Before a judge can hear a motion to recuse District Attorney
John Sarsfield from a grand jury investigation into lawyer Michael
Pekin, the DA’s office and the controversial litigator’s attorney
must battle it out to decide which local judge will hear the
case.
Hollister – Before a judge can hear a motion to recuse District Attorney John Sarsfield from a grand jury investigation into lawyer Michael Pekin, the DA’s office and the controversial litigator’s attorney must battle it out to decide which local judge will hear the case.
Sarsfield initiated a grand jury investigation into Pekin last month for allegations of extortion, perjury and conspiracy to obstruct justice stemming from the Los Valientes lawsuit against San Benito County and former supervisor Richard Scagliotti
San Benito County Special Deputy District Attorney John Picone and Michael Pekin’s attorney, Patrick Pekin, who is also his son, made dueling challenges Tuesday to determine which judge will preside over the proceedings.
Originally, Judge Tom Breen was scheduled to hear the case, but Picone challenged him – which means he was removed from hearing the case.
“The district attorney’s office doesn’t believe Judge Breen can be fair to their interest,” Picone said. “It’s a preemptory challenge, so we don’t have to (give) a cause or reason.”
Judge Steven Sanders was assigned to the case, but Patrick Pekin challenged him because he believes Sanders wouldn’t be fair to their camp.
Picone said in court that Patrick Pekin’s motion and actions were only an attempt to delay the grand jury proceedings.
A lawyer from the state’s Attorney General’s office, Joyce Blair, was by Picone’s side Tuesday morning to argue the motion. The law requires the AG have a representative present whenever a recusal motion is filed, she said.
“I’m not sure the court has the power to stop the grand jury from going forward,” she said, “whether there’s a recusal or not.”
But Patrick Pekin argued that the court can put the proceedings on hold until a recusal motion is heard.
“I do believe this court can stop an illegal proceeding,” he said. “And that is exactly what we are alleging.”
However, Sanders agreed with Blair’s argument and decided to let the grand jury proceedings go forward. It is scheduled to convene Jan. 10, but could take months to reach a decision
The back-and-forth filings have been ongoing since Michael Pekin filed a motion in the summer of 2004 alleging the prosecutor was having an inner-office affair in an effort to recuse Sarsfield from a grand jury investigation of District 5 Supervisor Jaime De La Cruz. Most recently, Patrick Pekin filed a motion two weeks ago to recuse Sarsfield from the grand jury proceedings involving his father. The same day he filed his recusal motion, Sarsfield filed a lawsuit against the father and son team to ban them from filing lawsuits against the county.
Patrick and Michael Pekin believe Sarsfield initiated the investigation because of a personal vendetta stemming from the affair allegation. Sarsfield has denied all the allegations.
Judge Harry Tobias will hear Patrick Pekin’s motion to challenge Sanders on Jan. 19. Only after the motion to challenge Sanders is heard will a date be set to hear the recusal motion.
Erin Musgrave covers public safety for the Free Lance. Reach her at 637-5566, ext. 336 or
em*******@fr***********.com
