county supervisors get off by trashing those living close who they harassed? i don't think so, but then i also thought efren would resign by now out of embarrassment...

See the link for an interesting article about Plea Bargains printed in the PD.

Makes me think that the prosecutor and the woman's lawyer might be in this for a bit of fame and fortune, as most cases this minor are Plea Bargained away to probation rather quickly.

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?104629-Pl ea-Bargains-more-common-than-I-thought&p=178421#post178421

[rossmen]

or your guess could be sexism. i also enjoy male privilege.

Or could it be that Efren refused to cop to a plea that inflated the seriousness of the case. My guess is this is much ado about not very much and has more to do with Efren's celebrity rather than a real crime. After all Efren did knock on the door and identify himself but the woman still freaked. We'll find out next week.......

[Geoff Johnson]

“In retrospect I should have had my pants on,” Carrillo told the officers.

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...0419480#page=0

[Peacetown Jonathan]

Yesterday, I wrote on the PD comment board that:

"I am glad that this is going to trial. We have heard much talk of two sides of this story. But Efren and his lawyers have done nothing to advance their side of the story. I honestly want to hear Efren's defense.
A few people have speculated what it might be, and that I would be surprised. That he may have thought he was returning to a different but identical, house that he had been in earlier, where he had left his clothes, etc. But this is all uninformed speculation. Until next week. I am also looking forward to hearing the 911 calls. It will be challenging for Efren's defense to disprove this reduced charge. Time will tell…"

Today's PD presented Efren's legal defense argument, which puts to rest the speculation that this was in fact a case of mistaken identity/being lost. Efren knew whose home he was trying to get to, unannounced, at 2:30 am, in his underwear.

His defense is surprisingly weak, in my view. It does not present significant mitigating circumstances at all. This was terrible judgment in his case, and an illegal imposition upon a woman that a court cannot, in this day and age, accept as a new normal, or acceptable, because he was drunk (or "inappropriate). The hypothetical argument I have heard simply does not pan out.


This was not "bad judgment" from someone with too much too drink. It is an unwanted, provocative, and intrinsically illegal imposition on a woman.

This is not going to end well for Efren.

I say this without anger, or vindictiveness; instead, with sadness that yet another man has allowed his career to be ruined by a sexist, illegal, male privilege induced sense of boundaries. It is as bad as many of us sensed.

[photolite]

[dzerach]

Is this decision to go to trial part of a continued delay tactic that is pension-related?

The PD's failure to self-restrain was their teenaged, down-home need to be irrelevant and name the brand of beer. I wonder if RR Brewing appreciates that or not. Either way, it's clear the PD has thrown its hands up in the air and gone all out to join this hopeless, endless burlesque:

"Still, he said he wanted to socialize. So he told police he grabbed two beers — Pliny the Elders from Russian River Brewing — from his refrigerator, "

Aside from the usual heavy bias in PD editorials (on any and all subjects) I fail to find any bias in their treatment of this case.

My first response after reading that article -- yes, it's just sad. A lost soul. It's clear that what Supervisor (!) Carrillo honestly believes is a reasonable explanation is to the majority of us: deeper digging into more poo. He could have used a mentor long ago? What cultural or community set of values does he think he is representing? They come across as his stone-headed esoteric interpretations of how to be in this world with others, alcohol-fermented or not. And they leave me feeling... sad.

Among the many things that leaped off the page as striking, or as anything from strikingly awkward to directly intrusive and gross (to say the least) --

• He brought her a bottle of wine after she moved in. As soon as she moved in?!
• The first place he goes to as an entrance that evening is not to her front door but to her sliding glass door near the back porch -- does she use it as her front door? Or is this admission suppose to be an improvement upon going to the bedroom window?!
• Police asked him why he wasn’t fully clothed but he gave no clear answer. YET this clarity gem:
• Carrillo said he dropped the two beers and his phone when he saw police because he didn’t want them to think he had a weapon.
• Police asked him why he wasn’t fully clothed but he gave no clear answer. At one point he explained he had been getting ready for bed.
• In closing, “I saw her light on and wanted to say hello."
• And the previously mentioned, immediately notorious -- “In retrospect I should have had my pants on,” Carrillo told the officers."
• The penultimate revelation that she was with a man in her home.
• There were other police reports involving Carrillo that apparently we will never know the contents of. I for one am relieved.

So that PD article presented aspects of his defense?

By the way, in response to the string as a whole, unless you live underground like a mole, in modern human society, people do not get to choose their acquaintances. Yet somehow we are held responsible for knowing them?? Most people who you meet, you don't choose to meet, they are just unwillingly met up with. This is true wherever -- you don't have to -- for example -- live in an apartment complex or work for a large company for it to be so.

[Geoff Johnson]

I think we're beginning to get a fix on what is about to happen in court.

I'm starting to suspect that Andrian will argue it as her word against his -- especially as to whether anyone actually saw him jimmy the window, and perhaps reach in.

