1
2
3
4
5
6
LAW OFFICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
MOLLY O’NEAL, # 150944
MICHAEL S. OGUL, #95812
County of Santa Clara
120 West Mission Street
San Jose, CA 95110
Telephone: 299-7817
Attorneys for Defendant
Juan Cortez-Reyes
7
8
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, IN SESSION AS A JUVENILE COURT
11
12
13
14
IN RE DAVID PALAFOX
D.O.B. 12/3/1992
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
15
Plaintiff,
16
17
18
vs.
JURY TRIAL: October 21, 2013
Defendants.
20
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF PETITION FOR RELEASE OF JUVENILE COURT RECORDS
21
23
NO: C1110713
JUAN CORTEZ-REYES and
EDWIN OLIVA,
19
22
NO. ________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Defendant Juan Cortez-Reyes is charged with murder, in violation of Penal Code section
24
25
187, together with enhancements for the personal use of a deadly weapon and allegedly
26
committing the offense for the benefit of a gang (Penal Code sections 12022, subd. (b); 186.22,
27
subd. (b)).
His case is scheduled for jury trial on October 21, 2013.
28
1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF DISCLOSURE OF JUVENILE COURT RECORDS (WELF. & INST. CODE § 827)
1
The charges against Mr. Cortez-Reyes are based on the stabbing of Vincent Tranh Le on
2
May 28, 2011. Mr. Le was a member of Crips With Attitude, and was with his associates
3
Matthew Saelee (another CWA gang member), Raul Aguilar (a Norteno), and David Palafox (a
4
Norteno) among other associates. Karla Flores, who had a history of associating with Nortenos,
5
6
was in their company. They were in the Avalani neighborhood, an area claimed by their gangs.
7
Mr. Cortez-Reyes, his codefendant, Edwin Oliva, and their former codefendant,
8
Francisco Pulido-Garcia, came to the Avalani neighborhood to attend a party being held by a
9
female friend of Mr. Cortez-Reyes, Maria Nunez. At some point after 2:00 a.m., he and Ms.
10
11
Nunez had an argument. After the argument, he went outside to smoke a cigarette. Mr. Oliva
12
and Mr. Pulido-Garcia became concerned for his safety once they noticed he was no longer in
13
the apartment. They were concerned because Mr. Cortez-Reyes is a Sureno and was not safe in
14
that neighborhood. (Mr. Oliva and Mr. Pulido-Garcia were also Surenos.)
15
16
Mr. Le, Mr. Saelee, Mr. Palafox and Mr. Aguilar noticed the Surenos in their territory,
17
confronted them, and challenged them in a verbally and physically aggressive, hostile and
18
threatening manner. Mr. Le and Mr. Saelee had just killed another Hispanic male in that very
19
same location a day or two before. On this occasion, however, although Mr. Le and his fellow
20
21
gang members initiated the confrontation, it was Mr. Le who was stabbed and killed in the end.
22
David Palafox retrieved a handgun during the confrontation. He then fired multiple rounds at
23
the Surenos. They were not hit by the gunfire.
24
Based on the foregoing facts, the issues at Mr. Cortez-Reyes’s jury trial will include
25
26
27
perfect and imperfect self-defense, heat of passion, and provocation, all of which are relevant to
the murder and gang enhancement allegations against him. These issues may result in his
28
2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF DISCLOSURE OF JUVENILE COURT RECORDS (WELF. & INST. CODE § 827)
1
complete exoneration on the murder and gang charges, or possibly a reduction to the lesser
2
offense of manslaughter.
3
ARGUMENT:
4
5
6
7
8
9
THE REQUESTED JUVENILE COURT RECORDS ARE
RELEVANT TO THE CHARGES AGAINST DEFENDANT
AND MUST BE DISCLOSED TO DEFENDANT BECAUSE HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS, A FAIR TRIAL,
CONFRONTATION AND TO PRESENT A DEFENSE TAKE
PRECEDENCE OVER THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF JUVENILE RECORDS.
In evaluating a discovery request, a court exercises its discretion based on the
10
“fundamental proposition that [the defendant] is entitled to a fair trial and intelligent defense in
11
light of all relevant and reasonably accessible information.” (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974)
12
13
11 Cal.3d 531, 535.) Although the state and a minor have a legitimate interest in the need for
14
confidentiality of juvenile court records, the United States Supreme Court has made it clear that
15
the confidentiality interest is subordinate to the constitutional rights of a criminal defendant to
16
present relevant evidence in his defense at trial. (Davis v. Alaska (1974) 415 U.S. 308, 319-
17
320.) In Davis, a juvenile prosecution witness identified the defendant as the man in possession
18
19
of property that had been taken in a burglary. The prosecution had already obtained a
20
protective order regarding the juvenile record of this witness, precluding cross-examination
21
about the witness’s probationary status as a juvenile delinquent, including the fact that he was
22
on probation for burglary, the same type of crime for which the defendant was on trial. The
23
24
25
26
27
High Court held:
We do not and need not challenge the State’s interest as a matter of its own
policy in the administration of criminal justice to seek to preserve the anonymity
of a juvenile offender. …. [W]e conclude that the right of confrontation is
paramount to the State’s policy of protecting a juvenile offender. Whatever
temporary embarrassment might result to [the juvenile] or his family by disclosure
28
3
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF DISCLOSURE OF JUVENILE COURT RECORDS (WELF. & INST. CODE § 827)
1
2
3
of his juvenile record … is outweighed by [defendant]’s right to probe into the
influence of possible bias in the testimony of a crucial identification witness.
