As foreshadowed at his last court hearing, former Santa Clara City Council Member Anthony Becker has appealed his conviction for felony perjury and misdemeanor violation of duty. In the brief filed on Dec. 15, 2025, Becker’s appeals attorney, Richard L. Fitzer of Long Beach, argues that the court violated Becker’s Fifth Amendment right to due process and his Sixth Amendment right to present a “complete defense.”
According to the brief filed with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Javier Alcala, who oversaw Becker’s trial, “denied the defense discovery bearing on a claim of selective prosecution.”
In several pages of arguments, Fitzer states that Becker’s primary defense was selective prosecution, but he was denied the discovery that would have allowed him to mount that defense. Fitzer argues that Becker’s conviction should be overturned, he should be provided the discovery he was previously denied and that he should receive a new trial based on that evidence.
Fitzer makes two points to back this up: first, that former Council Member Kathy Watanabe gave her husband the “Unsportsmanlike Conduct” civil grand jury report to read – the same one Becker was convicted of leaking. However, Watanabe was not charged with misdemeanor violation of duty.
Second, Fitzer argued that evidence showed Santa Clara Mayor Lisa Gillmor engaged in similar activity to Becker. Evidence not allowed into trial showed that Gillmor opened the report, emailed it to her personal email and printed it just a day before it appeared in a news outlet with direct ties to her. Testimony from former City Attorney Steve Ngo linked Gillmor to two prior leaks of confidential reports that appeared in that same news outlet. Gillmor testified under oath that she did not leak the report, but evidence showed she went home to do internet searches on topics such as “contempt of court.”
By disallowing this evidence, Fitzer says the judge cut off any opportunity for a selective prosecution defense.
“The prosecution in this case was not about justice or combating political corruption,” wrote Fitzer. “It was about political retribution and taking an opponent’s piece off the board – permanently!”
It Always Comes Back to Politics
In his brief, Fitzer outlined for the court the political charge of the case. The preliminary “Unsportsmanlike Conduct” report was released on Oct. 5, 2022, with a scheduled public release of Oct. 10, 2022. Civil grand juries typically release their reports in June/July, near the close of their terms, but this report was well-timed. It came out in the middle of a hotly contested mayoral race between Becker and Gillmor.
Many people in the Becker trial referred to it as Gillmor’s “October Surprise.”
Fitzer argued in his brief that Gillmor worked hard to recruit grand jury members. That civil grand juries have a group of grand jurors called the “Santa Clara Connection” who “have been working and/or discussing or having communications with Mayor Gillmor and essentially pushing her agenda or doing things, putting things into effect that she wants to happen.”
While the District Attorney painted Becker as a corrupt politician taking money from the 49ers, Fitzer pointed to an NFL owner vs. NFL owner fight. He cited several articles in which Gillmor has pitted herself against the 49ers, while simultaneously receiving backing from PACs funded by another NFL owner, Stephen Ross, who owns the Miami Dolphins and also runs a development company with deep ties in Santa Clara, Related Companies.
He argued that at the time the “Unsportsmanlike Conduct” report was released, Becker’s campaign had run ads that called into question Ross’s integrity and morals, calling him one of Donald Trump’s biggest supporters.
“If more than one City official ‘leaked’ the report ahead of time but appellant was the only one prosecuted, that would be evidence of selective prosecution,” wrote Fitzer. “The fact that he ran against the mayor would make that vindictive prosecution – especially, if the other leaker was the mayor or a member of her political party.”
Is it a Leak if There’s Already a Leak?
Perhaps second in the appeal is the defense to the perjury charge, which appears to rest on the premise that a document cannot be leaked if it is already in the public domain.
“In this case, Becker’s primary defense to the perjury charges was that he believed that his disclosing of the grand jury report was not ‘leaking’ because the report was already out in the public square and, as a result, he did not intend to lie to the grand jury. When ‘a person commits an act based on a mistake of fact, his guilt or innocence is determined as if the facts were as he perceived them,’” wrote Fitzer.
Fitzer said that Becker’s defense attorney tried to present evidence that other members of the City Council had given the report to the media before Becker emailed it to the 49ers’ Rahul Chandhok.
The People argued that the existence of other leaks did not make Becker’s actions “innocent or relieve him of the duty to keep the report confidential.” Fitzer argues that by excluding evidence of other leaks, it excludes evidence that supports Becker’s mistake of fact, such as his discussions with then City Attorney Steve Ngo about what was and was not in the public, and whether council members could disclose the report now that the media had it.
Proposed Remedy
Becker’s attorney has asked the court to remand the issue to the trial court to determine if, as of the date of the trial, there was evidence responsive to the defendant’s discovery request. If there was, he wants the court to evaluate the material and determine if a new trial should be granted.
