SAN MARTIN
– Both sides’ lawyers agree that a sexual assault trial under
way for Quintin Daye, of Gilroy, is a classic he-said-she-said
case.
There is no DNA evidence and no witness to the alleged sex. It
all boils down to the 45-year-old Daye’s word against a 17-year-old
girl’s.
SAN MARTIN – Both sides’ lawyers agree that a sexual assault trial under way for Quintin Daye, of Gilroy, is a classic he-said-she-said case.
There is no DNA evidence and no witness to the alleged sex. It all boils down to the 45-year-old Daye’s word against a 17-year-old girl’s.
“It could go either way,” said Steve Fein, the deputy district attorney prosecuting the case, during a midmorning court recess. “No result could surprise me.”
The girl testified Monday and Tuesday, as she first told police in January 2003, that Daye had sex with her three or four times a week for nearly four years, starting when she was 13 and occurring for the last time Dec. 30, 2002, when she was 16.
“It was constant,” Fein said.
Daye “vehemently denies” these accusations, according to his attorney, Craig Brown of San Jose. When first told what the girl told police, Daye “freaked out” and was “dumbfounded,” Brown said.
Daye, who has been free from county jail on $100,000 bail since his April 2, 2003, arrest, is fighting to clear his name of two felony counts of sexual assault of a minor under the age of 14.
Under California law, sex crimes against minors under 14 carry stiffer penalties than those against older juveniles. If the jury convicts Daye, Judge Kenneth Shapero could sentence him to a maximum of 24 years in prison.
Daye – who helped coach a traveling Gilroy girls basketball team during the summers of 2002 and 2001 – wore a gray suit in court Tuesday and took notes during the girl’s testimony. In the audience were three people in support of Daye and two in support of the girl.
Brown plans to call at least six witnesses to cast doubt on the alleged victim’s testimony, according to Ann Fields, an investigator for the defense. Brown said some of the witnesses would contradict the girl’s statements, while at least one other would testify that she has a history of lying.
“We think there’s a lot of evidence out there that suggests she just can’t be believed,” Brown said.
Under cross-examination by Brown Tuesday morning, the girl – the second witness to testify – had a hard time recalling details about what happened on days on which Daye allegedly had sex with her. In one example, she could not remember whether Daye slept in a tent or in the back of his truck on a camping trip with relatives in summer 2000, when she was 14. She did specify, however, that they had sex in his tent.
The girl also admitted she had incorrectly reported at least one incident in court in the past. She claims Daye had sex with her on her 16th birthday after taking her out to dinner at Chevy’s Mexican restaurant in Gilroy. On the stand in a preliminary hearing in July 2003, she said they went to dinner alone. On Tuesday, she said a friend of hers joined them at Chevy’s.
Brown asked the girl about her conversations with several friends whom he may call to the stand later. The girl denied telling her friends about having sex with several boys starting when she was in seventh grade, about being a lesbian or about kissing or fondling a particular one of her friends.
Brown also read a series of text messages the girl sent one friend regarding Daye’s lawyer’s attempts to contact the friend. In the message, which the accuser verified as accurate, she asked her friend to not talk to Daye’s lawyer or testify. Brown says the alleged victim made a concerted effort to urge her friends not to testify in court about the things she had told them.
One of Daye’s supporters in the audience, who declined to identify himself, was overheard during the noon recess saying the girl’s erratic statements under cross-examination would help Daye.
“She wasn’t sure what she was talking about,” the man said aloud to a friend. “She was all over the place.”
Fein refused to comment on the girl’s testimony other than to say, “If I didn’t believe her, I wouldn’t have brought this case (to trial).”
It’s hard to tell whether a sex-crime accuser is lying, but a good interviewer can often find inconsistencies in a liar’s stories, said San Jose Police Officer Robert Dillon, a detective who specializes in child exploitation cases and who has taken classes on interviewing techniques.
“Sometimes they’ll (offer) great details on insignificant things, and then they’ll (contradict themselves) on something you’ve already asked them about … (or) they’re not able to provide specific answers to little details,” said Dillon, who is not involved in the Daye case.
Even if police interviewers believe an alleged sex crime victim is lying, they are cautious about accusing that person of doing so – because it is so easy to be wrong.
“(A sex crime) is a traumatic event, and people’s recollections of a traumatic event could be different,” Dillon said.
On Monday, after settling on a jury and the lawyers’ opening arguments, Fein called to the stand a nurse who had examined Daye’s accuser for signs of rape. The nurse said there were signs the girl had had sexual intercourse, but this witness said she could not tell when the sex occurred or how often.
During Daye’s first court appearance, a judge issued a restraining order requiring he not have physical or verbal contact with the alleged victim. There is now no relationship between the two or contact outside of trial, Brown said.
Brown took over Daye’s defense this past summer from Merrill Zimmershed, of Gilroy.
