Santa Clara City Council Member Anthony Becker’s attorneys continue to try and shape a defense to the perjury charges leveled against their client. In doing so, the Public Defender’s Office has set its sights on what happened inside the District Attorney’s Office in August 2020.
In a motion filed in court last week and heard on Aug. 16 by Judge Benjamin Williams, the defense requested any email communications sent within the District Attorney’s Office that were related to a grand jury report about former Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Captain James Jensen.
Jensen took a bribe in exchange for Carry Concealed Weapon permits. He was found guilty of bribery and conspiracy charges in July.
In the case, it was revealed that details from a 2020 grand jury report investigating the issue were leaked before the final document was released. Jensen’s lawyers tried to disqualify the District Attorney’s Office in the case, saying it was members of the District Attorney’s Office that leaked the grand jury transcripts.
While the court did not rule in favor of Jensen, it did state that the leak was a “serious issue” and that it “think[s] that [it] should be investigated.”
However, an investigation reportedly never occurred. No charges stemmed from the leak.
“This subpoena is in part to conduct that investigation when the District Attorney’s Office failed to do so,” wrote Deputy Public Defender Avanindar P. Singh in his motion.
“It is already known that somebody leaked the 2020 report; it is not known who,” Singh said later in the motion. “The absence of investigation or an investigation without prosecution both lend support to a selective prosecution argument.”
Much of Becker’s defense appears to rely on proving that the charges filed against him were politically motivated rather than aimed at carrying out justice. Becker’s attorneys have consistently said the 2022 “Unsportsmanlike Conduct” report was leaked to the San Francisco Chronicle and that no charges have stemmed from that leak. The idea being that the District Attorney’s Office is selectively prosecuting Becker while ignoring other people who have committed the same crime.
This new motion offers another avenue of selective prosecution.
“In this case, there are two potential theories of selective prosecution,” wrote Deputy Public Defender Avanindar P. Singh in his motion. “The first is evidence that someone else had leaked the grand jury transcript prior to when Mr. Becker allegedly transmitted it. The second is the district attorney’s failure to prosecute or investigate someone, almost certainly within their own office, for committing the same violation of the government code two years earlier.”
For its part, the District Attorney’s office has argued that this has nothing to do with the Becker case and that communications within the District Attorney’s office are confidential. Singh has asked the judge to “… decide whether the defendant’s right to a fair trial outweighs any privilege applicable to a particular record.”
Judge Williams did not rule on the motion at the Aug. 16 hearing. He is expected to make a ruling at the end of the month.
Recent Becker Trial Posts:
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
