On Tuesday, defendant Roxanne Perez was acquitted by a Yolo County jury of a perjury charge based on what the district attorney’s office tried to claim represented untruthful answers on a survey and during voir dire for the trial of Marco Topete. Mr. Topete was ultimately found guilty of the 2008 murder of Sheriff’s Deputy Tony Diaz and sentenced to the death penalty.
During the lengthy jury selection process of the Topete trial in 2011, that was interrupted by the illness of Defense Attorney Tom Purtell, Roxanne Perez filled out her jury form and then was questioned about whether the fact that her son was convicted of a crime and serving prison time would influence her ability to render a fair verdict.
The DA’s office contended that Ms. Perez three times denied talking with her son about the Topete trial. Her son was incarcerated for a 2001 murder and their conversation was captured by the prison’s surveillance system.
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 to convince a jury that Ms. Perez was deceptive in her answers.
Defense Attorney Alin Cintean volunteered to defend Ms. Perez pro bono. He utilized sympathy and humanization throughout the trial and focused his closing argument on an emotional plea, as well as an incomplete record that could not definitively establish the content of the defendant’s conversation. Ms. Perez and her son never specifically mentioned the Topete trial by name – her son only mentioned that he forgot she had jury duty. The DA took from this that they had had previous discussions.
Deputy DA Tokhi, prosecuting Ms. Perez, instead emphasized details, enumerated the responsibilities of jurors in the justice system and warned against the defense’s attempts to invoke sympathy.
While Mr. Tokhi’s closing argument clearly attempted to portray the case as a straightforward matter of Ms. Perez not fulfilling her constitutional obligation as a juror to be honest and truthful, Mr. Cintean completely reframed the issues involved, in his own closing argument.
Mr. Cintean said that the case was not about Perez’s alleged perjury at all, but rather about the opinion she expressed while being polled as a potential juror; namely, that she would be capable of impartiality despite having a son in prison. This, Mr. Cintean argued, is not what they wanted to hear.
Mr. Cintean drew particular attention to the prosecution’s efforts to strip sentimentality from their case against Perez.
“The DA cut out, mysteriously, Roxanne’s human nature – of being a caring person about her son, and them telling each other they love one another,” he said.
Mr. Cintean told the Vanguard after the trial that Ms. Perez’ son, Michael Perez, had been convicted of murder in 2001, but that conviction was overturned by the appellate court and Mr. Perez has been brought back to Yolo County where he remains in custody awaiting his new trial.
Mr. Cintean believes that the prosecution was motivated in part due to their anger after the overturning of Mr. Perez’ conviction – which was obtained by District Attorney David Henderson – rather than any wrongdoing by Ms. Perez. Mr. Henderson also served as jury consultant during the Topete trial, and likely was able to connect Ms. Perez to her son (whose case his office prosecuted).
In the defense’s closing arguments it was noted that the DA clearly identified Michael Perez as a known “gang member” and Mr. Cintean suggested to the jury that this may have influenced the DA’s office to pursue criminal charges.
Mr. Tokhi argued that the system relies on an honest and impartial jury.
In his rebuttal, Mr. Tokhi brought attention back to the alleged lie, reemphasized the importance of honesty in the judicial system, and attempted to explain his reasons for cutting out the sentimental part on the audio recording.
Mr. Tokhi stated that the judge asked Ms. Perez three times about whether or not she had talked to her son about the case, and all three times she responded, “No.”
He also added that lawyers like him depend on the judicial system, specifically the jurors’ honesty, to put away convicts such as those in burglary, prostitution or even execution cases.
Additionally, he made it clear as to why he did not include the sentimental part between Ms. Perez and her son, saying that was because he felt that it was irrelevant to the case. He stated further that, while some criminals are indeed good people, they commit prison-worthy crimes all the same.
Mr. Cintean’s defense included a tape recording of a brief, casual discussion between Ms. Perez and her son Michael, currently in prison. This stood in contrast to the framing of a conversation between the two by the prosecution, which focused on facts and omitted the human element of the relationship between the mother and son.
The critical point was that there were never any direct mention of the details about the case, the name of prosecutors, defense attorney, or the judge. The DA claims that when the son says, “Oh yeah you have to go back on the 22nd, I forgot about that,” that it suggests that they had previously discussed the case in depth. However, the defense argues there is no evidence of this.
Instead, they argued that she did nothing wrong and there is no real proof that she and her son had talked about the case that she was being considered for.
He stated that the DA’s office deleted parts of the audio because they did not want the jurors to hear sentiment, her humanity or her honesty, and she did nothing wrong. Mr. Cintean stated, “It was not about lying, but about what Ms. Perez was thinking at the time.”
There was a lack of evidence on the part of the DA’s office, a lack of proof to show she had any ill intent, Mr. Cintean contended
Mr. Cintean also brought in witnesses to defend Perez’s moral rectitude, including her supervisor at Walgreen’s, Shana Compton, and her ex-husband, Adrian Perez. Ms. Compton described Ms. Perez as respected at her job, while Mr. Perez called her an honest person.
The jury would take less than one hour to return a verdict of not guilty after a day-long trial.
—David Greenwald with Anthony Rascon-Ramos and Rohit Ravikumar
Note: Alin Cintean and 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.
[quote]Mr. Tokhi brought attention back to the alleged lie, reemphasized the importance of honesty in the judicial system, [/quote]
I find this statement quite ironic in view of the fact that the police frequently use deception, obfuscation, and in some cases outright lies to obtain information when they feel it is warranted. So are we to believe
that honesty is only important on the part of defendants and jurors but not on the part of policy and prosecutors ?
The most shocking thing here from what I have heard is how much the county paid to Dave Henderson here for his “expert” testimony. I didn’t realize how low the DA’s office could stoop, this is a new low one and they bring in the corpse of Dave Henderson on the taxpayer’s dime as the coup de grace.
Money is no object for crooked DA Reisig. He pays felons all the time to testify the way he wants. They paid Bruce Nboff money too. Once you prove you will cover for DA Reisig, you will always be well paid and well taken care of.
Typical stuff that repeats itself over and over again. Hidden evidence, lost witnesses, omission of the truth, confused testimony, lost evidence, dirty deals with convicted felons, expert witnesses PAID WELL, no hole it too low for Mr. Reisig.
And the people of Yolo keep voting for the same false, deceptive, poor excuse of boy, Jeff Boy. Wonder if he is still taking roids, that could explain his confused state of reality when it comes to the truth or ethics.
and she was not chosen as a juror? not clear from article. Either way,
this is ridiculous! How much money was spent on this?
Not chosen as a juror.
not chosen as a juror yet brought to trial? Wish more lawyers had weighed in on this! I am amazed as a non lawyer.
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?[quote].”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….”[/quote] 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.”[quote]”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….”[/quote]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.