WOODLAND, Calif. — Allegations that a Yolo County District Attorney investigator destroyed potentially material evidence while the defense was actively seeking access to it have raised the prospect of a Brady violation in a felony elder financial abuse case, after the investigator’s work phone was wiped while a motion to compel a forensic examination of the device remained pending.
“Make no mistake, Hancock destroyed evidence,” defense attorney Thomas Johnson told the court Friday, referring to District Attorney Investigator Brett Hancock, the prosecution’s lead investigator in the case against Jose Luis Garcia Jr.
Johnson argued that the destruction occurred after the defense had specifically sought access to Hancock’s phone and after prosecutors had instructed Hancock to preserve the device while the discovery dispute remained unresolved.
The defense has sought the phone because it contained communications between Hancock and Garcia’s sisters, including Marcela “Mini” Garcia, whom Hancock previously supervised at the Woodland Police Department.
The dispute has taken on increased significance because Hancock is a central witness in the prosecution’s case. He conducted the investigation and traced financial transactions that prosecutors allege show Garcia improperly obtained or controlled assets belonging to his mother, Gloria Garcia.
The defense has argued that Hancock’s prior relationship and extensive communications with Mini Garcia and Lucy Garcia could demonstrate bias and constitute impeachment evidence that must be disclosed under Brady v. Maryland and related cases.
Johnson filed his original motion to compel April 6 after questioning whether prosecutors had provided a complete set of communications between Hancock and the sisters.
The motion sought equal access to Hancock’s departmental phone so a defense expert could independently examine the device using forensic methods.
The original motion alleged that discovery had revealed a multiyear history of text messages between Hancock and Mini Garcia and argued that their relationship went beyond that of an investigator and witness.
According to the motion, the messages initially produced by the prosecution were not numbered or given a discovery stamp, and no report accompanied them showing who retrieved the messages, the method used to obtain them or when the extraction occurred.
The defense also alleged there appeared to be missing messages.
The motion sought not only access to Hancock’s departmental phone but also communications between Hancock and Gloria, Lucy and Mini Garcia, along with information about occasions when Hancock had seen or spoken socially with Lucy or Mini Garcia outside his work on the case.
Subsequent discovery provided additional information about how the original extraction had been conducted.
According to an April 16 examination report prepared by Yolo County District Attorney High-Tech Unit Investigator John Sadlowski, Hancock requested assistance Feb. 10 in extracting text messages from both his personal and work iPhones.
The report states Hancock himself extracted the data using Magnet GrayKey. Sadlowski then loaded each extraction into Magnet AXIOM and filtered messages involving Lucy Garcia and Mini Garcia.
Sadlowski described the process as a “non-accreditation examination.”
The report also states that HTML reports containing the filtered data were uploaded to the District Attorney’s audio-visual drive and provided to Hancock on a thumb drive.
“No additional data was stored in the High-Tech Crimes Unit,” the report states.
Those details became significant to the defense because Johnson had already questioned whether the prosecution’s initial production represented a complete and independently verifiable forensic extraction.
In its supplemental motion, the defense argued that the April report contradicted the prosecution’s characterization of the February process as a complete forensic examination and demonstrated why independent access to Hancock’s phones was necessary.
The defense also pointed to District Attorney Policy 703, governing computers and digital evidence.
The policy states that investigators should recognize “the potential to destroy information through careless or improper handling” and directs personnel to use knowledgeable resources when dealing with digital evidence.
Johnson’s supplemental motion states that prosecutors specifically instructed Hancock after the April motion to compel was filed to maintain the integrity of his phone because the device was the subject of pending litigation.
The defense argues Hancock nevertheless pursued a replacement work phone in June while the motion remained pending.
According to the defense filing, Hancock said that on June 11 he changed the password on the existing phone with another employee, wrote the new password down and successfully tested it.
The following day, according to the account challenged by the defense, the password failed and the phone ultimately reset, eliminating the data stored on it.
Johnson sharply disputed the explanation.
“Hancock destroyed evidence,” Johnson argued Friday. “The evidence is gone.”
The defense’s supplemental motion contends the circumstances of the reset are inconsistent with normal iPhone behavior.
According to the filing, Hancock and another employee described the device wiping after approximately three or four unsuccessful password attempts. The defense argued that under standard iOS settings, the erase-data function triggers only after 10 consecutive unsuccessful passcode attempts.
The motion cites another employee as describing what happened as “a lot quicker than expected” and “not standard.”
Those assertions remain defense allegations and have not been established by the court as findings of fact.
The timing of the disclosure also became a focus of Johnson’s motion.
According to the defense, Hancock claims the phone erased itself around June 11 or June 12. The supplemental motion alleges Hancock did not inform the District Attorney’s Office until July 6, one day before a scheduled hearing on the motion to compel.
