WEATHER »
Tony Denunzio shortly after his October 2011 arrest for alleged DUI

Courtesy Photo

Tony Denunzio shortly after his October 2011 arrest for alleged DUI


Mistrial Declared in Tony Denunzio DUI Case

Jury Deadlocks 8-4 in Favor of Guilt; Both Attorneys Back in Court Thursday


Originally published 12:00 a.m., March 13, 2013
Updated 9:00 a.m., March 13, 2013
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

Tony Denunzio, who was tazered 13 times and sustained broken ribs in what some witnesses described as a brutal beating at the hands of a Santa Barbara police officer in October 2011, is walking away victorious after a weeklong DUI jury trial.

The 12-member jury — after 12 hours of deliberation — came to an impasse on whether Denunzio was guilty of driving under the influence. They were 8-4 in favor of guilt. A Santa Maria judge declared a mistrial Tuesday afternoon, four days after the judge acquitted Denunzio on a separate charge of driving with a blood-alcohol level above 0.08.

Deputy DA Mai Trieu said afterward that she doesn’t know if her office will pursue a new trial. That decision would be made by Thursday, she said, when both sides are back in front of Judge James Rigali. But Denunzio’s attorney, Darryl Genis, thinks that would be unwise. “This case will never see the light of day again,” he said. “Humpty Dumpty, baby. All the king’s horses are never gonna put this one back together. It’s done.”

Audio Clip

People vs. Tony Denunzio

Audio recording of Tony Denunzio being arrested and booked in October 2011

The incident caused an uproar in Santa Barbara, not because of Denunzio’s driving but because of his violent arrest, which was partially caught on video. Patrol car footage shows Denunzio getting out of his vehicle in the Gelson’s parking lot on upper State Street after he was followed there by Officer Aaron Tudor. Denunzio can be seen looking back toward Tudor, who quickly jumped out of his cruiser, telling Denunzio, “Stay in your car.” When Denunzio slowly turned his head away from the officer, Tudor came up behind him, grabbed his left arm, and pushed him toward Denunzio’s SUV.

Tudor — then a four-year veteran of the department — performed a leg sweep, and Denunzio fell to the ground. Soon after Tudor started striking Denunzio with his knee and his open palm. (Witnesses described closed-fist punching.) Denunzio then looked to be on his knees with the officer sort of straddling his back, but both of their faces were out of the camera’s view. Tudor could be seen using his Taser in the “drive stun” mode, which reduces its effectiveness. He didn’t deploy the more powerful wires, Chief Cam Sanchez said at a press conference following the incident, because of the close range.

Denunzio, in an audiotape recorded by authorities during his blood draw, was obviously having a hard time breathing, telling the police they “kicked the shit out of my ribs.” He didn’t understand what was happening. “Why the fuck am I being arrested, and why is he beating me up,” Denunzio asked the police. “What did I do?”

In the days following, Police Chief Cam Sanchez came to Tudor’s defense, explaining that sometimes police work isn’t pretty. The DA’s Office interviewed more than a dozen people who witnessed the incident before declining to file resisting arrest charges against Denunzio. No excessive force charges were filed against Tudor. After the publicity that followed the incident, the DA’s Office requested the case be moved to Santa Maria.

In the patrol car video, which began recording near Hendry’s Beach where Tudor started trailing Denunzio, Denunzio can be seen making three lane changes that authorities allege were illegal. The first purported illegal lane change seemed questionable, as Denunzio chose one of two lanes where Las Positas grows from a single-lane highway to two lanes. Without using his blinker, he then maneuvered around a car at a light and then back into the lane once he made the pass.

According to reports, Trieu told the jurors in her closing arguments that while they may not agree with how Tudor handled the traffic stop, their job was to determine if Denunzio was under the influence while driving. “Pay attention and focus on the defendant’s actions, and determine he was not acting like an ordinary, sober person,” Trieu was quoted by the Santa Barbara News-Press as saying. She also noted Denunzio didn’t pull over immediately after Tudor turned on his flashing lights.

