The following are some unanswered questions and points to
ponder:
Why was the trial held in San Benito County? Judge Harry Tobias
stated in May 2008 that pre-trial publicity was not an issue, and a
change of venue was denied. The trial did not begin until September
2009. The local newspapers and TV news stations had Mike guilty
before the trial started. What happened to
”
innocent until PROVEN guilty?
”
Dear Editor,
The following are some unanswered questions and points to ponder:
Why was the trial held in San Benito County? Judge Harry Tobias stated in May 2008 that pre-trial publicity was not an issue, and a change of venue was denied. The trial did not begin until September 2009. The local newspapers and TV news stations had Mike guilty before the trial started. What happened to “innocent until PROVEN guilty?”
Judge Alan Hedegard was biased from the very beginning. He excluded witnesses and documented statements that confirmed Mike’s innocence and cleared him of breaking the law. Judge Hedegard also overruled most of Public Defender Art Cantu’s objections and favored the prosecution throughout the trial.
The jury selection included eight women and four men for the alleged rape? There were clear conflicts of interest and there were those who should have not been on that jury. The judge used HIS questionnaire, not the one given by the defense attorney.
The four witnesses for the prosecution all had the same type story because they were “coached” or prepared on what to say by the D.A.’s office; they also discussed it during the trial amongst themselves.
The prosecution did not provide police reports, DNA. or medical reports, and there was NO physical evidence. It was all “hearsay” that led to the conviction.
The prosecutor, Patrick Palacios, referred to the defendant on numerous occasions as a “serial rapist” and was asking for “60 to life” even before the trial began. He knew exactly what charges/counts to ask for based on what sentence he wanted.
The sheriff (and his department) and DA (and staff) deserve alot of credit for manipulating and intimidating witnesses, leading to a conviction. They have personally made a 27-year law enforcement officer into a criminal. Mike is no “angel” but nor is he a criminal!! Perhaps the “Jane Does” (witnesses) should be subjected to questioning relating to perjury on their part.
Ron Rodrigues, San Benito County
