The present: DA investigates allegations of bribery
Since last July, the Santa Barbara DA’s office has been looking closely at Santa Maria City Attorney Art Montandon
BY ABRAHAM HYATT
On June 18 of 2003, Santa Barbara County District Attorney Deputy Prosecutor Kimberly Smith walked into a Santa Maria courtroom.
That wasn’t an unusual day for Smith: She was the assigned prosecutor for People v. April and Irene Cummings–the highly publicized criminal prostitution case that involved two Santa Maria women. And while the case was spicier than the area was used to, the day was routine in that it was supposed to simply be a time for Smith to finish arguing why the sisters should be brought to trial.
But after entering the courtroom, Smith’s day took a surprising turn.
In a declaration she signed in December, Smith said she was called into the judge’s chambers along with the defense team and Santa Maria City Attorney Art Montandon. The meeting, she was told, was off the record at the city attorney’s request. Smith said that at that time, Montandon asked the court to release original audio evidence tapes from the Cummings case to him because of “allegations of tampering.”
To explain why that was so surprising to Smith and the rest of DA’s office, it’s necessary to look at a criminal case in terms of sides. Using a sting operation, the Santa Maria Police Department had investigated the Cummings sisters, then turned the case over to the DA’s office.
On the other side of the court, the defense team, made up of Michael Clayton and Michael Scott, was defending the women against those charges. But here was Montandon, a city employee, apparently siding with the defense.
In late January of 2004, Smith didn’t return phone calls regarding the case, but her supervisor, Assistant DA Christie Stanley, was quick to describe why his behavior was so unusual.
First off, she said, she’s never seen a city attorney seemingly ally him or herself with the defense. It happens often enough, she said, that the defense will claim that a piece of evidence has been tampered with, and when that happens her office has its and the defense’s experts check it out.
“But [Montandon] was behaving in a way that was very unusual,” she said. “It was like [he was] behind the scenes, trying to do things that were just not right.”
And as for his side, Montandon declined to return repeated phone calls regarding this story. A Jan. 22 press release from the city stated that the attorney had “legitimately inquired about evidence,” and claimed that the DA’s office had never “contacted the city for its side of the story.”
Back in that June 18 courtroom, Smith said the judge denied Montandon’s request and told him to make a formal request to the DA’s office and that any request should also be served to all parties. According to Smith’s report, Montandon never made any such request.
And, according to her declaration, that wasn’t the only contact she had with Montandon. Not only did she describe seeing him talking to defense attorney Clayton at the Cummings’ preliminary hearing, she also said she discovered that Montandon allegedly contacted the Santa Maria Police Department looking for evidence seized in the prostitution case. And the reason he was looking, Smith claimed, was that he had a defense expert report that alleged “evidence tampering.”
In her statement, she said she was alarmed to find that the city attorney claimed to have such a report. Smith said she called Montandon and asked for a copy, but was told that due to a pending internal affairs investigation, Montandon “could and would not provide a copy.”
She said that Montandon then asked her for a piece of evidence–a page from the Cummings’ appointment book that allegedly contained then-Police Chief John Sterling’s name–on behalf of Clayton.
Smith said she asked Montandon why he was making a request on behalf of the defense attorney when the city attorney wasn’t even involved with the trial. No answer is recorded, but Smith then said she advised Montandon to abide by the law and let the defense team make a formal request to the DA.
That echoes what Stanley said months later regarding her office’s standard protocol. She said if Montandon had a question about any piece of evidence, the appropriate procedure would have been for him to contact the DA’s office and let them know there was a problem.
“The way it was done and some of the statements that were made were just very upsetting,” she said. “Never since the 1980s, when I started with the DA’s office, have I ever seen any city attorney behave that way.”
E-mails and videos
At about the same time that Smith was interacting with Montandon, Stanley’s office heard rumors that someone pretending to be from the DA’s office was offering the Cummings sisters an unspecified deal.
The DA’s office later confirmed that the allegation was not true, but did discover this: Santa Maria activist Joe Furcinite of Recall Our City Council had helped the women type up affidavits about Montandon’s interaction with them. No deals had been offered, but the sisters and Furcinite had hoped those statements would have some effect on the DA’s prosecution.
In those statements, both Irene and April allege the city attorney called them in May of 2003 and offered them a deal in exchange for a copy of a specific videotape he thought they had.