Genis described Denunzio’s actions on the road as “driving errors that we ordinary citizens make on a daily basis even though we don’t have any alcohol in our system. People do not drive perfectly even though we don’t have any alcohol in our system.”

The jury was only considering one count this week, as the judge last Friday granted Denunzio’s motion for acquittal on the other charge—driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 or higher. On that charge, Genis argued that blood alcohol tests are circumstantial evidence. With circumstantial evidence, if there are two or more reasonable conclusions and one suggests innocence and another guilt, the one pointing to innocence must be accepted.

An expert for the prosecution admitted Denunzio could have had a 0.079 percent blood-alcohol level at the time of driving, Genis said, and the judge sided with him in his argument that it would not be appropriate to extrapolate back to the time Denunzio was driving. Trieu said her office stood by the filing of that charge and that the judge should have allowed the jury to make the decision.

Denunzio isn’t the first person to allege that Tudor used excessive force in an arrest. Britteny Cotledge—also represented by Genis, along with Los Alamitos-based Thomas Beck—filed a federal lawsuit in October, naming Tudor, another officer, the city of Santa Barbara, and Police Chief Cam Sanchez. In the suit Cotledge alleged Tudor and the other officer, Kyle Crooks, “without warning or lawful justification violently grabbed [her] and rammed her against the vehicle breaking plaintiff’s upper right arm.” She also has alleged the hood of the car was hot, and she “pleaded to be taken from the hood and complained of pain to no avail.” The defendants have denied the allegations in that suit.

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

Officer Tudor is a menace to our community and the City needs to find a way to terminate him before he causes even more serious problems. A neutral jury, demanded by the DA's Office in Santa Maria, at the inconvenience and expense to DeNunzio heard lengthy testimony from Tudor and others and what cost, and didn't convict, in what otherwise should have been a slam dunk case for the DA's Office. Next we get the million dollar judgment against the City for Tudor's unjustified beating and tazering of DeNunzio, ala Rodney King. Enough already get rid of that menace.

sbreader (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2013 at 4:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This case obviously needs to stop here [an acquittal on one component of a DUI prevents retrial on the remainder], but the community really needs to look deeply into itself and answer the question posed over there for years [maybe decades]: will we tolerated thugs with badges who pretend to serve and protect us, but who really only serve their own agenda? It is a shame that the jury was not more distressed about their thuggish cop, because this should have been a quick NG on both counts, if not on the evidence, then on the jury's power and duty to render just verdicts that might be inconsistent with evidence where the outcome enhances liberty. In the Founders' time, there would have been fast acquittals [if any prosecution at all], and the offending "constable" would have been ridden out of town on a rail. We need not scour the Middle East for terrorism to fight - we have it right here, and daily. Kudos to Genis for the hormones and insight and scholarship to resist the Hun at all turns.

capmotion (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2013 at 4:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Law Suit! Law Suit! Law Suit! It's all about the MONEY!

dou4now (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2013 at 6:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So we just let Denunzio loose on the roads, where he has demonstrated that he does not have the good judgment to avoid driving after he has been drinking. Hopefully, he will not kill someone before he either goes to rehab to get off the booze or gets caught drunk driving again and gets convicted and taken off the road. I feel much less threatened by officer Tudor (who I will probably never encounter) than I do Denunzio, who could smash into me on any evening after he has had a few drinks and got behind the wheel.

