Week 10: Santa Maria Ibarra Murder Trial

Defense attorneys in Santa Maria’s U-Haul murder trial are continuing closing arguments before the jury begins deliberating the fate of the six defendants on trial.

On Thursday the defense attacked the credibility of the three key prosecution witnesses in the trial.

“When you are all said and done, then the verdict is not guilty”, argued defense attorney David Bixby, “because the People have not proven each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt for each and every crime and or special allegations.”

Bixby is defense attorney for David “Pops” Maldonado identified in court as a retired gang member and whom, along with his five other co-defendants, is charged with first degree murder in the alleged kidnpa, torture and murder of Anthony Ibarra inside a Santa Maria home two years ago.

Two of the key prosecution witnesses are in the witness protection program and the third is a former co-defendant who accepted a 15 year prison sentence plea deal in exchange for his testimony.

The prosecution witnesses testified to seeing David Maldonado and the five other defendants directly involved in Ibarra’s death over his alleged unpaid drug debts.

“All three of these witnesses have lied at some point in time in a material way that you personally are aware of”, Bixby told the jury, “all I’m doing is reminding you, you heard the evidence, you know that all three of them have lied.”

Bixby said the Grand Jury testimony from one of the three key prosecution witnesses helped get an indictment for first degree murder against all six defendants.

“She told you she was high on methamphetamine when she testified before the Grand Jury”, Bixby said, “here’s a person that is gonna go and make under oath a very serious statement because that’s going to result in the indictment of these people, and she’s high on meth is what she admitted to you.”

Bixby said the same woman lived in the home on West Donovan Road along with her brother, another key prosecution witness, where Ibarra was killed and made the cell phone call to Ibarra telling him to come to the house.

Bixby said both are uncharged accomplices in the murder of Anthony Ibarra.

“She lied right in front of you that she did not know what kind of vehicle David Maldonado was driving when he came to (the home) on West Donovan”, Bixby said, “folks, I read from the transcript of her recorded testimony with the police, she gave a full description of the make and color of his van to the police.”
Bixby said the woman testified she was smoking meth while Ibarra was allegedly being beaten and stabbed by the defendants inside the home, heard his cries of pain, and then left the house to go get beer.

“She had every opportunity to make an anonymous call with her cell phone, to somebody, 911, the police, a neighbor, anybody, somebody and took no occasion to do so”, Bixby said, “and yet she sat in here and expressed to you her deep concern for Mr. Ibarra.”

Bixby told the jury there’s no physical evidence linking David Maldonado to Ibarra’s death, or his alleged kidnapping and torture.

“Mr. David Maldonado did not inflict those injuries, okay, there is zero evidence that points to him under any circumstances in this case, please, please don’t forget that”, Bixby said, “if you decide that a witness deliberately lied about something significant in this case you should consider not believing anything that witness says, folks, the balance hangs for these six people over here on what you believe, their fate is in your hands.”

Defense closing arguments are expected to continue into next week before the jury is given the case to begin deliberations.

************************

The defense has begun closing arguments to the jury in Santa Maria’s months-long U-Haul murder trial.

The first defense attorney to make closing argument represents the alleged ringleader in the killing of the victim, Anthony Ibarra, two years ago.

The prosecution says Ramon Maldonado was the “shot-caller” who masterminded the alleged kidnap, torture and murder of Anthony Ibarra two years ago.

“The hard evidence does not prove who killed Mr. Ibarra, the hard evidence does not prove why Mr. Ibarra was killed, the hard evidence does not prove anyone guilty of first degree murder”, said Maldonado’s defense attorney Michael Scott to the jury in his closing argument.

Defendant Ramon Maldonado was identified during the trial by his Santa Maria gang moniker of “Crazy Ray”.

“If you noticed Ms. Bramsen (prosecutor) constantly referred to my client as Crazy Ray, again for dramatic effect, the people who really knew him, when you see the text messages and where you hear the people talking about him, most of them refer to him as Ray”, Scott told the jury, “the prosecution wants you to believe that Mr. Maldonado is a brutal killer, a leader of a ruthless gang of Surenos, the prosecution wants to demonize Mr. Maldonado, why is that? It makes it easier for you guys to vote guilty, if you hate somebody, if you’re scared of somebody, you tend to overlook the evidence and the failure of proof.”

Scott said there’s no hard evidence linking Ramon Maldonado to the alleged kidnap, torture and murder of Anthony Ibarra.

“Did you find a single text message, just any one, where Mr. Maldonado threatened Mr. Ibarra? Wanted to do him harm? Zip, not one”, Scott told the jury, “so let’s make it broader, did you find a single text message where Mr. Ramon Maldonado threatened to do harm to anybody? Zip, not a one.”

“For being the actual murderer, which the DA concedes my client was not, or the intent to aid and abet the murderer, you must have the intent to kill, there’s no credible evidence Mr. Maldonado intended to kill or specifically intended to aid anybody else in killing, if that’s not proven, it must be not guilty”, Scott told the jury.

