The Silicon Valley Voice

Power To Your Voice

Becker Trial Date Changed; Public Defender Gets Co-Counsel

The trial of Council Member Anthony Becker will now take place at the end of July. During a brief motions hearing in San Jose on March 29, the presiding judge agreed to push the start of the trial back to July 29.

Judge Elizabeth C. Peterson met with Deputy District Attorney Jason Malinsky and Chris Montoya of the Public Defender’s Office in her chambers prior to starting her afternoon court session.

Following the closed doors hearing, Judge Peterson took the bench and agreed to vacate the April 22 court date. She rescheduled the trial to start on July 29 at 8:31 a.m. The judge stated firmly that this would be the last continuance granted in the matter.


Judge Peterson also agreed to allow Montoya to add co-counsel to Becker’s team. Grant Fondo of the international law firm Goodwin Proctor was approved as co-counsel in the Becker case. Fondo is a partner in the law firm’s Silicon Valley office.

The judge reminded Becker that he must be present at the trial once it begins in July. The judge set the deadline of July 1 to file motions and said all motions will be heard by July 15. Both sides have until July 24 to submit their witness lists.

Last May, Becker pleaded “not guilty” to charges of perjury and violation of duty. The District Attorney’s office has accused Becker of leaking the confidential Civil Grand Jury report “Unsportsmanlike Conduct” prior to its official release.

The report accused members of the Santa Clara City Council of creating a voting bloc that consistently voted in favor of the 49ers. Becker was among the council members accused of participating in that voting bloc.

Once it gets started, Becker’s trial is expected to last three to four weeks.

Related Posts:
Anthony Becker Trial Date Moved To April 22
Anthony Becker Trial Set To Start On March 4, 2024
Anthony Becker Trial Setting Delayed Again
Anthony Becker Trial Setting Delayed
Becker Pleads “Not Guilty” To Charges Of Perjury And “Violation Of Duty”
Council Member Becker Makes First Court Appearance


  1. Hope Faith Charity 2 months ago

    thank you I hope he’s not harassed by people there seems to be a
    ‘blogger’ and a ‘community co-op owner’ that likes to harass this person
    please look into their actions
    very disturbing

  2. Buchser Alum 2 months ago

    You are missing some key points to helping your readers fully understand this situation.
    Becker is accused of not only leaking the report improperly but lying about while offering sworn testimony under oath. And the parties he is accused of leaking the report include not only the corporate special interest that has spent millions of dollars to get him elected to council and to try to get him elected as mayor but also to Carolyn Schuk of this publication. Carolyn Schuk seems to also appear in reported communications with executives of that corporate special interest expressing delight at the opportunity to contribute to minimizing the negative impact the grand jury report would have to that corporate special interest and certain council members.
    This alleged leak seemed to result in a very lengthy and detailed article on the grand jury report before it was made public. The fact that this article was published before any other publication had published anything on the report including big established newspapers such as the Mercury News and the Chronicle lends support to this leak having been committed by Becker and the Silicon Valley Voice being a recipient. You would know if this is a fact or a falsehood personally Erika since you wrote the article that I am talking about.
    It seems strange to me that you are writing about this as if you are disassociated as a third party reporter with only journalistic interest in covering the story when you are in fact a party to the alleged impropriety that Becker lied about while under oath.
    Which is no surprise to anyone who reads this publication regularly since it regularly prints pieces that are only ever positive in treatment of the Forty Niners and their management of the stadium and never critical in any way. Always gives the Forty Niners every benefit of the doubt and always casts doubt on the validity of any of the city’s claims against the Forty Niners. Even when these claims are vindicated by a positive judgement or settlement.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.


You may like