Watergate started as a simple burglary when a night watchman spotted a taped doorjamb at the Watergate apartment complex. The discovery led to a trail of dirty tricks that tracked to the Nixon White House. Was Eric Hernandez’s break-in of email accounts at City Hall the tape on the door, linked to a Nixonian effort to dredge dirt about the personal lives of politicians, journalists and business leaders critical of SBLC’s political initiatives and post it to the Web? The public will never know, thanks to a rushed settlement by the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s office, which under DA Dolores Carr, has shown little interest in prosecuting political cases. (Previous beneficiaries of the new prosecutorial discretion include Mayor Ron Gonzales and lobbyists Tony Arreola and Sean Kali-Rai.) The Hernandez case came to a quiet end last Wednesday when the teenaged former city council intern pleaded guilty to reduced charges and received 50 hours of community service, along with a day in jail, which he already served. He was also ordered to pay $100 restitution. Hernandez’s top-shelf defense attorney, Steve Manchester, argued for a motion to reduce the charges from a felony to a misdemeanor, and the DA’s office had no problem with that. “We weren’t going to make a big stink about it,” said Deputy DA Tom Flattery. “I think Mr. Hernandez has gotten the message and I’d be surprised if we see trouble from him again.” Sure, reports that Hernandez’s former boss, councilmember Cindy Chavez, as well as SBLC head Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins, made calls on his behalf may suggest nothing more than concern for a young man’s welfare. Hernandez, after all bragged to co-workers of being invited to Chavez’s house for dinner while he was working for her successor, Sam Liccardo. (Hernandez rummaged through Liccardo’s girlfriend’s email looking for dirt.) But anyone who sees anything suspicious in Hernandez’s ties to Chavez, the speed with which a labor-aligned website rushed to express empathy just hours after he landed in jail or the sudden appearance of one of the valley’s most expensive criminal defense attorneys won’t have their conspiracy theories validated by any further investigation. Like the Warren Commission after the JFK assassination, San Jose’s law enforcement community brushed aside doubts and stuck to its official conclusion: He acted alone.
I smell a rat with this, but the fact that the DA closed the matter so rapidly means that we’ll never find out for sure. Too bad.
The lead in to this blog is a bit pretentious and takes away from the points you want to make, which I don’t happen to agree with to be honest. It would just be easier to read without the exaggeration and reaching for…uhhh…whats the word…gravitas(?)…I looked it up since I don’t use fancy words alot.
About your point: sometimes a mistake is just a mistake. When you start pulling out all sorts of conspiracy stories out of the hat, well be ready for “blowback.” And I believe that many of the writers on this blog can say they have experienced plenty of unfair (mostly) conspiracy theories about their own dealings and efforts to want to promote a “higher level” of discourse…as I have read some writers here to say they hope for in San Jose.
I think it’s time the Metro put this issue to rest. There’s no doubt that Eric made a poor decision, but to continue to harp on it as a way to try and bring light to some vast conspiracy on part of the South Bay Labor Council is unfair to a young man who should and needs to move on. Whether we agree or disagree with his punishment, Eric had his day in court and will pay for his offense.
Eric has proven to be a dedicated and contributing member of his community, characteristics that are lacking in many young people. There are surely bigger and more important things that the Metro could be using its ink writing about other than the mistake of a young and possibly naïve college student.
I hope that Eric has learned from his past transgressions and will be able to move past it so he can concentrate on his studies and continue his work in his community while serving his punishment. If the metro truly wants to make this an issue about the Labor Council, then make it just that.
Anytime people tell the press to “move on” you have to wonder if someone has something to hide.
I would like to know how this 18-year old, who obviously had connections, was able to show up in court with a high priced trial attorney.
Who paid this kid’s legal tab? It seems like someone had something gain by Hernandez’s legal problems evaporating before evidence is presented in open court.
I hope Metro will continue to follow the story (and follow the money) wherever it leads. Then it can “move on.”
Delores Carr got a lot of campaign help from the SBLC machine, so why would she want to prosecute their lobbyists and leakers? I wonder if she got a call from Phaedra…
#4- Kenny,
I agree with you 100%. “Poor decisions,” must be the new legal defense. I wonder what’s next, the “Twinkie” defense…
#6-MC,
I’d like to know why the Metro printed the information Hernandez gave to a rival blog. How did they obtain the info, did they take it off another blog? Was the Metro involved? What do they know?
Unfortunately we’ll never know the real truth because authorities don’t investigate the way they should. I don’t know if it is because they are under staffed; under funded, or just plain don’t care. I don’t think we’ve heard the last of this “poor decision” maker. Stay tuned.
#7- Good point. She wouldn’t investigate the teenage gang rape either. No wonder people don’t report crimes~
#9
“She wouldn’t investigate the teenage gang rape either”
Wrong again. She investigated the case, and felt there was not enough evidence to support a rape charge. Since this is a volatile issue, she forwarded the case to the state for their evaluation of the evidence.
#11, while Carr may have felt there wasn’t enough evidence to do anything about the De Anza rape case, others felt differently but it was still ultimately her decision on whether or not to prosecute anyone. I may be wrong about this, but as I recall Carr didn’t voluntarily forward the case to the Attorney General. She responded to outrage and pressure from the community, otherwise she would have simply “moved on.”
Now we have Mr. Hernandez and again Carr is brushing this incident under the carpet. She’s married to a cop, right? So why should we be surprised about any of her actions that suggest an element of corruption?
#12- Thank you Mark T, you are 100% correct. Number #11 is the one who is wrong! Carr did NOT willingly do anything to investigate, or forward on this rape case. The high ups, members of the Sheriff’s Department, and community groups pressured her until she finally did forward it on, and as you said, she did it reluctantly. Her behavior was outrageous!
#7: Dolores Carr did NOT get help from the SBLC, she got help from the local GOP (she is a republican, http://www.svgop.com/elected_officials/).
The Democratic candidate was Karyn Sinunu. Please try to get your facts in order.
What the hell is wrong with the people on San Jose Inside?
Violating someone else’s privacy is a poor decision? In the case two weeks ago, the young fire fighter who participated in a home invasion made a poor decision?
Is that all crime has become in this city anymore? A poor decision?
ZZZZZZZZZZ! Move on Metro, there are plenty of things to write about other than a rival blog. The Metro printed stolen information that Hernandez provided, so you’re just as guilty.