Judge Denies Series of Defense Motions as Start of Becker Perjury Trial Nears

As preparations for the Monday start of the perjury trial against Santa Clara Vice Mayor Anthony Becker continue, the defense once again asked a judge for access to parts of the civil grand jury investigation that have, to date, not been provided

Becker’s attorney, Deputy Public Defender Chris Montoya, filed a motion on Wednesday asking for “inappropriate” communications between Mayor Lisa Gillmor, Council Member Kathy Watanabe and members of the civil grand jury any time after Oct. 5, 2022.

The report, “Unsportsmanlike Conduct,” was released on Oct. 10, 2022.

Montoya questioned, among other things, the timing of the report’s release, which happened during the race for Santa Clara Mayor. He indicated that he was looking for potential “personal and political” connections between some civil grand jury members and Gillmor.

Deputy County Counsel Aryn Harris represented the civil grand jury at the hearing. She called it a “fishing expedition” and argued that all communication with civil grand jurors is protected from the moment they are impaneled to the moment they are dismissed. As such, communications with the civil grand jury, even after a report is released, are considered protected.

Harris vehemently denied any connections between Gillmor and grand jurors based on the evidence at hand, calling the accusations “specious” and “baseless.” She called it a “very serious allegation against a very dedicated body.”

Harris told Judge Julie A. Emede that if the defense could provide more concrete proof of such connections, it would certainly be something the civil grand jury would investigate.

Montoya provided no further connection other than circumstantial evidence, something the judge did not believe was enough grounds to release the communications.

Judge Emede pointed out that “inappropriate communication” was too vague a term and asked County Counsel if, given the nature of the civil grand jury’s goals, all communication could be considered “inappropriate.” County Counsel conceded that could be true, given that most witnesses try to get the civil grand jury to see “their side” of things.

Ultimately, the judge dismissed the request for documents without prejudice, telling the defense that if there was more evidence of a potential connection, she might be more inclined to grant the request.

The Gillmor Connection

As previously argued in court, Montoya once again brought up the issue of selective prosecution, pointing out that Watanabe committed a misdemeanor in allowing her husband to view the report. He pointed out that Watanabe was not prosecuted.

He said that Gillmor emailed the document to her personal email address and then printed it on her office computer. Gillmor reportedly told the civil grand jury that she did not give the report to anyone else, but soon after Gillmor emailed the report to herself, excerpts from the report appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Montoya argued that the District Attorney chose not to prosecute Gillmor despite her potentially leaking the document and that evidence included in the civil grand jury communications after Oct. 5, 2022 would go to prove that.

What’s more, he said search history obtained from Gillmor’s devices shows she searched things like “consequences of perjury,” “what is contempt of court,” and “ceiling on a misdemeanor.” Indicating potential wrongdoing on the Mayor’s part.

Deputy District Attorney Jason Malinsky reported that seven electronic devices were obtained from Gillmor via a search warrant and that they were searched thoroughly. He said that the burden of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” is on the prosecution. Malinsky said that, unlike the Becker case, there was not enough evidence in Gillmor’s case to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that she leaked the report.

Malinsky pointed out that the statute of limitations has not passed.

The Becker perjury trial starts on Aug. 12.