By Luke Thomas and Kat Anderson
Editor’s Note: This report has been modified since it was first published.
February 22, 2012
San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi filed a motion today to exclude key evidence from jury consideration during his upcoming criminal trial.
The opposition brief, filed by Mirkarimi defense attorney Lidia Stiglich, argues statements made to police by neighbors, Ivory Madison and Callie Williams, are inadmissible under rules of evidence because they are considered “hearsay” statements.
The prosecution, led by Assistant District Attorney Liz Aguilar-Tarchi, maintains Madison and Williams’ statements are admissible because they are “excited utterances” or are offered to show the alleged victim’s state of mind, two exceptions to the hearsay rule.
Mirkarimi is facing three criminal misdemeanor charges stemming from an alleged domestic violence incident involving his wife, Eliana Lopez, on New Year’s Eve. Mirkarimi and Lopez have repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and believe there is a political element to the prosecution.
Madison first reported to police the alleged New Year’s Eve incident on January 4th. A 45-second video seized by police, documents a bruise on Lopez’ right arm and contains a statement by Lopez.
“This happened yesterday, um, the end of 2011, and this is the second time this is happening,” Lopez says to Madison on the video. “And I tell Ross I want to work on the marriage, we need help, I have been telling him we need help, and I am going to use this just in case he wants to take Theo away from me. Because he did, he said that, that he’s very powerful, and he can, he can do it.”
Court documents paint a picture of a couple experiencing marriage difficulties with concerns over a possible divorce and child custody battle.
Madison, who recorded the video of Lopez’s bruise at Madison’s urging and with Lopez’ permission, told police, “I really thought that we would never have to use this video unless [Mirkarimi] got nasty in the divorce proceedings,” according to Stiglich’s motion.
Mirkarimi was charged with domestic violence, child endangerment and dissuading a witness, January 13, and subsequently ordered separated from his wife and the couple’s two-year old son, Theo. He was repatriated with his son, February 8, following a modification to the stay away order by a family court judge.
Immediately prior to today’s pre-trial conference hearing with presiding Judge Susan Breall in Department 24, Mirkarimi shared his joy at being repatriated with his son.
“I’m overjoyed,” a smiling Mirkarimi responded to FCJ inquiry.
Before their reunion, Theo had been suffering from a stress-related rash, Mirkarimi said. When their visits began, “[Theo] bounced back in a second. His rash went away immediately.”
“I’m just hoping this will end soon so we can get back to some normalcy,” Mirkarimi added.
Mirkarimi also discussed his recent work-related activities in the Sheriff’s department including several high-level staff appointments.
“We’ve got a great, talented pool of people in the Sheriff’s department,” he said.
Mirkarimi also said he has begun an initiative to collect, analyze and assess San Francisco foreclosure data which could be used to challenge “questionable” foreclosure evictions.
The Sheriff’s department is tasked with performing evictions.
“What the City needs is an advocate on behalf of those being foreclosed upon,” Mirkarimi said.
Mirkarimi is due back at the Hall of Justice on Friday at 9am in Department 17 when his criminal trial is set to begin following judge assignment, pre-trial motion rulings and jury selection.
As he left Breall’s courtroom, Mirkarimi told a scrum of reporters, “Sorry to disappoint you guys. There’s nothing to talk about.”
February 26, 2012 at 4:12 pm
I called Ross and recorded what he had to say about the Sheriff’s Dept. and foreclosures, for about half an hour, for KPFA, yesterday. He had a lot more to say than I was able to include in four minutes, but here’s that: http://www.anngarrison.com/audio/san-francisco-sheriff-ross-mirkarimi-on-challenging-illegal-foreclosures
February 26, 2012 at 4:10 pm
I called Ross Mirkarimi and recorded what he had to say about the Sheriff’s Dept. and foreclosures, for about half an hour, for KPFA, yesterday. He had a lot more to say than I was able to include in this four minutes, but here’s that: http://www.anngarrison.com/audio/san-francisco-sheriff-ross-mirkarimi-on-challenging-illegal-foreclosures
February 24, 2012 at 2:25 pm
George Gascon was sworn in as District Attorney on January 5, 2012. In less than two months, how can he judged on his eagerness or lack thereof to prosecute domestic violence cases. The first paragraph of the article Anderson cites is a bit misleading as how could Gascon as district attorney drop as many as 1000 cases in 2011 when he wasn’t even the DA. If you read the article in full, both the police department and DA have an enviable record of charging and prosecuting domestic violence cases. These cases are difficult to prosecute. Victims of domestic violence also have the option of obtaining a civil restraining order against their batterers under the Domestic Violence Protection Act.
February 24, 2012 at 11:02 am
According to this report, Gascon usually isn’t particularly eager to prosecute domestic violence. Could it have been all the publicity in Mirkarimi’s case that lead to an unwise prosecution?
http://www.citireport.com/2012/02/da-gascon-dropped-hundreds-of-domestic-violence-cases-denies-records-exist/
February 23, 2012 at 2:12 pm
Who is handling the website at the Sheriff’s office?
Michael Hennessey is still listed, and pictured, as sheriff:
http://www.sfsheriff.com/sheriff.htm
http://www.sfsheriff.com/SHF%20Org%20Chrt%202-16-2010.pdf.
February 23, 2012 at 11:51 am
Sheriff Mirkarimi’s statements about exploring the potential engagement of his office n the battle against illegal foreclosures is the most significant in this report. Thank you for that, Luke.
Guess we’ll see whether any of the other reports about this include it.
February 23, 2012 at 7:02 am
I assume that if Mirkarimi loses the hearsay argument, he will assert that anything said to Madison, including the video, should be excluded under the attorney-client privilege. Although Madison graduated from law school, she is not licensed to practice law. Mirkarimi will argue that Lopez knew Madison graduated from law school and thought she was talking to an attorney. An interesting argument.
February 22, 2012 at 10:21 pm
Thank you for your independent and objective reporting on this matter.
Mark