Some of the most notorious criminals in recent memory could
receive a new trial because previous prosecutors with the county
District Attorney’s Office may have violated their civil
rights.
On Wednesday, San Benito County District Attorney John Sarsfield
called for the re-examination and possible retrial of nearly 60
felony convictions dating back to 1984.
Some of the most notorious criminals in recent memory could receive a new trial because previous prosecutors with the county District Attorney’s Office may have violated their civil rights.
On Wednesday, San Benito County District Attorney John Sarsfield called for the re-examination and possible retrial of nearly 60 felony convictions dating back to 1984.
Sarsfield’s announcement was the result of an investigation into alleged misconduct on a number of high-profile cases the previous district attorney’s office may be guilty of.
The alleged misconduct stems from previous prosecutors violating the Brady Standard, which is based on a 1963 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that stated prosecutors have to turn over any information they have that could benefit the defense’s case.
“Once a prosecutor learns of information that a defendant could use at trial, (the prosecutor) is legally required and compelled to turn it over. There is no discretion in that regard,” Sarsfield said.
He said his office found out former District Attorney’s Inspector Dennis Stafford, who had been with the DA’s office for about 10 years, was listed as a suspect in a number of police reports, including a molestation case. In other reports, Stafford allegedly suppressed information about crimes allegedly committed by his son. None of the information was turned over to defense attorneys, Sarsfield said.
“This is not something we enjoy doing,” Sarsfield said. “But the obligation of a criminal prosecutor is clear. A prosecutor must first and foremost always seek justice.”
Sarsfield contacted several local defense attorneys who had cases Stafford had either worked on or testified in.
“None of the defense lawyers indicated that they had received the police reports,” Sarsfield said.
With his suspicions confirmed, Sarsfield said he wanted to take the appropriate steps to deal with the alleged misconduct.
On Jan. 22, Sheriff Curtis Hill and Sarsfield went to the state Attorney General’s Office and brought the concerns to the attention of Bob Anderson, who heads the criminal division of the Attorney General’s office.
“I was directed by Mr. Anderson to conduct a full internal review of all cases that might be impacted,” Sarsfield said. “I was also directed to advise our presiding judge that many of these cases would be returning to court.”
Sarsfield refused to speculate on whether reopening the cases could allow some of the convicted felons to go free.
“I don’t know what effect, if any, this will have on the underlying convictions,” Sarsfield said. “We will do everything we can to protect these convictions.”
Some suspects that could be brought back to court for possible retrial include:
– Gustavo Marlow – In 1988, the local teen-ager kidnapped, tortured, raped and murdered two young Hollister women. He was responsible for several other rapes and assaults on local women.
– Phillip Dell Fargo – In 1984, the local attorney killed two people who were engaged in illegal activity with him. One victim helped him butcher a rustled calf and the other victim was helping him sell drugs from his law office.
– Lonny Hurlbut – In 1990, The San Juan Bautista Chief of Police was convicted of tampering with drug evidence to make charges more severe in marijuana arrest cases.
– Martha Espinoza – In 1993, the mother of three was convicted of shooting her estranged husband in the back and killing him.
– Adriana Bedolla – In 2001, she was convicted of beating her 2-year-old stepdaughter Ilse Bedolla to death.
Former District Attorney Harry Damkar, who ran the department for 20 years, said Sarsfield’s investigation was a waste of time and money because there were no violations of the standards of evidence.
“There is no violation of the Brady Standard in this case,” Damkar said. “The person that Mr. Sarsfield has indicated that materials should have been disclosed about was not a material witness in any of the cases during the time-period that he said disclosure should have been accounted for.”
Damkar said it was clear Stafford has a clean criminal record because he otherwise could not have worked as a peace officer for more than two decades.
“It’s clear that he has never been convicted of a crime, has no prior felony or misdemeanor record and nothing actionable that needed to be disclosed,” Damkar said. “Furthermore he was not a witness in most of the cases cited by the district attorney’s list.”
Damkar said there was no reason Stafford needed to release information in many of the cases Sarsfield is concerned about.
“In a number of these cases he worked for the defense and a number of these cases he was not material to any of the issues of guilt or punishment,” Damkar said.
He said Sarsfield’s investigation was little more than a smoke screen.
“You notice this all came about once his office started getting some criticism from the public,” Damkar said.
Public Defender Greg LaForge said Sarsfield’s investigation is just a continuation of a vendetta to discredit Stafford, himself and anyone who works with them.
“It’s a double standard. Is the district attorney going to reopen every case that Sheriff Hill has touched? Remember, he was once on trial for beating handcuffed inmates. The only thing that saved him was that it was a hung jury,” LaForge said.