And this is where the story gets really convoluted. At some point before 2003, William “BJ” Wagener alleged he shot a video of then-Police Chief John Sterling entering the Cummings’ massage parlor. Since then, Wagener has refused to comment on the existence of the alleged videotape. And Sterling adamantly maintains he has never been to any
massage parlor.
Regardless of that, the Cummings sisters claim that several months after the chief had been placed on administrative leave, the city attorney was looking for the alleged tape.
In her affidavit, April quoted Montandon as saying to her: “You just won the lottery. You just have to go find the ticket, and the ticket is the videotape that BJ has.”
As for why he was so set on getting the tape, Irene remembers him saying it was because he wanted to “make sure [Sterling] never holds office.”
Irene also alleges that Montandon met with her and her lawyer, Clayton, and offered to get them an evidence expert to use in court in exchange for a copy of the Sterling videotape. Along with Montandon, neither April’s nor Irene’s lawyers have answered repeated phone calls about these
allegations.
But there’s perhaps more than just he-said-she-said accusations here. The Sun has an e-mail that appears to be between Irene and Montandon, and has confirmed that the accounts listed on it are active.
Montandon allegedly hasn’t denied having e-mail contact with the women either. In court documents the DA filed in the Cummings case, Montandon allegedly admitted to Smith that April had e-mailed him. After that, the city attorney allegedly offered to continue to communicate with the sisters.
It’s that kind of alleged behavior that has the DA’s office up in arms. In those same documents, Smith is quoted as saying she told Montandon “it would be totally inappropriate for anyone to communicate with a represented defendant, through him or otherwise.”
Stanley, Smith’s supervisor, said that the reason his contact would be so “totally inappropriate” is because attorneys have an ethical duty to not communicate with people who are represented by other attorneys–especially in a criminal case.
And that’s not just Stanley’s opinion, either: The court document her office filed in the Cummings case listed four Superior and Supreme Court rulings that define why Montandon’s alleged behavior could be construed as inappropriate.
When is a bribe not a bribe?
As the DA’s office worked to compile information about Montandon’s involvement in the Cummings case, an unknown individual told them that Montandon had allegedly offered a bribe to Wagener’s attorney, James Holland.
DA Chief Criminal Investigator David Saunders sat down with Holland on Oct. 15, and at that time, Holland allegedly said he got a call from Montandon back in June.
In a DA office memo that chronicled that interview, Saunders said Holland and the city attorney talked about the college they’d both graduated from and the work Montandon had done in Atascadero (see “The past,” page 8), and then the conversation turned to several issues that Montandon wanted to take care of in a “global settlement.”
According to the memo, Holland said that in return for the alleged Sterling tape, Montandon would resolve both a lawsuit Wagener had filed against the city and why the city had stopped the broadcast of one of Wagener’s public-access shows last year. On top of all that, Holland said the city would pay Wagener and him an unspecified amount of money, and Montandon would “make the Cummings case go away.” DA officials feel these offers could be construed as a bribe.
But now, a little more than three months later, Holland denies making those statements, despite the fact the DA’s office claims to have a tape of that conversation.
Saunders is completely wrong in saying he was told that Montandon offered a bribe, Holland said. “I didn’t say that to Saunders. It’s not true.”
No Comment, But
"Because we are not making comment at this stage doesn't
mean that we are not looking very closely into this situation,"
said Santa Maria Mayor Larry Lavagnino in regard to the
allegations surrounding City Attorney Art Montandon. [/b]
Holland went on to say that Montandon did communicate with him, but only as two lawyers discussing a civil suit that had already been filed against the city of Santa Maria. Holland said that when a civil action is filed, it’s not unusual for the subject of money to come up, and he and Montandon were well within their rights to discuss a monetary settlement.
“And to the extent that Saunders says that I admitted or agreed that there was a bribe, that’s just flat wrong,” he said. “That’s just false.”
Despite Holland’s claim that Saunders misrepresented his statements, Holland didn’t deny another part of the DA investigator’s memo: that Holland and Montandon had discussed Wagener’s alleged videotape. When asked, Holland said it wasn’t a strange turn for the conversation to take. They had been talking about Wagener, and since Wagener had allegedly shot the video, it was natural for the conversation to turn to the alleged tape itself.
