Former 49ers chief of communications and public relations, Rahul Chandhok, was back on the stand on Friday morning to continue his testimony in the perjury trial of Santa Clara City Council Member Anthony Becker.
From the bench at the South County Courthouse in Morgan Hill, Judge Javier Alcala asked Chandhok if he realized he was not supposed to have the document when he received it.
Chandhok said he wasn’t sure, but he thinks he learned he wasn’t supposed to have it later when he read reports in the media.
Chandhok told Deputy District Attorney Jason Malinsky he didn’t remember the order of who he reached out to after receiving the report. He remembered reaching out to a team who would help him respond including former 49ers executive Larry MacNeil. Chandhok used Signal to contact people.
When asked if he did anything to protect Becker during this time, Chandhok said it was not “beneficial” for the 49ers to say they received the report from Becker.
“At that time, it was to protect the organization, the 49ers,” said Chandhok. “Becker’s interests were aligned with the 49ers, so protecting him was of interest to the 49ers.”
During cross-examination, Chandhok told Becker’s pro bono attorney, Grant Fondo, there was ongoing litigation with Santa Clara and “tension” with certain individuals, mainly Mayor Lisa Gillmor and Council Member Kathy Watanabe.
Chandhok said the stadium was supposed to be a “collaboration” and a “win-win” for the 49ers and Santa Clara.
He said the 49ers felt Gillmor “was someone that we were not able to work with successfully at that time.”
Comparably, Becker was better.
Chandhok’s Complex Relationship with the Media
Malinsky spent much of Day 2 outlining Chandhok’s close relationships with the media, including this publication, the Silicon Valley Voice, and San Jose Spotlight.
Malinsky highlighted text messages exchanges between Silicon Valley Voice publisher Miles Barber and emails with editor Angela “Angie” Tolliver and reporter Carolyn Schuk. Email exchanges between Chandhok and San Jose Spotlight founder Ramona Giwargis were also admitted into evidence.
When asked why Chandhok never told media members he already had a copy of the report, Chandhok said he “didn’t see the benefit,” and he wanted to “see what they had.”
On Oct. 6, 2024, Chandhok received two copies of the report from the media. First from Giwargis and then from Tolliver.
During cross-examination, Chandhok testified Becker was never included in emails or text exchanges with 49ers employees, consultants or members of the media. What’s more, Becker’s name never came up.
Chandhok told Fondo his job was to build relationships with the media.
Fondo asked if relationships included withholding information and asked if withholding was the same as lying.
Chandhok said it was a “complicated question.” He “held things back” to protect the 49ers.
Chandhok was evasive when asked if it was “okay” not to give the whole picture.
Fondo focused on a text exchange between Barber and Chandhok admitted into evidence by the prosecution. The prosecution focused on the beginning and end of the exchange, skipping the middle.
In the Oct. 6, 2022 exchange, Barber reached out to Chandhok and asked if he had heard of the report. Chandhok said, “Send it my way.”
He did not say he already had a copy.
About 45 minutes later, when Barber did not reply. Chandhok sent a “?”
Barber still didn’t reply.
Two to three hours after that, Chandhok texted, “Are you sharing?”
When asked why he never mentioned Becker gave him the report.
Chandhok told Fondo he tries to be “honest,” but it’s “nuanced.”
Chandhok also did not admit to Tolliver or Giwargis that he had the report.
Who Sent Chandhok the Report?
While Chandhok testified on Day 1 Becker sent him the report first, he told others that it came from the media.
Fondo reminded Chandhok of his testimony to the criminal grand jury on March 21, 2023. Chandhok was less clear about the order of events in that testimony, citing the amount of conversations happening at the time.
Fondo also pointed to a letter addressed to the City of Santa Clara and the County courts in which Chandhok said he received the report from “multiple news outlets.”
Fondo asked if anyone above Chandhok saw the letter before it was sent.
Chandhok said he didn’t know.
Fondo asked if others had reviewed the letter.
Chandhok said it was reviewed by the 49ers legal and communications teams.
Fondo’s final question before the day ended was to ask Chandhok if his letter ever says he’s not telling the full truth.
“I do not see that here,” said Chandhok.
The December 2022 Voicemail
A Dec. 12, 2022 call from Tolliver to Chandhok was also a focus.
Chandhok told the court he and Tolliver didn’t communicate much. So it was unusual when she called to say Becker was going to call from a 510 number that afternoon.
Chandhok called his lawyer and let it go to voicemail when the 510 number called.
Malinsky played the voicemail for the jury.