Among that evidence, Becker’s lawyer is asking for evidence of what Mayor Gillmor did once she received the email containing the grand jury report titled “Unsportsmanlike Conduct,” claiming it is “relevant” to the defense’s claim of “selective prosecution.”
In his brief, Fitzer said the court “precluded the defense from presenting evidence that the grand jury report was inaccurate, biased and/or politically motivated. Again, such evidence would bear directly on the issue of whether Becker was the victim of selective prosecution.”
Although Becker has appealed, he has already served his sentence for perjury and violation of duty. He is now seeking the return of the items seized by investigators.
During a hearing in October, he asked for his electronic devices back. The judge ruled that he could not get his devices back at this time unless he provided the passwords to those devices. A hearing in March should offer greater clarity on the issue.
“…what Mayor Gillmor did once she received the email containing the grand jury report…”
That’s easy, she forwarded it to her personal email from her Santa Clara City email, and then her smartphone was ‘somehow’ destroyed.
Leaking Grand Jury and similar reports were common in Santa Clara politics, and, indeed, the draft Unsportsmanlike Conduct report was already in the public domain before Becker provided it to others. A criminal court judge with experience in local politics would likely have identified that behavior as illegal, but would have chalked it up to unwritten procedure in the City of Santa Clara and politics as usual. An admonishment from the judge to the entire Santa Clara City Council would likely have served as a more reasonable and just outcome.
Holy ghosts of Crimes Past. The District Attorney’s office used Becker as the basis for the fact-finding mission on the 49ers. Using the DA to get opposition research/espionage behind the guise of public safety, specifically the law enforcement Integrity division of the DA’s office. Info on Becker, Kevin Park, and any of the anti-Gillmor people were collected. This is like the Watergate scandal when Nixon spied on his opposition. This time the law did the dirty work. This is turning more and more into a huge Santa Clara scandal. A major cover up with Becker as their fall guy. Gilmor came out with the narrative via the DA’s office that Becker was trying to frame the Mayor. It is actual the reverse and further projective behavior from the Gillmor machine.
Some observations and questions.
Media and Courts say Becker has sent the report by email, by signal and other examples. So, which is it? In court there was no physical evidence Becker sent the report versus Mayor Gillmor’s actual physical evidence that she sent it.
Why were Kathy Watanabe and Mayor Gillmor not questioned as witnesses in Becker’s indictment in front of a Criminal Grand Jury.
Why wasn’t Kathy Watanabe Charged? If anything, it’s a solid conviction for Kathy Watanabe’s leak which is a clear willful violation of her elected duty.
Why wasn’t Kathy Watanabe and Mayor Gillmor’s statements and evidence presented to a criminal grand jury with a list of witnesses like in Becker’s indictment. The DA could have made a deal with the POA or Jude Barry in exchange for their immunity. Gillmor and Jude Barry Texts “Check your Email” and Jude Barry and POA president Jeremy Schmidts texts about the plans changing and add in that Jeremy Schmidt even deleted that correspondence evidence. If there is smoke, there is fire, why no aggressive investigation?
Rahul Chandok pleaded the fifth and was denied that right. Chandok and his attorney appealed the denial to plead the fifth. In between Chandok’s appeal, he was given an immunity deal. Later, Chandok won his appeal where he was allowed to plead the fifth. The District Attorney violated Chandok’s constitutional rights in pursuit of political prosecutions. The San Francisco Chronicle who had a leaked copy of the same grand jury report used former Judge Quintin Kopp as is its professional source to describe that Rahul Chandok’s private investigation of the civil grand jurors’ ties to Mayor Gillmor was illegal and could lead to legal jeopardy. In court while Chandok was under oath during the Becker trial, Chandok lied when asked the question if he was facing charges for a crime. Chandok was indeed threatened with charges before his immunity deal, and it stemmed from Quintin Kopps comments in San Francisco Chronicle and his refusal to cooperate with the District Attorney.
Why wasn’t Jude Barry, and the Santa Clara POA targeted as aggressive as Rahul Chandok and the 49ers. The DA clearly knew Gillmor was the source of the other leak?
Why was Becker not granted leniency compared to Gillmor and Watanabe?
Was Becker taken out over the future Related Company vote which happened after Becker left office? The vote was supposed to happen in Fall 2024 then delayed till Albert Gonzalez and Kelly Cox were in office.
What about Kathy Watanabe’s husband Karl Watanabe lying to the authorities about not seeing the report. Jim Comey was recently charged with lying to the authorities, yet Comey is not elected, Karl on the other hand is an elected official who lied to the authorities investigating his wife’s leak of a report. Again, selective prosecution.
