The Silicon Valley Voice

Power To Your Voice

Impartiality of Grand Jury In Question

A grand jury report that included damning allegations of corruption about five members of the Santa Clara City Council is being questioned for its impartiality.

The grand jury only spoke to two of the five people it leveled serious charges against. It did not speak to Santa Clara City Council Members Anthony Becker, Raj Chahal or Kevin Park. Nor did the grand jury speak to anybody from the 49ers, despite accusing the NFL team of political corruption.

Council Member Karen Hardy was one of just two people named in the report that was called to give sworn testimony to the grand jury. She says it seemed clear that the grand jury already determined their findings before conducting any investigation.

SPONSORED

“From the tenor of their questions it was obvious they had an ax to grind,” said Hardy. “It was obvious who was feeding them information and they already had the report written in their heads.”

From Hardy’s account, it seems like the grand jury was trying to influence council action.

“At one point they wanted me to promise to vote a certain way,” she said. “They asked me about closed session material — more than once —and I responded, ‘That’s privileged information and I’m not going to say anything about it.’ And they were berating me, asking these questions repeatedly.”

What’s more, an attorney representing one of the witnesses, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said their client was not permitted by the grand jury to have a lawyer present during questioning.

“I was told that I can’t talk to my client about it [the investigation],” they said. “It boggles my mind that I can’t talk to my own client about a document that’s public. I asked to see the specific rule. So far, I haven’t heard anything from the District Attorney.”

For his part, Becker felt like the report went against what the justice system is supposed to stand for.

“If you’re doing an investigation you need to talk to the people that you are investigating,” said Becker who is challenging Lisa Gillmor for the mayor’s seat. “In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty, but this grand jury seems to assign guilt before they look for any proof.

“The timing is also suspect,” said Becker. “It is very political to time this right before ballots go out to voters.”

SPONSORED
Owens Corning

40 Comments
  1. Hooray for Transparency 2 months ago
    Reply

    The City of Santa Clara posted the settlement with the 49ers on their web site exactly five weeks after reaching it (08/31/2022 – 10/05/2022). Notice of Settlement between a retired police sergeant vs. City of Santa Clara, Police Chief, et al. was filed 08/18/2022 but petition to delay the Case Management Conference to mid-November was filed this past Friday 10/07/2022. If transparency were ex-council member O’Neill’s true ambition, she would have also demanded the entire settlement of the “systemic racism” case be made available to the public. Seems like political axe grinding going on just days before ballots are mailed out.

    • Davy L 2 months ago
      Reply

      This report is simply Lisa’s October surprise. Very similar to Hillary’s emails, or Hunter’s laptop. Lots of smoke and mirrors. After the election is over, this entire report will be filed away into the trash can where it belongs

    • Davy L 2 months ago
      Reply

      Incidentally, the Mercury News has just announced their endorsements for our upcoming elections.
      (1) Becker for Mayor
      (2) Chahal for Council District 2
      (3) Hardy for Council District 3

  2. I'm Dizzy 2 months ago
    Reply

    The spin before the report? Really. This is getting embarrassing. I hope that the 49ers are paying for your lawyers as well.

    FYI.

    “Any copies of any draft reports that may have been distributed to an officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency before today would have been pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05(f), which states the following:

    A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report. Leg. H. 1996 ch. 1170, 1997 ch. 443.

    The purpose of this period is for the affected public officials or agencies to identify and notify the Civil Grand Jury of any inconsistencies or factual errors, and for the Civil Grand Jury to review and respond accordingly.”

    Perhaps the council members should talk to the Civil Grand Jury and not the paper as the law requires them to do…

    • We should all be dizzy 2 months ago
      Reply

      If I’m following the timeline right, on or about September 20 a former councilmember demanded settlement documents from a closed suit against the 49ers. Two days later, on September 22, the Civil Grand Jury conducted the last of “numerous interviews.” Then just nine business days later, on October 5th, two events happened – the draft of the Civil Grand Jury report was leaked to the press and the 49ers settlement agreement was posted on the city’s official web site. If the City Clerk’s Office are the only ones who had the Civil Grand Jury report and IT employees manage the city’s web site, it appears some city employees are trying to matters of the upcoming election into their own hands.

      • I'm Dizzy 2 months ago
        Reply

        All “affected public officials or agencies” got a draft copy. Whoever leaked it broke the law.

