OFFICE OF THE LAKE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY

REJECTION FORM
Tyler Paulsen
INVESTIGATING AGENCY: INVESTIGATING

Robert Brown 12-2589

Robert Sanders
If Other:

OFFICER(S):

SUSPECT(S): AGENCY FILE NO(S) :

VICTIM(S): DATE SUBMITTED:

8/23/2012

DEPUTY D.A.: DAA

CHARGES: 242 PC

At the request of your department, we have received the investigative reports relating to the above case. We are of the opinion that the case should NOT be filed. Date of Rejection: 9/28/2012 De Minimus Lack of Corpus

/tmp/rejection Brownl.doc

Revised 1/5/11

Victim does not want to proceed Civil in nature no criminal intent Cost of prosecution disproportionately high for violation
EXPLANATION:

Insufficient Evidence Follow-up(s) requested on: , , , were not completed

This matter was first referred to the State Attorney General's Office due to the fact the primary suspect was a sitting member of the County Board of Supervisors. The Attorney General's Office determined there is no conflict of interest between the supervisor and the District Attorney's Office. Therefore, this office will be making all charging decisions. Prior to making this charging decision, the police report of the incident was reviewed by Mendocino County District Attorney David Eyster. Mr. Eyster's opinions of the case are consistent with the following analysis. On August 21, 2012, Robert Brown arrived at the complaining witness' residence. There is a dispute over the actual ownership of the property; however, the ownership of the property is irrelvant to any charging decision. According the the complaining witness' statement Mr. Brown was there to serve him with some papers. It is not unusual or illegal to accomplish service of process after 9:00 p.m. Additionally, even if his presence at the property was not for process service, Mr. Brown's presence and actions did not constitute trespass. The accounts of the event differ; however, it appears form police reports Mr. Brown and the complaining witness became involved in a verbal argument. The complaining witness tells the police he told Mr. Brown to leave. He tells the police Mr. Brown did leave, but then the complaining witness initiates further conversation with Mr. Brown. This may very well be a tacit invitation for Mr. Brown to step back onto the property, which he did. The complaining witness admits to police that he initates the first physical contact between them. According to the police

/tmp/rejection Brownl.doc

Revised 1/5/11

report, the complainig witness states he "approached R. Brown, grabbing him by the left elbow". He was then struck by Mr. Brown. Rob Brown said that the complaining witness grabbed him with a stern grip and spun him around. In a self defense movement he pushed the complaining witness back and then struck him in the face. Mr. Brown's wife's statement was consistent with Mr. Brown's account of the incident. The complaining witness' wife's statement did not lead to any additional information as she could not see the initial contact between the parties. According to the police report neither Mr. Brown nor the complaining witness wanted to seek prosecution. Later that evening the complaining witness said he wanted Mr. Brown arrested, but only after the complaining witness' brother arrived at the scene in an aggressive and hostitle manner. Additionally, in an extremely unusual police procedure, lake County Sheriff Frank Rivero interviewed the complaining witness on his radio show. The complaining witness offered a different version of the incident from what he told police, stating he wanted an arrest made, but the police said both parties would have to go to jail. The statements made by the complaining witness on Sheriff Rivero's radio program presents other barriers to prosecution. The complaining witness made some conflicting statements on the radio show compared to what he told the police. These conflicts in statement include issues of how the complaining witness grabbed Mr. Brown, time, witnesses and the contents of conversations. A jury would be able to listen to and consider the comments made by the complaining witness as impeachment evidence. Additionally, the discussions on the radio show brings forth unnecessary issues of the bias of witnesses that a prosecutor may not be able to overcome. The complaining witness states that certain marks on his rib were caused by Mr. Brown punching him in the ribs. According to

/tmp/rejection Brownl.doc

Revised 1/5/11

the police these minor injuries are not consistant with a person being punched. The complaining witness states there were two witnesses to the incident. However, the witness have little knowledge of the incident or are evading the police in a effort not to be interviewed. It is extremely important for a victim of a crime to completely cooperate with law enforcement. The complaining witness has been uncooperative with the efforts of the police to investigate this matter. The police asked the complaining witness for a medical release, so they can substantiate his injuries, if any. The complaining witness refused to sign the release. In addition, the complaining witness told officers he had a video tape recording from his surveillance camera that shows the incident. At the scene the complaining witness refused to allow the police to view the recording. Later, the complaining witness states that there is no such tape. This creates issues to a jury of the credibility of the complaining witness or the complaining witness withholding evidence, or both. In a claim of self defense to an assault, the burden is on the prosecution to prove the assault was not self defense. The defendant does not have the burden to prove self defense. With the evidence, or lack of evidence, it is unlikely the prosecution could prove this was not self defense. Based on all of the above, it is extremely unlikely the prosecution could convince a jury beyond a reasonablr doubt that Mr. Brown was guilty of an assault.

/tmp/rejection Brownl.doc

Revised 1/5/11