Former police chief Pat Nikolai’s sent a letter to the District Attorney to investigate the anti-Gillmor Councilmembers after the leak. Was this letter to distract from the Gillmor leak and their own crimes? Using their badges as their protection. Why wasn’t Pat Nikolai or Hosam Haggag who was first to receive report questioned under oath.
Gillmor and Watanabe wrote a dissenting opinion to the Grand Jury Report demanding the entire city council should be put under oath with the threat of perjury all while they themselves were the leaks. This dissenting opinion came weeks after their testimony to the civil grand jury looking into the leak.
Blogger Robert Haugh had the topics of the grand jury report weeks leading up to the leak and public release. Haugh also stated in 2023 during his April Fool’s joke that the entire city council was indicted weeks before the actual indictment of Becker. How did Haugh know? Were his sources the DA or Gillmor being told she is safe and they are going after Becker as their fall guy. Why was Haugh, who is not a journalist, not questioned under oath.
Anything Gillmor discussed with the Grand Jury is confidential even though there was a group called the Santa Clara Connection. That there is using the laws to hide crimes and their illegal communications.
The law was weaponized against the city council while protecting Gillmor, the Chronicle, The POA, all who are all tied to the leak. Look at who profited from the grand jury report, leak or no leak. The Santa Clara POA had a political website that is still up to this day with all three grand jury reports as if it is some limited-edition collection. Gillmor profited the most from the report by stating that if it wasn’t for that report she would have lost the election to Becker. Gillmor used it in her mailers and even had a plan following the public release of the report. Compare it to the others who profited or had anything to gain from the grand jury report, The 49ers nothing, Becker nothing.
The Watanabe’s and Mayor Gillmor should be disqualified from ever holding office again. Watanabe should be disqualified from her school board seat and should resign or be removed by a grand jury, the same for Gillmor on city council. This in effect will take Watanabe and Gillmor off the 2026 elections. The law is the law and no elected is above that law.
Any District Attorney would go after all involved because of how much integrity and accountability is at stake. DA Rosen would have been better suited taking down Becker, Gillmor and Watanabe, showing he can prosecute his enemies and allies and that they are all not above the law.
At this point, again Gillmor and the Watanabe’s should resign their elected roles and POA president Jeremy Schmidt should resign too. If Gillmor and The Watanabe’s refuse to go the people need to write letters to the DA and the grand jury to prosecute Gillmor and the Watanabe’s. No elected above the law remember that.
This is not just selective Prosecution, it is clearly vindictive prosecution, look at Gillmor’s record with others. What does Becker know and why is Becker so silent? Clearly the Gillmor machine, the 49ers and the District Attorney are all afraid of something.
Oh and you can’t forget that Gillmor deleted texts with San Francisco Chronicle Reporter Lance Williams in what is described as the leak window. It is literally the same thing they accused Becker of doing with the SV Voice. Hypocrisy and projection much. Check out my recent letter to the editor about The Gillmor Network and how all this now really ties together. https://www.svvoice.com/letters/letter-to-the-editor-the-gillmor-network/; https://www.svvoice.com/letters/letter-to-the-editor-we-dont-need-no-stinking-ethics/. If you think about it more and more what is happening to Councilmember Suds Jain and Councilmember Kevin Park with all the allegations of criminal behavior it is the same blueprint as this.
I looked up “Santa Clara Connection” because I have never heard of this group. Couldn’t find anything, so I asked my friend ChatGPT, who said it was just a term that the defense made up, and there isn’t such a group.
With all do respect Mrs. Kelsey, if you were attending the actual court hearings you would understand this better. The court denied any discovery and evidence that detailed the “Santa Clara Connection” group. Essentially all of the communications the judges found to be confidential despite there being wrong doing between the grand jury members of that Santa Clara Connection group and Mayor Gillmor. The judges denied not only the defense, but the people and the media to see what kind of communications were happening before an election timed reports release. This reeks of cover up and pointing blame to others immature actions like Becker. Anything to prove that Gillmor was colluding with grand jurors or other groups was denied because of confidentiality. Gillmor and others used the laws to protect themselves and their communications under the umbrella of confidentiality. Judges reinforced this with their rulings leaving the many to wonder what communications were actually happening. So in reality Mrs. Kelsey if you were attending the hearings and listened to the back and forth you would see a clearer picture than what most media covers or details that ChatGPT and Google wouldn’t know because the AI was not in the court room. It is time to look closer at those communications of the Santa Clara Connection and the Gillmor influence don’t you think? No elected official is above the law.
Kathy,
Thank you for responding thoughtfully. I agree that speculation alone is not evidence, and I also agree that courts, not commentators, ultimately decide legal outcomes. Where we differ is in how much weight to give the absence of evidence when that absence is itself the result of denied discovery and enforced confidentiality.
