Hensley's Attorney Speaks Out: Newspapers Got it Wrong

From The Law Offices of Steven C. Sabbadini

Steven C. Sabbadini of The Law Offices of Steven C. Sabbadini represents Troy Hensley in the case now pending against Mr. Hensley in the Yolo County Superior Court.  While it is not the standard practice of the Law Offices of Steven C. Sabbadini to comment on newspaper articles relating to pending cases, our office feels compelled to make an exception given the numerous inaccuracies that have been reported in this case by local media outlets in both Yolo and Solano Counties.

These inaccuracies need to be corrected as they affect Mr. Hensley’s reputation in the community and may hamper his ability to obtain a fair trial.  The primary inaccuracies as reported are addressed as follows.   

MR. HENSLEY HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH “CHILD MOLESTATION” CRIMES           

Contrary to statements made in several local newspapers, Mr. Hensley has not been charged with child molestation crimes.  It is alleged that Mr. Hensley and the alleged victim in this case began a sexual relationship starting in May 31, 2012 when the alleged victim was approximately four (4) months from turning 18 years of age.  That relationship was alleged to have continued past her 18th birthday, and until April 2013, a total of 11 months.

In the Complaint filed in Superior Court, Counts 1 through 24 allege eight (8) separate dates, of sexual contact that occurred prior to the alleged victim’s 18th birthday.  None of the 24 counts alleged are considered “child molest” Counts, and should not have been reported in that manner.  There is no allegation of force and the acts engaged in were alleged to have been voluntary in nature.  The initial Davis Police Department Press Release dated May 31, 2013, states that “it was determined that the suspect and the minor victim had engaged in a sexual relationship for 3 ½ months in 2012”.  This statement was repeated in many papers, as a fact that had been “determined”, as opposed to an allegation made by an alleged victim.    

MR. HENSLEY COACHED MALE ATHLETES

The Davis Police Department Press Release dated May 31st  states “Hensley is a former youth basketball coach in Dixon and has had contact with young females.”  Most of the local media printed this statement as the truth.  There is an implication in this statement that Mr. Hensley coached female athletes.  All of Mr. Hensley’s previous coaching activities involved coaching male athletes, except for helping coach one high school (1) Powder Puff team several weeks approximately two (2) years ago.  The May 30th Davis Police Department press release tends to mislead the public into believing that Mr. Hensley has had widespread contact with young female athletes during his previous coaching assignments, implying improper behavior with female athletes.  The implication is both unfounded and unfair to Mr. Hensley.

THERE ARE NO “SEX VIDEOS” INVOLVING THE ALLEGED VICTIM AND MR. HENSLEY  

During Deputy District Attorney, Deanna Hays’ presentation in court on July 29, 2013, the Prosecutor referred to the existence of certain “sex videos”.  The Prosecutor advised that there was a need to have the alleged victim come in and review “sex videos” to determine whether the videos depicted alleged victim.  The videos did not depict the alleged victim.  In fact, the videos only depict consensual conduct between Mr. Hensley and his wife.  The statement in the Dixon Patch that “Hays states that the records contained sex videos captured by Hensley during the relationship” (implying the relationship between Mr. Hensley and the alleged victim) is patently false. 

IMPLICATION OF DEFENSE “UNPREPAREDNESS” FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

The Defense filed a Motion to continue the preliminary hearing scheduled for July 29, 2013, based on the fact that Defense counsel just received a 16 gigabyte thumb drive and eight (8) other CDs and DVDs on the afternoon of Thursday, July 25, 2013.  The Prosecutor had been previously informed that Mr. Hensley’s Defense attorney would be out of town and not available to review any new information from Friday, July 26, through Sunday evening, July 28, 2013.  As Defense counsel stated in open Court, the Prosecution/Police were in possession of this new information for well over a month, and this information was only provided to the Defense one (1) business day before the Hearing.  The information contains thousands of pages of materials, including texts, i-chats, SMS messages, phone records, GPS records, as well as videos and photographs from several phones.  The Defendant has a right to examine this new information, and has a right to confront and cross-examine witnesses.  The Defendant has a right to have his counsel be prepared in carrying out that task.  The Defense also believes there is exculpatory information contained in these new materials, especially the approximate 1,500 pages of text messages between Mr. Hensley and the alleged victim in this case.  To characterize the Prosecution as a “prepared prosecution team” and to refer to the Defense team as “unprepared” (as stated in the Dixon Patch article dated July 29, 2013) is one-sided reporting, patently unfair to Defense Counsel who had just received thousands of pages of information one (1) business day prior to the Hearing.

ALLEGATION OF THREATS

The second set of charges in this case refer to the alleged victim’s allegation of being threatened by Mr. Hensley between January 1, 2013 to April 30, 2013 (counts 25 and 26).   The May 30th Davis Police Department’s press release in this case states “it was also determined that Hensley had made threats to harm the victim and others if she reported the relationship to the police.”  This exact quote was reported in many of the local papers as a fact that had been “determined”.  In reality, the allegations of threats are just that, allegations of the alleged victim, and should have been reported in that manner. 

The press has the duty and obligation to the Defendant and to the community to report this and other cases, accurately so as not to characterize the Defendant unfairly, to ensure that the potential jury pool is not tainted, and that the Defendant receives a fair trial.    

Here's the last Dixon Patch article covering the Hensley case.