Defense attorney Art Cantu continued on an earlier theme in the
day at the Michael Rodrigues rape trial this afternoon by claiming
prosecutor Patrick Palacios might be related to one of the
suspected victims
– an accusation that prompted a hearing in which the deputy
district attorney took the stand before his counterpart decided to
go no further with the query.
Defense attorney Art Cantu continued on an earlier theme in the day at the Michael Rodrigues rape trial this afternoon by claiming prosecutor Patrick Palacios might be related to one of the suspected victims – an accusation that prompted a hearing in which the deputy district attorney took the stand before his counterpart decided to go no further with the query.
Cantu’s questioning over Palacios and whether he has an undisclosed legal conflict – which he does not – came after visiting Judge Alan Hedegard ruled on the defense’s other major motion for the day, to call for a mistrial while alleging the presiding official has shown bias against the defendant.
Cantu eventually dropped his inquiry about Palacios after the prosecutor, on the stand, confirmed no direct, knowing relationship with the woman.
The two separate motions ultimately have resulted in a delay to the open proceedings before jurors, who have been in and out of the courtroom all day when those and other procedural question marks have prompted Hedegard to excuse them. It leaves a higher chance, meanwhile, that the trial could last until early next week, with closing arguments expected at some point Friday.
Rodrigues is the former San Benito County Sheriff’s Office deputy accused of raping four women between 1999 and 2007, when a grand jury indicted him alleging three of the cases. Prosecutors added a fourth suspected victim in the fall of 2008. Rodrigues also is charged on suspicion of unlawful sexual penetration and domestic violence and could face life in prison if convicted.
Hedegard started the afternoon session by citing a penal code section allowing the trial to continue, even with such a motion to dismiss. Cantu in the motion filed this morning for a mistrial alleged Hedegard has shown prejudice against Rodrigues in the way he treats the defense and what he allows as admissible in court.
Once the judge denied his motion, Cantu moved on to his next maneuver and requested a hearing because he said the defense had information that one of the witnesses alleging rape “may be related to the prosecutor.”
“To who?” Palacios responded.
“To you,” Cantu said.
Cantu called two members of the defense team, one of whom testified he had spoken to a woman outside the courthouse early last week who claimed to be Palacios’ cousin and also the sister-in-law of a suspected victim.
Palacios then took the stand and answered a few questions – including denying he has ever known the now-deceased husband of the witness and denying knowledge of the sister-in-law as a cousin.
Cantu followed Palacios’ testimony by telling the judge he did not wish to seek a finding on the conflict matter.
Below are earlier stories about the Rodrigues trial published in the past few days
Defense for ex-deputy Rodrigues files for mistrial
The defense for the former sheriff’s deputy accused of raping four women has filed for a mistrial while alleging the judge has displayed bias in his attitude and what he has allowed as admissible in the trial, and Judge Alan Hedegard is set to possibly rule on the motion this afternoon.
Defense attorney Art Cantu filed the motion for a mistrial today shortly before 9 a.m. In it, he contends the visiting judge “is prejudiced against the defendant Michael Rodrigues.”
The former sheriff’s sergeant is accused of raping four women between 1999 and 2007. A grand jury indicted him alleging three of the charges, while prosecutors added a fourth suspected victim in the fall of 2008. The trial started Sept. 9, while the jury could start deliberations as early as Friday.
In the document, the defense cites such portions of the proceedings as Hedegard disallowing use of a declaration from one of the suspected victims “that she was pressured by the sheriff’s investigators into making her accusations,” among other items the judge ruled as inadmissible that Cantu cited in the document.
Cantu also criticized Hedegard’s demeanor and pointed out, among other allegations that he alleged show bias, how the judge asked if any jurors had not known the distance from Hollister to Fort Ord, and for anybody who hadn’t know to raise their hands. The defense had been questioning one of the witness’ statements that she had been raped by another peace officer there June 1 and that she contended to have been with Rodrigues on June 3.
“This now leaves the defense with a high risk that the juror’s were given permission to conduct their own investigation into the length and distance to Fort Ord,” it reads.
Deputy District Attorney Patrick Palacios argued that a state penal code section allows the trial to continue after such filings, which would be dealt with after the current proceeding.
“This is a stunt to delay the inevitable,” Palacios argued. “This is sour grapes. This is ridiculous.”
He went on: “Any delay is going to prejudice the people’s case.”
While both attorneys offered objections at several points and raised their voices at times, Cantu said Rodrigues is “entitled to a fair trial.”
“Even if you think he’s guilty,” Cantu said to Palacios, and then Hedegard, “we have to do this right.”
Hedegard had excused jurors this morning to allow arguments over Cantu’s filing. He noted to attorneys how he had put a call in to the State Administrative Office of the Courts for a recommendation on how to proceed and he expected to hear back before 1 p.m.
Detective confirms witness changed story in Rodrigues probe
Three witnesses took the stand on the behalf of the defense today in the morning session of the trial for former sheriff’s deputy Michael Rodrigues, including two of his former co-workers.
Rodrigues is accused of four rape charges during an eight-year period beginning in 1999, when he was employed by the sheriff’s office. He is also charged on suspicion of domestic violence and unlawful sexual penetration.
The jury trial started Wednesday, and the prosecution finished its case Monday in the proceedings expected to last another week or so.
The first witness to take the stand today for the defense was reserve sheriff’s deputy John Klauer, who was with Rodrigues in 2004 when they were both hired on as security for a biker event in Laughlin, Nev. Klauer said he did speak to other police about the incident involving the defendant and an apparent prostitute during the May trip.
He testified that he told then-Sgt. Carlos Reynoso of the Hollister Police Department and San Benito County Sheriff’s Office Detective Tom Keylon. An official police report, however, was never filed about the incident.
Klauer then was re-called to the witness stand by Deputy District Attorney Patrick Palacios where he admitted to having told then-Sgt.Wes Walker about the incident in Laughlin.
Defense attorney Art Cantu followed by calling to the stand an acquaintance of Rodrigues’ through riding motorcycles. In her testimony, the woman said her mother-in-law was treated by Jane Doe No. 4 and that she asked the suspected victim about the rape incident after hearing about it from a different source. When she asked what had happened, she testified the suspected victim told her it “was a mistake and she was pissed off.”
During the cross examination, though, Palacios asked if the victim had ever said she wasn’t raped, and DeShong said “no.”
Keylon was called next by the defense and spoke almost entirely about the internal affairs investigations put on by the sheriff’s office in 2007. He said after he had interviewed Klauer, who told him about the incident in Laughlin, he interviewed Jane Doe No. 4.
As previously stated in her own testimony, in 2007, the suspected victim went to the interview and lied about the sexual assault. A year later in September 2008, Keylon said he interviewed her again because “she had to clear her conscience about the first interview.” He also testified that she had been harboring him and she had feelings for him but his aggressiveness made her clear the air.
During his cross examination, Palacios confirmed with Keylon that during the first interview with the suspected victim, she reported she never had been sexually assaulted. He confirmed that a year later during the second interview, she changed her story and admitted a sexual assault did occur.