Eckermann (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2013 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I would rather have Denunzio on the road than encounter Tudor anywhere.

pnortonsb (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2013 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why are Tudor and Beutel still on the job? Similar acts to theirs have been punished with termination in LA. Why is the city "machine" so intent on protecting corrupt cops. Our DA apparently never met an officer-involved shooting that she didn't condone, either. Throw the bums out. Sanchez first.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2013 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

can denunzio go a year without another dui? i hae me doots.

lawdy (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2013 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I would rather encounter DeNunzio than Tudor also and not because I am afraid of Tudor, just what he can get away with. Tudor can do what he wants and then make #$%@ up in the interest of political correctness and rescuing you all from the evil drunken drivers even if you have only had a teaspoon of cough syrup. He can totally kick your a$$, then ask you out on a date, then arrest you and save you all. I think the check points and the sheer number of cops visible down town do a more than adequate job with out asskicker 101 tactics being thrown down on people in front of Gelsons. Denunzio will walk away with a good chunk of all of your tax payer dollars. Another trial will yield the same result, or better for Denunzio. Stop the bleeding, move on, and have some civilian oversight of the cops.

bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2013 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

JL I agree for once: why is Beutel still on the job? She was just celebrated in a NYTimes column (Sunday mag)!

DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2013 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Kudos to Genis for trying his case in court where it belongs and not in the Comments section of the SB Independent, for a change. I imagine DeNunzio will be out there driving with alcohol on board again pretty soon. Yay.

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2013 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think it's important for the defense attorney to get their client's side out to the public, otherwise all you hear is the DA's side.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2013 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"eckermann" or should i say aaron tudor. sorry buddy you will get karma one day since sanchez doesnt want another santa maria internal affairs/ feds probe! your department needs to realize that people have feelings ! we know you deal with gangsters and homeless but we are not all in a gang like you!

tonka (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2013 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Aye, lawdy, I agree! [still laughing...]

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2013 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well tonka, you could not have got that guess more wrong. I am old enough to be Tudor's daddy. I was not defending Tudor (or condemning him either). My point is that drunk drivers are a dangerous menace in our society. It is my view that drunk drivers are much more dangerous than cops who may be too quick in delivering the smack down. There is a very simple way to avoid getting beat up by a police officer: simply be still and do exactly as you are told. There is no easy way to avoid the random drunk driver. I will take my chances with Tudor any day and I don't even know the guy. But since I am an older gent and don't get out much late at night, my chances of encountering Officer Tudor are very remote.

Eckermann (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2013 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

After I mistook "Dr. Dan" for Dan Secord I've given up trying to guess who anonymous bloggers are.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2013 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well said, Eckermann. It was Denunzio's choice to drink and drive in violation of his probation, but had DeNunzio simply stayed in his car and complied with Officer Tudor's instructions from the outset, then the force used against him would not have occurred.

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2013 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes maybe he violated his probation...but for some reason the judge dismissed the .08 charge, so I guess that he wasn't legally drunk when he got his ass royally kicked and tased. Hope it was worth "controlling the situation" Officer Tudor where ever you are...

bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2013 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Interesting that some folks have judged denunzio guilty apparently from day one. wonder if they believe everything the police tell them.

I'd like to see denunzio bring suit and win, not so he gets the money but because I hope it will wake our City up to the need for actual oversight of the police, not just proforma and uninformative reports to the Council by our incompetent jefe.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2013 at 5:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I hope Tony sues the sleaze bags and wins. Tony DeNunzio is a sweetheart and was the victim of an out of control police force. The SBPD has always been brutal and mean. They have nothing better to do than to work out their inferiority complexes at the expense of the public.

Jennifer83 (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2013 at 6:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Literally the jury is still out on whether Denunzio is guilty of driving under the influence.

With unanimity as the necessary standard in criminal cases, after the procedure and benefit of a trial the jury has been reported as 'hung' at 8 in favor of guilt and 4 to acquit.

The pre-judging may be on your part, "JohnLocke," as you seem to suggest Denunzio's innocence, contrary to the determination of 2/3 of the jury after the evidence presented in a trial.

I look forward to the re-trial.

binky (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2013 at 6:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"They were 8-4 in favor of guilt." Let's remember this was far from a not guilty verdict. I say as a citizen he should be prosecuted again, if not for our right to obtain justice as a society, but for his history. All you people crying foul about his arrest should realize your name could be published as the one he kills next time this alcoholic gets behind the wheel.

If this previously convicted drunk driver is convicted again give him jail time. Then his friends could send him postcards from different bars around town.

Validated (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2013 at 10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You know, if the case is that weak against this guy, it's probably not worth the taxpayer's money trying him again. Aaron Tudor sure didn't help the prosecutor's case either.

And frankly, I'm with the majority here in that I'd be much more afraid of crossing paths with Beutel or Tudor than I would be with Denunzio.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2013 at 11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would be more afraid of Tudor too if I was driving drunk and refused to follow his lawful orders.

Idiot logic abounds.

Validated (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2013 at 12:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, so if you are impaired. Then make a bad judgement call by getting out of your vehicle, you deserve to be assaulted? Get your head straight buddy.

shibalba (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2013 at 2:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have two comments.

First, on the juxtaposition of Tudor's Aggravated Assault and Battery with a deadly weapon with intent to do great bodily harm, versus an alleged DUI: Two wrongs do not equal one right.

Remember:

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members."

"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. "
Hubert Humphrey
"Our society must make it right and possible for old people not to fear the young or be deserted by them, for the test of a civilization is the way that it cares for its helpless members".
Pearl S. Buck

"Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members -- the last, the least, the littlest."
~Cardinal Roger Mahony, In a 1998 letter, Creating a Culture of Life

"The measure of a society is found in how they treat their weakest and most helpless citizens. As Americans, we are blessed with circumstances that protect our human rights and our religious freedom, but for many people around the world, deprivation and persecution have become a way of life."
James Earl "Jimmie" Carter

Second, on the trial and resulting hung jury: The original vote was 6/6. That's right, dead even. The vote went as high as 8/4 for Not Guilty, then swung as low as 11/1 for guilty, and it was moving back up, but after 12 hours over two days the jury decided they would not be able to unanimously agree. While that is neither an Acquittal, nor a conviction, it is proof that there was, and is, REASONABLE DOUBT because several of our fellow citizens (people the prosecutor hand picked) who heard and saw the evidence had a reasoned difference of opinion.

At a minimum, this defendant was 'legally innocent' if not factually not guilty.

DarrylGenis (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2013 at 2:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Is there such a term as "legally innocent"? I don't think this guy was innocent. But I do think Tudor's abuse of power tarnished the case. There are no "innocents" here, just different variations of guilty.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2013 at 6:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Some seriously moro...uhh, misguided quotes there, but no surprise at all. From the barrister's book of cliched aphorisms?

zappa (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2013 at 6:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Zappa, Misguided, in that:
a) you disagree that DeNunzio is not the Pillar of the community, or
b) you think a double standard whereby different people should expect to be treated better or worse according to their station?

Botany, the term 'legally innocent' comes right off of page 5 of a book published by 'The California District Attorney's Association' titled: 'The Uniform Crime Charging Manual'.
It means a person who cannot be convicted due to a rule of law, whether it be the presumption of innocence coupled with the application of the 'tie goes to runner concept of circumstantial evidence or the exclusionary rule, or similar rules of law.

DarrylGenis (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2013 at 7:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If our preference is vigilante justice, support for people who beat DUI's to death would be an excellent economic policy relative to the expense of the legal justice system, and a great way to protect us from drunk drivers. We currently spend the majority of taxpayer dollars on a system that includes people we euphemistically refer to as "law enforcement" personnel, who are legally required to obey the law that they enforce. We're well on the way to a society that embraces the policy that "big fish eat little fish" in our advocacy for those unable to defend themselves as well as failing to assess penalties on predators in law enforcement. These are incompatible policies, and we need to make a decision between them that's logically consistent, rather than based on job description.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2013 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, I spoke too soon - DarrylGenis is back trying his case in the Comments section instead of in court where the case actually belongs...

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2013 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why is a problem that Mr. Genis engages the community in issues that he's directly involved in?
He has every right AND a duty to his clients to get their side of the story out there. Under "yeti's" system are we all guilty before proven innocent?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2013 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes he has the right to bias the next jury with his rancor about abusive cops (without charges to back that up) as a way to distract from the facts that his client was driving under the influence and refused to follow a police officer's orders.

How come we don't see respectable attorneys spouting off about their clients in the comments section?

Validated (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2013 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Validated: How come we don't see cops and prosecutors who acknowledge that we have a legal justice system that defines citizens as innocent until proven guilty, and who acknowledge that the process of determining innocence or guilt according to this system excludes police officers and is restricted to decisions made by judges and juries?

14noscams (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2013 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What is a respectable attorney? Is there some list I can look them up on?

bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Should I have said "less than deplorable"? LOL

Validated (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2013 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Under Yeti's system the lawyers try their cases in court, and they don't try to poison the jury pool with unsubstantiated allegations outside of court while they are trying to get their, uh, "not factually not guilty" clients found "legally innocent."

There are many excellent criminal defense attorneys out there. DarrylGenis is the only one I know of in town who routinely uses the SB Independent Comments section to try his cases and attack those who disagree with him. That he is the only one who does this is telling. Character counts.

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2013 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's not surprising that Validated has already convicted Denunzio while giving Tudor every benefit of due process.

Could your commentary be any more biased? Your attitude displays the arrogance and blind devotion to our men in blue that is causing us problems in the first place. Yes, people are innocent until proven guilty. That goes for Denunzio as well as Tudor. But if you can't see the fact that Tudor administered street justice and by doing so, allowed Denunzio to escape the justice he should have received, there's no hope for you.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2013 at 2:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeti,
The trial is over. Are you saying that because I am a trial lawyer my 1st amendment rights on this board are somehow less than someone else, like for instance yours?

My comments here are limited, and there is no need for my further participation.

It is telling that in spite of my detractors, I have proven correct both in the Lance case, and now here.

Carry on. I will stand by and read for amusement.

DarrylGenis (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2013 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Go Darryl! Yes, you go 1st amend away. Sometimes some insight into the "good old boys club" is good and provides some transparency that seems to be lacking in this town. Talking about something on a blog.. oh gee, not that... Big whooopeee skip, I have seen MUCH worse in lawyerland....

If this is you, good job on the stones for backing up what you say with your name.

bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2013 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@ Botany.... You stated, "But if you can't see the fact that Tudor administered street justice", and you say I'm biased? I didn't see any charges by the SBDA, CA Attorney General or any other authorized investigative agency bringing charges against Tudor, do you? Oh I know, It's a conspiracy set up to keep the man down, right?

I don't know Tudor, or have even met the guy, but I did listen to the professional manner in which the officers handled Denunzio during his blood draw. Denunzio acted exactly like every other drunk trying to obstruct a peace officer from collecting evidence, WHICH IS THEIR JOB!

I'm not saying Denunzio is guilty of this crime. I'm saying that based on this jury being 8-4 IN FAVOR of guilt and with his history he SHOULD be tried again in the interest of justice.

My opinion is that Genis is on here trying to sway public opinion as a way to influence the DA not to try his client again. Genis refers to the Lance case because he knows the cop hating News-Press did everything they could to sway public opinion. Poisoning the jury pool is not being proven right.

Validated (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2013 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One man's poison is another man's information.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2013 at 3:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Whomever Validated is, not interesting, not compelling, small mind. Fact is DA gets convictions everyday. In this case after unusual process and costs, including shipping the case to Santa Maria that cost both the County and DeNunzio a lot of extra expense, they did not get a conviction and in my opinion, only because of Tudor, one bad apple in an otherwise in my opinion, exemplary local police force. (add Beutel and her husband to the bad apples!)

sbreader (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2013 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK they are going to do it again. This has become high profile and I wonder if Dudley understands that her career may rest on this case. She loses again, good riddance. I wouldn't bet the house either way.

sbreader (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2013 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't think the trial is over, DarylGenis, because I believe the DA has announced that they are going to re-try it. An 8-4 deadlock in favor of guilt makes this a correct decision, IMO.