      • Buchser Alum 2 months ago
        Reply

        We Should All Be Dizzy,

        Teresa O’Neill did not demand the settlement documents. She petitioned the city council to have a public discussion to explain why they voted for the settlement. To explain to the people of this city why this was the best we could do. The reason she asked for a public discussion on this is because there has been none.

        Deliberation on the decision to accept or reject the settlement or bargain further was done in closed session. And the vote to accept the offer was not even reported once the closed session went back to public. The interim city attorney stated there were no decisions to report that night while the council meeting was live and some members of the public were ready in person and online to ask about it.

        And then the next day Ngo announced that in fact there was a vote to accept the settlement offer in the closed session.

        Everything about this has been questionable. I would like to believe that at least a few councilpeople had good reasons to vote for the settlement and I think we need to hear these explanations.

        But instead of explaining this massively important decision they decided to delay this. At least until after the election where one is running for mayor and two are running for reelection.

        • Davy L 2 months ago
          Reply

          All this drama could provide excellent material for a Broadway show. A meeting where Gillmor and Watanabe storm out of the room slamming the door. Instead of “Ten Angry Men”, it could be retiled as “Two Angry Women”.

  3. Davy L 2 months ago
    Reply

    There was a 49ers lawsuit our Council Members wanted resolved. They felt Gillmor and company were hindering this effort. Gillmor was content spending millions and millions of city dollars on lawyer fees until the trial date. So, our Council Members felt a need to make direct contact with the 49ers to clear up this issue. Well, it did turn out successful, as the lawsuits were settled. That is the end of the story. They accomplished what they were elected to do. But Gillmor was upset. Why? Well, there is an election, and there are doubts whether Lisa will remain as Mayor. This was a last minute effort for Lisa to remain in power.

    • Buchser Alum 2 months ago
      Reply

      There was a lawsuit the Forty Niners pursued to reclaim management of the stadium. The city moved to take over management because the Forty Niners did not make profit for the city from non football events for years. And also was non transparent and did not share accounting figures to show why they were not making a profit and to show that they were not cooking the books.

      The Forty Niners wanted to reclaim management and did not want to risk arbitration or a trial. The last time they went to arbitration against the city their demand for a rent decrease was not only denied there was an increase tacked on top and the city will get $180,000,000 more in rent as a result.

      The Forty Niners also wanted to settle quickly before discovery was required. They want to continue to control accounting information and dole it out as they please.

      Deanna Santana was overpaid but she was also in the middle of having a forensic accountant analyze stadium finances.

      But the same five councilpeople the Forty Niners have been meeting in private and have spent millions of dollars on voted to fire Santana and to also accept the Forty Niners settlement offer. They also voted to delay explaining to the public why the settlement offer was the best we could do as a city.

      • Davy L 2 months ago
        Reply

        Our Council Members were elected by the voters in their District. Santana was appointed. Our Council Members have the right to “fire” Santana should they feel her performance is unsatisfactory. They also have the right to accept the 49ers settlement and put an end to the lawsuits.

        • Buchser Alum 2 months ago
          Reply

          Davy,

          Nobody is contesting the legal ability of a city council majority to vote to fire the city manager or to accept a settlement in litigation that involves the city.

          What is being questioned is why five city councilpeople are always voting the way the Forty Niners want them to vote including firing the city manager who was having a forensic accountant try to look into the finances of the stadium the Forty Niners refuse to share and vote to end the litigation that also sought accountability and transparency over stadium management.

          Especially because these five city councilpeople raise these questions by having weekly meetings with the Forty Niners that they structure to evade public meeting requirements.

          It does not seem to be a coincidence that the Forty Niners have spent millions of dollars on getting these five into office and keep them in office. The Forty Niners seem to be making financial investments and these five seem to be paying that investment off.

          • Davy L 2 months ago

            Our Council Members are representatives of their Districts to perform their duties in the manner they feel is best for our City. They have no control on how the 49ers or Related wish to spend their money. The firing of Santana is more related to her general poor handling of our City’s finances than her hiring of a forensic accountant. The rest of your comments as usual is just “fake news”, and should be ignored.

  4. We're a Joke! 2 months ago
    Reply

    There is absolutely no reason for council members to meet so frequently with the 49ers. Talk to people outside of Santa Clara who read real newspapers. Who wants to sue over Brown Act violations?

