SAN FRANCISCO — The defense sought to undermine the credibility of the prosecution’s key witness and bolster its theory that disputed financial transactions were authorized rather than stolen during a July 8 jury trial in San Francisco Superior Court. Through an extensive cross-examination, Deputy Public Defender McMahon challenged the alleged victim’s recollection, financial oversight, professional background and relationship with the accused in an effort to cast doubt on the prosecution’s allegation that the accused stole $180,000 from the Seal Rock Inn.
The accused is charged with grand theft of personal property, allegedly stealing $180,000 from the Seal Rock Inn, a family-run motel. In his opening statement and throughout cross-examination, DPD McMahon argued the motel’s general manager at the time, referred to as the alleged victim, had been having an affair with the accused and knowingly authorized the disputed payments as part of that relationship. The alleged victim denied having any romantic or physical relationship with the accused.
McMahon began his cross-examination by focusing on the alleged victim’s professional background, stating, “You’re a licensed attorney … went to Stanford Law School … 20-something years in the real estate industry.” He then questioned the witness about his role in the family business, his financial responsibilities and his career path. The alleged victim testified that he worked in real estate from 2014 to 2019.
When asked about his real estate holdings, the alleged victim replied, “I think I own one property in California.”
McMahon next turned to the alleged victim’s association with the law firm Southwell. Although the firm’s website lists him as a partner, the alleged victim denied being a “partner,” testifying that he had only “facilitated as a broker for a single time.” McMahon pointed out that the website also featured the alleged victim’s photograph. The alleged victim testified that he had requested to be removed from the website but had been unable to contact anyone at Southwell.
McMahon then questioned the alleged victim about the website’s representation that he remained licensed to practice law. He suggested the alleged victim “falsely advertise[s] legal services,” despite having been disbarred in 2023, arguing such conduct would violate bar rules. The allegation was presented as part of the defense’s effort to challenge the witness’s credibility.
After the alleged victim testified that he was unaware the website remained online, McMahon asked, “You realize you can Google your name and this firm?” McMahon then remarked that, in addition to being the “victim” of losing $180,000, the alleged victim was also a “victim” of “fake advertising” by his “partner.” The alleged victim responded, “I did not think of myself as a victim.”
McMahon also questioned why a “highly educated attorney who knows how to sue people” had not filed a civil lawsuit against the accused. The alleged victim testified that he did not believe the accused had the financial resources to satisfy a judgment and that, for “personal ethics,” he does not sue on his own behalf, although he has sued “for other people.”
The defense then examined the circumstances surrounding the accused’s hiring. The alleged victim testified the interview lasted less than an hour at his law office in downtown San Francisco and included a vetting process. He testified the accused was the “most qualified” applicant for a “desk clerk” position. McMahon, however, asserted the position had been advertised as a “personal assistant” job rather than a desk clerk position. Later in his testimony, the alleged victim acknowledged that he could not recall the original advertisement or what prompted the accused to apply.
McMahon next focused on the timeline between the alleged theft and the family’s contact with law enforcement. The alleged victim testified that he could not remember when he first spoke with the investigating sergeant. McMahon stated it was “roughly three years after she [the accused] was terminated” in February or March 2022. The alleged victim responded that he had “no recollection.”
McMahon argued that the alleged theft would have been “a traumatic, colossal, crashing incident for the Seal Rock Inn” and questioned why the alleged victim could not remember contacting police.
The defense further asserted that Westamerica Bank notified the family in October 2019 that approximately $180,000 had been withdrawn from the account and that police were notified at that time. McMahon emphasized that the alleged victim did not personally speak with police until approximately two and a half years later. The alleged victim responded, “Again, sure.”
The alleged victim testified that the motel property was “near and dear to my [his] parents” and said his attention remained focused on the family business.
McMahon also questioned why the family did not conduct additional follow-up with police. The alleged victim testified that he attempted to speak with police every term.
The defense then turned to the motel’s financial controls. The alleged victim testified that despite serving as general manager since 2009, he did not have access to the motel’s bank accounts in 2019, when the money was allegedly taken. He explained that the motel was a family-run operation and his father maintained control over the accounts.
McMahon repeatedly emphasized that the alleged victim had served as general manager for a decade while also being a “trained lawyer” and real estate broker, yet still had only “restrictive access” to the accounts. The alleged victim replied, “Again, I’m just being a son.”
The alleged victim also testified that he was not paid from the motel’s bank account. When McMahon asked whether that arrangement bothered him, the alleged victim responded that his health care was subsidized.
McMahon also highlighted what he argued were inconsistencies in the alleged victim’s description of his work in 2019. Although the alleged victim testified he was practicing law and working from his law office that year, McMahon contrasted that testimony with earlier testimony in which the alleged victim said he had focused on home duties.
The defense also questioned why the alleged victim did not discover the missing $180,000 “for almost a year,” despite having remote access to the motel’s surveillance cameras. The alleged victim testified that his sister monitored the cameras. McMahon noted that although the alleged victim possessed video showing the accused working at the front desk, he “didn’t make any copies” of the footage.
McMahon then turned to the nature of the alleged victim’s relationship with the accused. Referring to earlier testimony that the accused had been hired at minimum wage, McMahon stated that was how the alleged victim had previously described her pay. The alleged victim responded that such a wage was “not right for 2019.”
After the alleged victim testified he had “probably seen her [the accused] a dozen times,” McMahon asked whether he had ever flirted with her. After a brief hesitation, the alleged victim denied doing so, explaining that he hesitated because he had “saw other guys flirt” with the accused.
“You didn’t find her attractive at this time?” McMahon asked. The alleged victim responded, “Um,” before denying it. McMahon then asked whether they had any “romantic involvement” or “physical intimacy.” The alleged victim again answered no.
McMahon also questioned the alleged victim regarding the accused’s living arrangements. Referring to earlier testimony suggesting the accused had been housed in uncomfortable conditions at the motel, McMahon asked about the family’s treatment of employees. “I dispute it,” the alleged victim testified, stating the accused never had a room there because he had not provided one.
“You never felt like you flirted … in your mind to [the accused] in any way?” McMahon asked.
The alleged victim testified that he had “one memory … at the interview.” Before the witness answered, McMahon remarked that the accused looked very similar to the alleged victim’s wife, only younger. The alleged victim then testified that the accused “initiated a hug” during the interview and that he “didn’t like it.” He said he later told his wife, “That was odd. She gave me a hug.” McMahon responded, “That wasn’t a red flag to you?”
McMahon also questioned the family’s hiring practices after the alleged victim testified he “did not know” whether a criminal background check had been conducted before hiring the accused. McMahon noted that the motel’s front desk was “a financial nerve center to the motel that you [his] family relies on,” yet the accused was assigned to long shifts, typically eight hours, “without checking” her criminal history.
The defense concluded by returning to the motel’s financial systems. The alleged victim testified that “none of the desk clerks are allowed to use the credit card reader” and that the accused did not have access to the Westamerica Bank account. He also discussed the motel’s reservation software, Think Reservations, testifying that he did not fully understand how the system worked because he was “not a big tech guy.”
McMahon ended that portion of the cross-examination by asking, “Is that what you tell your investor clients, ‘you’re not a big tech guy?'”
The cross-examination continued the following day, July 9.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
