Can Santa Ana Council Member Carlos Bustamante mount a successful defense and defeat the sex crime charges he is facing? Paul J. Wallin, a local attorney who is a leading expert in defending those accuse of sex crimes thinks he can.
I know Wallin quite well. I used to work for him many years ago, as a marketing director for his firm, Wallin & Klarich. This firm defends many professionals, including teachers and other government employees, who are charged with sex crimes. They also handle all sorts of other criminal defense matters.
Wallin submitted a comment over at the Voice of OC, outlining why he thinks Bustamante isn’t getting a fair shake – and may indeed have a decent defense. Here is Wallin’s comment:
I am the senior partner of Wallin and Klarich. Our law firm has been successfully defending persons accused of sex crimes for over 30 years.
I have read the news coverage pertaining to the recent arrest of Carlos Bustamante related to several sexual abuse charges. I am shocked that so many people are willing to convict this man when the case facts indicate that he may not be guilty of any crimes.
From my review of the article in The Orange County Register about this case, it appears that two of the four alleged victims strongly deny that they had sexual contact with Mr. Bustamante. If this turns out to be accurate information, then this will prove extremely helpful to his defense.
It was also reported in the Register article that Supervisor [John] Moorlach has stated: “We will do our best to make sure that management identifies this type of behavior sooner and deals with it. … We have to make sure it never happens again.”
These type of “rush to judgment” comments are exactly the reason that it is difficult for someone to receive a fair trial when he or she is accused of a sex offense. It is clear that Mr. Bustamante has emphatically denied his guilt, and already a fellow supervisor is concluding he is guilty by his statements above.
— Paul J. Wallin / July 3
Could Bustamante be innocent? Or could he be guilty and still get away with it? We’re already talking about who will replace Bustamante, but God help us if his lawyer is a good one we might be stuck with Bustamante for four more years. Here’s the kicker – Bustamante has apparently retained James D. Riddet as his attorney, and he is indeed very good. If he somehow prevails in court he will no doubt run for Ward 3 again. And incumbents are hard to beat…
If his wife Adriana believes he is innocent, maybe we all should.
“If his wife Adriana believes he is innocent, maybe we all should”……. Hmmmmmmm
So did Hilary Clinton!
“Could Bustamante be innocent? Or could he be guilty and still get away with it?”……… Hmmmmmmm
FAQ 1. How many men are employed by the OC?… Thousands.
FAQ 2. How many of these men are concurrently accused of similar crimes as is Bustamante?… None.
FAQ 3. How many unrelated women could conspire to accuse Bustamante of sex crimes probably no more than 3 but never 19 out of which 12 are bared by the statute of limitation.
FAQ 3. Can he walk?… Absolutely.
However, if Bustamante is innocent he would resign and if he is guilty, he is in a denial, and will stay.
It is same concept like the reverse psychology where the crazy person will claim that he is not-crazy and not-crazy person will will say I am crazy. See Socrates: “I know one thing, that I know nothing” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing.
“From my review of the article in The Orange County Register about this case, it appears that two of the four alleged victims strongly deny that they had sexual contact with Mr. Bustamante. If this turns out to be accurate information, then this will prove extremely helpful to his defense”……… Hmmmmmmm
That is absolutely frivolous observation because these two alleged victims are married and do not want to hurt their husbands.
However, they will change their story when testifying under a penalty of the perjury.
Since the arraignment was postponed, for a plea deal?
Maybe the councilman will pay back the money in question and all other charges will be dropped.
“Since the arraignment was postponed, for a plea deal?’…….. Hmmmmmmm
I do not think so!
This went to far to be plead.
“This went to far to be plead.”
I thought pleas can be worked out even during trials.
There is no doubt that Rakaukas has it in for Bustamante. His press conference went over and above what it required as far as leveling charges. Whatever the outcome of the criminal charges, I can’t see Bustamante remaining in any public office. There has always been smoke when it comes to Bustamante, no doubt there is fire but how far they will be able to take it in the courts is another story.
