Verdict expected by the end of the week in case
The jury in the Michael Rodrigues rape trial entered into
deliberations around noon Wednesday, while they had not reached a
verdict as of Pinnacle press time that night.
Rodrigues is accused of raping four women between 1999 and 2007,
when a grand jury indicted him on three of the charges. The
district attorney’s office added a fourth accuser to the case in
the fall of 2008. If Rodrigues is convicted, the longtime sheriff’s
office deputy could face life in prison.
Verdict expected by the end of the week in case
By Kollin Kosmicki and Colin McConville
For complete coverage of the Michael Rodrigues case, including details of the Friday afternoon guilty verdict, visit the Free Lance online at www.freelancenews.com.
The jury in the Michael Rodrigues rape trial entered into deliberations around noon Wednesday, while they had not reached a verdict as of Pinnacle press time that night.
Rodrigues is accused of raping four women between 1999 and 2007, when a grand jury indicted him on three of the charges. The district attorney’s office added a fourth accuser to the case in the fall of 2008. If Rodrigues is convicted, the longtime sheriff’s office deputy could face life in prison.
Jurors started deliberating after closing statements. Those arguments included the prosecution going through testimony from the four suspected witnesses, along with other character witnesses, in making a case alleging Rodrigues is a “serial rapist” who follows a similar pattern in how he pursues victims.
The defense focused on portraying the witnesses as lacking credibility and the investigation as insufficient. Cantu contended investigators didn’t take necessary steps to corroborate witness statements, while he questioned their testimony, particularly dates provided.
Proceedings were before a near full gallery of residents watching the closing statements as the clean-shaven defendant wore a suit and glasses and intently watched the proceedings, often with a hand on his chin.
The prosecution’s case
During closing arguments Tuesday, Deputy District Attorney Patrick Palacios worked in mostly chronological order from the first to last accuser in recounting their testimony. In the mid-1999, he recalled the first accuser’s testimony that Rodrigues raped her when he had tried to end their relationship, after talking her into letting him into her apartment. He recounted her testimony how they met because he had been investigating a lost dog.
“I’m not buying a story that he is investigating a lost dog,” said Palacios, referring to his position as a deputy sheriff.
Palacios noted how even though she had been going through treatment for cancer, he was still harassing her and, the attorney alleged, eventually raped her again. Palacios recalled her testimony how he called her months after the first encounter at work and demanded to see her at lunch, and how she conceded. He noted that she alleged once at her place, he threw her on the couch as she said the whole time, “No, leave me alone.”
Attorneys both, for different reasons, hashed over the fact that the witness did not report these incidents until the sheriff’s office internal affairs investigation in 2006.
In moving on to the second accuser’s testimony, Palacios noted that in February 2006 when the two had been having consensual sex, she testified at a certain point she saw “a side of him she has never seen before” when Rodrigues grabbed her hair and became violent. Palacios said the suspect was so forceful with the witness – whom Rodrigues had known since 1994 when they met – that he left bruises on her thighs.
Palacios then moved on to the third suspected victim and pointed out her testimony that she met Rodrigues in February 2007 when he pulled behind her vehicle – in this instance, at Jerry’s Restaurant – in his patrol car while on duty.
“That’s how he met a number of his victims,” Palacios told jurors.
He went on later: “He took advantage of them.”
Palacios recounted how the suspect convinced her to meet him away from downtown “in between some warehouses” and how he shoved his hand down her dress and penetrated her vagina without consent. He noted her testimony how the two entered into a sexual relationship and that in June 2007, after telling Rodrigues she had been raped by a law enforcement agent in Monterey County, the defendant started being more aggressive toward her and eventually raped her.
He also recalled her testimony alleging he “sadistically” used a vibrator with excessive force on her, prompting the witness to “beg him to stop.”
In recounting the most recent charge filed, which the witness denied before coming back a year later to report it, Palacios pointed out her testimony how the two met in the fall of 2006 and about a month later, they were reacquainted when Rodrigues started sending her messages on MySpace.
He noted she testified how he called her and came over. The prosecutor recalled how she alleged she tried to run away but couldn’t, and how he pinned her hands over her head and raped her.
