Questions remain in DA's handling of Bowman charges
by Heather Muller , 9/29/2006
Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos declined again Thursday to answer specific questions raised by The Eureka Reporter regarding a possible conflict of interest in the DA’s Office, while statements by two Gallegos subordinates answered some questions and raised others.
The controversy centers around a $10,000 contribution made to Gallegos’ re-election campaign by the Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria, chaired by Leonard Bowman.
On July 19, less than six weeks after the election, Leonard’s son, Derek Bowman, received a plea deal from the DA’s Office involving nine felony and two misdemeanor charges, in which seven of the charges were dropped and sentences on the remaining charges were suspended.
Derek received jail time only for a 12th charge, a violation of the terms of his probation. Judge Timothy Cissna sentenced him to 180 days, less time served, in the Humboldt County jail. According to jail personnel, he was released Sept. 11 to serve the rest of his time in the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Work Alternative Program.
In a heated letter Tuesday to The Eureka Reporter, Deputy District Attorney Max Cardoza denied that there was any connection between the Bear River campaign contribution and the handling of Derek’s cases by the DA’s Office.
Cardoza, one of five attorneys in the DA’s Office named in court documents as having handled Derek’s charges, stated that Gallegos had taken appropriate measures to remove himself from the July 19 plea deal.
“Included with the files was a copy of a memo from Mr. Gallegos to Assistant District Attorney Wes Keat suggesting that neither he (Mr. Gallegos) nor former Deputy District Attorney Worth Dikeman should have anything to do with the matters because of the potential conflict or appearance of conflict involved therein.”
But a few hours later, Cardoza sent a second e-mail to The Eureka Reporter stating that he had written the above “without reviewing the files in their entirety.”
In fact, Cardoza wrote, he did not see the recusal memo when he originally had stated, because it was not written by Gallegos until July 24, five days after the plea deal was presented in court.
“So, the bottom line is, I was wrong about when I originally saw Paul’s memo,” Cardoza wrote. But, he added, the error didn’t change what he called “the basic fact: Paul never spoke to me about the cases before I entered into the plea agreement and he authored the memo without knowing that pleas had been entered.”
Assistant District Attorney Wes Keat said in a Wednesday phone call that additional measures were taken to ensure Derek was treated the same as any other defendant.
Keat said he called the California Attorney General’s Office in July and “ran the scenario by” a man whose name he didn’t remember on a date he didn’t recall.
When asked if attorneys typically keep records of phone calls like these, Keat said he had no record of the call but knew that he had made it to the AG’s San Francisco office.
“The other paper was incorrect in the information they printed. I didn’t call Sacramento, I called San Francisco. … Usually, I talk to a lady called Joyce Blair, a supervising deputy attorney general. But she was not in the office, and a gentleman was.”
Keat said the call had been made in mid-July. When asked if he could be more specific about the date, he replied, “I think it was on the 19th,” which is the same day the plea deal was presented in court.
Keat said he did not know if the call had been made before or after the deal was presented.
“When we looked at the files, we reached the conclusion that it was all happening simultaneously,” he said. “The gist, though, is that Cardoza did it all independently.”
Also on Wednesday, Blair at the AG’s San Francisco office confirmed by phone that she had not received a call from Keat, and added that she had not heard from other deputy attorneys general in the office that such a call had been received. She told The Eureka Reporter that she would “ask around” to see if anyone remembered Keat’s call.
On Thursday, Blair called back and said she had no information about who might have taken the call. “This is a big office,” she said.
Cardoza’s Tuesday letter additionally criticized The Eureka Reporter for declining to speak with him directly, as one of the attorneys in the DA’s Office who handled Derek’s charges.
“I find it rather telling,” Cardoza wrote, “that, to my knowledge, no one from your newspaper attempted to contact me regarding the facts of this matter prior to the publication of the article.”
A request for comment Thursday was declined by Cardoza.
