The family of Ralph Santos, who was killed in 2003, is furious
with the District Attorney’s Office for accepting a plea bargain
dropping murder suspect Eliseo Rojas’ charge to voluntary
manslaughter and they vow to get the deal thrown out.
Hollister – The family of Ralph Santos, who was killed in 2003, is furious with the District Attorney’s Office for accepting a plea bargain dropping murder suspect Eliseo Rojas’ charge to voluntary manslaughter and they vow to get the deal thrown out.
Family members are speaking to the media about the case for the first time in months. They say they were cautioned by the District Attorney’s Office not to talk to the press because it could jeopardize the case.
But several weeks after learning about the plea deal, approximately 30 family members at the end of their rope – from infants to those in their 70s – gathered Tuesday night to vent their frustrations about how they were treated by the District Attorney’s Office and their disgust with the plea bargain.
With tear-streaked faces and crumpled Kleenex in hand, family members said they won’t be able to grieve for their loved one until they see justice, and that they have had to defend themselves against hurtful allegations even though they are victims of a violent crime.
“We’ve turned into machines just to seek justice,” said Craig Santos, Santos’ grandson. “We’ve had to struggle so hard and suck it up this whole last year. We finally see light and hope that somebody’s going to meet us there, and there’s been nobody.”
They believe there’s a “mountain of evidence,” including video-taped confessions, to convict both Rojas and Eusebio Ramos on first degree murder. And they said District Attorney John Sarsfield left them in the dark concerning any and all discussions about the plea.
The family hired local lawyer Arthur Cantu, who lost the 2002 district attorney race to Sarsfield, to have the plea thrown out. The family claims Sarsfield broke the law in orchestrating the deal, violated their rights as victims and did it because Rojas’ attorney, Bud Landreth, is a personal friend.
Both Sarsfield and Landreth deny the allegations and Sarsfield has been adamant that the evidence isn’t as solid as the family believes. He said if he hadn’t worked out a deal Rojas and possibly Ramos could walk free.
Sarsfield also said he’s communicated regularly with the family and understands their anger, but believes it’s misdirected. The family is being exploited so his political enemies can launch personal attacks against him, Sarsfield said.
The prosecutor believes Rojas and Ramos killed the 73-year-old man and left his body in a mustard seed field off Buena Vista Road in June of 2003 because Santos solicited sex from them. But the family believes Rojas and Ramos made up the sexual allegations. A lack of communication on top of what they believe were disparaging remarks Sarsfield made about Santos to the media have enraged them enough to fight back.
Sarsfield told the Free Lance last week that one of the weaknesses in the case that led him to pursue a plea bargain was Santos’ alleged “double life” and that Santos was “running around and picking up on uneducated field workers and sodomizing them.”
Lorie Santos, Santos’ daughter, said she was appalled Sarsfield would speak about her father that way and that the description is completely opposite of the man she knew.
“Honestly, I can’t believe he said the things he said about my father. A dangerous lifestyle? He’s saying basically if you live a dangerous life you deserve to die,” she said. “We are extremely tired of hearing about a homosexual scandal. This isn’t about homosexuality. This is about a murder.”
Santos’ daughter-in-law, Rebecca Santos, said Sarsfield didn’t communicate with the family and when he did, was condescending and inconsiderate.
“He’s really making us feel like idiots, but we’re not idiots,” she said. “We’re standing up and we’re voicing back. We want justice.”
But Sarsfield says his strategy is the best way to get justice. Rojas’ original confession was thrown out because he was not properly Mirandized, but a second video-taped confession in which Rojas demonstrates how he strangled Santos with his shoelace has not been deemed admissible in court or not.
Sarsfield said a judge could rule that the second confession is inadmissible because it would not have been taken if the first one hadn’t been thrown out in the first place.
“The first one is bad, therefore the second one is bad,” he said. “You don’t want to take a chance with a case this important – it’s not a game. If you lose or he gets convicted and it’s reversed, he would walk. I will not risk that.”
Under the terms of the plea, Rojas must testify against Ramos, waive his right to an appeal and could receive a maximum of 14 years in prison. Ramos is still facing life behind bars.
The coroner never determined an official cause of death for Santos because the body was too badly decomposed, and Sarsfield said that coupled with a “suspect” confession makes it doubly difficult for the prosecution.
“If the second confession was tossed out, we have nothing, when you get right down to it,” he said. “That’s the problem.”
The family disagrees with his reasoning, but they say they haven’t heard any of it from Sarsfield – only through the media.
“He hasn’t even told us,” Rebecca Santos, Santos’ daughter-in-law, said. “What was your reasoning behind the plea bargain? What was it that you found out that you would even consider this without telling us? You would have seen this rage a lot sooner, but we trusted him.”
On the day the plea was struck, the family was not in court because they said Sarsfield e-mailed them that the court date was inconsequential and it was only a date to set another date.
“We have gone to almost every single one. We all live and work far (away)… and we kept running out here for these little court settings and sit for half a day,” said Lorie Santos, Santos’ daughter. “He specifically told us it was just to set a date. That was the day they did the plea bargain.”
Sarsfield said that day was originally a day to set a date, but that the attorneys ended up agreeing on the plea instead.
He conceded relations with the family have become strained and he understands they’re upset. But he believes they’re misdirecting their anger and are being used by Cantu, his political opponent in the 2002 race, to launch personal attacks against him.
But the family said they went to Cantu only after careful consideration and research, not the other way around.
“We felt like we were drowning in a sea and he threw us a life preserver to help us through this process,” Rebecca Santos said.
Cantu plans to file a motion sometime in the near future to set aside the plea, and sent Sarsfield a letter demanding copies of all written correspondence with the family and Landreth concerning the plea. He also demanded a public apology.
Cantu asked Sarsfield to respond by Dec. 8, or he will attempt to make Sarsfield produce the documents through a court order, he said.
Sarsfield said what Cantu is attempting is “legally impossible” and that he has “no chance” in getting the plea thrown out.
He also wasn’t surprised to receive Cantu’s letter, he said.
“It wasn’t the first time Mr. Cantu has sent me a letter demanding a public apology,” he said, “and it won’t be the last.”
Erin Musgrave covers public safety for the Free Lance. Reach her at 637-5566, ext. 336 or em*******@fr***********.com