The prosecution claims Ramon Maldonado planned and participated in luring Anthony Ibarra to a home on West Donovan Road in Santa Maria on March 17, 2013 where he was allegedly ambushed and beaten by all six defendants on trial and eventually stabbed to death over his unpaid drug debts.

“What is the motive?”, Scott asked the jury, “the District Attorney would have you believe the my client orchestrated a brutal kidnap, torture, murder because someone owed somebody else some money. Not him, there’s no evidence Mr. Maldonado was owed a dime by Mr. Ibarra.”?

Scott said Ramon Maldonado was wearing a GPS ankle-bracelet for being on probation at the time of the Ibarra killing and his movements were recorded and place him nowhere near the home on West Donovan Road when the prosecution says Ibarra was killed.

“Knowing that you are wearing a GPS monitor that allows law enforcement to track your every movement, knowing you are a Northwest gang member on probation, does it make any sense that you get your friends and say hey, let’s go over and ambush and kidnap and torture a guy, an by the way, I got my bracelet on”, Scott told the jury, “there was no deliberation, there was no planning, my client didn’t do any of those things, he committed no murder, no kidnap, no torture and he certainly didn’t plan them, that’s not true.”

Scott also told the jury there is nothing to support the prosecution’s claim that Ibarra’s murder was orchestrated at the behest of orders handed down from the prison-run Mexican Mafia and its affiliated Surenos street gang.

“The District Attorney spent a lot of time talking about the Mexican Mafia”, Scott told the jury, “there is no evidence that Mr. Maldonado was a member or has ever been a member of the Mexican Mafia, there’s no evidence that Mr. Maldonado even knows anybody in the Mexican Mafia, the Mexican Mafia has absolutely nothing to do with this case.”

Scott told the jury Ramon Maldonado was involved in removing Anthony Ibarra’s body from the home on West Donovan Road in a rented U-Haul truck found parked in an Orcutt neighborhood two days after the prosecution says Ibarra was killed.

“The fact that Mr. Maldonado and others helped move the body does not prove who, why or when Mr. Ibarra was killed, it does not prove lying in wait, does not prove kidnapping nor does it prove torture”, Scott told the jury, “on the contrary, it proves there was no plan to kill Mr. Ibarra when Mr. Maldonado went to 1142 (West Donovan Road) on March 17th. The arrangements to rent the U-Haul were made the next day and made only after Mr. Maldonado learned from some source that Mr. Ibarra was dead, not before.”

Defense closing arguments are expected to go into next week, followed by prosecution rebuttal before the case is handed over to the jury for deliberation.

************************

The burden of proof is with the prosecution and its case that this was a planned, premeditated conspiracy by the six defendants on trial to kidnap, torture and murder Anthony Ibarra over his unpaid drug debts.

“We stand here today on the two year anniversary of his murder”, prosecutor Ann Bramsen told the jury as she began her closing arguments highlighting all six defendants are charged with first degree murder, “he was beaten with fists and stabbed before being taken to that back bedroom where he was brutally tortured for hours before he had a screwdriver plunged into his neck three times, cutting the jugular vein and ultimately causing him to die, two years ago today.”

Bramsen cited the special allegation that it was to benefit a criminal street gang.

“Not all of the individuals have to even be a gang member”, Bramsen said, “so you have to have one person who is a gang member and the others have to intend to promote, further or assist in either the kidnapping, the torture or the murder of Anthony Ibarra.”

“Did each person have the intent to promote, further and assist in the felony conduct, the torture, the kidnapping, the murder by a gang member”, Bramsen said, “did that conduct, did that overall conduct, the torture, the kidnapping or the murder benefit the gang, did that conduct, was it in association with a gang member, did that conduct, was it at the direction of a gang member?”

Bramsen told the jury the motive for Ibarra’s killing was his unpaid drug debts, or “taxes”, owed to some of the six defendants identified as gang members with links to the prison-run Mexican Mafia.

“I am required under the law to prove to you that that gang exists and that the gang is involved in a pattern of criminal activity”, Bramsen said, “we heard that gang members, and all of these six individuals, often made money off dope sales, we heard that many of the people in this case don’t have real jobs, they sell drugs, that’s how they survive.”

Bramsen cited the gang practice of “checking”, or beating up fellow members or associates who don’t follow the rules or don’t pay taxes on the drugs they are given to sell.

“So in order to make sure you get paid, there has to be a consequence, right? Otherwise, you’re going to go and take dope from all these people and no one is ever going to pay you, so there has to be examples made and rules followed”, Bramsen told the jury, “is this a simple checking? No, its an example, they took Anthony Ibarra, who was fronted thousands of dollars in drugs that he failed to pay, who owed a lot of money and was hiding for months, and they made an example out of him.”

