Former Santa Clara City Council Member Anthony Becker was again denied the return of his devices, almost eight months after he initially filed the request. Becker returned to Judge Javier Alcala’s courtroom on June 12. He asked for the return of the laptops and cellphones seized by the District Attorney’s Office for his perjury trial; in lieu of that, he requested access to the files on those devices. He received neither.
In an argument similar to the one laid out in the Oct. 22, 2025, hearing on the matter, Deputy District Attorney Jason Malinsky said that because Becker appealed the case, it’s not final. Malinsky argued the DA’s office should be allowed to keep the items in case of a retrial. Malinsky reiterated that technology might improve, and the DA’s office might be able to gather further evidence.
Becker’s attorney, Deputy Public Defender Chris Montoya, said his client was sentenced more than a year and a half ago. Montoya said that Becker was “indigent” and needed the devices to find work.
Becker spoke on his own behalf. He told the court he served his sentence over a year ago, and his additional community service was completed in October.
He informed Judge Alcala that he needs the devices to access his reels and writings to help get a job in his field of TV and Film.
Malinsky argued that those documents were in evidence, and Becker could get them from the drive handed over to his attorney.
Montoya responded that the files were unreliable extractions and the extractions were sometimes corrupted. Further, Montoya argued that extractions were not the same as Word, PowerPoint, or other documents.
Montoya asked that Becker be allowed to sit with a lab tech to find the files he needed. Malinsky shot down the idea, saying any access to the computer would be considered a “manipulation” of evidence.
Judge Alcala could not understand how the extractions could be different from the documents Becker needed. He asked if a lab tech could talk to the court about the issue, a suggestion Malinsky vehemently opposed.
Malinsky argued that Becker hadn’t proven that his files were inaccessible or that they were corrupted. He again demanded a list of files to access. Montoya argued that it was impossible to proffer a list, with Becker pointing out that he was being asked to recall 10 years of his career.
Becker also asked for his husband’s devices back, all of which were seized with a search warrant. Becker’s husband was never charged with a crime.
Judge Alcala denied both requests.
Montoya pointed out that his request was for his client to have access to the complete files.
Judge Alcala said he was “taking the DA’s word that they gave you complete files and gave you everything they could.”
Judge Alcala stated that he was “taking the DA’s word that they gave you complete files and gave you everything they could.”
To some observers, this ruling reflects a broader pattern in Santa Clara County, where the wheels of justice appear to turn unevenly. Critics contend that the District Attorney’s Office has not consistently adhered to the level of transparency, ethical responsibility, and impartiality that the public is entitled to expect, and that the courts have, at times, afforded the prosecution substantial deference. Given that the District Attorney’s Office has had years to extract, preserve, and review any potentially relevant evidence from Becker’s electronic devices, the continued retention of those items raises legitimate questions regarding necessity and proportionality.