When the defense, the prosecution, the media, and the public are all barred from seeing communications that may bear directly on selective prosecution claims, it is reasonable to question what is being shielded. The argument about the Santa Clara Connection is not that it was a formally organized entity with public filings, but that it functioned as a network of influence and communication involving civil grand jurors and elected officials. Networks like this rarely leave clear public records.
Confidentiality rulings may be legally valid, but they are not beyond criticism, especially when those rulings prevent examination of conduct that appears materially similar among multiple actors, yet results in prosecution of only one individual. That disparity remains the core concern.
I also want to raise a point respectfully and without accusation. Given your long standing involvement in the Santa Clara community, it is possible that you, like others, may have been influenced or shaped by partial narratives or incomplete information. The same could be true for other community members who became part of the public discussion, including individuals such as Howard, Haggag, O’Neil, and even council members Cox and Gonzalez. This is not about assigning blame, but about recognizing how complex political environments can affect many well intentioned participants.
In that same spirit, some might even view you, Kathy, as being part of what people loosely refer to as the Santa Clara Connection or the Santa Clara way. Not in the sense of coordinated wrongdoing, but in the sense of how easy it is for engaged community members to fall into the trap of accepting what is rumored, blogged about, or widely repeated, rather than what has been fully investigated and tested through transparency and due process.
It is also hard to ignore widely discussed perceptions in the community about how influence is exercised. Many residents have commented over the years that the Gillmors are personable, persuasive, and skilled at making people feel included or valued. Alongside that, there are persistent rumors that once someone has served a particular purpose or no longer aligns with that circle, they may find themselves blocked, shut out, or quietly encouraged to move on or move away. Fair or not, people often point to examples such as Matthews, Davis, Kolstad, Silva, or the disgraced Caserta when discussing this pattern. I raise this not as a claim of fact, but as context for why trust has eroded and why so many residents question how power is exercised locally.
You are right that disagreement does not equal bad faith, and I am not suggesting complicity on your part. From my perspective, dismissing these concerns solely because they lack publicly accessible documentation risks overlooking how power and process can be used to limit what becomes verifiable in the first place.
If the appellate court ultimately agrees that relevant discovery was wrongly denied, then these questions will have been justified. Until then, I think it is fair and necessary to continue examining the gaps between what is known, what remains withheld, and who benefited from that imbalance.
Lastly, I want to note that Kint’s analogies and the reporting by the Weekly are greatly appreciated at this time. Regardless of where one lands, continued scrutiny and independent reporting are essential when trust in institutions is under strain.
Respectfully, a SC neighbor (I prefer to remain anonymous for fear of retribution)
Isn’t Becker suppressing evidence by refusing to unlock his devices?
Resident,
Holding someone’s property after conviction and conditioning its return on unlocking devices can raise serious Fifth Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and Due Process concerns. Whether it is illegal depends on how and why the DA is doing it—but it is not automatically lawful, and courts scrutinize this closely.
Couldn’t he have unlocked them before his trial? If his argument is the prosecution withholding evidence, couldn’t the prosecution say the same thing about him? If the concern is a proper defense then I would imagine the only fair thing to do is have all the evidence laid bare, and not just the evidence the former council member wants to be brought up.
The prosecution’s role is to prove its case without coercion.
The defendant’s role is not to assist the prosecution.
The Constitution deliberately protects imbalance here because history has shown what happens when the state is allowed to demand “full disclosure” from the accused.
What is being challenged is not transparency—but the idea that constitutional rights can be treated as bargaining chips after the state has already won.
One could say, wasn’t Kathy Watanabe and Mayor Gillmor suppressing evidence by refusing the same thing? Gillmor said she damaged her phone and then had the search history about perjury, ceiling of a misdemeanor and contempt of court.
Additionally, the District Attorney had access to Becker’s phone they say he communicated with the SV Voice and Rahul Chandok on. They had that passcode as stated by the investigator during testimony. The District Attorney claimed it had a “slam dunk case” with solid evidence based on the phone they seized and that was searched. So if it is so strong why do they need to search more devices when they feel they found the device he “committed crimes” on. Again if one was there during the trial they would have heard there was no physical evidence Becker sent the report compared to Gillmor’s digital paper trail of sending the report to her personal email and even printed it out before the public release. Searching more of Becker’s devices is a fishing expedition because they probably are not done with Becker and they fear what Becker has. They want to continue to crucify him like the Gillmor machine is continually trying to do now with Councilmember Park and Councilmember Jain. They are even accusing Councilmember Jain of the same crimes Becker was convicted of and even calling Jain the mastermind.