In the courtroom of U.S. District Court Judge Manuel Real, the latest bail hearing for Alex Sanchez, held took a sharp turn on Wednesday morning, causing Sanchez supporters to bask cautiously in what seemed to be a small but tangible glimmer of hope.
The changed atmosphere at the hearing seemed presaged when Sanchez was ushered into the courtroom in casual slacks and a shirt, rather than the jail house jumpsuit and shackles that have characterized his previous appearances. On the way in, he managed to flash his family a smile that, while it did not exactly make it to cheerful, was clearly striving for upbeat.
At the last bail hearing, Judge Real repeatedly interrupted and corrected Sanchez’s court-appointed attorney, Kerry Bensinger, disallowing most of the material that Bensinger sought to present in order to counter the prosecution’s contention that Sanchez should be denied bail as he was both dangerous and a flight risk. However yesterday’s Judge Real appeared to be in a whole different mood and, while he questioned Bensinger at times, he remained even tempered.
This time around, most of Judge Real’s most aggressive challenges were aimed at the younger of the two government prosecutors, Elizabeth Carpenter, who grew visibly flustered at Real’s sudden change in direction.
Perhaps the oddest moment in the exchange was when Carpenter told the judge that the defendant’s supporters had “publicly stated” that Sanchez “could not get a fair trial” in Real’s court.
Well, what evidence did she have of such a thing? the judge wanted to know. (Cough—this blog and the Nation magazine—cough, cough) Surely the defendant and his lawyer had not stated that?
“No, no,” said Carpenter, back-peddling rapidly, Mr. Bensinger had not made any such statements. “But the defendant’s supporters certainly have, including one who had signed an affidavit of surety.”
(At this, veteran civil rights attorney Jorge Gonzalez elbowed Tom Hayden who, at an earlier hearing, had offered his house as part of a guarantee of bail for Sanchez. Hayden studiously ignored the elbowing.)
Judge Real, however, fastened on to the statement with gusto. “But those are lay people,” he roared. “They don’t know anything about the law!” Appearing fond of his words, Real repeated them. “That’s someone who knows absolutely nothing about the law!”
Then Real fixed Carpenter with a steely gaze. Surely she wasn’t trying to paint the defendant with those statements, he asked her. At that Carpenter backed away from the subject altogether and turned to explaining why Sanchez was a flight risk.
This too, Real challenged.
Well, where exactly would he flee to? the judge wanted to know. Carpenter hesitated. “Where will he go?” Real asked again. After all, Real pointed out, Sanchez had been granted political asylum because of the danger El Salvador presented to him, did the government have any reason to believe he would flee there?
The government did. But in a complete 180 from his hardline view of Sanchez’s flight risk potential at the last bail hearing, Real further questioned the prosecution’s assumption. Carpenter was left muttering something about Sanchez fleeing to South American countries without extradition treaties while the judge looked exasperated.
Yet the most startling incident came slightly later in the hearing when Carpenter was explaining why Sanchez was too dangerous and gang involved to be granted bail and Real again challenged her assertions. Had Sanchez been arrested or had any kind of negative police contact in the years between the asylum decision and the case before the court? Sanchez asked. He had not, Carpenter admitted.
Well, Judge Real said finally, “Isn’t there a possibility that you and Mr. Bensinger can get together and choose someone, maybe the person in charge of gang programs for the City, or someone of like authority with the LAPD who could come in and testify whether they have any evidence of continuing gang involvement by Mr. Sanchez. Perhaps we could arrange for a closed hearing to allow that person to testify frankly without fear of revealing critical information.” [These notes on dialogue are approximate.]
The 40 or so observers in the court tried not to stare open-mouthed.
And with that, Judge Real ordered the hearing to resume on January 13, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. The gavel came down. And that was that.
“What to make of it?” wrote Jorge Gonzalez when he emailed me later. “Who knows? Is the Judge merely making like he is sincerely considering the defense arguments for the appellate courts and the public?” (As a trial attorney, Gonzalez is very familiar with Real and his courtroom habits.) “Maybe, but if he leaves the door open a crack [Bensinger] is obligated to stick a foot in and put forth more positive evidence for him to consider. He will make the case that surely there must be a way that, given certain conditions, the rights of the defendant and considerations of the safety of the community can be satisfied.” It looked like supporters came out of the courtroom cautiously hopeful, he said, “that they might be able to persuade the Judge of the merits of that statement.”
Tom Hayden’s reaction was similar. “Taken literally,” he wrote in his own email after the hearing, “the judge’s order means that the city’s top gang reduction official, Guillermo Cespedes, and a top LAPD gang expert appointed by the new Chief Charles Beck would be asked, or even subpoenaed, to state what they know about Alex Sanchez from the past decade. Since city and police officials have often collaborated with Sanchez in the past, the public record might place them at odds with former CRASH officer Frank Flores, the prosecution’s expert witness.”
But, like Gonzales, Hayden was reluctant to be too optimistic. “There is no predicting whether this represents an unprecedented approach to conflict resolution,” he wrote, “or merely a step by the judge to prove to the critics that he is holding an exhaustive hearing, and armor-plating himself against a future appeal, before denying Sanchez bail once again. ”
And so the all-too-human legal drama continues. Stay tuned.
PS: And, for those of you who are not as entirely riveted by the Sanchez drama as some of the rest of us, take a look at this article on the already controversial UCLA study that contends legalizing undocumented immigrants would boost California’s sagging economy. Anna Gorman reports for the LA Times.
PPS: OMG, how could I have missed this?! Apple has rented a stage at the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts in SF on January 26 [changed to Wed, 1/27] for a “a major product announcement.” OMG! OMG! Could it be? An Apple tablet! An iReader! (Cue loud version of Apple boot-up cord along with visual of Apple logo bathed in heavenly shaft of light.)
David Carr at the NY Times is busy making up possible names for the possible thang (which is already possibly named the iSlate).
Hmmm. Must cut down on consumption of food and electricity so that I can afford the doubtlessly absurdly expensive gadget if indeed it is to be introduced in exactly 20 days. (Not that I’m counting.)
(And yes, this is a social justice issue. How could you think otherwise?)
PPPS: Oh, yeah, and the governor gave some kind of speech. More on that later on.
It seems unlikely that the 10+ million people who are (officially) unemployed and struggling would be easily convinced that letting illegal aliens driving down wages and taking jobs away from Americans with families would somehow improve our economy.
In fact during times like now, it has the completely opposite effect, which is obvious to anyone, except to perhaps to idiots at the UCLA Chicano studies department.
Celeste, like most people I don’t have the time to keep up with the details of the Sanchez case, can’t offer an opinion – but I’m glad people like you are following it. If I or any of us who are commentators or just regular folk get what may be a ‘bum rap’ we sure would hope for the same.
Pokey, I’m actually supportive in principle of programs like this Chicano studies program, African and women’s studies, etc. – the university I went to even has a “queer studies” program called such and the courses are generally very worthwhile, usually things which already exist but just swept under an umbrella which gives students a ‘safe’ place to gather.
BUT I was very irked when the UCLA undergrad nursing program was severely cut back and the undergrad BSN program totally eliminated in the mid 90’s (the MSM/ Master’s program was retained), while the Chicano Studies program largely evaded the axe due to political pressure. (I remember a flap that the nursing program was cut at its expense, don’t know if that’s actually true or the details, but it’s how many perceived it.) Cal State Northridge has what may be the most well-known and “radical” such program.
This came as the Nursing Program at LA City College (Assoc. degree) had already been cut in ’87, and voila, thanks to this cut here and that one there, our hospitals had a nursing shortage. (Many LA hospitals in LA have Philipino nurses brought in under some special visa program to make up for it. I have encountered them on virtually every time I’ve been at top-rated Cedars-Sinai, by the way, and found them very sensitive and nurturing, well-suited to the profession. Kind of the opposite of ‘Nurse Jackie’ let’s say.) The program was very competitive so it had nothing to do with the quality, or lack of applicants.
Not good social policy to cut the programs this much. Especially for state-funded educational institutions, and in a city like L A where there are so many internship opportunities available – our struggling hospitals and clinics would surely welcome the help, so it’s a win-win.
In 2002, LA City College re-instituted a nursing program under pressure and funding from local hospitals Kaiser, Children’s Hospital LA, Queen of Angels/Hollywood Presbyterian. Many of the students are Latino immigrants who see the nursing assoc. degree as a good job which doesn’t require fluency in English. I’m not sure what else is going on right now at our various state institutions. I don’t think the Bachelor in Nursing is back at UCLA.
“former CRASH officer”? ???
Flores was never a CRASH officer.
I believe he may have just been hired – when LAPD CRASH was already in the process of being abolished.
Why do you connect Flores with CRASH?
What is your bias on that?
Flores is not a veteran officer….
PoPlockerone, the line you reference was a quote from Hayden.
I don’t know all that much about Flores’s background or how long he has been with the department. I assumed Tom was speaking from knowledge about Flores, but perhaps not.
In any case, that isn’t my statement, but a quote.
Okay, I just did a little quick fact checking: CRASH wasn’t disbanded until March of 2000 and in June Flores was represented as being a national expert on MS-13 who has “spent the last decade investigating” Mara Salvatrucha, so he conceivably could have been with CRASH. But I’ve not personally verified much of anything about Flores past the very cursory Google search I did just now.
Why is it a big deal, by the way?
What’s the big deal about lawyers at the bar.
The big deal is that you seem to connect Flores with the old corrupted CRASH units which makes the general public focus more on the Rampart scandal than the facts of the case – makes your so called reporting and other news outlets included too- look really bias.
Let me see – we are already in 2010. That means that if you go back 10 years of investiations – Flores would have started his MS13 investigations when the last old CRASH units were being disbanded.
The left over elite members of the old crash units, later went on to work specialized units – and continued a circle of inner friends and connections.
Flores was not part of those old CRASH units or is he one of “those” inner circle guys. Flores is a new breed of officers and in what I remember when i met him around 2004 – he was still a Police Officer II.
By the way, there are a handful of LE officers not necessary from LAPD that are experts beyond Flores’ level of expertise. They have been investigating MS13 and specifically Alex Sanchez longer than Flores.
P. I believe you (about the expertise).
Okay, the possible inaccuracy made me nuts (and I appreciate you flagging it), so 15 zillion calls later, I have the info:
Frank Flores was indeed with Hollywood CRASH—but for a very short period of time.
He joined the department in January of ’96, and as you suggested he was a P II in the ’99-2000 period.
He has worked Hollywood for much of his departmental career (although he’s on loan right now, I’m assuming having something to do with the MS-13 case, but perhaps not ).
AND from April 11, 1999 to March 12, 2000 (when it was disbanded) he was with Hollywood CRASH.
So will anyone but you or me likely care? Probably not. But I feel better knowing, one way or the other so I could either correct the reference or leave it be.
So thanks again for flagging it.
Whew. Now back to the work that I’m supposed to be doing.
“If we are going to create a solid recovery with good wages, we have to fix this hole that we have at the bottom of the labor market,” said the author, Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda, an associate professor with the UCLA Department of Chicana and Chicano Studies.”
*************************
I wonder if Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda has ever lloked at the percentage of illegal immigrants in L.A. county jails or state prison?
The DEA and other law enforcement agents get plenty of overtime and job security “working with” these immigrants.
http://www.justice.gov/dea/fugitives/san-fran/sf-list.htm
What is the mexican’s term for their manifest destiny, Reconquitsa or Aztlan ?
So in your opinion Celeste, Sanchez has been a model citizen since he founded the L.A. branch of H.U.? If so, how sure of that are you?
SBL hit it on the nose with her nursing programs thoughts, my daughter is a working and teaching RN who has to allow licensed nurses to constantly re-take required testing due to their lack of English proficiency.
It’s ridiculous.
They’re gonna put the entire Los Angeles City Council where their kind always ends up – in seven by seven foot grey-green metal cages in the fifteenth floor of some hundred-year-old penitentiary, with damp, stinking walls and wooden planks for beds.
OMG! OMG! Could it be? An Apple tablet! An iReader!
Miss Fremon – contain your enthusiasm!
SureFire, I’m absolutely positively sure of very little this case. I simply have a strong personal/professional opinion based on what I’ve learned thus far and on my experience. I continue to revise as I learn new things.
Tom Diaz, who is also not sure of what is ultimately, has his own strong opinion that leans primarily in the direction of the government’s case—based on what he has learned and his experience. Between the two of us you probably get a fairly thorough POV, which is why I repeatedly link to him. (And we exchange info in between, as I do with others, not all of whom are Sanchez supporters.)
That way readers may come to their own conclusions.
Yet, whatever the outcome I think this is an important and extremely interesting case to follow for a whole host of reasons. So does Diaz.
Thus I think it’s a pity that the LA Times has, thus far, dismissed it as unimportant, and basically a done deal.
That to me, does the reader a disservice.
Ortense, I wouldn’t dream of containing my enthusiasm. I’m horrified at the very thought of it. (And at the very least, the iTablet part of the post made my son laugh—which I thought a worthy goal.)
Sure Fire, I wasn’t so much lamenting that Latinos not totally proficient in English are going into nursing (the more who have successful careers the better) – although I sure hope they don’t mess up the prescriptions and instructions and so on, and there IS a lot of computer data to be entered carefully these days, so it’s no small matter – but that the lack of foresight caused a nursing shortage which hospitals later had to scramble to fill, AND killed the dreams of many Californians who wanted to be nurses.
Doing a little research, it seems that UC had to cut its budget by a whopping 30% in ’94, so it cut out its very competitive Bachelor SN program, forcing would-be nurses to compete for spots at Cal State Northridge, which at the same time cut its entering class from 50 to 30 and had hundreds of applicants. Even as the Chicano studies programs were saved and currently, Cal State Northrdige’s website boasts it’s the biggest of its kind in the country, with 60 full and p/t professors. Maybe these choices were made because it cost more to educate nurses with all the lab time required and so on, but still, public institutions should somehow have factored in the public good. While we don’t want a Chinese-style command economy where the state determines what majors are “needed” and how many slots are available (Woody may like this though, but I don’t think accountants are considered an essential career, unless you consider state planning), some coordination between public-private entities should be one factor in deciding what to cut – you’d think.
(UCLA nursing aspirants had been admitted to the general BS program and couldn’t declare a major until their jr. year, mostly studying biomed til then, when they could choose a major and apply to the nursing program – but it was cut out from under them. They then had to get in line behind students already at Cal State Northridge for those fewer spots…meanwhile the LACity college BA had been terminated in 87…when that was reinstituted in 02 by private funding, the students had fewer spots to transfer to for their BSN and so on…Really bad domino effect, bad public policy, all these cuts coming at once.)
I’m more riveted by the Judge Real drama. This guy is friggin looney.
[…] Shared Alex Sanchez: Part 9 – Judicial Whiplash & “Real†Surprises. […]