As for why Montandon would feel the need to bring up that supposed tape, it was Holland’s theory that the city attorney was looking for evidence to justify, after the fact, that the city was right in firing Sterling.
“Montandon had stated to me,” he said, “[that he wanted the alleged tape] because it would assist him in defending against the efforts of the POA.” Holland quickly corrected himself and said that it had been too long since that original conversation, and that he wasn’t sure if Montandon had actually referred to the Santa Maria Police Officers Association. “But it was clear he wanted to use it,” Holland continued, “in defending his decision to have fired Sterling.”
In response, Saunders said he was unable to comment on Holland’s denial.
An unclear future
As of Wednesday, Jan. 28, the day before this story was printed, neither Art Montandon nor the Cummings’ lawyers, Michael Clayton and Michael Scott, had replied to repeated phone calls made over the course of seven days.
Irene Cummings was uncertain how the allegations would affect any future litigation; the city council’s response to the entire situation was unclear (see “The future” on page 14); and the DA’s office was waiting to make a decision on future action.
One way to look at the DA’s side is to say its office investigated Montandon for offering bribes: “It appeared he was offering to do something in return for something else,” DA’s Stanley said. “So it could be classified as that.”
But, she said, her office didn’t investigate him as a person; they simply conducted an investigation and turned up things that were “out of the ordinary and unusual.” Stanley said that it seemed to the DA’s office that Montandon’s behavior could constitute an interference with the criminal case. And so they put together everything they could and filed it with the Cummings’ judge so that he would have no doubt that the DA’s office was not involved in Montandon’s alleged actions.
“Obstruction of justice is sometimes the shorthand phrase. That or [section] 148 of the penal code,” she said, describing what Montandon’s behavior could be construed as. “Our main goal in filing that document was to protect whatever kind of conviction that might occur.”
And as for what comes next, Stanley said her office hadn’t decided on any specific course of action. Almost any decision’s available, she said, ranging from nothing all the way up to criminal prosecution.
“But we certainly haven’t made a decision yet,” she said.
Sun Arts Editor Abraham Hyatt can be reached at ahyatt@santamariasun.com.
Source: http://www.santamariasun.com/archives/cove...v_01282004.html
Since last July, the Santa Barbara DA’s office has been looking closely at Santa Maria City Attorney Art Montandon
BY ABRAHAM HYATT
On June 18 of 2003, Santa Barbara County District Attorney Deputy Prosecutor Kimberly Smith walked into a Santa Maria courtroom.
That wasn’t an unusual day for Smith: She was the assigned prosecutor for People v. April and Irene Cummings–the highly publicized criminal prostitution case that involved two Santa Maria women. And while the case was spicier than the area was used to, the day was routine in that it was supposed to simply be a time for Smith to finish arguing why the sisters should be brought to trial.
But after entering the courtroom, Smith’s day took a surprising turn.
In a declaration she signed in December, Smith said she was called into the judge’s chambers along with the defense team and Santa Maria City Attorney Art Montandon. The meeting, she was told, was off the record at the city attorney’s request. Smith said that at that time, Montandon asked the court to release original audio evidence tapes from the Cummings case to him because of “allegations of tampering.”
To explain why that was so surprising to Smith and the rest of DA’s office, it’s necessary to look at a criminal case in terms of sides. Using a sting operation, the Santa Maria Police Department had investigated the Cummings sisters, then turned the case over to the DA’s office.
On the other side of the court, the defense team, made up of Michael Clayton and Michael Scott, was defending the women against those charges. But here was Montandon, a city employee, apparently siding with the defense.
In late January of 2004, Smith didn’t return phone calls regarding the case, but her supervisor, Assistant DA Christie Stanley, was quick to describe why his behavior was so unusual.
First off, she said, she’s never seen a city attorney seemingly ally him or herself with the defense. It happens often enough, she said, that the defense will claim that a piece of evidence has been tampered with, and when that happens her office has its and the defense’s experts check it out.
“But [Montandon] was behaving in a way that was very unusual,” she said. “It was like [he was] behind the scenes, trying to do things that were just not right.”
And as for his side, Montandon declined to return repeated phone calls regarding this story. A Jan. 22 press release from the city stated that the attorney had “legitimately inquired about evidence,” and claimed that the DA’s office had never “contacted the city for its side of the story.”
