When the jury spent less than one hour deliberating before clearing Regina Roxanne Perez of perjury after she had been a prospective juror in the 2011-12 Marco Topete death penalty case, we were left with the question as to why the District Attorney’s office would spend time and taxpayer money pursuing this case.
Unfortunately, there are more questions than answers here.
What we know is that the prosecution alleged that Ms. Perez had lied under oath when she testified that she did not speak to her imprisoned son about that case. She was initially called for jury duty on January 11, 2011, as one of hundreds that potentially could be empaneled as jurors in the death penalty case, that would go on for much of the next year before jurors reached a verdict of guilty and ultimately recommended a sentence of death.
During Ms. Perez’ trial, exhibits indicated that she completed the full juror questionnaire and then returned to court on March 22, 2011. At this point, she would be questioned under oath about her written answers.
The 223-item questionnaire introduced into evidence asked everything from personal information to attitudes toward law enforcement and the death penalty. The questionnaire shows that Ms. Perez revealed her son Michael Perez’s murder conviction and the circumstances surrounding it.
The trial transcript from March 22 shows that additional questions were posed to Ms. Perez by DA Reisig and defense attorneys. During this questioning Ms. Perez indicated that she spoke to her son Michael Perez the previous night, but did not talk about the case on which she was called as a potential juror.
She would be excused from jury duty.
During her trial this week, the prosecution brought in retired former chief DA investigator Bruce Naliboff. He testified that he had retrieved a recording of the prison call between Ms. Perez and her son Michael.
Michael Perez was convicted of murder in 2001 but has since had his conviction overturned and he awaits retrial in Yolo County.
Critical to the prosecution’s case was a 20-second portion of the 15-minute phone call in which Ms. Perez was recorded telling her son that she had jury duty the following day.
Deputy DA Sulaiman Tokhi claimed that when the son says, “Oh yeah you have to go back on the 22nd, I forgot about that,” it suggests that they had previously discussed the case in depth.
Ms. Perez also indicated her belief that she would be eventually excused.
But outside of those two statements, there is no indication that Ms. Perez discussed the case with her son – only that she indicated that she had jury duty.
Bruce Naliboff also testified that on February 29, 2012, he directed the Yolo County Gang Task Force to arrest Regina Perez at the Walgreens Distribution Center where she has worked for the last 18 years. “I was completely embarrassed and had no idea what was going on” said Perez, who was arrested in front of her coworkers.
Mr. Naliboff, now retired on the east coast, was flown in by the prosecution to testify.
The trial also featured the return of David Henderson. Mr. Henderson served as District Attorney from 1984 until 2006, when he retired and his handpicked replacement, Jeff Reisig, took over.
Mr. Henderson also served as a jury consultant for the prosecution in the Topete trial. He also filed the original murder charges against Michael Perez in 2001.
By itself that is a strange linkage, that Mr. Henderson who has been retired for nearly seven years would be involved personally in all three portions of the case. It is also by strange coincidence, or perhaps not, that Ms. Perez was arrested shortly after her son was returned to Yolo County following the vacating of his conviction.
Alin Cintean, attorney for Ms. Perez, told the Vanguard that he believes it is no coincidence. Mr. Cintean told the Vanguard this is the first case he has ever taken pro bono and he did so because of how outrageous he saw the charges to be.
“The only reason they targeted her was her son’s case. There was no evidence to make anyone believe Regina Perez committed perjury.” said Mr. Cintean. And the jury would agree, acquitting Ms. Perez in less than an hour.
Deputy DA Tokhi would attempt to portray this case as a straightforward matter of Ms. Perez not fulfilling her constitutional obligation as a juror to be honest and truthful, as he enumerated the responsibilities of jurors in the justice system and warned against the defense’s attempts to invoke sympathy.
But where is the evidence that Ms. Perez was dishonest here? She mentioned to her son that she had jury duty, and there is no evidence on that recording that she mentioned details about the case, the name of prosecutors, defense attorney, or the judge.
Why was this case even tried? There was no material harm here, as Ms. Perez was excused by the prosecution from sitting on the jury.
Why did the prosecution feel the need to fly Bruce Naliboff back to the west coast, and pay David Henderson more than $12,000, according to the defense, to be an expert witness?
Why did this case even call for an expert witness?
There are more questions than answers here. Alin Cintean and Regina Roxanne Perez will be speaking at the Vanguard Court Watch Council Meeting on August 25 from 5 to 7 pm at the Davis Library. For more details, click here. Perhaps they can shed more light on this matter.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“It is also by strange coincidence, or perhaps not, that Ms. Perez was arrested shortly after her son was returned to Yolo County following the vacating of his conviction.”
So, what’s your take on this? You’re implying something nefarious is going on, but don’t say what such a smear is supposed to mean. I don’t see anything strange or coincidental about this. Why wouldn’t it make sense that things happened in the following order: 1) son gets moved back to Yolo County jail and mother starts visiting him there, 2) mother gets jury notice and appears for Topete trial, 3) mother keeps visiting son in jail, 4.) juror/mother allegedly lies on jury form, 5) DA arrests supposed perjurer and charges her for the alleged lies.
It would be suspicious if events happened in some different order, making the arrest prior to the date if the alleged crime, for example.
What are you claiming happened here “by strange coincidence” or, maybe worse, intentionally?
David, the Vanguard covered this story yesterday. Weren’t you in the courtroom for this one-day trial?
It’ll be interesting to hear the defense attorney’s and the not-guilty defendant’s August 25 takes on the questions you raise today. But, I’m still waiting to make sense of the Vanguard’s news report. I was hoping you’d have something other that questions to help me with my earlier questions:
…
I’m still at a loss about what happened here, even more so now that SODA’s excellent question is answered.
What were the specifics of the perjurious statements and what evidence did the prosecution offer in court to support its allegations?
.”To prove their case, Deputy DA Sulaiman Tokhi and the district attorney’s office used former Yolo County District Attorney David Henderson as an expert witness, and flew former Chief Investigator Bruce Naliboff in. But the effort would not be enough….”
I presume they provided evidence; what was it?
This seems like a simple case to prove, but this report suggests that the prosecution offered no evidence other than a recording with the defendant’s son heard to say, “”Oh yeah you have to go back on the 22nd, I forgot about that.”
“He utilized sympathy and humanization throughout the trial and focused his closing argument on an emotional plea (drawing) particular attention to the prosecution’s efforts to strip sentimentality from their case against Perez….”
Why? If the DA provided only this single snippet–one that could have referred to a prior, off-hand comment that “I got called in for jury duty”–what’s the purpose in all the defense talk about motherly love?
After reading this over several times, I’ve got a gut feeling that there must be much more to the prosecution case than has been provided. Why have experts that provide no testimony? Why “fly in” a former chief investigator if not to provide evidence?
If the prosecution case was limited to the evidence listed in this story, this would have been a simple case to defend. A simple request for a directed verdict seems an adequate response for such a weak state allegation.
All of these charges that the DA’s office ripped away a mother’s sentimentality for her unfortunately jailed son builds a gut feeling that there probably was a purpose in the presentation, that there must have been some prosecution evidence that had to be discounted. Otherwise, why waste time on such an odd, unrelated wandering?
Let me know how my gut performed, please. If it’s wrong, I join with you and any others who express astonishment that this case left the DA’s coffee room.
Hopefully I will be able to clarify some of your concerns raised by you and your readers who post under both assumed and actual names. As a witness in this case the prosecution provided air fare, hotel in Woodland and $20 per day for meals as is standard for any prosecution witness. I did not receive any personal compensation for my testimony, but was willing to testify as I believe a cornerstone of our judicial system is a jury which honestly looks at the facts and applies them impartially to the case before them. During jury selection each juror takes an oath to answer all questions truthfully and is advised they may be prosecuted if they are not truthful. Ms Perez was initially seated as a potential juror in the Topete case over the concerns of the prosecution. Ms Perez stated she had not mentioned to her son Michael that she was a potential juror. I then conducted an investigation which involved obtaining a recorded phone call from her son, who was in prison, to Ms Perez. During a portion of the phone call they were discussing her possible selection as a juror and her son told her she will not be selected because he is so well known and she says something to the effect of her friends are telling her she would be a nightmare for the prosecution and a dream for the defense. I then presented this evidence at a hearing and the judge dismissed Ms Perez as a potential juror as he found her to have not been forthcoming about her earlier convesation with her imprisoned son. If you want the exact language which was used by the judge as well as the comments from the defense attorneys Hays Gable and Tom Purtell you can obtain the transcripts from the hearing. I did not submit the perjury report for a warrant until the Topete case was concluded and sentencing complete so there would not be additional press coverage which the Topete jury might be exposed to. I had no idea when Michael Perez was returning to Yolo County as he was granted a new trial after it was learned his private defense attorney did not properly advise him on some issues prior to his pleading to the gang murder which occurred in 2001.
Thank you, Bruce Naliboff, for clarifying some points about your participation.
I’m sure you’re aware that [i]The Vanguard[/i] is well known for not going out of the way to report the evidence as presented by the prosecution in many cases. (Its coverage of this case is a splendid example of that bias.) Possibly as a result, the DA’s staff apparently refuses to answer questions from the [i]Vanguard[/i] about any cases it covers.
Together, these two realities keep the [i]Vanguard[/i] from being able to accomplish effectively its stated objective for the community.[quote]“During a portion of the phone call they were discussing her possible selection as a juror and her son told her she will not be selected because he is so well known and she says something to the effect of her friends are telling her she would be a nightmare for the prosecution and a dream for the defense.”[/quote]The [i]Vanguard[/i] coverage of the trial makes no mention of this and suggests no evidence like this existed. Did you testify about this at the trial as well as at the jury selection hearing? Was the tape played at the trial?
Were the questions and Ms. Perez’s responses provided as evidence at her trial? Was there any other evidence presented that she did not respond truthfully?
It seems to this outside observer that it should be fairly clear whether she told the truth, and the DA’s office should have had an easy case to make if the jury heard the recordings.
On the other hand, it should have been an easy case to defend if the prosecution’s case was as totally lacking in evidence as the [i]Vanguard[/i] reporting states.
Which leads me to question all the emphasis about motherly love–something that seems like an effort at misdirection (but because of what if there was no evidence presented to support the charges?).[quote]“I did not receive any personal compensation for my testimony, but was willing to testify as I believe a cornerstone of our judicial system is a jury which honestly looks at the facts and applies them impartially to the case before them.”[/quote]With respect to the larger issues involved, I have to agree with the importance you and the prosecutor place on the dependence our system places on juror honesty and impartiality.[quote] “There was no material harm here, as Ms. Perez was excused by the prosecution from sitting on the jury.”[/quote]David’s contention overlooks the costs that there involved in the hearing before the judge dismissed Ms. Perez as a juror. It also ignores the fact that perjury is a crime.
Do you care to comment on two questions:
1. “Why was this case even tried?” It’s David’s question, but I’d adjust it a little to add “…if there wasn’t clearer evidence?”
2. Why did the defense utilize “sympathy and humanization throughout the trial and focused his closing argument on an emotional plea (drawing) particular attention to the prosecution’s efforts to strip sentimentality from their case against Perez….”?
It’s such a weird description and such a weird defense approach that there must be something behind it. Her statements and acts either were perjurious or they were not–sentimentality be damned. Still, it may have been successful. But, why?
“David, the Vanguard covered this story yesterday. Weren’t you in the courtroom for this one-day trial?”
I did not attend the trial. Two of my interns (co-authors of the original article) were at the trial. I interviewed the defense attorney. The District Attorney’s office has a policy of not talking to the Vanguard.
I appreciate very much Mr. Naliboff’s post here clarifying part of this puzzle.