In an e-mail exchange with The Eureka Reporter, Cardoza explained that he had a busy court calendar, and added, “As far as my responsibility to the media is concerned, I invite your attention to the California Public Records Act, the California Rules of Professional Conduct, the American Bar Association Model Code of Professional Responsibility and the National Prosecution Standards. I will continue to fulfill my responsibilities as set forth therein to all media outlets, including yours. If you feel I am in violation of any or all of those directives, I suggest you file a formal complaint with the California State Bar.”
When asked by e-mail if his refusal to comment contradicted the point raised in his criticism of the original story, and if professional standards would have precluded his response, Cardoza replied, “No, and I would thank you not to bother me with any further clumsy attempts to put words in my mouth.”
Cardoza referred to what he called the “sloppiness” of the original story and suggested that this newspaper might not have contacted him prior to its publication because information contradicting “preconceived notions” might have been received.
“I referred you to the various sources of professional standards for prosecutors so that, if possible, you could educate yourself on a prosecutor’s professional and ethical responsibilities when it comes to dealing with the media,” Cardoza wrote. “If you do so, perhaps you will refrain from making any future ham-handed attempts to strong-arm me into giving you what you want when you want it.”
Numerous requests for comment on the original story were made to Gallegos, whose campaign received the contribution. Messages were left at his direct office phone line, at the general phone line at the DA’s Office, at his cell phone number and at his e-mail address. Instead of answering specific questions forwarded to him by e-mail after he declined to speak directly, Gallegos sent an e-mail message that stated only the following: “This office operates without fear or favor.”
Early Thursday afternoon, The Eureka Reporter again requested responses to specific questions from Gallegos and Keat. A short time later, Gallegos responded in brief (see below).
Court documents state that among charges against Derek dismissed as part of the plea agreement were felony threat of death or great bodily injury to a 17-year-old girl, felony domestic battery against a different 17-year-old girl and misdemeanor battery against Bowman’s mother-in-law, Cheree Bowie.
The first of those charges, California Penal Code 422, is a “strike” felony under the California Three Strikes Law. Court files show that in the third charge, Derek was accused of hitting Bowie in the face three times as she was held down by her daughter and a second female.
(Rebecca S. Bender contributed to this report.)
District Attorney Gallegos responds in e-mail exchange
To Paul Gallegos and Wes Keat, from Heather Muller
If either of you has time to speak today regarding a follow-up on our Sept. 26 story, please contact me at your convenience.
From Wes, we’re hoping to learn if he has any additional details about the phone call he reported making to the Attorney General’s San Francisco office. We have not been able to confirm with that office that the call occurred.
From Paul or Wes, we’d like to know if the plea deal reached in the Derek Bowman case was typical of the kinds of deals reached by the DA’s Office — nine felonies, two misdemeanors, an extensive criminal history and no time requested except on a separate probation violation. An explanation is warranted.
We would also like to clarify a statement made by Max Cardoza, who evidently is declining to speak to us. He said that Bowman was now a convicted felon, which I think is technically, although not entirely, accurate. Is it not true that because of the way his sentence was suspended, those charges would be reduced to misdemeanors at the conclusion of his probation?
We are also waiting for the district attorney to address specific questions previously raised by this newspaper and sent to him by e-mail Sept. 22. If those questions need to be resubmitted, please advise.
To Heather Muller, from Paul Gallegos
As I said before, my office operates without fear or favor. Max Cardoza is (a) highly qualified, experienced, aggressive prosecutor whose judgment I respect and trust.
To Paul Gallegos, from Glenn Franco Simmons
We are not doubting anyone’s professionalism. We only want some answers to our questions. As the leader of your organization, we contacted you. If you are directing us to contact Mr. Cardoza, then perhaps I should send you the e-mails he sent me basically stating that he won’t speak to us. Why won’t anyone answer our questions?
To Glenn Franco Simmons, from Paul Gallegos
Both I and my attorneys have always made ourselves extremely available to your reporters and you. This e-mail further confirms that.
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment