|
Sneddon, Stanley Deposed in Dunlap Malicious Prosecution Lawsuit |
|
|
Written by Administrator
|
|
Saturday, 13 August 2005 |
|
[b]Dunlap lawsuit continues with depositions of top prosecutors[/b]
By Quintin Cushner/Senior Staff Writer
Aug.13, 2005
Santa Barbara County's top two prosecutors landed on the other side of the questioning this summer after a Lompoc attorney listed them as defendants in a $10 million federal lawsuit.
Gary Dunlap accuses District Attorney Tom Sneddon, Assistant District Attorney Christie Stanley and Deputy District Attorney Jerry McBeth of violating his civil rights by wrongfully prosecuting him on charges of suborning perjury and witness tampering.
In the lawsuit, which won't likely go to trial until 2006, Dunlap has acted as his own attorney while questioning the veteran prosecutors. Sneddon was deposed June 16, while Stanley was interviewed July 14. Deputy District Attorney Jerry McBeth, who is also named as a defendant in the case, may be deposed Aug. 19.
Transcripts of the depositions have not yet been made public. The next pre-trial hearing in the case is set on Oct. 11 before U.S. District Court Judge Dickran Tevrizian in Los Angeles.
Sneddon, Stanley and other employees of the District Attorney's Office have declined comment, deferring instead to their attorney, Michael Allen.
"We deny the allegations in the complaint," Allen said. "We feel that Gary Dunlap is fortunate to have avoided a conviction."
Dunlap maintains that prosecutors went to extraordinary and unconstitutional lengths to gather evidence against him.
"An injustice was done and the district attorney's office refuses to acknowledge, investigate, or refer it for investigation because their employees were involved in committing it," Dunlap said.
A Santa Maria jury on June 4, 2003 acquitted Dunlap of six felony counts, including suborning perjury, witness intimidation, filing false documents and preparing false documents.
Dunlap pleaded no contest to misdemeanor marijuana possession and an infraction for possessing drug paraphernalia, two violations that surfaced when Dunlap's home and office were searched as part of the investigation.
The federal lawsuit may sort out whether the investigation and prosecution of Dunlap by the District Attorney's Office was unconstitutional, or simply unorthodox.
The labyrinthine efforts to gather evidence against Dunlap were noted by Judge Kenneth Andreen, who presided over the criminal case against the attorney.
"The twists and turns of the prosecution's efforts... to gain evidence against Mr. Dunlap are worthy of a John Grisham novel," Andreen wrote in ruling that denied Dunlap's request to dismiss all charges. "Courts expect high ethical standards from prosecutors; they were lacking here."
However, Andreen found that the prosecution's actions were not improper enough to warrant serious sanctions.
"...The government engaged in misconduct," Andreen wrote. "...We wish the prosecutors had exercised more discretion, yet dismissal of the charges against Mr. Dunlap is too drastic a remedy for the wrongs committed here."
Both sides have attempted to spin Andreen's remarks. Dunlap notes that it's unusual for a sitting judge to make such a critical finding. Allen said the judge's remarks aid the District Attorney's Office in the lawsuit.
"One judge has already said it didn't rise to the level of a constitutional violation," Allen said. "And we disagree that there was any misconduct at all."
The complex tale stems from an August 2000 domestic violence case when Frank Campos was charged with beating his wife in front of a Lompoc apartment building. Campos hired Dunlap to represent him.
A teenager named Shauna Bennett witnessed the events and testified at pre-trial hearings against Campos. Before the Campos trial, the young woman, accompanied by her boyfriend's mother, Barbara Buontello Barajas, met with Dunlap at the attorney's office.
What occurred at that meeting remains in dispute.
Prosecutors have alleged in court documents that Dunlap threatened the young woman to make her testimony more flattering toward his client.
Dunlap claims in his lawsuit that Bennett and Barajas went to his office so that the teen could confess that, under pressure from prosecutors, she invented her testimony.
When the young woman later testified at trial, Bennett changed her statements. Despite this, Campos was convicted of domestic violence and sent to state prison.
After the trial, prosecutors began investigating Dunlap for allegedly threatening Bennett and coercing her into committing perjury.
The investigation took a twist March 17, 2002, when Barajas' son, Agustin Salas, was arrested on suspicion of aggravated drunken driving, being unlicensed and evading arrest.
Prosecutors allegedly told Barajas to hire Dunlap as an attorney for her son. Outfitted with a recording device, Barajas was to ask if Dunlap would take the case for free, as thanks for her work in allegedly helping the teen girl change her tune. When Dunlap set his fee at $1,000, prosecutors allegedly provided her the money.
Salas, who had no substantial defense, wanted to serve his sentence. Dunlap brokered a deal April 29, 2003 for Salas to serve 120 days for drunken driving and evading arrest.
Prosecutors were allegedly unhappy that their investigation of Dunlap had been cut short, and instructed Barajas to have her son's plea withdrawn.
The lawsuit claims prosecutors then had an improper conversation with Superior Court Judge Diana Hall, who presided over the Salas hearings, and revealed the ongoing investigation against Dunlap.
Eventually, the case against Salas was dismissed. The government later paid Barajas $11,000 and placed her into the federal witness protection program, in part for her work on the Dunlap case.
Source: http://www.santamariatimes.com/articles/2005/08/13/news/local/news02.txt
|
|
News 