He alleged Rodrigues told her, “Nobody tells me ‘no.'”
Palacios also pointed to character witnesses who testified about suspected incidents involving Rodrigues. That included reserve deputy John Klauer’s testimony about an alleged attempted rape in a Nevada hotel room and a woman who contended she and Rodrigues had a sexual relationship in the early to mid-1990s when she was age 16 or 17.
Cantu in his closing, however, questioned the witness’ account about her age at the time and noted how she was born in June 1976. She testified the two broke up when he met another woman around Halloween in 1994, which meant she would have been over 18 at that time.
Cantu questions stories, investigation
Cantu also started with the first Jane Doe and contended she had “no credibility” while pointing out how dates she provided did not match. He noted how she testified they dated for seven to 12 months starting in October 1999, but that she reported the last time they saw each other was on Jan. 1, 2000, when he allegedly raped her a second time after meeting her during work hours.
He also pointed out her testimony that Safeway, where she had worked at the time of the second suspected incident, opened at some point in 2000.
“The dates of these incidents don’t make sense,” Cantu said.
He criticized investigators saying there was “no investigation by law enforcement to question that fact” and he also examined why they had not queried potential witnesses around the Hillcrest Road apartment building – about her testimony that he parked his patrol car in her parking spot nearly every morning around 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. – where she lived at the time.
“What’s so bad about knocking on a couple of doors and asking the manager?” Cantu said.
Cantu moved on to cite the witness’ testimony, when asked about the suspected rapes, on a report she contended she made to a police officer, in a separate incident, how someone possibly had broken into her home while she was sleeping.
“What is this other incident that doesn’t have anything to do with the other?” he said, before adding, “You can’t opine this person is seeded in reality.”
While recounting the story of the second accuser, whom he had met in 1994, Cantu alleged she was pressured by investigators to allege the 2006 rape while he contended she had a lot of stress at the time, was going through a divorce, and was a “chronic alcoholic.”
Cantu recalled how she said in her testimony she had consented to intercourse at first before testifying, when asked if she had told him to stop, that she replied on the stand, “In some form.”
He recalled her testifying how Rodrigues had grabbed her hair and asked if “I like it like that.”
Asked how she reacted as he continued having sex, Cantu recounted, and she replied, “I just froze.”
Cantu questioned testimony from two investigators who took the stand, one who could not recollect what the defense contended were crucial dates in the witness’ report. He also noted how the sergeant who conducted the internal affairs investigations had come on board with the office shortly before Rodrigues’ departure and just a year later was promoted from deputy to sergeant.
Cantu in recalling the final two Jane Does called one of them, the witness who alleged she met him at Jerry’s, a “professional victim” while remarking how she is suing the defendant and the county over the allegations.
He noted how she provided an exact time when Rodrigues first came up to her car – 2:14 a.m. – and he went on at one point reading off her testimony while referring to it as “starting to sound like a novel.”
He went on to show the jury graphic pictures on the projector that she admitted to sending Rodrigues over e-mail after the suspected unlawful penetration incident. In a sarcastic tone, Cantu remarked, “I was suffering from rape trauma syndrome so I sent him these.”
Cantu finished by questioning how after the suspected rape, she testified she agreed to move in with Rodrigues because she needed a place to stay and he told her she was short on money.
“That’s just not believable,” he said.
In recounting the last accuser’s allegation, Cantu pointed out how she admitted lying to investigators a first time in 2007 before coming back a year later and alleging rape. He recalled a roommate of hers – a registered nurse – acknowledging she saw no evidence of physical injuries when she found out about the suspected incident shortly thereafter.
Following that Wednesday morning, Palacios’ rebuttal lasted more than three hours as he contended to jurors he needed to respond in-depth to what he called “desperation” from the defense in its many attempts to confuse them.
Palacios, though, started the day by going through each witness and contesting the defense’s claims from closing arguments. He said Cantu neglected to address the law and instead focused on such phrases as “delusional, alcoholic, gold digger and scorned girlfriend.”
“Not once – not once – did he talk about the law, the facts,” Palacios said.
He said the defense in its closing “basically conceded.”
“If you believe the testimony of these women,” he said, before raising his voice, “guilty.”
