In an uncharacteristic outburst from the dais, Judge Javier Alcala, seemingly fed up with the defense, let the attorneys for Santa Clara City Council Member Anthony Becker have it.
“That’s why you have four lawyers. Split the work,” said Judge Alcala when Deputy Public Defender Chris Montoya asked for a moment to review a document Deputy District Attorney Jason Malinsky planned to submit into evidence. “That’s why this trial is taking so long. Every time they give you a document you ask to review it.”
Malinsky said the document was not new; it was submitted months ago in discovery.
Montoya said more than 20,000 documents were submitted in discovery.
That’s when Judge Alcala made the comments.
Following the lunch break, Judge Alcala apologized for the outburst.
“I shouldn’t have said that,” said Judge Alcala.
He said he was frustrated that the trial had not hit its “rhythm” yet.
“I should have more patience in my years of experience,” said Alcala. “For that, I apologize.”
To try and smooth the road, Judge Alcala asked Malinsky to submit his evidence to the defense ahead of time.
Malinsky said there were only a few more items. He listed them off for the defense.
For the record, Montoya said even with multiple lawyers, it would not be possible to memorize every piece of content. He said that on Rahul Chandhok’s devices alone, there were 2 million artifacts. Montoya said that’s why his co-counsel, Grant Fondo, asked for an exchange of documents at the start of the trial.
Judge Alcala admitted it should have been done in the beginning.
Sudden Communications with the Silicon Valley Voice
With Investigator Ben Holt back on the stand, Malinsky went through Becker’s phone and highlighted what wasn’t there.
According to cell phone records obtained from Becker’s service provider, Becker exchanged dozens of text messages with Silicon Valley Voice reporter Carolyn Schuk between Oct. 6, 2022 and Oct. 9, 2022. That’s after the civil grand jury report “Unsportsmanlike Conduct” was sent to the Santa Clara City Council in a draft format and before it was made public on Oct. 10, 2022.
Call records also show Becker and Schuk spoke just before 11 a.m. on Oct. 6, 2022, and a handful of times after that.
However, Becker’s device showed that the first text message ever received from Schuk was on Nov. 28, 2022 at 12:08 p.m.
Becker’s phone records also show calls between Becker and Silicon Valley Voice Editor Angela Tolliver on Oct. 6, 2022.
The call log does not register text messages between Tolliver and Becker because both have iPhones and the messages are sent via iMessage.
The first instance of texts between Becker and Tolliver on Becker’s phone was on Nov. 30, 2022.
In both cases, Holt determined that based on the volume of subsequent texts between Becker and Schuk and Becker and Tolliver, the texts prior to November 2022 had been deleted.
Communications with Other Publications
In an effort to prove that Becker first communicated with the Silicon Valley Voice and that he had not heard about the report’s leak through the media, Malinsky highlighted communications between Becker and other members of the media.
According to Holt’s testimony, Becker received an email from San Jose Inside reporter Barry Holtzclaw on Oct. 7, 2022 at 8:25 p.m., after the report had appeared on four different news sites.
Analysis of Becker’s devices showed he did not receive a call from anyone at the San Francisco Chronicle on Oct. 5, Oct. 6 or Oct. 7, 2022. Becker received an email at his city email from Chronicle reporter Lance Williams on Oct. 7, 2022.
During cross-examination, Montoya asked Holt if there was any proof Becker leaked the civil grand jury report to the Chronicle.
Malinsky objected, but it was overruled.
Holt said no.
When asked if someone other than Becker leaked the report to the Chronicle, Malinsky objected again.
Judge Alcala sustained the objection and the line of questioning stopped there.
First Online Doesn’t Mean First with the Report
Montoya pointed out through testimony that publishing the report first did not necessarily mean that a news outlet had the report first.
Holt agreed.
Holt testified the Silicon Valley Voice posted an article on the report first with quotes from the report. He was less certain of the time the Chronicle posted its article. He relied on the Way Back Machine to narrow in on the time.