(Id., at p. 319; citation omitted.) As the Supreme Court explained, “[t]he State’s policy
4
interest in protecting the confidentiality of a juvenile offender’s record cannot require
5
yielding of so vital a constitutional right as the effective cross-examination for bias of an
6
adverse witness. (Id., at p. 320.)
7
8
9
10
11
Further, since the juvenile court records sought herein are available to the
prosecution, due process of law requires that they “must be made available to the
defendant.” (Lorenza Juanita P. v. Superior Court (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 607, 611.)
The juvenile records sought herein are relevant to defendant’s impending trial
12
13
because they may demonstrate conduct exhibiting character traits for aggression and
14
violence and gang allegiance, which would be admissible for the purposes of establishing
15
conduct consistent with those character traits. (See, e.g., Evidence Code section 1103,
16
subdivision (a); People v. Hayes (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1244; People v. Shoemaker
17
(1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 442, 446-448.) They are also relevant because they may
18
19
demonstrate dishonesty, moral turpitude and other evidence reflecting on the credibility,
20
motive and bias of the former juvenile (now an adult) as a witness against defendant.
21
(See, e.g., People v. Wheeler (1992) 4 Cal.4th 284; People v. Lee (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th
22
1724, 1738-1740; People v. Harris (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1047, 1080-1082; 1091, fn. 23;
23
24
People v. Mickle (1991) 54 Cal.3d 140, 168.) Therefore, defendant’s independent state
25
and federal constitutional rights to due process of law, a fair jury trial, confrontation of
26
adverse witnesses and the presentation of evidence in his defense (Fifth, Sixth and
27
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; Article I, sections 7, 15 and
28
4
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF DISCLOSURE OF JUVENILE COURT RECORDS (WELF. & INST. CODE § 827)
1
24 of the California Constitution) require disclosure of the juvenile court records to
2
defendant.
3
CONCLUSION:
4
Defendant is charged with murder based on the death of a member of an opposing gang
5
6
who was killed during a confrontation that was initiated by the decedent. The juvenile records
7
of both the decedent and numerous witnesses likely contain information that is relevant to the
8
credibility of those witnesses at defendant’s trial, and to establish that the decedent and those
9
witnesses acted in conformity with their respective characters during the fatal confrontation.
10
11
12
Therefore, they must be disclosed to defendant.
Dated: July 22, 2013.
13
Respectfully submitted,
14
MOLLY O’NEAL
Public Defender
15
16
17
Michael S. Ogul
Deputy Public Defender
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF DISCLOSURE OF JUVENILE COURT RECORDS (WELF. & INST. CODE § 827)
1
2
3
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL S. OGUL
I am the attorney representing Juan Cortez-Reyes in Santa Clara Co. Superior Court No.
C1110713. He is charged with murdering Vincent Tran Le on May 28, 2011. He is also
4
5
6
7
8
charged with committing the offense for the benefit of a gang.
On information and belief, Mr. Le was killed during a confrontation that he initiated.
Specifically, he was a member of Crips With Attitude, and was with Matthew Saelee (another
CWA), Raul Aguilar (a Norteno), and David Palafox (a Norteno) in their territory (Avalani)
9
10
when they observed Mr. Cortez-Reyes (a Sureno), Francisco Pulido-Garcia (a Sureno) and
11
Edwin Oliva (a Sureno). They approached and confronted the three Surenos in a verbally and
12
physically aggressive, hostile and threatening manner, challenging them for being in their
13
neighborhood.
14
15
On information and belief, the Surenos were there for innocent reasons; they were
16
attending a party in that immediate area, and Mr. Cortez-Reyes went outside to smoke a
17
cigarette. Mr. Oliva and Mr. Pulido-Garcia later went outside to look for him because of their
18
concern that he was not safe; they knew they were in a Norteno neighborhood and were worried
19
20
that he might be attacked by Nortenos.
21
On information and belief, David Palafox ran and retrieved a handgun during the
22
confrontation. He then fired multiple rounds at the Surenos. They were not hit by the gunfire.
23
As counsel for Mr. Cortez-Reyes, I expect that we will raise issues at trial of perfect and
24
25
26
imperfect self-defense, heat of passion, and provocation, all of which are relevant to the murder
and gang enhancement allegations against Mr. Cortez-Reyes. These issues may result in his
27
28
6
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF DISCLOSURE OF JUVENILE COURT RECORDS (WELF. & INST. CODE § 827)
1
2
3
4
complete exoneration on the murder and gang charges, or possibly a reduction to the lesser
offense of manslaughter.
On information and belief, Matthew Saelee, David Palafox, and Raul Aguilar have a
history of violent and aggressive behavior, including gang activity. Further, before his death,
5
6
Vincent Tran Le had a history of violent and aggressive behavior, including gang activity. The
7
respective history and characters for violence, aggression, and gang activity by each of them is
8
relevant to an assessment of their behavior on May 28, 2011, for purposes of demonstrating
9
conduct in conformity with their respective histories and characters, their motives on that date,
10
11
and any testimony that they might present at the trial herein. Therefore, the respective
12
characters of Vincent Tran Le, Matthew Saelee, David Palafox, and Raul Aguilar for gang
13
activity and association, and violence and aggression, are material facts at the pending trial in
14
People v. Juan Cortez-Reyes and Edwin Oliva, Santa Clara County Superior Court No.
15
16
17
18
19
C1110713.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct of my own
personal knowledge, except as to those matters declared on information and belief, and as to
those matters, I am informed and believe them to be true.
20
21
22
23
Executed this _____ day of July, 2013, at San Jose, California.
Michael S. Ogul
Deputy Public Defender
California State Bar No. 95812
24
25
26
27
28
7
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF DISCLOSURE OF JUVENILE COURT RECORDS (WELF. & INST. CODE § 827)