If not, then the jury may have to accept that the worst he did was to go to her doors, half-drunk, in his underwear -- no "peeking".

[Barry]

...
This was not "bad judgment" from someone with too much too drink. It is an unwanted, provocative, and intrinsically illegal imposition on a woman. ...

I completely disagree with you!

and

I completely agree with you!



It most definitely was " 'bad judgment' from someone with too much too drink"

and

It also was most definitely: "unwanted, provocative... imposition on a woman."

The question for the jury will be whether it was "intrinsically illegal". It seems to be to me, based on what I know so far, but there is a fuzzy spectrum that goes between what's appropriate, what's in bad taste and what's illegal.



[Edited by Barry 5:51 April 20th]

[Victoria Street]

I think that an extraordinary amount of attention will be placed on the 911 tapes - every nuanced teased out. Not that she couldn't "fabricate" the calls, but that too will be determined. Their having been previously acquainted is (almost) a moot point. Whether they've chatted in a bar, as neighbors, or at kindergym, it does not matter. In most rape cases (and I acknowledge this is not a rape case) the rapists know their victims.

[Victoria Street]

It's curious that the victim, who has remained unidentified, shortly hired a lawyer, and has remained silent to date.

According to the published accounts, all she experienced was a rattling of her window blinds; later EC came to her door, and then ran away.

The most recent reports suggest that she may have known him before.

Is that all there was to it? We'll see ...

You forgot the "underwear" part...

[Victoria Street]

See the link for an interesting article about Plea Bargains printed in the PD.

Makes me think that the prosecutor and the woman's lawyer might be in this for a bit of fame and fortune, as most cases this minor are Plea Bargained away to probation rather quickly.

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...421#post178421

Because it is NOT a "minor" case...

[Geoff Johnson]

Because it is NOT a "minor" case...

Sorry, but "peeking" is a minor misdemeanor, however important this case may be to you.

[Geoff Johnson]

The question for the jury will be whether it was "intrinsically illegal". It seems to be to me, based on what I know so far, but there is a fuzzy spectrum that goes between what's appropriate, what's in bad taste and what's illegal

"What's illegal" will be quite clearly defined.

[Shandi]

For some reason, I'm left wondering about any women on this board who've had similar experiences. Although, we don't have all the facts, yet. But as women, have we ever met anyone in a bar or any social gathering, and were attracted to them, and maybe even felt excited about the potential of spending the night with them, (or at least a few hours?) and either took them home, or went to their home? I'm just spinning a story here, for purposes of getting us into a place of personal recall. (Kind of like, remembering that you once were a teen, when you have teenagers to deal with.)

Since both parties were possibly affected by alcohol, I guess we could say that neither one was in their "right" mind, and maybe did some things that they wouldn't have otherwise. Maybe she got angry about something "he" said or did, or vice versa. Remember, when you don't know each other, anything's possible, from an intimate encounter with a stranger. Sometimes it's exciting, and sometimes it's scary. But if you both made the decision to spend time together, this meant stepping into potentially dangerous territory. Can anyone relate to this story so far?

Only you know about your own experiences, and how you handled them. Did you take responsibility? Or did you look to blame the other person? So many details between two people will never be brought out. You may have been raped, but never reported it. You may have consented to sex, and then called it rape. Only you know, and only "they" know. What Efren did was expose himself, in more than one way, as a result of impaired judgement. The woman, on the other hand, could claim anything, and probably will. We don't know what she did; we only know what he did. What if she threatened him with a weapon? Remember, anything can be a weapon. Why would he have left her house in his underwear? Was he in her house previously? Or did he walk to her house in his underwear? Do they both have a drinking problem? Will the truth come out in court? I have my doubts.

Silence is the better wisdom in this situation. Nice to have that choice. I'd take it, too.

[Shandi]

I don't see how this act isn't "BAD JUDGMENT", (it's obviously not GOOD JUDGMENT) which most times accompanies drinking alcohol, and sometimes without drinking any at all.

I find it hard to believe that there are no men on this board who haven't at some point in their lives:
"pushed their agenda of unwanted, provocative, and intrinsically illegal imposition on a woman."

It's so much easier to focus on the actions of others, whether other men's or other women's. I'm not saying "Dont Judge". By all means, we must judge; it's our survival mechanism, and also need to inflict punishment, where it's due. I'm so glad to have made it this far, in spite of so many acts of "BAD JUDGMENT". How about you?

...
This was not "bad judgment" from someone with too much too drink. It is an unwanted, provocative, and intrinsically illegal imposition on a woman. ...

[Barry]

They're having trouble finding jurors that are un-aware of this case. It's possible the case may be moved out of county.

It will be very interesting to see the gender makeup of the jury.

[Victoria Street]

They're having trouble finding jurors that are un-aware of this case. It's possible the case may be moved out of county.