Holt said he believed the Chronicle posted the article between 8:40 and 9:00 a.m. on Oct. 7, 2022.
Montoya asked if Holt could say for certain if he subpoenaed the records, Malinsky objected leading to a sidebar.
Holt ended his testimony by saying the San Jose Spotlight was the first to publish an actual copy of the report.
Other Details from Day 11 of the Trial
There was a brief discussion about the purpose of the trial and what the defense was and was not allowed to ask Holt. During cross-examination, Montoya asked Holt about the investigation into the other council members.
Malinsky objected, saying it was outside the scope.
Montoya argued that the integrity of the investigation was at issue, not what Holt did in regard to Becker.
Judge Alcala disagreed. He said the trial was about Becker.
When Montoya tried to take a different route, saying that close to 40 people had the report, once again Malinsky objected, saying it was outside the scope. Judge Alcala agreed.
- Holt testified that the person who left a voicemail on Chandhok’s cell phone from a 510 number in December 2022 was Becker.
- During cross-examination, Holt admitted that with millions of pieces of data, “mistakes” can be made, but he said he tries to be truthful and does his “best” to remain “accurate.”
- In an effort to further connect the Silicon Valley Voice to Becker, the prosecution highlighted the term: “October Surprise.” It appears in communications with Tolliver, Schuk, Silicon Valley Voice publisher Miles Barber as well as Becker’s family members. Holt testified it referred to the civil grand jury report but did not say “October Surprise” is a term commonly used in politics to refer to a news story coming out in October to try and impact a November election.
- In a text message to his brother on Oct. 6, 2022, Becker said he was in the middle of the “greatest battle” he’s ever faced in his life. He elaborated, “Mayor got grand jury to put out report that is harmful to me and four other council members.” Later, Becker wrote, “Niners are going to go all out to destroy her.”
- According to evidence submitted by the prosecution, Becker sent Schuk a press release about the civil grand jury report and asked her to edit it. On Oct. 9, 2022 at 11:22 p.m., Schuk sent a document with tracked changes back. Holt testified that the edited document was what Becker had put out on his social media channels when the report became public.
- Judge Alcala removed one of the jurors and replaced them with alternate number one. On Thursday, the court discussed the juror, who was “clearly not paying any attention.”
- There are still three alternate jurors available.
- The jury is off all next week for the Thanksgiving holiday. It will return on Dec. 2. Judge Alcala hopes to have jurors begin deliberations on Dec. 4.
Silicon Valley Voice’s Continuing Becker Trial Coverage:
Day 10 Becker Perjury Trial: Council Colleague and DA Investigator Hammer Home Prosecution’s Claims
Day 9 Becker Perjury Trial: Criminalist Continues Testimony on Data Extraction
Day 8 Becker Perjury Trial: “Expert” Witness Takes the Stand
Day 7 Becker Perjury Trial: Civil Grand Jury Overseer Testifies
Day 6 Becker Perjury Trial: Prosecution Enters Becker’s Grand Jury Testimony
Day 5 Becker Perjury Trial: Damage Control And Campaign Financing
Day 4 Becker Perjury Trial: Fmr. City Attorney Steve Ngo Take the Stand
Day 3 Becker Perjury Trial: Defense Tries to Paint Chandhok as the Focal Point
Day 2 Becker Perjury Trial: Chandhok Testimony Resumes
Destroyed Evidence Discussed on Morning of Becker Perjury Trial
Day 1 Becker Perjury Trial: Opening Statements, Chandhok Testimony
Jury Selected in Becker Perjury Trial
Judge Rejects Claims of Political Conspiracy Against Vice Mayor Anthony Becker
Jury Selection Begins in Becker Perjury Trial
Judge Wraps Up Majority of Motions in Becker Perjury Trial
Judge Rules on Multiple Motions as Start of Becker Perjury Trial Nears
Potential Motion to Dismiss in Becker Trial
Becker Trial Jury Selection Starts in Late October
Becker Trial on Standby, Small Business Owner Kirk Vartan Subpoenaed
No Settlement in Becker Trial; Becker Team Withdraws Subpoenas
Becker’s Attorneys Want to Investigate DA’s Office for 2020 Grand Jury Report Leak
Mayor Gillmor’s Response to PRA Request Causes Judge to Reverse Rulings
Impacted Court System Forces New Delay in Becker Trial
Judge Denies Series of Defense Motions as Start of Becker Perjury Trial Nears
Jude Barry: The Related Company Lobbyist Subpoenaed in the Becker Trial
View Comments (4)
If the next day of testimony is December 2, 2024, how could it possibly go to the jury on December 4, 2024, as Judge Alcala indicates that he wants?? The prosecution hasn't even finished with its witnesses AND the defense has yet to begin presenting its case. After the prosecution has had weeks to present testimony regarding its various accusations, is our accused, duly elected public representative only to be allowed a few hours to present the case against those accusations???
