Jury duty, County of Santa Cruz

Selected at random to serve as juror #4, on what I believe was a criminal jury trial, case #M83925, in the County of Santa Cruz. Defendant was Sean Michael Martinez. The charge was theft of an auto.

The trial ended after taking testimony from three people:

1. The woman who received a gift of the auto (something like Jeanne Payne?)
2. Kraig Evans (Capitola police department)
3. Ricki Trindade (Santa Cruz police department)

Judge on the trial was Marjorie Laird Carter. Counsel for the County of Santa Cruz prosecution was Mr. Nguyen. Counsel for the defense seemed like someone operating out of the Santa Cruz Public Defender's Office. Mentioned in the trial was a Ruben Trevino (spelling?) of Salinas, the spouse of witness #1, and the registered owner of the vehicle in question (which was gifted to witness #1).

Judge Carter provided no explanation for the dismissal of the jury, after the taking of the testimony, above. She hinted, paraphrasing, "A lot of this will probably make no sense to you."

After the trial, as I sat in the atrium, both counsel lawyers saw me and we very briefly discussed my thoughts on whether I found witness #1 credible. I told them I had found her mostly credible, but was waiting to hear testimony from the defendant. I told them I thought the defendant made a mistake, in my opinion, to arrive unshaven and without appearing to take care in their dress. I don't think my answer pleased either of them. After a moment, the counsel for the defense left with the counsel for the prosecution to, presumably, discuss another case, or the aftermath of the case I served on.

This represented my first selection to serve on a jury trial.

Based on my brief discussion with counsel for both parties, I am guessing something which came up during examination of the witnesses precluded them from proceeding:

1. Mistake with the incident report (I think it may have said "Jan 5" but it really occurred on the morning of Jan 6?)
2. Counsel for the prosecution decided witness would not survive as a credible source (only witness)
3. One of more of the officers mentioned something they should not have (for example, Mr. Martinez having another parallel issue at the time of this incident)
4. Other (?)

So many details of this trial which lie fresh in my mind but will soon all disappear. Sean was driving with an expired license. The woman mentioned the defendant had been assaulted, separately, during his time as a renter. The officers reported the defendant as very polite and forthcoming...the officers said nothing bad about him, and only gave him a misdemeanor (later, corrected to an infraction). Defendant had rented a room at the two-bedroom apartment with the woman, after the woman's sister left. The first year went quietly and predictably; he paid his rent on time. She became pregnant, with another man's child, and told him she planned to move out. They drank wine on the balcony. She and her 7-month old son went to sleep, around 8:30 p.m.. He drove and crashed the car, around 2:00 a.m. He was either returning with wine, going to fill up the car with gas, or had dropped off the wine and had left on other errands...I thought I heard all three descriptions.

There was another man, Mr. Ruben Trevino, the father of the child, who had gifted the woman the 2014 Chevrolet Impala. He works as a regional truck driver and owns two trucks. He had gifted her a Chevy Camaro, but that did not work for the already-born young child, so he gave her the Impala. The address was 511 Capitola, within walking distance of a liquor store and gas station. She claimed she had never, ever given the defendant permission to take her car. She claimed she had not talked with him since the day of the accident, until a text-message conversation, in which they discussed making arrangements with AAA (the insurance carrier). It seems she filed the criminal charges against the defendant without telling him. It seems the woman's sister left, after an argument. She may have made him pay the entire deposit for the apartment rental. She grew up in Napa valley, moved to Arizona, then moved to So-Cal. She moved to Santa Cruz, with her sister. She had worked as a manager for 25 years, training other managers and assisting them with setting up new stores. Opening arguments seemed to indicate the prosecution was betting everything on the jury finding the woman's testimony credible and that she had not given permission to the defendant to take her car. The defense claimed he had driven her car many times, seemed to indicate a possible love triangle, and the charges represented the wishes of Mr. Trevino.

Just a mess. Apparently, the woman and Mr. Trevino are happily married, so I wish both them and the defendant well, so they can move on with their lives.