    • Buchser Alum 2 months ago
      Reply

      I question the need to meet so frequently with the Forty Niners but more than that I question why they go through the trouble of having two of them meet one hour with the Forty Niners and then have three of them meet the Forty Niners the next hour.

      It seems obviously connected to the requirement that any meeting with four of them present must be public.

      What are they talking about? Are they bargaining with the Forty Niners or learning information that the Forty Niners are not willing to share with the general public? Are they discussing the campaigns that the Forty Niners are spending millions of dollars to keep them in office or in the case of Becker to advance him to the seat of mayor?

      • Davy L 2 months ago
        Reply

        There was a 49ers lawsuit. Our Council Members felt Gillmor and Santana were content spending millions and millions of city dollars on lawyer fees until the trial date. So, our Council Members decided to make direct contact with the 49ers to clear up this issue. Well, it did turn out successful, as the lawsuits were settled. End of story. They accomplished what they were elected to do. And as usual anything and everything else you’ve implied is just “fake news”.

  5. Davy L 2 months ago
    Reply

    But there were no Brown Act violations.

  6. Grand Jury Findings 2 months ago
    Reply

    FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
    This report points to serious concerns about the City Council Voting Bloc. The Civil Grand Jury
    recognizes that the “City”– which currently has a governing board that consists of this majority –
    will be required to vote to determine if it agrees with these findings and whether it will accept the
    recommendations. (Cal. Pen. Code § 933.05.) It is the Civil Grand Jury’s charge to investigate
    government operations, and this report seeks to do that despite the obvious limitation posed by the
    City Council Voting Bloc.
    Finding 1a
    The City Council Voting Bloc meets regularly, and as often as weekly, with lobbyists for the 49ers.
    While these councilmembers report the date, some of the attendees, and a topic of the meeting,
    there is no requirement to disclose the substance of those discussions, and the councilmembers do
    not disclose the content of these meetings.
    Finding 1b
    The meetings are typically held serially, with three councilmembers in one meeting and two in the
    next.
    Finding 1c
    The frequency of meetings of the City Council Voting Bloc with the 49ers lobbyists has created
    concern about the City Council’s governance and leaves the impression that the City Council
    Voting Bloc is meeting in a manner to subvert the Brown Act’s open meeting requirements. This
    has led to distrust amongst councilmembers as well as between the councilmembers and their
    constituents.
    Recommendation 1a
    Prior to voting on any 49ers-related matters and to prevent violations of the Brown Act, the City
    councilmembers should publicly disclose on the record if they have met with a 49ers lobbyist
    regarding a topic on the meeting agenda, the name of the lobbyist(s), the date of the meeting, all
    individuals present, and any information provided by the lobbyist(s). This recommendation should
    be implemented by February 1, 2023.
    Recommendation 1b
    The City should expand its existing calendar ordinance, City of Santa Clara Ordinance No. 1950,
    to require minutes of all meetings, including the attendees, agenda, duration, and a detailed
    summary of matters discussed, to be posted online with the calendar. This recommendation should
    be implemented by February 1, 2023.
    Recommendation 1c
    To restore public trust, the City should require that meetings with 49ers lobbyists be recorded so
    the public can be assured that these closed-door, frequent, and proximal meetings to the City
    Council meetings do not violate the Brown Act. This recommendation should be implemented by
    Recommendation 1d
    The City should establish an open governance commission to evaluate the City’s current open
    government practices and make recommendations for improvement. This recommendation should
    be implemented by February 1, 2023.
    Finding 2
    There is concern that the City Council Voting Bloc is getting real-time influence from 49ers
    lobbyists during City Council meetings.
    Recommendation 2
    The City should require councilmembers to be visible at all meetings either in person or on camera.
    Finding 3a
    ManCo has not provided sufficient financial accounting to the City/Stadium Authority as required.
    Finding 3b
    The City has identified several fire and safety violations that ManCo has not remediated.
    Finding 3c
    The agreement with ManCo is designed to result in Performance Rents payable to the Stadium
    Authority for non-NFL events; however, expenses from those events result in no income payable
    to the Stadium Authority.
    Finding 3d
    Despite ManCo’s lack of financial transparency, failure to schedule non-NFL events in a fashion
    that yields a financial benefit to the City/Stadium Authority, and repeated unabated fire and safety
    violations, the City recently agreed to keep ManCo as the operator of the Stadium.
    Recommendation 3a
    The City/Stadium Authority should hire a certified public accounting firm to conduct a
    comprehensive audit of Stadium Authority finances and the financial documents submitted by
    ManCo, to begin no later than February 1, 2023 and annually thereafter.
    Recommendation 3b
    The City/Stadium Authority should advocate for a third-party referee to oversee all of ManCo’s
    management activities. This third party should report on a quarterly basis at City Council meetings
    the status of fire and safety remediation efforts, to begin no later than February 1, 2023.
    Recommendation 3c
    The City/Stadium Authority should allocate staff to oversee Stadium operations. This should
    include finances, management policy development, and regular website updates of the City’s