Back in that June 18 courtroom, Smith said the judge denied Montandon’s request and told him to make a formal request to the DA’s office and that any request should also be served to all parties. According to Smith’s report, Montandon never made any such request.
And, according to her declaration, that wasn’t the only contact she had with Montandon. Not only did she describe seeing him talking to defense attorney Clayton at the Cummings’ preliminary hearing, she also said she discovered that Montandon allegedly contacted the Santa Maria Police Department looking for evidence seized in the prostitution case. And the reason he was looking, Smith claimed, was that he had a defense expert report that alleged “evidence tampering.”
In her statement, she said she was alarmed to find that the city attorney claimed to have such a report. Smith said she called Montandon and asked for a copy, but was told that due to a pending internal affairs investigation, Montandon “could and would not provide a copy.”
She said that Montandon then asked her for a piece of evidence–a page from the Cummings’ appointment book that allegedly contained then-Police Chief John Sterling’s name–on behalf of Clayton.
Smith said she asked Montandon why he was making a request on behalf of the defense attorney when the city attorney wasn’t even involved with the trial. No answer is recorded, but Smith then said she advised Montandon to abide by the law and let the defense team make a formal request to the DA.
That echoes what Stanley said months later regarding her office’s standard protocol. She said if Montandon had a question about any piece of evidence, the appropriate procedure would have been for him to contact the DA’s office and let them know there was a problem.
“The way it was done and some of the statements that were made were just very upsetting,” she said. “Never since the 1980s, when I started with the DA’s office, have I ever seen any city attorney behave that way.”
E-mails and videos
At about the same time that Smith was interacting with Montandon, Stanley’s office heard rumors that someone pretending to be from the DA’s office was offering the Cummings sisters an unspecified deal.
The DA’s office later confirmed that the allegation was not true, but did discover this: Santa Maria activist Joe Furcinite of Recall Our City Council had helped the women type up affidavits about Montandon’s interaction with them. No deals had been offered, but the sisters and Furcinite had hoped those statements would have some effect on the DA’s prosecution.
In those statements, both Irene and April allege the city attorney called them in May of 2003 and offered them a deal in exchange for a copy of a specific videotape he thought they had.
And this is where the story gets really convoluted. At some point before 2003, William “BJ” Wagener alleged he shot a video of then-Police Chief John Sterling entering the Cummings’ massage parlor. Since then, Wagener has refused to comment on the existence of the alleged videotape. And Sterling adamantly maintains he has never been to any
massage parlor.
Regardless of that, the Cummings sisters claim that several months after the chief had been placed on administrative leave, the city attorney was looking for the alleged tape.
In her affidavit, April quoted Montandon as saying to her: “You just won the lottery. You just have to go find the ticket, and the ticket is the videotape that BJ has.”
As for why he was so set on getting the tape, Irene remembers him saying it was because he wanted to “make sure [Sterling] never holds office.”
Irene also alleges that Montandon met with her and her lawyer, Clayton, and offered to get them an evidence expert to use in court in exchange for a copy of the Sterling videotape. Along with Montandon, neither April’s nor Irene’s lawyers have answered repeated phone calls about these
allegations.
But there’s perhaps more than just he-said-she-said accusations here. The Sun has an e-mail that appears to be between Irene and Montandon, and has confirmed that the accounts listed on it are active.
Montandon allegedly hasn’t denied having e-mail contact with the women either. In court documents the DA filed in the Cummings case, Montandon allegedly admitted to Smith that April had e-mailed him. After that, the city attorney allegedly offered to continue to communicate with the sisters.
It’s that kind of alleged behavior that has the DA’s office up in arms. In those same documents, Smith is quoted as saying she told Montandon “it would be totally inappropriate for anyone to communicate with a represented defendant, through him or otherwise.”
Stanley, Smith’s supervisor, said that the reason his contact would be so “totally inappropriate” is because attorneys have an ethical duty to not communicate with people who are represented by other attorneys–especially in a criminal case.
And that’s not just Stanley’s opinion, either: The court document her office filed in the Cummings case listed four Superior and Supreme Court rulings that define why Montandon’s alleged behavior could be construed as inappropriate.
When is a bribe not a bribe?
As the DA’s office worked to compile information about Montandon’s involvement in the Cummings case, an unknown individual told them that Montandon had allegedly offered a bribe to Wagener’s attorney, James Holland.