It will be very interesting to see the gender makeup of the jury.

10 women, 2 men according to the PD online.

[Sara S]

The charge is minor; the case isn't.

Sorry, but "peeking" is a minor misdemeanor, however important this case may be to you.

[Peacetown Jonathan]

Yes; a jury has been selected. Barry, the issue with jury selection is not whether twelve jurors can be found who never heard of the case, but whether 12 jurors can be found who have formed no clear opinion of the case. A lot easier to do--and they did it today.

Ten women and two men; perhaps reflecting the demographic of the jury pool, and, in my view, that men, typically, are more opinionated than women, so more of them self-selected out during questioning ("have you formed an opinion?").
The article is here:
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...cles/140429956

Tomorrow, the trial will begin. We will hear the defense attorney, the prosecutor, and the chief witness, the woman whose safety was reportedly violated. By tomorrow evening, there will be a lot more clarity as to what the law says, and what the verdict, by the end of the week, is likely to be.

I find both the pro-Efren apologists, with their hypothetical allegations against the woman whose home and safety was violated, as well as the anti-Efren people who are calling him names and making a farce of his actions, to be unnecessary and unwarranted.

I am hoping for, and predicting, a teachable moment happening from this incident, and trial. In which our society, through this jury, expresses what is permissible, in terms of male conduct toward women, and what is illegal. It is a lesson that so many men, whether in the Air Force, or Senate, or County Government, need to hear more often.

[photolite]

Yeah, but at least no one can accuse him of drinking shitty beer.

...
The PD's failure to self-restrain was their teenaged, down-home need to be irrelevant and name the brand of beer. I wonder if RR Brewing appreciates that or not. Either way, it's clear the PD has thrown its hands up in the air and gone all out to join this hopeless, endless burlesque:

"Still, he said he wanted to socialize. So he told police he grabbed two beers — Pliny the Elders from Russian River Brewing — from his refrigerator, "
...

[Victoria Street]

Video:
Efren Carrillo's Peeking Trial Day One (Part 4) by the Press Democrat on YouTube.
At about 28:00 "Jane Doe" describes what she heard that night at her window.
In case anyone's interested...

---

Added by Barry:

Here's a link to a playlist of all the videos from the first day of the testimony:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...JIQWjUIpKBuJIO

Here's link to part 4. Unfortunately, when viewing this link on the WaccoBB website, our software doesn't seem to be supporting the start time option at the moment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh4t8EOUwsw&t=27m51s

I invite everybody who is watching the extensive videos to highlight specific sections of the video to go along with your comments posted here.

[Peacetown Jonathan]

The PD has three videos, with opening prosecution and defense arguments, here:
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...cles/140429900

It does not look any better for Efren. His sense of social conduct is astounding, It is hard to imagine how a juror can find that what Efren did is not criminal. If it is not illegal, than any person can approach a woman's apartment (the daughter of a juror, let's say) in the middle of the night, in his underwear, and try to remove a screen, and not be charged with a crime,

It strikes me that the very statute of peeping was created to criminalize the very type of intrusive social, or anti-social, behavior, that Efren enacted that night.

We will see what the jury thinks.

[Alex]

PD: Carrillo testifies he was hoping for sex

Carrillo's own words today - exactly what those with common sense suspected and expected.

Ravitch knew exactly what happened and let him off of what was clearly attempted breaking, entering and sexual assault by whitewashing it with a stupid, minor and obscure charge that cannot be proven.

I hope to god a jury can change the charge and find him guilty of what he's really guilty of, like I've noticed they can change murder 2 to murder 1, etc. if they feel appropriate. At the minimum, I hope they find that it reasonable to assume you can't tear a screen without looking at what you're doing and seeing thru it by default.... but having that be the only thing convicted of is ridiculous. Do you really think any other 33 year old drunk and half naked mexican tearing a screen at 3:40am would not have been charged correctly quickly???

The worst thing about it for me is that to have this obfuscation and favoritism in my face says that I cannot assume I will be treated truly honestly and fairly by local law enforcement either - especially if a drunk elected official in his underwear looking for sex at 3am broke my screen trying to get into my bedroom while I was sleeping. Proof of Ravitch's sell-out and contempt for truth and justice may be the more frightening and shameful thing that happened.


SANTA ROSA (KCBS) – A Sonoma County supervisor charged with peeking into a neighbor’s apartment in the middle of the night clad only boxer shorts testified that it was his hope to have sex with the woman.

Supervisor Efren Carrillo took the stand Thursday to defend himself against a misdemeanor charge that could land him in jail for up to six months.

Carrillo, 33, admitted entering the private courtyard of the woman’s apartment, knocking on her sliding glass door, then pushing through her open bedroom window, tearing at the screen. He said he then knocked repeatedly at her front door until he heard what he thought was a man’s voice. Police arrested him several blocks away.

On cross examination, Carrillo denied looking into the victim’s home.