    financial reporting documents. This will facilitate a better awareness of ManCo’s day-to-day
    operations. This recommendation should be implemented by February 1, 2023.
    Finding 4
    FIFA and the 49ers have announced that 2026 FIFA World Cup matches will be held at the
    Stadium. The former City Manager raised concerns about the lack of information and potential
    risks the event could pose to the City/Stadium Authority.
    Recommendation 4a
    The City/Stadium Authority should request that the 49ers provide a report on the status of the
    commitments made to the FIFA event. This recommendation should be implemented by February
    1, 2023.
    Recommendation 4b
    The City/Stadium Authority should evaluate if the FIFA event poses risks to the City/Stadium
    Authority, including specifically the risks outlined by the former City Manager regarding security
    costs and the nature of declarations required of the host city.
    Recommendation 4c
    The City and Stadium Authority should take no further action regarding FIFA until the information
    in 4a and 4b is made public.
    Finding 5
    The City/Stadium Authority has a protocol for initiating and completing operational tours of Levi’s
    Stadium. Several councilmembers have not used this protocol and have conducted operational
    tours on game days, which has raised concerns about whether these councilmembers have accepted
    gifts in violation of the Political Reform Act and City policy. These actions have also created the
    appearance of a lack of transparency, which has fostered distrust between City councilmembers,
    toward the City staff, and most importantly, with the residents of the City.
    Recommendation 5a
    The City/Stadium Authority should adopt a policy and outline procedures for elected and
    appointed officials to conduct operational tours of the Stadium. This document should be published
    on the City’s website to properly inform the public. This recommendation should be implemented
    by February 1, 2023.
    Recommendation 5b
    The consequence for not adhering to the proper protocols for operational tours should result in an
    evaluation whether the City of Santa Clara Council Policy Manual, Admonition and Censure
    Policy should be invoked.
    Recommendation 5c
    The City should hire an independent consultant to evaluate and publicly report on whether
    councilmembers have violated City Policy No. 050, “Gifts to Appointed and Elected Officials.”
    This recommendation should be implemented by February 1, 2023.
    Finding 6
    The relationships between the City, Stadium Authority, StadCo, and ManCo are creating ethical
    dilemmas and governance challenges. The governing body for the City now consists of the City
    Council Voting Bloc, which (1) has received significant campaign contributions from 49ers
    lobbyists, (2) meets regularly with 49ers lobbyists behind closed doors, and (3) has engaged in
    actions that suggest loyalty to the 49ers above the City.
    Recommendation 6a
    The City should hire a qualified legal and ethical consultant to evaluate the challenges presented
    by the unique relationship between the City and 49ers and prepare a public report on the findings
    and recommendations. This recommendation should be implemented by February 1, 2023.
    Recommendation 6b
    The consultant should be tasked with looking at the unique challenges presented by the likely
    chance that the 49ers lobbyists will continue to influence elected officials and City governance.
    The consultant should specifically be tasked with evaluating the benefits of mechanisms like an
    oversight body or commission, auditors, and changes to the ordinance code and other governing
    documents that better ensure accountability and transparency in the relationship with the 49ers.
    Finding 7
    Although the City consulted with Markkula Center for Applied Ethics and boasts of having model
    ethics rules, those rules were developed before the complexities created by the passage of Measure
    J. The City’s current policies, like the Admonition and Censure Policy, do not work where the
    challenges are presented by a minority of the City Council membership.
    Recommendation 7a
    The City should add to the City Code of Ethics & Values and the Admonition and Censure Policy
    a procedure to enable the public to file a complaint and testify at a public hearing to help remediate
    ethics violations. This should include a procedure for public admonishment, revocation of special
    privileges, or censure. This recommendation should be implemented by February 1, 2023.
    Recommendation 7b
    The City should establish an independent Public Ethics Commission, with guidance from the
    Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, to help ensure that all public officials conduct government
    decision-making processes in an ethical, transparent and unbiased manner without favor. This
    recommendation should be implemented by February 1, 2023.
    Recommendation 7c
    The City should require councilmembers to attend additional training in good governance provided
    by a third party such as the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics no later than February 1, 2023,
    and once a year thereafter. The training should include the Brown Act with emphasis on issues
    such as serial meetings, closed sessions, the fiduciary duty of government officials, filing Form
    700s, and other issues related to good governance.
    Finding 8a
    The City Manager and City Attorney positions are important executive-level leadership positions
    within the City. The City Attorney and the City Manager raised concerns about the 49ers and
    councilmembers activities related to the 49ers. Both were fired shortly thereafter.
    Finding 8b
    Members of City staff, including the former City Attorney and former City Manager, have shown
    commendable loyalty and dedication to the City and its interests.
    Recommendation 8
    No recommendation.

    • Davy L 2 months ago
      Reply

      “It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

  7. Hmmm 2 months ago
    Reply

    So Davy, the Civil Grand Jury is fairly reputable… in case you were wondering.

    • Davy L 2 months ago
      Reply

      Well, perhaps not. This Civil Grand Jury is a voluntary group. Here’s a retaliatory quote from a 49ers spokesman:

      “This report is a shocking political hatchet job from what is supposed to be an independent body but it is stacked with Mayor Gillmor’s neighbors, business associates, and allies. It is based solely on cherry-picked talking points from Gillmor’s inner circle, containing dozens of lies, and yet still fails to find any evidence of wrongdoing by anyone.”

      • At Davy L 2 months ago
        Reply

        Davy, you have yet to identify any errors in the report. Attacking the Civil Grand Jury shows how weak your position truly is. Read the report. Where are the errors? BTW, in case you didn’t know, the council members were given 2 days to correct them so I am guessing that there aren’t any.

        • Davy L 2 months ago
          Reply

          Why bother with corrections, since it’s likely, the majority of our City Council shall reject these findings. Since there is no time limit, this will probably take place after the elections.

          • Davy L 2 months ago

            Oops! What am I saying? To delay would be what Lisa wants. What our Council needs to do is to immediately set up a session and reject these “findings” before the election

        • Davy L 2 months ago
          Reply

          My understanding is that hundreds of pages of evidence correcting their report have already been turned in. Their reply was they have no responsibility to review any information contradicting their information. Huh?

  8. Impartiality of SVV in question 2 months ago
    Reply

    There is nothing of substance in this article. Just a bunch of mudslinging. It looks like someone posted the findings and recommendations for you to review. Please explain why any of these recommendations that increase accountability and transparency of all city officials are bad for the residents of the City of Santa Clara. I’m waiting.

    • Davy L 2 months ago
      Reply

      I disagree. Thanks, Carolyn. I personally find this to be a very informative article.

      • To Davy/Carolyn (same person?) 2 months ago
        Reply

        Please explain why any of these recommendations that increase accountability and transparency of all city officials are bad for the residents of the City of Santa Clara.

        • Davy L 2 months ago
          Reply

          Accountability and Transparency are good. But this package includes a lot of garbage and will be rejected. And no, Carolyn and I are not the same person. And who are you?

    • Buchser Alum 2 months ago
      Reply

      The impartiality of SVV has not been in question for quite a long while.

      The partiality of SVV has been very clear for quite a long while. It is a shame that Santa Clara’s one printed paper is as partisan as other purely partisan political blogs.

      • Davy L 2 months ago
        Reply

        And I think it’s a shame that you are such a strong supporter of Lisa Gillmor and have a major dislike of the 49ers, the SVV, and our Council Members.

        • Buchser Alum 2 months ago
          Reply

          I am not a strong supporter of Lisa Gillmor. I do not even think of myself as a supporter of hers at all. I have written about ways I have disagreed with her and ways I think she has behaved questionably.

          I do not have major dislike for our councilpeople or at least not all of them and not all of them equally. I have written about ones I question but also the ways I respect and appreciate their work on the council and in other roles for the city.

          I do not have major dislike for the Silicon Valley Voice. I have written about how I think they need to do better in reporting more impartially in terms of what they choose to report on and how they choose to write about things.

          I do not blindly follow or support anyone or any side. I give nobody a free pass but give everyone their just due.

          • Davy L 2 months ago

            Well, this election will be over soon. A great deal of this bickering and complaining will quickly fade. The comments are getting louder, but after that I expect peace and quiet shall return.

  9. Demand Accountability 2 months ago
    Reply

    Transparency and accountability to benefit residents and taxpayers should be the only focus of these Civil Grand Jury Reports. In 2018-2019, the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury released a report critical of Public Records Access specifically calling out the City of Santa Clara. The Grand Jury’s inquiry was triggered by lack of response from the City regarding contracting procedures between the City and Stadium Authority. This transparency, policy and law problem has persisted for many years but the current report seems to primarily target meetings between certain members of the current City Council and employees of the 49ers, not the entire culture at City of Santa Clara. Gillmor had long been in office leading up to that initial Santa Clara/Stadium Authority report and since 2018 four other current elected officials have also been in office – Watanabe, Chahal, Hardy, and Haggag. In just about any other reputable entity, the senior leader would take personal responsibility for lingering organizational failures. It’s past time that Gillmor shoulder the blame for a lot of this, Santa Clarans need to make a change at the top.

    • Buchser Alum 2 months ago
      Reply

      Demand Accountability,

      You wrote: “In just about any other reputable entity, the senior leader would take personal responsibility for lingering organizational failures.”

      On this issue it was Gillmor who was demanding accountability from the Forty Niners with more transparency in how the stadium is run. Especially accounting for the Forty Niners management of the stadium that resulted in no income from events other than football for years. The Forty Niners would not share accounting records with the city without an NDA, so has basically been saying “trust us!” While not making money but spending millions on Santa Clara elections to get the council majority they want.

      And in most other entities decisionmaking leaders are senior. In the city of Santa Clara the city council is who makes decisions. The mayor is just another vote amongst seven votes.

      There are things to blame Gillmor for. There are questions to be raised about some of her behavior but when it comes to demanding accountability from the Forty Niners, stadium operations, and private meetings between city councilpeople and the Forty Niners and specifically the ones the Forty Niners spend millions to keep in office, it is Gillmor who is pushing for accountability.

      • Davy L 2 months ago
        Reply

        It’s time to vote Gillmor out of office. The changes need to start at the top.

  10. Buchser Alum 2 months ago
    Reply

    If there are reasons why the grand jury’s impartiality needs to be questioned then it needs to be questioned.

    The problem with Silicon Valley Voice is that it only questions the fairness of parties that threaten the interests of the Forty Niners or their allies on the city council.

    Never questioning the impartiality of city councilpeople who were elected with the help of millions of dollars from the Forty Niners. Never questioning the impartiality of city councilpeople who receive this massive financial campaign support while coincidentally also meeting the Forty Niners on a weekly basis in twos and threes in order to evade public meeting laws. And always seeming to vote for the Forty Niners’ interest in council.

    It is fine to question the grand jury but it is a joke to ignore all the concerns they raise about some of our city councilpeople.

    Why so one sided in your coverage Carolyn? Why are you never critical of the Forty Niners or Becker, Chahal, Hardy, Jain, Park?

    Why is this piece not filed under the “Op-Ed” category?

    • Davy L 2 months ago
      Reply

      Why is this “Buchser Alum” always complaining about the Silicon Valley Voice and the 49ers? Our Council Members were elected by the voters in their District. No one elected the Grand Jury. I believe Carolyn’s coverage is fair and accurate. Your complaints are a “joke”.

  11. Observation 2 months ago
    Reply

    Reporter Carolyn Schuk quoted an anonymous attorney that “What’s more, an attorney representing one of the witnesses, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said their client was not permitted by the grand jury to have a lawyer present during questioning.”

    Carolyn, some anonymous attorney was playing you. Defense attorneys are not allowed into Grand Jury proceedings in California though they may be hired to give advice outside of court.

    Looks like some anonymous attorney is trying to discredit the grand jury for barring justice through the media as though they themselves unilaterally decided to not let a defendants attorney be present during grand jury testimony, and not factually acknowledging defense attorneys are not allowed into Grand Jury proceedings and testimony.

    Chandhok, did you have your fingers on this??

    • Davy L 2 months ago
      Reply

      This report is a “joke”. It will be rejected by our City Council. So, what’s the purpose? It’s only to provide our voters some misinformation to supporting Lisa Gillmor in the coming election.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

SPONSORED

You may like