December 2019

People v. Jermaine Bradford Dec 19, 2019

On December 19, 2019, an Alameda County jury convicted defendant Jermaine Bradford of three felony counts of committing sexual acts on a child under the age of 10. Jane Doe was 6 years old when the crimes occurred sometime during the late winter and spring of 2016. The defendant committed these acts while driving Jane Doe to school in his van. The defendant is facing a sentence of up to 45 years to life in prison. The case was prosecuted by DDA Chris Infante with investigative work by Insp. Kendell Won and Insp. Jason Hawks. Victim advocacy was provided by Stephanie Lynch.

ALAMEDA COUNTY DA O’MALLEY ANNOUNCES CONSUMER PROTECTION SETTLEMENT WITH FASHION NOVA INC. Dec 19, 2019

Alameda County District Attorney Nancy E. O’Malley announced today that her office, along with the District Attorneys of Los Angeles, Napa and Sonoma Counties, settled a civil consumer protection action against a California company known as Fashion Nova, Inc. The judgment was filed in Alameda County Superior Court and signed by Judge Tara Desautels.

Fashion Nova is a retailer that operates in the “fast fashion” industry. “Fast fashion” refers to clothing that moves rapidly from fashion shows or popular culture to mass production and retail sale. The majority of Fashion Nova’s sales take place on-line, over its Internet website wwww.fashionnova.com. The civil action alleges that Fashion Nova violated consumers’ rights by repeatedly failing to fulfill and ship orders within the legally mandated timeframe.

California law requires that orders placed over the Internet generally must be shipped within thirty days, failing which the business must either provide a refund, or take some other action, such as sending the buyer a written notice regarding the delay. The content of these “delay notices” are regulated by statute and must include, among other things, the expected duration of the delay and an offer of a refund, upon request.

The complaint alleges that Fashion Nova repeatedly violated these laws by failing to ship items to California consumers within 30 days of their orders and, at least until April 2018, by failing to provide adequate delay notices. The complaint alleges that Fashion Nova committed other violations of the law, such as failing to adequately disclose its return policy on the website.

“These types of consumer protection laws in California are on the books to make sure retailers treat their customers in an equitable and professional manner,” District Attorney Nancy O’Malley said. “When consumers place an order over the Internet, they are entitled to receive the items promptly or get a legally adequate explanation why they haven’t.”

The judgment includes an injunction to prevent further violations of law and requires Fashion Nova to pay approximately $250,000 in direct restitution to consumers. Without admitting liability, Fashion Nova was further ordered to pay $1.5 million in costs, penalties and other remedial payments. The company cooperated fully in the investigation and agreed to make changes to its business practices.

People v. David Vigil Dec 5, 2019

On December 5, 2019, a jury convicted defendant David Vigil of voluntary manslaughter (heat of passion) with use of a firearm, 2nd degree murder with personal use of a firearm, and shooting at an occupied vehicle.

On September 24, 2015, defendant David Vigil and his unidentified co-participant slowly drove down Crosby Avenue in East Oakland. The two both noticed victims Jorge Salazar and Edward Miranda sitting in Mr. Salazar’s car. The two victims had just gotten off work. After initially driving past the victims, the defendant reversed his car to line up with Mr. Salazar’s car and the men exchanged words. The defendant then drove his car forward and pulled to the side to allow another car to drive past, reversed again, got out of his car and approached the victims as they sat in their car. The defendant’s passenger also got out of the car and began to approach the victims and both the defendant and his passenger shot into the victims’ car. Mr. Salazar, who was also armed, fired back twice, striking the defendant once in the shoulder. The defendant and his co-participant fled the scene, leaving Mr. Salazar and Mr. Miranda dead from multiple gunshot wounds. The defendant initially claimed he was shot approximate three miles away while minding his own business. He claimed self-defense at trial despite stating that he had “shot some Scraps” shortly after the shooting. “Scraps” is a derogatory name for Sureño gang members. It is believed that the defendant is a Norteño gang member. It should be noted that the victims had no ties to any gang and appeared to be in the wrong place at the wrong time as they were victimized by the defendant.

The defendant will be sentenced on January 31, 2020.

This case was prosecuted by Assistant District Attorney Butch Ford with the assistance of Inspector Ceasar Basa and Victim-Witness Advocate Liliana Bueno.