Two of the defendants testified Anthony Ibarra was beaten up inside a home on West Donovan Road on March 17, 2013 because of his drug debts, but he was still alive when all six defendants left the home.

Bramsen told the jury the evidence and witness testimony squarely places responsibility for the death of Anthony Ibarra with the six defendants inside the home where they lured him to.

“They immediately attacked him, within 30 seconds or so upon entry into that home”, Bramsen said, “and then took him to the back bedroom where they tortured him and ultimately killed him, so lying in wait is met for all six defendants.”

Bramsen said the ringleader in the case, or “shot caller”, is defendant and local gang leader Ramon “Crazy Ray” Maldonado.

“Crazy Ray was the leader of this group” Bramsen said, “he was the one in control, he was the one making the calls, he was the one with the most respect, the person they looked up to.”

Bramsen said fellow defendant Jason Castillo took orders from Maldonado and delivered the fatal, final blows to Ibarra with a Phillips-head screwdriver.

“It wasn’t just once, or twice, three blows to the neck”, Bramsen told the jury, “if that doesn’t show intent to kill, I don’t know what does.”

Bramsen pointed to gang member and trial “snitch” Robert Sosa, brother of co-defendant Reyes “Pumpkin” Gonzales, who accepted a plea deal of 15 years in prison in exchange for his testimony for the prosecution.

“We have the incident when Robert Sosa comes in (the bedroom) and sees Anthony Ibarra in the shower, and he asks Mr. Castillo, I want to take him to the hospital, and what does Castillo do? You gotta talk to Ramon Maldonado, hands him his phone, and that’s what Sosa does”, Bramsen told the jury, “Ramon Maldonado says, uh,uh, not going to the hospital, he’s gonna die, Sosa goes back, relays the information to Castillo, he (Maldonado) wants him to die and he wants the house cleaned up, so what does Castillo do? Takes a screwdriver and plunges it through Anthony Ibarra’s neck.”

Bramsen said the screwdriver with Ibarra’s blood on it along with a belt and belt buckle used on Ibarra are key pieces of evidence introduced in the trial.

“People can lie but physical evidence never lies”, Bramsen said, “so when you are evaluating the credibility of the witnesses, it is critical to look at the physical evidence, and see, does this match what they said?”

Bramsen told the jury expert witness testimony placed the time of Ibarra’s death on March 17, 2013 with his naked body found two days later in the back of a rented U-Haul truck that was parked in an Orcutt neighborhood.

“He died in that house, he did not die in that U-Haul”, Bramsen said.

Bramsen is expected to conclude final arguments Wednesday morning followed by defense attorney arguments before the case is handed over to the jury for deliberation.

The judge excused the sixth alternate juror for illness before the proceedings began Tuesday morning, leaving five remaining alternate jurors.

************************

Tuesday, March 17, 2015 marks two years since the alleged kidnap, torture and murder of Anthony Ibarra in Santa Maria, also known as the U-Haul murder case.

Ibarra’s naked body was found two days later in the back of a rented U-Haul truck parked in an Orcutt neighborhood.

The jury in the now month’s-long Ibarra murder trial will soon decide the fate of the six defendants on trial since January.

“Did she give you details on names?”, asked prosecutor Ann Bramsen of rebuttal witness, a Santa Barbara County District Attorney investigator, ” she did”, the investigator replied, “did she give you details on what the threats were?”, Bramsen asked the investigator, “she did”, the investigator replied.

The County DA investigator was among the final witnesses called by the prosecution and testified about his responsibility for the Santa Barbara County witness protection and relocation program.

It turned the jury’s attention to three, key prosecution witnesses who testified about the involvement of the six defendants on trial in Ibarra’s death,.

The three witnesses were placed in protective custody.

“When did you first become involved with them month and year wise?”, Bramsen asked the witness,”I believe it was March of 2013″, “and did you move all three of them out of the area?”Bramsen asked, “I did”, the investigator replied.

The investigator testified how a confidential informant alerted him to threats made against the key prosecution witnesses.

“Did she admit that she lied to you?”, asked defense attorney Michael Scott of the DA investigator, “yes”, replied the witness.

Under cross-examination by defense attorneys, the DA investigator acknowledged one of the three protected prosecution witnesses lied about threats to her and was involved in an armed robbery at the time but was never charged.

“Were you aware of the fact that she had committed robbery?”, asked defense attorney David Bixby, “no, I wasn’t aware of that”, the DA investigator replied.

A Santa Maria Police detective also testified that the same confidential, paid informant helped identify and arrest those involved in the Ibarra murder.

“Did she repeatedly provide you information she had obtained regarding who committed the murder?”, Bramsen asked the SMPD detective, “yes”, the detective replied, “and did she give you specific names?”, Bramsen asked, “yes”, the witness replied, “and did she give you specific names more than once?”,Bramsen asked, “yes”, the witness testified.

Closing arguments are expected to take at least two full days in front of the jury.