The District Attorney’s Office filed its opposition to the defense motion June 12 without disclosing that the phone had allegedly already been wiped, according to Johnson’s filing.
Johnson subsequently filed both a supplemental motion to compel and a supplemental Pitchess motion seeking additional information, including records from Hancock’s personnel file potentially relevant to credibility or misconduct.
The Pitchess filing argues that the destruction of the phone should be considered together with the defense’s earlier allegations concerning Hancock’s relationship with Mini Garcia and his handling of the investigation.
The defense alleges Hancock failed to record a Jan. 12, 2024, interview with Gloria Garcia and failed to write reports documenting numerous conversations with Lucy and Mini Garcia.
It further argues that messages previously produced demonstrate a relationship between Hancock and Mini Garcia that should have prevented him from conducting the investigation.
The supplemental Pitchess motion alleges Hancock knew the importance of preserving his phone because District Attorney Policy 703 required preservation of digital evidence, the defense motion to compel was pending and prosecutors had specifically informed him of the need to preserve the device.
Johnson alleges the subsequent destruction was intentional.
“It’s criminal conduct to deliberately destroy evidence in a case,” Johnson wrote in the motion.
No court finding has established that Hancock intentionally destroyed evidence, and prosecutors have disputed the defense’s characterization of what occurred.
At Friday’s hearing, Deputy District Attorney Rachel Muoio argued that the threshold issue was whether the defense was legally entitled to direct access to Hancock’s phone.
Muoio argued that allowing the defense to examine an investigator’s phone would be comparable to giving the defense access to an investigator’s computer and maintained there was no legal basis for equal access to the device.
She further disputed the contention that there was evidence establishing that text messages were missing.
Muoio argued that the defense was entitled to discovery involving witnesses and had already been able to cross-examine Hancock regarding his relationship and communications with the Garcia sisters.
Johnson pushed back, arguing that Hancock had conducted the original extraction himself and that there was no independent custodian-of-records certification establishing the completeness of the production.
The defense further noted that the District Attorney’s own High-Tech Unit subsequently characterized the examination as non-accredited.
Johnson questioned why Hancock would proceed with changing phones while the motion to compel was pending and after the District Attorney’s Office had instructed him to preserve the device.
The defense also asked the court to order production of text messages from Lucy and Mini Garcia as another possible means of determining whether communications were missing from what prosecutors previously produced.
The defense’s supplemental motion seeks Hancock’s personal and work telephone numbers and carrier information so subpoenas can be issued in an attempt to reconstruct missing communications.
It also seeks all reports, interviews, notes and communications concerning any investigation into the destruction of the phone data and any consequences imposed on Hancock.
The defense is additionally seeking records concerning a 2024 investigation into Garcia’s complaint about a potential conflict of interest involving Hancock.
According to Johnson’s motion, Yolo County Counsel informed the defense that the District Attorney’s Office conducted that investigation.
Johnson argues that the complete investigative file — including interviews, notes, emails, findings and the disposition — could contain impeachment evidence if Hancock’s statements during the investigation conflict with his testimony or other evidence.
The supplemental motion invokes Brady and Giglio v. United States, arguing that evidence affecting the credibility of a key government investigator can constitute exculpatory impeachment material that prosecutors are required to disclose.
“The lead investigator’s long-standing personal and professional relationship with a primary complaining witness is precisely the type of bias evidence that must be disclosed,” Johnson wrote.
Judge Paul K. Richardson pushed back against portions of the prosecution’s position Friday and expressed concern that the circumstances had materially changed since the defense previously cross-examined Hancock.
Richardson identified two issues affecting the discovery dispute.
First, the defense has alleged that the investigating officer had a prior relationship with one of the witnesses, raising questions about potential bias or a conflict of interest.
Second, the subsequent disappearance of the complete text-message data changed the calculation because the defense’s cross-examination of Hancock occurred before the phone was wiped.
Richardson indicated that the destruction of the data placed the issue in a different posture and raised the possibility that the District Attorney’s Office itself does not know whether it possesses all of the relevant communications.
Muoio maintained that the prosecution had discovered and produced the evidence and argued that the defense had the opportunity to question Hancock about whether messages were missing.
Richardson did not agree that the earlier cross-examination resolved the issue.
The judge concluded that the defense needs access to the phone, a significant development because the original April motion sought precisely that independent forensic examination as a means of determining whether the prosecution’s production contained all communications between Hancock and the Garcia sisters.
Whether any useful data remains recoverable from the wiped device is unresolved.
The destruction dispute could carry particular significance because Hancock is not a peripheral witness. His investigation and financial tracing are central to the prosecution’s theory that Garcia improperly obtained or retained his mother’s assets.
The defense contends that evidence bearing on Hancock’s potential bias, credibility and handling of evidence is therefore directly relevant to Garcia’s ability to challenge the prosecution’s financial reconstruction.
“We are entitled to any report which tends to exculpate Mr. Garcia and the centerpiece of this case is Detective Hancock,” Johnson wrote.
The court has not determined that a Brady violation occurred, nor has it found that Hancock deliberately destroyed evidence.
But the discovery dispute has moved beyond the defense’s original question of whether prosecutors produced a complete set of Hancock’s communications. The court must now confront the fact that the underlying phone the defense sought to independently examine was wiped while its motion seeking access to that phone remained pending.
After extended arguments Friday, Richardson met privately in chambers with attorneys for both sides for a considerable period. The parties later returned to open court and scheduled another hearing to continue addressing the unresolved discovery issues.
Gloria Garcia Testifies Over Several Hearings
Gloria Garcia completed her testimony Friday, July 31, providing additional details about her financial dependence on her son, Jose Garcia Jr., while also acknowledging that he managed her money, covered her expenses and provided money when she requested it.
Garcia’s testimony came during the continuing preliminary hearing against Jose Garcia Jr., who is accused of financial crimes involving his mother’s property and assets. The case has focused heavily on the sale of family properties, control over Garcia’s finances and what happened to proceeds from those transactions.
On redirect examination by the prosecution, Garcia testified that she lived with Jose Garcia Jr. from approximately 2017 until 2023 and that he managed her money during that period.
Garcia acknowledged that her needs were taken care of while she was living there and that Jose Garcia Jr. covered her expenses. She testified that she lived on Supplemental Security Income.
Asked who paid for groceries, Garcia testified that Jose Garcia Jr. and one of her daughters paid for them.
She also testified that Jose Garcia Jr. handled her medical expenses, although she characterized the money used to pay those expenses as her own.
Garcia acknowledged that she did not ask Jose Garcia Jr. for the proceeds from the sale of the Pendegast Circle property. She testified that Jose Garcia used the proceeds from the sale of the Pendegast property to purchase his Esparto Ranch. However, documentary evidence shows Garcia, Jr. purchased the farm in 2019 and the business was sold in September 2021, while Pendegast waas not sold until June 2022.
Garcia said she stopped living with Jose Garcia Jr. in October 2023.
On recross-examination, defense attorney Tom Johnson focused on Garcia’s ability to manage money, the financial assistance Jose Garcia Jr. provided and what happened to money Garcia subsequently obtained through civil litigation.
Garcia testified that she suffered a stroke in April 2023.
The questioning also addressed Garcia’s financial condition before the stroke. Garcia acknowledged that during 2022 and 2023 she was having difficulty managing her own money and had given money away, causing family members to express concern about her finances.
Johnson questioned Garcia about specific occasions when Jose Garcia Jr. provided her with money.
Garcia acknowledged that on May 16, 2022, while she was in Mexico, Jose Garcia Jr. gave her $1,000. She further acknowledged that when she asked him for money, he provided it.
Johnson asked Garcia whether her children had told her she could not manage her own money. Garcia said they had not.
The defense also questioned Garcia about approximately $350,000 she obtained through a judgment in the related civil litigation.
Garcia had difficulty explaining where that money was currently located. She initially indicated that the money was in her kitchen before further questioning established that a portion had been invested in a home purchased by one of her daughters.
Garcia acknowledged that she held a 28% interest in the property.
The defense questioned the actual value of that interest because the property is encumbered by both a first and second mortgage. According to the testimony, Garcia’s equity in the property was approximately $125,000.
As Johnson continued questioning her about the property and its financing, Garcia said, “I don’t know about houses.”
She later added, “I don’t want to know.”
Garcia’s testimony followed earlier preliminary hearing testimony in which she described entrusting Jose Garcia Jr. with substantial authority over her financial affairs while maintaining that she ultimately lost access to money she believed belonged to her.
During her June 12 testimony, Garcia acknowledged that Jose Garcia Jr. purchased airfare for her trips to Mexico and deposited money into her account when she requested it. She also testified that she expected her son to take care of her but maintained that he ultimately failed to do so.
Garcia had previously testified that she did not understand financial transactions and did not know the value of the property involved in the transactions. She said Jose Garcia Jr. told her he would help and take care of her.
Following Garcia’s testimony Friday, the defense called Tomas Garcia, Jose Garcia Jr.’s brother and Gloria Garcia’s son.
Tomas Garcia testified that he is estranged from his mother and sisters.