“Hey there. It’s me. Give me a call at this number. Talk soon. Bye,” said the message.
Chandhok testified at the time he believed it was Becker.
Chandhok did not call back. He texted, “I am not able to speak to you now,” and included his lawyer’s contact information.
Chandhok did not receive a text reply.
At the time of the call, Chandhok had recently completed testifying before the criminal grand jury. He said he did not tell Becker he testified.
Chandhok’s Immunity Deal
The immunity deal offered to Chandhok in exchange for his testimony was also important.
Chandhok admitted to Malinsky the release of the report would be detrimental to the 49ers and the Becker campaign.
“Our work was to prevent/delay the release of the report as I had seen it,” said Chandhok.
In cross-examination, Fondo asked Chandhok if he was threatened with charges of trying to influence a grand jury if he did not testify.
The prosecution objected.
Fondo asked a series of questions about Chandhok exercising his Fifth Amendment rights in November 2022 and then receiving an immunity order in December 2022. Chandhok said he didn’t understand the particulars.
Chandhok is an active member of the California Bar.
The 49ers have paid for Chandhok’s lawyer since he was subpoenaed in 2022. He said he had no knowledge of the 49ers paying for Becker’s lawyers.
Fondo asked if Chandhok’s employer, US Soccer, would have a problem if Chandhok was charged with a felony.
Chandhok said he hadn’t asked anyone.
Fondo asked if one of Chandhok’s employees was charged with a felony, would Chandhok have a concern.
Chandhok said he would have to think about it “more deeply.”
He then said a felony could, “hypothetically,” put his career in jeopardy.
The January 12, 2023 Search Warrant
A recording from Jan. 12, 2023, the day a search warrant was served at Chandhok’s house, may also determine whether the jury votes to convict Becker.
Chandhok talked about what happened during testimony.
In cross-examination, Fondo narrowed in on the recording, which was destroyed before it was turned over to the defense.
Fondo asked if Chandhok or his lawyer were informed ahead of time that a search warrant was about to be served.
Chandhok said no.
Fondo asked if Chandhok was told someone was recording.
Chandhok said no.
Fondo asked if anyone had told Chandhok afterward there was an audio recording.
Chandhok said no.
Objections and Non-Speaking Objections
Several objections were made during the proceedings.
The defense objected when Malinsky posed a hypothetical, “If you were to accept the statements of the civil grand jury report as true, would they be detrimental to the 49ers and the Becker campaign.”
The judge overruled the objection.
Chandhok answered yes.
While submitting exhibits to the court, Malinsky submitted a document titled “Email to Barry Holtzclaw, Protecting Becker as Source.”
Fondo objected, leading to a discussion at the judge’s bench.
The item was relabeled “Email to Holtzclaw.” The judge told the court reporter to strike the previous descriptor from the record.
After the mid-morning break, Fondo asked Judge Alcala to “remind” the prosecution it was going too far with references like “secret Signal app” instead of “Signal” and referring to items on Signal “being deleted” rather than set up to automatically delete.
Judge Alcala told Malinsky to refer to it only as Signal.
In motions in limine, the prosecution asked the court to exclude speaking objections. While objections are allowed, they can only have a few words of explanation.
The defense asked the court to remind Malinsky of the rule, saying at one point Malinsky “yelled,” “That’s not true,” when objecting.
Judge Alcala said that he would do his best to eliminate speaking objections, but so far, he hadn’t heard anything egregious.
The court returns on Tuesday to continue cross-examination of Chandhok.
Silicon Valley Voice’s Continuing Becker Trial Coverage:
Destroyed Evidence Discussed on Morning of Becker Perjury Trial
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 (1)
Erika,
.
Thank you for another piece of very detailed reporting on the court proceedings of the day. I believe that the Chronicle is the only other local publication that is reporting on the trial and neither they nor anybody else is reporting with as much detail as you are.
.
I most especially am glad that your reporting is so detailed even when it is disclosing that this publication's editor in chief was allegedly trying to encourage a Forty Niners executive talk to Anthony Becker in circumstances that suggest that the conversation would be about "getting on the same page" to cover up the crimes that Becker is currently on trial for.
.
It is embarrassing to this publication that Angie Tolliver was doing this and also that Miles Barber and Carolyn Schuk had private back channels with Forty Niners executives and all of this was for coordinating political efforts and not just for reporting. I am glad that none of them stopped you from reporting this and this gives me hope that this publication might be more transparent in the future. I hope that it is more than transparent and simply does not work with a corporate special interest in town as if this publication is that corporation's propaganda organ.