By Linda Sutter
On January 11, 2015 a 24 year old woman was walking home after a late night of partying with her friends on C Street, when she was approached by two Asian men. According to Jane Doe, the men asked her to a party. She allegedly declined, at which time the two Asian men drug her to a nearby apartment, where a 3rd underage boy lived. Jane Doe stated that all three men repeatedly raped her for approximately 6 to 7 hours.
During today’s preliminary hearing Eric Berg, of Berg and Associates, Certified Specialist in Criminal Law, out of Redding California, represented a 16 year old defendant. The Court room was filled. Eric Berg brought to the attention of the court the following facts: The alleged victim never screamed for help while the defendants were allegedly dragging her down the street in the early morning hours between 1 and 0130 hours. The victim who was interviewed by several
peace officers demonstrated inconsistencies in what she was saying. One, she claimed to have torn a nail when attempting to defend herself and that she scratched one of the defendants.
However, Melanie Berry who is a district attorney field investigator stated, she did not check Jane Doe’s arms, hands, or fingernails to see if there was any DNA beneath the finger nails or any bruising to the arms, especially since the alleged defendants used force to hold victim down
while they allegedly raped her. Forensics 101 overlooked.
Jane Doe told a couple of different stories to the police. One story was that she was dragged down the street, the other story was that she was held at knife point.
Another fact brought out about Jane Doe. She is married. There were a total of 4 separate DNA samples. Three identified DNA samples and one unidentified. Did Jane Doe also have sex with her husband? No questioning or mentioning of the 4th unidentified DNA.
The condoms were taken out of the trash can at the young defendant’s home, packaged, and submitted by the same law enforcement individual for preservation. They were then sent into the DOJ labs for DNA testing which verified 3 plus 1.
The court concluded that the District Attorney’s office presented their burden of proof for trial.