DA Chief Criminal Investigator David Saunders sat down with Holland on Oct. 15, and at that time, Holland allegedly said he got a call from Montandon back in June.
In a DA office memo that chronicled that interview, Saunders said Holland and the city attorney talked about the college they’d both graduated from and the work Montandon had done in Atascadero (see “The past,” page 8), and then the conversation turned to several issues that Montandon wanted to take care of in a “global settlement.”
According to the memo, Holland said that in return for the alleged Sterling tape, Montandon would resolve both a lawsuit Wagener had filed against the city and why the city had stopped the broadcast of one of Wagener’s public-access shows last year. On top of all that, Holland said the city would pay Wagener and him an unspecified amount of money, and Montandon would “make the Cummings case go away.” DA officials feel these offers could be construed as a bribe.
But now, a little more than three months later, Holland denies making those statements, despite the fact the DA’s office claims to have a tape of that conversation.
Saunders is completely wrong in saying he was told that Montandon offered a bribe, Holland said. “I didn’t say that to Saunders. It’s not true.”
No Comment, But
"Because we are not making comment at this stage doesn't
mean that we are not looking very closely into this situation,"
said Santa Maria Mayor Larry Lavagnino in regard to the
allegations surrounding City Attorney Art Montandon. [/b]
Holland went on to say that Montandon did communicate with him, but only as two lawyers discussing a civil suit that had already been filed against the city of Santa Maria. Holland said that when a civil action is filed, it’s not unusual for the subject of money to come up, and he and Montandon were well within their rights to discuss a monetary settlement.
“And to the extent that Saunders says that I admitted or agreed that there was a bribe, that’s just flat wrong,” he said. “That’s just false.”
Despite Holland’s claim that Saunders misrepresented his statements, Holland didn’t deny another part of the DA investigator’s memo: that Holland and Montandon had discussed Wagener’s alleged videotape. When asked, Holland said it wasn’t a strange turn for the conversation to take. They had been talking about Wagener, and since Wagener had allegedly shot the video, it was natural for the conversation to turn to the alleged tape itself.
As for why Montandon would feel the need to bring up that supposed tape, it was Holland’s theory that the city attorney was looking for evidence to justify, after the fact, that the city was right in firing Sterling.
“Montandon had stated to me,” he said, “[that he wanted the alleged tape] because it would assist him in defending against the efforts of the POA.” Holland quickly corrected himself and said that it had been too long since that original conversation, and that he wasn’t sure if Montandon had actually referred to the Santa Maria Police Officers Association. “But it was clear he wanted to use it,” Holland continued, “in defending his decision to have fired Sterling.”
In response, Saunders said he was unable to comment on Holland’s denial.
An unclear future
As of Wednesday, Jan. 28, the day before this story was printed, neither Art Montandon nor the Cummings’ lawyers, Michael Clayton and Michael Scott, had replied to repeated phone calls made over the course of seven days.
Irene Cummings was uncertain how the allegations would affect any future litigation; the city council’s response to the entire situation was unclear (see “The future” on page 14); and the DA’s office was waiting to make a decision on future action.
One way to look at the DA’s side is to say its office investigated Montandon for offering bribes: “It appeared he was offering to do something in return for something else,” DA’s Stanley said. “So it could be classified as that.”
But, she said, her office didn’t investigate him as a person; they simply conducted an investigation and turned up things that were “out of the ordinary and unusual.” Stanley said that it seemed to the DA’s office that Montandon’s behavior could constitute an interference with the criminal case. And so they put together everything they could and filed it with the Cummings’ judge so that he would have no doubt that the DA’s office was not involved in Montandon’s alleged actions.
“Obstruction of justice is sometimes the shorthand phrase. That or [section] 148 of the penal code,” she said, describing what Montandon’s behavior could be construed as. “Our main goal in filing that document was to protect whatever kind of conviction that might occur.”
And as for what comes next, Stanley said her office hadn’t decided on any specific course of action. Almost any decision’s available, she said, ranging from nothing all the way up to criminal prosecution.
“But we certainly haven’t made a decision yet,” she said.
Sun Arts Editor Abraham Hyatt can be reached at ahyatt@santamariasun.com.
Source: http://www.santamariasun.com/archives/cove...v_01282004.html