Rackauckas has a well-deserved reputation for not prosecuting politicians. This is an easy opportunity for him to prove otherwise.
“I thought pleas can be worked out even during trials”….. Hmmmmm
That is true cook.
However, such plea is usually guilty with lesser charge.
Only early plea can be substantially beneficial to defendant providing that prosecution has no case. Usually it is to reduce Felony to Misdemeanor plus rehab.
That is not gone happen.
According to Track Carlos is facing 26 year in state prison.
I am sure that Track would take 5 years plea from Carlos.
But, there maybe plea for Carlos taking 1 year plus testifying against all who aided Carlos plus some other dirt if it would help Track politically.
I think Carlos will end up like sheriff Carona — GUILTY TO INTERFERE WITH WITNESSES, innocent on original charges.
I am sure that Carlos is now singing like a canary.
I believe those that stated no sexual contact were claiming false imprisonment other 3 included assault with intent to commit a sexual offense.
Lesser charges are stalking and attempted sexual battery by restraint.
Sexual Contact: Legal definition….
The intentional touching of a victim’s, defendant’s, or any other person’s intimate parts, or the intentional touching of the clothing covering the immediate area of a victim’s, defendant’s or any other person’s intimate parts, if that intentional touching can be reasonably construed as being for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification
Other claim nude exposure and public masturbation….sex crimes.
Interesting to see how the defense deals with the charges.
Add to this the County liability……. “SEXUAL HARRASMENT IN A WORK ENVIORNMENT”
VERY DIFFICULT TO DEFEND.
What Is a Hostile Work Environment?
As part of its decision in Meritor, the Supreme Court stated that a hostile work environment constitutes grounds for an action only when the conduct is unwelcome, based on sex, and severe or pervasive enough “to alter the conditions of [the victim’s] employment and create an abusive working environment.”60 This standard raises numerous questions. What is unwelcome? When is conduct based on sex? Are employees allowed to flirt on the job anymore? Can they tell off-color jokes? What happens when someone gets offended? Who decides what is appropriate, and what is not? Should employees be required to tolerate some minimal level of offensive sexual behavior within the workplace?
The EEOC itself has stated, “Title VII does not proscribe all conduct of a sexual nature in the workplace.”61 The line is drawn between acceptable sexual conduct and sexual harassment where the conduct becomes unwelcome.62 However, as the courts continue to grapple with the definition of unwelcome sexual conduct, their decisions have not followed a predictable pattern.63
Nonetheless, the courts now grant relief for sexual harassment far more often than they did initially. Today, courts will more likely find an illegal hostile environment present when the workplace includes sexual propositions, pornography, extremely vulgar language, sexual touching, degrading comments, or embarrassing questions or jokes.64
FIGURE 1: SEXUAL HARASSMENT
Sexual Misconduct
Unwelcone sexual advances, requests for sexual favors,
and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature
plus
Quid Pro Quo
Submission to such conduct
(1) is made a term or condition
of employment or
(2) forms a basis for
employment decisions affecting
that individual
or
Hostile Environment
Conduct has purpose or effect
of (1) unreasonably interfering
with work performance or
(2) creating an intimidating,
hostile, or offensive
environment
Employer always liable
Employer liable
if knew or should have known
and failed to take appropriate
corrective action
“When is conduct based on sex?”…….. Hmmmmmm
Good reading as usually Dr.Lomeli,
Hypothetically speaking Doc. if I would be touching my coworker near to clitoris and she would be screaming: ” Oh’God.. Oh’God.. Oh’God.. My Goooood” would that be conduct based on sex or religion?
Leaders of the Catholic religion might argue it is religion to avoid molestaion liability.
“Leaders of the Catholic religion might argue it is religion”……. Hmmmmmm
Since County can’t discriminate based on sex and religion and employes are allowed to pray and call for the God’s help in the privacy of their office, would you say that Carlos was actually performing spiritually based relaxation exercise to get closer to the God?