Despite pressure from the court, there appears to be no settlement in the perjury trial of Santa Clara City Council Member Anthony Becker. On Aug. 30, Judge Benjamin Williams asked both sides if they had come to a settlement.
Deputy District Attorney Jason Malinsky was quick to say there was no settlement and this case was going to trial.
Becker’s lawyer, Deputy Public Defender Chris Montoya, told the judge that the defense had offered two misdemeanors instead of the felony perjury charge but then trailed off.
The two sides determined that it would be better to discuss the settlement talks privately in the judge’s chambers.
Becker’s Defense Withdraws Subpoenas
Other than that, there was a lot of talk but not a lot of action.
The latest string of subpoenas issued by Becker’s defense team included subpoenas for two San Francisco Chronicle reporters.
An attorney for the Chronicle asked Judge Benjamin Williams to quash the subpoenas, saying that not only are the reporters protected by the Shield law, which protects journalists from revealing confidential sources, but also that by subpoenaing them, the defense is preventing those reporters from covering the trial.
The defense asked the judge to leave the decision to the trial judge.
The Chronicle’s attorney then asked the judge not to “reward” the defense for its “gamesmanship.” She also argued that allowing the trial judge to decide would lead to an “incongruous ruling” because Judge Williams had already quashed a previous subpoena sent to the newspaper.
Grant Fondo, one of Becker’s attorneys, argued that the defense was seeking limited information. Specifically, whether the reporting in the Chronicle was accurate and whether Becker leaked the report to the Chronicle.
Judge Williams said he did not believe that the District Attorney’s office was questioning the accuracy of the Chronicle’s reporting or saying that Becker leaked the document to the Chronicle.
Deputy District Attorney Jason Malinsky said that while the prosecution was not arguing the validity of those statements, it would not “stipulate” to those facts, thus putting them on the record for the trial.
Again, Fondo reiterated that all he was seeking was testimony that “somebody who is not our client leaked it [the civil grand jury report] to the Chronicle at or about that time.”
Judge Williams said he would not allow the defense to “do it through the negative” by asking if specific people leaked the document to the Chronicle and then, by process of elimination, discovering the source of the leak.
While Judge Williams was inclined to side with the Chronicle and quash the subpoenas, the defense decided to withdraw the subpoenas instead, provided that the Chronicle agreed to “accept service” of the subpoenas again if needed.
The defense also withdrew another subpoena seeking communication within the District Attorney’s Office in August 2020 when a different civil grand jury report was leaked, potentially from someone inside the District Attorney’s Office.
The defense decided to withdraw the subpoena “for now.”
Malinsky pushed the judge to settle the issue during the hearing.
However, Judge Williams said that since the subpoena had been withdrawn, there was nothing before the court to be settled.
Becker is due back in court on Sept. 9 for a second trial setting.
Recent Posts:
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