From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: Santa Cruz Indymedia | Police State & Prisons
What Your $100,000+ is paying for: Transcript of the Santa Cruz 11 Preliminary Hearing 1-7
by (posted by Norse) S.C.Court
Wednesday Feb 6th, 2013 3:35 PM
On Monday January 7th and Tuesday January 8th, D.A. Bob Lee, through his underling Rebekah Young, dragged the Santa Cruz Eleven [SC-11] into yet another round in court. Actually only seven defendants were there for the Preliminary Hearing, the other four had already been cleared of all charge. This is a proceeding where the prosecution is supposed to present enough evidence to convince the judge there is probable cause to forward the cases to (a second) arraignment and thence to trial. The record is an important one--for it's supposed to reveal a significant portion of the prosecution's case.

Download PDF
The hearing ended up freeing three of the seven, with the remaining four sent to trial on a tangled and twisted "aiding and abetting" theory. Accused of "felony vandalism" and "misdemeanor trespass" (failure to leave private property after having been warned by the owner or owner's agent), the four face little if no actual testimony that they were warned. There is no evidence at all that any of them committed, advised, or even witnessed vandalism. Rather, claims D.A. Young, their having "trespassed" makes them responsible for any other vandalism created by parties unknown. This, of course, defies common sense and justice.

Not to mention that the context of the case was a massive peaceful protest against Wells Fargo Bank, a criminal of a much taller order than any of those (unnamed and unknown) who left graffiti in the building and damaged some of the furniture.

I have written about this extensively. Most recently at "Laurendeau Arraigned Yet Again As D.A.'s Merry-Go-Round Twirls On" at .

I posted Judge Burdick's order fining the D.A.'s office Rebekah Young's repeated failure to follow court orders to release evidence to the defense (and then lying about it--though Burdick far too charitably found she was "in good faith") at ("Another Ridiculous Round of Arraignments").

Analyst, photographer, and (former) SC-11 defendant Alex Darocy has a good article on the Preliminary Hearing which had quite a supportive turnout ("Santa Cruz Eleven Down to Four and Conspiracy Charges Dismissed at Preliminary Hearing " at My comments and those of others follows his visually rich story.

Posted here in all its 200+ page splendor is the transcript of the Preliminary Hearing for the 7th held in January.
by (posted by Norse) S.C.Court Wednesday Feb 6th, 2013 3:35 PM

Download PDF
by (posted by Norse) S.C.Court Wednesday Feb 6th, 2013 3:35 PM

Download PDF

Comments  (Hide Comments)

by John E. Colby
Wednesday Feb 6th, 2013 6:08 PM
This hearing was a circus. DA Rebekah Young and the SCPD officers who testified were the clowns. Too stupid.
Just sayin... I mean they've written 3x as many last year and now the want to try the jacking downtown citations to "Triple Fine". Most of the tickets written simply get bought for a pre-known percentage by the state mandated collection agency because a HUGE percentage of those tickets are issued to the homeless and 'indigent'. . . Including all the perjured ones.

I wonder how much they received from the collection agency reimbursements in recent history?
by Nameless
Thursday Feb 7th, 2013 9:41 AM
we are all with you
our spirit is everywhere
by RazerRay
Friday Feb 8th, 2013 11:35 AM
Comments that have been here for days just vanish?
by Indybay volunteer
Friday Feb 8th, 2013 11:39 AM
Rather than hiding the off-topic comments, they were moved to their own post:
by RazerRay
Saturday Feb 9th, 2013 8:50 AM
This part of one of them CERTAINLY belongs here.

"Why Police Officers Lie Under Oath

My opinion... Because if they didn't the "company" would simply find someone who will. $60-$100,000 a year buys a lot of "Situational" with those 'ethics.'"

My comment applies to the ethics of the Santa Cruz judicial system as well.
"The ruling is significant because it means the city itself is potentially on the hook for the actions of its officers.

Claims of municipal liability for the actions of police officers rarely go to trial. More commonly, officers accused of excessive force face suits in their individual capacities because plaintiffs cannot establish that the officers' conduct was part of any pattern."