He described tensions within the Garcia family dating to the 2017 divorce involving Gloria Garcia and Jose Garcia Sr., which he said created friction among family members.
Tomas Garcia testified about his observations of the relationship between his mother and brother and the management of his mother’s financial affairs.
According to Tomas Garcia, Jose Garcia Jr. took care of their mother between 2020 and 2023.
He testified that Jose Garcia Jr. also completed paperwork associated with the sale of the Pendegast property.
Tomas Garcia testified that between 2020 and 2023, all five of Gloria Garcia’s children recognized that their mother could not effectively manage her money.
The defense introduced a text message from Mini Garcia addressing concerns about Gloria Garcia’s spending.
According to Tomas Garcia’s testimony, concerns about his mother’s spending were ongoing within the family. He testified that Jose Garcia Jr. attempted to stop the discussion and described Gloria Garcia as having long relied on Jose Garcia Jr. to manage her financial affairs.
Tomas Garcia testified that he has approximately 20 years of experience in real estate.
He described the decision to sell the Pendegast property as a family decision involving four people, including Gloria Garcia.
His testimony indicated that Gloria Garcia was involved in the decision to sell the property rather than the sale being undertaken solely by Jose Garcia Jr.
Tomas Garcia also testified about Gloria Garcia’s living arrangements after the decision.
He said Gloria Garcia moved onto property with Jose Garcia Jr., where she lived in a second dwelling unit.
According to Tomas Garcia, Jose Garcia Jr. spent approximately $50,000 renovating the unit for his mother.
Tomas Garcia testified that multiple people were living at the Pendegast property before its sale and that, approximately 12 months into the arrangement, concerns within the family were growing.
His testimony presented a different perspective on several of the financial transactions at issue in the prosecution.
While Gloria Garcia has testified that she trusted Jose Garcia Jr. to manage her finances and believed he would take care of her, Tomas Garcia described the arrangement as one in which the family already had substantial concerns about Gloria Garcia’s ability to manage money and relied on Jose Garcia Jr. to handle her affairs.
The testimony also provided additional context to Garcia’s earlier statements about the financial support she received.
During her June testimony, Gloria Garcia initially distinguished between Jose Garcia Jr. giving her cash directly and paying expenses on her behalf. Under cross-examination, however, she acknowledged that he purchased airline tickets and deposited money into her account when she requested it.
Her Friday testimony further established that Jose Garcia Jr. managed her finances, paid expenses and provided money when she requested it during at least part of the period now at issue.
At the same time, Garcia continued to maintain that the underlying money belonged to her and that Jose Garcia Jr.’s payment of expenses did not mean the money belonged to him.
The competing testimony places significant emphasis on the nature of the financial arrangement between mother and son: whether Jose Garcia Jr.’s control of the money represented authority granted to manage Garcia’s assets for her benefit or whether his subsequent disposition of those assets exceeded that authority.
The preliminary hearing has also raised questions about Garcia’s ability to independently manage her finances during the period covered by the prosecution’s allegations.
Garcia’s acknowledgment that she had difficulty managing money in 2022 and 2023 was consistent with Tomas Garcia’s testimony that the family had been concerned about her spending and financial decision-making.
However, Garcia disputed the suggestion that her children had directly told her she could not manage her own finances.
The testimony concerning the civil judgment also raised questions about Garcia’s current understanding and management of substantial assets.
Although she received approximately $350,000 through the civil litigation, Garcia struggled under questioning to explain where that money had gone before acknowledging that some of it was associated with a daughter’s home in which Garcia owns a 28% interest.
Her testimony that the property carries both first and second mortgages and that her interest is worth approximately $125,000 provided another example of Garcia acknowledging limited knowledge about the financial transactions involving her assets.
The prosecution and defense have offered sharply different interpretations of the broader financial relationship.
The prosecution alleges Jose Garcia Jr. improperly obtained or retained money belonging to his mother. The defense has sought to establish that Gloria Garcia knowingly gave her son broad authority over her finances because she could not reliably manage them herself and that Jose Garcia Jr. used that authority to provide housing, pay expenses and otherwise care for her.
Garcia’s completed testimony leaves both aspects of that relationship in the record: her contention that she ultimately lost access to substantial assets she considered hers, and her acknowledgment that Jose Garcia Jr. managed her finances and provided for her expenses over a period of years.
Tomas Garcia’s testimony reinforced the defense’s contention that Jose Garcia Jr.’s financial control did not originate as an unauthorized intrusion into his mother’s affairs but developed within a family arrangement prompted, at least in part, by concerns over Gloria Garcia’s ability to manage money.
The continuing preliminary hearing will require the court to consider those competing accounts alongside the documentary financial evidence and testimony tracing the proceeds from the property transactions.
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.
