Judge denies everything

by Tom Nadeau

Visiting Judge John Darlington denied Friday all the motions made by both the defense and the prosecution to reconsider his previous rulings in the Yuba County matter of People v. Santana, Vasquez, CRF-#08-825.

Neither side was happy with his reconfirmed ruling. Each indicated they would, “take it to a higher court,” as the old song goes.
+
In early August, Darlington granted some – but not all – of the motions Yuba-Sutter attorneys Jesse Santana and David Vasquez had made seeking dismissal of charges they violated rules of law and ethics during settlement talks between boss-sex attacker Joseph Griesa and his employee-victim, “S.A.”

Friday’s proceedings allowed the lawyers one last pitch to persuade him to change his mind and possibly revise his earlier actions.

Darlington listened, but after a 20-minute recess, he returned to court to say that nothing the lawyers had said changed his mind. The two would have to stand trial.

Letting the previous rulings stand means that – if and when the case ever goes to trial – that Vasquez will face three criminal counts, including one of bribery, while Santana will face only two counts. The more serious bribery allegation was thrown out against him..

Defense attorney Michael Barrette later said the indicted attorneys would meet a two-week deadline to file a writ of mandamus asking the state’s Third District Court of Appeals to negate Darlington’s rulings.

Lead prosecutor Supervising Deputy State Attorney General Michael Canzoneri declined to comment following the hearing. However, he clearly indicated the prosecution’s intention to also ask the 3rd DCA for further action.

Darlington’s ruling means this landmark case can finally go to trial after two years of preliminary hearings – in theory anyway.

In fact, both sides have a battery of options open to them that could keep this legal beast – one Darlington has called, ruefully, “the Moby Dick” of criminal cases – alive and kicking around county, state and federal trial and appeals courts for years to come.

The defense has until Sept. 10 to get their writs filed. Then the prosecutors have a set period of time to reply to the writ. The justices at the 3rd DCA are then likely answer within 90 days.

The attorneys in Santana, Vasquez return to Yuba County Superior Court 1 p.m. Oct. 1 to enter a plea -- remember, they have yet to be arraigned in this two-year-old case -- and to have a tentative pre-trial calendar set.

The appeals justices could refuse to consider the writs, which will place everything back before the Yuba County Superior Court. Or, the justices could take the issues raised in the writs under advisement and render a decision. Everything would be put on hold at the county until the 3rd DCA justices ruled.

Sound complicated so far? Well, it only gets worse.

The matter of People v. Santana, Vasquez could conceivable wend its way through the state and federal district courts all the way to the US Supreme Court.

Not many legal cases make it that far. But this seemingly obscure Yuba County dispute actually calls into question so many bedrock rules of American legal procedure, rights and customs it could very well get there.

Lawyer-client-court issues raised include:
-- How much must a client tell the lawyer when seeking his or her advice?
-- How often must a lawyer repeat possible consequences a decision entails?
-- If the clients, attorneys and the court are fully aware of what’s going on, who gets to be the goose if an error is alleged or discovered? The first to be told, or the last to hear it?

People v. Santana, Vasquez is further complicated by the other main issue that everyone knows about, that has echoed around various courthouses and law offices, yet few dare talk about: the brazen politics behind it all.

Santana was in the running for a judgeship on the Sutter County Superior Court bench. He was a prominent defense attorney. His long, excellent professional record was sterling, unassailable. He was even Hispanic. Why, the Governor’s pen was practically poised to ink Santana’s appointment.

But, alas, Santana was not the relatively young prosecutor forces within the Sutter County District Attorney’s Office preferred to have ruling on their cases. Somehow, Santana had to be derailed. A useful tool was found. Too bad Vasquez had to go down with him. But, as they would say in another closed clan, “Bidness was bidness.”

Suddenly, the district attorney in the other twin-cities county across the Feather River discovered something to talk to the Yuba County Grand Jury about involving Santana. A witness was produced, Joseph Griesa.

Griesa had been linked to law enforcement in both counties. At the time he had an investigation pending against him relating to allegations made by some of the female employees at his tow truck company. One of them was “S.A.” Santana represented her.

Several charges against Griesa waited in the wings. Some were state. Some were federal All could be magnified or minimized, pursued or postponed. Or Griesa could tell the grand jury how much he disliked about being pressured to cough up a financial settlement with victim “S.A.”

Abracadabra! Presto-Chango! Grand jury indictments suddenly materialized. The governor appointed the golden girl prosecutor to the Sutter County bench. (A mere coincidence, of course.) All the two district attorneys had left to do was ignore Santana and Vasquez until they went away, either by cutting a quiet plea deal or otherwise vanishing, the noiselessly the better.

But when did a lawyer ever remain silent?

Thus, the DAs’ preferred outcome was not to be, and People v. Santana, Vasquez was launched.