The perjury trial of Santa Clara City Council Member Anthony Becker dragged into a ninth day on Wednesday as Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office criminalist Fernando Ramirez, Jr. continued his testimony at the South County Courthouse in Morgan Hill.
Ramirez extracted data from Becker’s electronic devices and the devices of former 49ers communications chief Rahul Chandhok.
One of the biggest issues was how Ramirez arrived at certain conclusions about the data on Becker’s phone.
During testimony, Ramirez said he ran a series of tests on an iPad Pro to try and simulate the conditions of Becker’s iPhone 13 Pro. The tests included downloading Signal, making calls and sending photos with Signal and uninstalling and reinstalling the app.
After each test, Ramirez extracted the iPad’s data and used the Magnet-Axiom software to analyze it. He said he received results similar to those found on Becker’s phone.
Becker’s attorney, Deputy Public Defender Chris Montoya, objected, saying an iPhone 13 Pro (Becker’s phone) and an iPad Pro are different devices.
Judge Javier Alcala told Montoya to take it up in cross-examination.
Deputy District Attorney Jason Malinsky asked Ramirez why he used an iPad Pro.
Ramirez testified it would be “almost impossible” to get the same phone with the same apps and settings, but they were both Apple products and used the Signal app.
He said he did not use Becker’s phone for the tests because the goal was to “preserve” what was on the phone.
In cross-examination, Montoya asked Ramirez if he tried to obtain an iPhone like Becker’s. Ramirez did not. Ramirez said he never asked because he knows how long it takes to get expenses approved.
Montoya highlighted the dissimilarities between the two devices. Ramirez conducted the tests on June 24, 2024, so the iPad had a different version of Apple’s operating system than Becker’s phone. The version of Signal was also different.
Ramirez did not know if the storage capacity of both devices was similar.
In cross-examination, Ramirez said there were “too many variables to create an exact duplicate.” He used what was “available.”
Was the Data Accurate?
Montoya tried to take several avenues of questioning to cast doubt on the data collected from the devices.
Through testimony, Ramirez stated he was added to the case on Nov. 17, 2023 to redo the work of investigator Alan Lee.
While Lee gave extensive testimony to the criminal grand jury trial, he is no longer with the crime lab. His departure was somewhat suspect, but rulings pre-trial determined the defense could not mention Lee’s alleged misconduct.
Ramirez testified he redid Lee’s work. He had no contact with Lee because he wanted to “remain impartial.”
Yesterday, Ramirez stated data from Becker’s iPhone 13 Pro showed Becker first used Signal on March 29, 2021.
Montoya asked Ramirez if he knew when the iPhone 13 Pro was first released. Ramirez did not.
Montoya could not continue his questioning, but his point was that the iPhone 13 Pro was not released until Sept. 24, 2021, nearly six months later.
In testimony, Ramirez admitted when he tried to take information from one of the data retention tapes produced from one of Chandhok’s devices, his tool TeraCopy encountered an error. Ramirez tried again. There was still an error.
To get around the issue, Ramirez used Windows to copy and paste the file into the Magnet-Axiom software.
Montoya asked if Windows was a “forensic tool” for digital multimedia. Ramirez said you want to use whatever is available to you.
In redirect, Malinsky used testimony to show Ramirez hash checked the document after copying and pasting. Hash checking is a form of data verification that ensures all the data has been transferred properly.
The defense also tried to point out that a verification process might have been missed in the transfer of data.
Yesterday, the defense asked criminalist Tanya Neu if she spot checked her two data extractions from Chandhok’s devices.
The line of questioning was stopped when Malinsky told the judge spot checking was done at a different step in the process.
However, when the defense tried to question Ramirez about spot checking Neu’s data extracts, Ramirez seemed confused. He said he spot checked the extracted data from his devices; he did not spot check Neu’s data extracts. He did hash check them.
Other Details Revealed Through Testimony
A hodgepodge of other details were revealed through Ramirez’s testimony, including:
- Chandhok’s devices were examined for data between Oct. 5, 2022 and Jan. 12, 2023.
- Becker’s devices were examined for data between Nov. 3, 2020 and Dec. 28, 2022.
- Becker uninstalled Signal on Dec. 9, 2022.
- Data shows Chandhok did a Google search on Oct. 6, 2022 for the names of the civil grand jurors.
- Data shows Chandhok did a Google search on Dec. 9, 2022 for California Penal Code 933.05(f). That’s the penal code that shows who should receive a civil grand jury report before it’s released.
- It is unclear if remnants of data left on a device would tell you what settings an app had before it was deleted.
Rechecking Ramirez’s Credentials
Despite spending a good amount of time on Tuesday questioning Ramirez’s credentials, Montoya returned to the matter in cross-examination.
Ramirez testified he was not certified in the Apple Mac forensics course, nor was he certified to use Gray Key – the tool that extracts data from devices.
Ramirez said you do not need to be certified to use Gray Key or Magnet-Axiom software because the machine and software do most of the work.
Ramirez testified certifications do matter. He planned to get certifications next year. He was trained by colleagues who have certifications.
Ramirez joined the digital multimedia evidence unit in May 2022.
Ramirez’s curriculum vitae (CV) did not include proficiency tests for digital analysis for cell phones or iPads. He testified that criminalists take competency tests the first year and proficiency tests the following year. He expected to take proficiency tests in December.
Santa Clara City Council Member Suds Jain will take the stand tomorrow.
Silicon Valley Voice’s Continuing Becker Trial Coverage:
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
