After ten months of investigations, allegations of voter fraud
and criminal charges in the District 5 election debacle, the
District Attorney’s Office dismissed all the felony charges against
Supervisor Jaime De La Cruz Tuesday. However, De La Cruz pleaded no
contest to one new misdemeanor charge as part of a plea bargain
that will require the supervisor to serve 40 hours of community
service and pay a fine.
Hollister – After ten months of investigations, allegations of voter fraud and criminal charges in the District 5 election debacle, the District Attorney’s Office dismissed all the felony charges against Supervisor Jaime De La Cruz Tuesday. However, De La Cruz pleaded no contest to one new misdemeanor charge as part of a plea bargain that will require the supervisor to serve 40 hours of community service and pay a fine.
De La Cruz, who District Attorney John Sarsfield charged in December with four felony counts of election forgery and three misdemeanor charges including threatening a police officer, was facing up to five years in prison and a possible lifetime ban from politics if convicted.
But in a plea bargain orchestrated by attorney Arthur Cantu and the District Attorney’s Office, De La Cruz will keep his Board seat, and the misdemeanor charge will be cleared from his record in a year as long as he completes the community service.
De La Cruz said he considers the deal a victory in an election battle that began in March when he beat Supervisor Bob Cruz by 10 votes.
“It was a political witch hunt from the beginning,” De La Cruz said. “We always said we were innocent of all the election charges. This gives us justification.”
But Sarsfield considers the outcome a win for the people of San Benito County.
“The guy pled no contest – that’s what I call a successful prosecution,” Sarsfield said. “We didn’t get him on everything, we got him on the charge that’s appropriate.”
De La Cruz, who over the summer faced the possibility of 11 charges of election fraud, wound up pleading no contest to misdemeanor obstructing or delaying a police officer after he told Santa Cruz investigator Aaron Tripp he “knew where he lived.” Tripp was conducting the investigation into De La Cruz and his campaign adviser Ignacio Velazquez for election fraud allegations last year.
As part of Tuesday’s deal, De La Cruz must pay for the cost of Tripp’s investigation, which is no more than $1,000, write him a letter of apology and donate 40 hours of community service to senior center Jovenes De Antano.
Judge Steven Sanders said in court that he hopes to see De La Cruz encouraging people to participate in the electoral process while he’s doing his community service.
The deal was almost delayed Tuesday when Sanders refused to hear the case in the early afternoon because Cantu had disqualified him last week. But to expedite the matter Cantu agreed to have Sanders oversee the deal. After some heated discussion in the judge’s private chambers between Sanders, Cantu and Deputy District Attorney Denny Wei, a deal was struck late Tuesday afternoon.
Sarsfield said that while he backed off on the felony charges, he felt the plea was a fair deal and that De La Cruz admitted to what Sarsfield believes was the most serious charge, threatening a police officer.
The four felony counts Sarsfield filed against the supervisor shortly before he was seated stemmed from an election petition De La Cruz signed with three signatures gathered by someone else worth a 75-cent discount toward his filing fee. The charges were the culmination of a conflict that began when De La Cruz beat Cruz by only 10 votes in the March 2, 2004 race. Shortly after that race, the Board of Supervisors launched an investigation into claims that De La Cruz and his campaign adviser, Ignacio Velazquez, broke election laws by illegally handling ballots and coercing a voter, among others.
Cruz did not return calls Tuesday and Supervisor Pat Loe, who was on the board at the time, declined to comment because De La Cruz and Velazquez have a civil rights lawsuit open against the county.
Twist after twist tangled the matter into one of the county’s biggest political stories of 2004.
The saga included Sarsfield calling for a Grand Jury investigation of De La Cruz and Velazquez, which he later canceled when the men’s attorney, Mike Pekin, filed a court motion alleging the prosecutor was having an affair with his office manager which compromised his objectivity. Pekin claimed Sarsfield’s alleged relationship with his office manager, who is the niece of a leader of the League of United Latin American Citizens who was a staunch Cruz supporter, created a conflict of interest.
The lengthy conflict over the March election was one of the reasons Cantu said he and the District Attorney’s Office worked to finally seal a deal.
“The word in Latin is ‘basta’ – enough is enough,” Cantu said. “The community has spoken to say lets get this behind us. Mr. De La Cruz is now reaching out to supporters of Bob Cruz and asking they join him in setting aside the politics and meeting the challenges of this year.”
Sarsfield said the biggest part of the 10 month delay was caused by the county elections office, when a clerk misplaced an e-mail sent by the Secretary of State’s Office asking for more information about the March election. The e-mail snafu delayed the process about a month.
Although Sarsfield was pleased the matter was finally finished, he wouldn’t comment whether he believed justice was served.
“I wonder all the time whether justice is done,” he said. “The justice system is not perfect, not by a long shot and it has problems. I think it’s good for the community to have it resolved, and we got a conviction.”
Erin Musgrave covers public safety for the Free Lance. Reach her at 637-5566, ext. 336 or [email protected].
