Early one morning, Wickey Twohands, an elderly man of 77 years, started his day by securing his personal items at a friend’s home. He had an important appointment at the Fresno courthouse, marking the day of his trial for the act of sleeping outdoors. Knowing the importance of the occasion, he arrived before everyone else, taking a seat in the hall, eager not to miss his appearance. However, after several hours, Twohands was informed that the city requested a postponement, rescheduling his trial for April. As he departed, an advocate from the courthouse offered him a lift and a meal, highlighting the fact that this was his first proper food intake of the day.
Twohands was poised to become the initial defendant tried under Fresno’s new ordinance, which criminalizes camping in any public space without proper authorization. This regulation, mirroring other cities within the state, follows a Supreme Court ruling that empowered such measures. Legal advocates for the homeless, including Twohands’ lawyer, Kevin Little, are eager to challenge these ordinances in court. Twohands, along with similar cases in Fresno and San Francisco, are part of an emerging battleground to scrutinize the enforcement of these rules.
Kevin Little remarked that this trial accompanies not only a personal defense for Twohands but also serves a greater purpose of questioning the legitimacy of the ordinance. He is involved in a similar proceeding scheduled for a pre-trial soon. Trials for offenses like these are rare because, often, charges either are not pursued or get dropped before reaching court. Frequently, defendants fail to appear on scheduled dates due to the unpredictability of their living conditions, leading to warrants instead of trials.
In San Francisco, attorney Samantha Pérez of the Public Defender’s Office, vocalizes a movement that sees clients, like her current case Linda Vazquez, demand trials to reclaim their dignity and challenge the charges they face for simply existing without a home. Vazquez’s case, particularly, contends that the camping laws in San Francisco are too ambiguous to enforce. Pérez is committed to pushing for trial unless pre-trial proceedings dismiss it.
Despite the efforts of Pérez and her colleagues, district attorneys often lack interest in pursuing these trials due to the already overburdened court system. Cases ready for trial often get dismissed at the last minute, citing the greater good as the reason. The judicial apparatus, constrained by limited resources, struggles to accommodate these cases alongside their existing workload.
The prosecution often proposes diversion programs, offering a dismissal of charges if individuals adhere to certain conditions like avoiding future citations. Yet, these programs fall short, as escaping repeated citations is challenging for those continuing to live on the streets. Twohands, represented by Little, chose to refuse a diversion program presented by Fresno, citing mistrust in its capacity to provide genuinely beneficial outcomes.
City officials defend these programs, proposing them as a lifeline for housing and assistance. Councilmember Miguel Arias emphasizes the city’s intent to offer help first, but reminders persist about accountability if individuals choose to refuse these opportunities.
Nonetheless, Little argues that real, widespread assistance measures are lacking unless compellingly showcased in cases like Twohands’. Furthermore, Twohands himself, determined to address the broader implications of how law enforcement engages with the homeless, insists on pushing forward. His recent arrest for minor offenses cost him his few possessions, forcing him to once again navigate through city streets.
Little’s defense strategy includes challenging the specifics of the incident and incorporating expert testimonies on basic human needs. The trial poses significant risks, including potential fines or imprisonment, although Little doubts severe punishment would be enforced. The demands of the legal process, especially on an unhoused individual, weigh heavily, yet the case proceeds as a potential turning point.
In other regions like San Joaquin County, similar cases tend to resolve with probation given the logistical impracticality of lengthy court appearances for those without stable shelters. Frustrated by the lack of opportunity for fair trials, local public defenders question the fairness and legality of such practices. Unbeknownst to some clients, even the chance of having legal representation in certain courts is lacking due to short staffing issues.
The reopening of the Lodi courthouse might affect the handling of these cases, yet remains uncertain at this point. However, a similar determination to seek justice persists in clients like Linda Vazquez. Even faced with the thought of trial, she voices readiness to confront the allegations if no other resolution reflects a fair acknowledgment of her situation.
