District Attorney John Sarsfield confirmed he hasn’t decided
what to do with the District 5 election probe, including if and
when he’ll reconvene a criminal grand jury to consider felony
charges against Supervisor-elect Jaime De La Cruz and his campaign
adviser.
District Attorney John Sarsfield confirmed he hasn’t decided what to do with the District 5 election probe, including if and when he’ll reconvene a criminal grand jury to consider felony charges against Supervisor-elect Jaime De La Cruz and his campaign adviser.
There’s no set timeline for a conclusion to the investigation, he said in an e-mail to the Free Lance. And there’s no scheduled grand jury hearings. Sarsfield’s awaiting results of an “audit/investigation” of the March election from the Secretary of State’s Office, he said.
Both De La Cruz and his adviser Ignacio Velazquez have been accused of election fraud crimes; De La Cruz beat incumbent Bob Cruz by 10 votes in the March election.
Velazquez said he and his lawyer Mike Pekin will present evidence to Sarsfield, which will show their innocence. Sarsfield confirmed he has been discussing the issue with the De La Cruz camp.”There is some ongoing communication between the parties that needs to be completed,” Sarsfield wrote.
Velazquez hired his own private investigator to counter a Santa Cruz inspector’s report recommending 11 felony charges between the two men for allegedly committing such acts as illegally returning ballots and coercing a voter. Velazquez is giving the district attorney a copy of his private investigator’s findings.
“I think people are just misinformed,” Velazquez said, referring to residents questioning him as to whether the grand jury is back on. “John Sarsfield is reviewing information we’re providing from our investigator that has proven what we said all along – that these are false accusations made by Bob Cruz’s campaign.”
Cruz didn’t return phone calls placed to his cell phone.
Sarsfield has had the District 5 election probe on his plate since he got word from the Attorney General’s Office, about three weeks ago, that he could oversee the investigation without a conflict of interest. He questioned the office whether he’d be viewed as prejudiced after Velazquez filed an embarrassing court motion against Sarsfield on May 24.
At the time, Sarsfield had recently convened a grand jury to decide whether to indict the two men. Velazquez’s motion to disqualify the district attorney claimed he was having an affair. The alleged mistress is the niece of Mickie Luna, whose Latino political group supported Cruz in the election and spurred many of the allegations.
While all that was occurring, the Secretary of State’s Office was doing its own evaluation of the March election results. The scope of the state office’s audit is unclear.
An inspector with the state visited the Elections Office about 55 to 60 days after the election – or more than three months ago, according to Clerk John Hodges. That’s the last Hodges has heard about the Secretary of State’s audit.
Meanwhile, Cruz’s wife still plans to dismiss a civil lawsuit filed in April – alleging much of the same misconduct – trying to nullify the race’s results.
Her lawyer Harry Damkar is waiting to meet with De La Cruz’s lawyer, Pekin, to agree on conditions for a dismissal. But Pekin has indicated he may pursue attorney fees from Cruz.
“We want it dismissed,” Damkar said Friday. “That’s my advice to my client. They’re following my advice.”