I question whether this is evidence of perjury.
JustSaying, I suggest if you can make our meeting on the 25th, you ask Mr. Cintean those questions. I remain puzzled as to why this case was tried, maybe Mr. Naliboff could elaborate on that.
“I question whether this is evidence of perjury.”
I do too. But, how can anyone conclude anything when only one side’s case is reported? How did you decide that there’s no basis for prosecution when your only information is your own Vanguard report (that’s absent any description of the prosecution’s evidence) and an interview with the defense attorney (quoted as saying there was “no evidence”)?
The problem that’s apparent here is that prosecutors don’t go to a trial and present “no evidence.” Mr. Naliboff’s contribution offers a portion of the case that the DA must have offered.
I’m surprised that I didn’t see the interns credited since I read yesterday’s story many times (along with the nasty responses about the crooked DA) before I raised questions about the missing pieces of the story. No response has been forthcoming from those who attended the trial.
I have to agree with you that the question of “why prosecute?” Is a good one, given the limits of the Vanguard coverage of trial. I suspect that the answer would have been obvious to those who viewed the trial even though the jury found Ms. Perez not guilty. I just wish we could have gotten some hint from yesterday’s coverage.
And, it’s not credible for the Vanguard to draw the conclusions you did about the prosecution of this case without even asking the obvious questions about what happened at the trial.
I was strongly in favor of prosecution because perjury is a felony and our evidence was in the form of a recorded conversation. Obviously the jury felt differently but that is why we have a jury system in our country. For your information it was not a one day trial but was at least a three day trial. I do not know which day your interns chose to attend. I do not know the exact number of court days as I flew out on a red eye the evening I testified. I was only in court for my testimony and would not be able to accurately comment on any other facets of the case presentation by the prosecution or defense.
From the Vanguard report: “The jury would take less than one hour to return a verdict of not guilty after a day-long trial.”
Per Bruce Naliboff: “…it was not a one day trial but was at least a three day trial.”
I guess we’ll never know what the prosecution case was unless you read the transcript as Mr. Nabiloff suggested. Perhaps you could do that and fill in the blanks of the Vanguard coverage before the August 25 session.
I’m not going to pay for transcripts. The interns covered the trial, I went back and tried to get a better picture talking to the defense attorney, I would suggest to Mr. Naliboff that if the DA’s office would talk to us like everyone else in the county, it would make for a more accurate picture of what happened.
The interns may have attended the trial (did they really?), but they obviously didn’t “cover” it or report it. What accounts for the fact that you had no information about the prosecution’s case as presented at the trial when you wrote both stories?
Are you disputing Mr. Naliboff’s claim that the trial lasted at least three days rather than just the one day that the interns “covered”?
Have you changed your opinion at all now that you’ve found out more about what the defendant and her son actually said about the trial (as recorded)? Or, are you disputing Mr. Naliboff’s description of the evidence he probably provided during the trial?
I do wish the DA would respond to your requests for comment and information without requiring an open records request. But, it’s also clear that that office has made judgments based on how the Vanguard has chosen to characterize everything it “covers.”
If reporters routinely select their facts based on preconceived notions and with a conscious agenda at play, it’s no surprise that the reporting will have no credibility except with partisans. (This is like the local equivalent of Fox News and MSNBC.). It’s a little like sending Roger Rabbit in to do the story.
It’s worse when the Vanguard represents a story as representative of an entire trial when it’s reporting only a one-sided portion. It’s even worse when the Vanguard jumps to unwarranted, unsupported criticism of the system and the prosecutors when it’s obvious to the casual observer that the reporting is so deficient.
I hope you’ll fix this. You know you’re in trouble when you have to go to the defense attorney to ask what evidence, if any, the prosecutor presented at trial. It shouldn’t surprise you that Mr. Cintean would reply, “none.” But, it surprises me that you could draw such definite conclusions from this limited analysis.
It also gives Mr. Cintean no credit for what must have been an exceptional job of defending Ms. Perez.