John Chiv: Deputy DA Timm proves once again why she is #1; Judge Van Dyke ruling on key motion in convicted molestor's case should shut up her few and obvious critics

Jan 31, 2025

Deputy DA Timm proves once again why she is #1; Judge Van Dyke ruling on key motion in convicted molestor's case should shut up her few and obvious critics

I covered convicted molestor Steve Boudreaux's first trial. It was a hung jury for five counts. Boudreaux was convicted for Count 6. This week, there were motions in limine for his retrial for Counts 1 to 5.

I was in court on 1/28/25 for a very important motion. Defense was trying to keep out Boudreaux's prior conviction.

Even a white dress shirt and black suit did not change Boudreaux's creepy appearance. He did not even bother to shave. He could have since jury selection was expected to begin after motions that day. The jury trial started on 1/27/25 and already a female juror requested to be excused for hardship due to unexpected development.

Before arguments, defense witnesses Shaylene Williams, Darian Ridley, Kamber Tiernam Stein and Jessica Sovereign were ordered back to court on 1/31/25.

Once again Deputy District Attorney Whitney Timm came through for the survivors. Most of my regular readers already know and are fans of Ms. Timm. This includes former jurors and family members of victims. I have sat in court and watched her argue and win. Her mastery of the law is unparalled and she is the best prosecutor in Humboldt County in the 15 years I have covered local courts.

Even Deputy Public Defender Casey Russo accepted his loss with Judge April Van Dyke's ruling and thankfully did not waste any more time.

I knew Judge Van Dyke would impress on the bench but to few and obvious critics out there, this is Judge Van Dyke's first criminal trial and she was well prepared, read what was filed, did her own research and that made her ruling in favor Ms. Timm iron clad.

If you did not read the post last week or prior coverage, you can catch up via the links provided.

Readers who are interested in the details and legal arguments are familiar with the legal terminology because they are attorneys or in the legal field. Others who have read my blog for over a decade or even a few years should know the definition of 1108 and 352 or 402 which I have explained many times. Google can be used by anyone.

On 1/27/25, there had already been arguments on 1108 evidence and both attorneys had filed supplemental responses which Judge Van Dyke had read.

Mr. Russo said that the prior conviction would be prejudicial. He said allowing mention of it "would inflame the passions of the jury." Mr. Russo admitted that what happened to Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 were "intertwined."

"Jane Doe 2 got involved after talking to Jane Doe 1." Boudreaux was convicted by a jury of Count 6. The victim for that charge is Jane Doe 2.

Ms. Timm cited People v Wesson and People v Dworak. "Both these cases involve sex crime allegations. The defendant was on trial. The Court allowed prosecution to present prior conviction. The only thing the Court should be concerned with here is a 352 analysis."

"All these cases favor prior conviction," said Ms. Timm. "The conduct is very similar. Jane Doe 2 was molested in Jane Doe 1's bed. Most of the acts occurred there. The conduct is not so much more egregious that it would inflame the passions of the jury."

"Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe2's cases are intertwined," said Ms. Timm. "Not allowing the conviction would mislead the jury. Boudreaux has said he will take the stand and I cannot question him. To pretend the past trial did not happen...Jane Doe will take the stand and Mr. Russo will question her. She cannot talk about the conviction."

"The 1108 jury instruction is different than the CALCRIM instruction," said Ms. Timm. This was in response to a suggestion Mr. Russo made in his argument.

Judge Van Dyke mentioned People v Mueller. It was similar to Boudreaux's case except that in Boudreaux's case it was a conviction in the first trial. In Mueller, even "the appeals court found the acquittal was admissible."

Judge Van Dyke looked at the cases "the People" cited and added according to legislature, "propensity of evidence cannot be excluded."

Judge Van Dyke cited cases where 14 year old and 23 year old convictions were allowed. "I agree it is prejudicial" but asked "whether it is unduly prejudicial."

Judge Van Dyke pointed out that defense said "these are intertwined" and that the defense wants to present evidence about Jane Doe 2.

"The Court will permit 1108 evidence and permit the conviction" but limit questioning.

1/27/25 court minutes:

There is a Scott Boudreaux who is different than Steve Boudreaux. I don't know if that is a typo in the 1/27/25 minutes or Scott Boudteaux is a potential witness because I was not in the courtroom when that motion in limine was argued.

1/31/25 court minutes: