With the jury set to begin deliberations in Santa Clara Vice Mayor Anthony Becker’s trial this week, his attorneys made a last-minute effort to have his case thrown out — a move the judge emphatically denied.
Becker’s trial is nearing the end after the final day of testimony wrapped up on Tuesday in Santa Clara County Superior Court in Morgan Hill. The vice mayor — who was indicted in April 2023 for allegedly leaking a copy of a civil grand jury report several days before it was public, and perjury for allegedly lying about it under oath — ultimately decided not to take the stand.
Becker’s legal team filed two separate motions on Tuesday — the first requesting Judge Javier Alcala toss the case, arguing the prosecution failed to present “substantial evidence,” and the second asking for a mistrial on the “grounds that the destroyed, late discovered and excluded evidence in this case and questioning of witnesses” are prejudiced.
Alcala denied the first motion late Tuesday afternoon with little explanation. The judge is expected to rule on the mistrial motion sometime Wednesday afternoon.
In the motion for dismissal, Christopher Montoya — a deputy public defender representing Becker — said that “it remains highly unclear whether Mr. Becker leaked the report given a lack of documentary evidence and witness credibility.”
Rahul Chandhok, the San Francisco 49ers’ former chief of communications, served as the prosecution’s star witness, testifying that Becker leaked him the report. “Unsportsmanlike Conduct,” the report in question, criticized Becker and other members of the council for getting too cozy with the 49ers and putting the team’s interests ahead of the city’s. It was released amid a contentious mayoral race in 2022 where Becker unsuccessfully challenged Mayor Lisa Gillmor.
In the court document, Montoya said that the evidence shows the report was being “widely discussed and circulated” and that the prosecution “did not foreclose the possibility” that someone else leaked the report. Montoya also questioned Chandhok’s reliability.
“Mr. Chandhok’s testimony provided the only evidence of such leaks, and his testimony was not credible in light of his immunity, internal inconsistencies and inconsistencies with his contemporaneous written statements,” Montoya wrote.
In his motion asking for a mistrial, Montoya argued that it should be granted because of four different issues — the first being the “destroyed evidence” that was revealed in court earlier this week.
Ben Holt, a criminal investigator with the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office, testified on Monday that he is “responsible” for losing an audio recording that documented the search warrant being served on Chandhok’s home.
During the January 2023 search, Holt allowed Chandhok to call his attorney in private. However, the investigator said he accidentally captured some of the conversation while recording on his cell phone as he walked down the hall. He was concerned the recording contained privileged attorney-client communications, which meant he would need to send it to a special master to review whether anyone should have access to the tape.
But Holt never followed up, and eventually got a new work cell phone. Becker’s attorneys learned about the destroyed evidence through an email on Oct. 31 as the court began its jury selection.
“This destruction is prejudicial because the defense will never know what statements were made by Mr. Chandhok or the prosecution’s lead investigator DAI Holt, nor the actual circumstances behind Mr. Chandok’s separation from the officers and his activity outside of their view or control when he was permitted to go into a room by himself,” Montoya wrote.
The deputy public defender also argued they were unable to call witnesses and present evidence that someone else was the source of the leak. The defense was originally building a case that pointed to Gillmor as the leaker until Alcala ruled that they couldn’t make the argument in court. In doing so, Montoya said that Becker was “actively prevented from mounting a defense.”
Montoya also wrote in his motion that the prosecution repeatedly turned over “important evidence to the defense late” and accused the judge of being biased when questioning a witness.