I do not know what is going on with this Judge Alcala. Outbursts against a highly respected public defender for not being instantly familiar with one of the thousands of documents in this most unusual of cases. Earlier in the case, this judge often could not see the relevance of this, or the relevance of that, with respect to many of the items of evidence which that respected attorney was seeking to present to the jury for its consideration. The judge should trust a jury of educated citizens from our county (which is full of smart engineers, teachers, businesspeople and others) to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. None of the lines of inquiry which the defender sought to pursue appeared to be in any way privileged, confidential, prejudicial, especially confusing, or unduly time-consuming. The judge should have the decency to TRUST both the learned counsel and jurors before him to be able to see what is relevant and what is not (especially after they have received his well-crafted instructions of the law and heard the closing arguments of counsel).
Mr Haggerty thank you for your observations, do you know how a juror get to ask questions in a court case? I've read this twice now. I'm perplexed a Judge would allow this. Have you ever heard of this happening before?
From what I have read the Judge is biased.
You have a juror fixated on the clock and falling asleep, twice or three times the judge has noted that but done nothing about it.
Erika,
.
With regard to this sentence in your piece:
.
"According to Holt’s testimony, Becker received an email from San Jose Inside reporter Barry Holtzclaw on Oct. 7, 2022 at 8:25 p.m., after the report had appeared on four different news sites."
.
Did Holt or someone else in court make the claim that "the report had appeared on four different news sites" or are these your words? If they are your words are you claiming that four different news sites published the report itself or published articles about the report?
.
From what I know as of the evening of that October 7th it was only the San Jose Spotlight that had published the full report but there were four different publications that had published articles about the report.
.
Once again I want to express my appreciation of your reporting on this case and for everyone at the Silicon Valley Voice for publishing such detailed reporting. Your style of writing is clear and straightforward and the degree of detail you report is very impressive. I appreciate it even more because it reveals how much communication Anthony Becker had with key figures of the publication such as Carolyn Schuk and Angie Tolliver and Miles Barber. And how it reveals that all four of these people communicated with Rahul Chandhok of the Forty Niners and coordinated amongst themselves to publish articles that served a common political purpose of making the grand jury look less credible in order to make Anthony Becker and council allies look less guilty of ethical issues called out by the grand jury. And also to make the Forty Niners better in the same way.
.
This comes as no surprise as the bias is clear from all the editorializing in the so called reporting that was done on this grand jury report. The bias has also always been clear with almost everything having to do with the stadium and the Forty Niners and Lisa Gillmor and Anthony Becker. Straight reportage like this article are a credit to this publication and a valuable resource to all of Santa Clara. But so much of the so called reporting that is published here is full of editorializing and partisan arguments with political alliances that have been made even more obvious through court proceedings.
Buchser Alum, Not the report itself, Spotlight still remains the only site that published the entirety of the report. However, in Holt's testimony, he made it clear that four news sites had stories about the report on Oct. 7, 2022 that made it clear that they had copies of the report or had seen the report. Erika