I imagine we'll be reading your play-by-play commentary on the trial as things move forward, right? Why not post a running blog on your website about your active cases? Or become a talking head on local TV? Let's make your crusade to make your clients "legally innocent" REALLY public!

I apologize for the hyperbole, but the fact that you see nothing wrong with commenting on active cases in such a manner as well as the fact that no other local defense attorney does the same thing makes me think that sooner or later the State Bar is going to have something to say about this, and you'll be taking them on as well.

Anyway, I'm glad you're amused, because you amuse me, too. And I really have to congratulate you on the improved spelling and grammar in your posts, too. I think you're just awesome, DarrylGenis.

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2013 at 6:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Two Different points which Daryl would like you to confuse:

Yes the cops need oversight and Tudor probably went overboard.

The other point is Daryl's client feels its ok to knock back a few drinks, then drive even though he has previously had a DUI and is not allowed to by law.

A perfect world would be both Tudor and Denunzio doing jail time and no need for the self promoting Daryl Genis in town, unfortunately its not a perfect world. They probably won't do time, and as much as I dislike DG's style somebody needs to rake the law over the coals when they screw up and he seems to be the only one doing it.

pointssouth (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2013 at 7:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@ sbreader... What are you smoking man? "I wonder if Dudley understands that her career may rest on this case." Seriously?? Ultimately this is just a DUI case and it will have no effect on her career at all. Until an actual case of misconduct is investigated and proven by a higher authority I'm fully behind DA Dudley. All those that can't seem to stay out of trouble, or wear tin foil hats, can make all the assertions of misconduct they want. They don't mean anything.

I believe Yeti is spot on about Genis. The little chubster loves seeing himself in the papers.

Validated (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2013 at 8:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Watch the toutube video, uncut, lloydtshare. Tudor is driving in the bike lane at around 00:34:00 to 00:41 swerving back & forth, heads back to the bike lane at around 00:46:26, at around 00:54, he runs the stop sign at Cliff and Las Positas without stopping or slowing and comes pretty close to a white pickup that's already in the intersection making a left onto Cliff -failure to stop, failure to yield right-of-way, failure to use turn signal. I am biased because I live close by and use that intersection a lot and don't want to get broadsided by a cop who doesn't stop at stop signs or signal or wait until the intersection is clear before driving through it. Tudor's driving is illegal and dangerous, unlike Denuncio's. I can sure see why SBPD needed to do extensive editing on the video to hide this. I haven't tried to log times for the remaining video yet.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2013 at 9:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Link to video?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2013 at 9:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Re Dudley filing charges against Tudor or other LE - if there's been a color of law case filed against local LE in the last 40 years, I'd like the details. I don't think there's a DA other than Tom Sneddon who has ever filed multiple malicious charges against a candidate opposing him in an election for the office of District Attorney, either.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2013 at 9:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

go on youtube. there are 3 or 4 different versions you can watch. Solid entertainment of our best "controlling the situation".

bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2013 at 10:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's a complete video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ysbw0j...

Thank God Tudor was there before Denunzio killled someone. I'm surprised he didn't pull him over sooner. Really didn't see anything to fault Tudor's driving. As for the rest, can't really see it on the video so that's for a jury to decide imho.

It's obvious Denunzio was trying to get away and if he wasn't drunk and drives that way normally he should have his license yanked for reckless driving.

Do drunk drivers deserve to be beaten. Of course not. But Denunzio also was far from cooperative as we can see in the video.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2013 at 11:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nah, I see Tudror driving just as crappy and was probably staking him out because he was talking to a girl that Tudor liked in the bar or asked out in a previous arrest. :) He jumped him and beat him first thing out of the gate. Lame cop move 101.

bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2013 at 11:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

hahahaha be prepared to be criticized for "wild speculation" tho I enjoyed it

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2013 at 12:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry Darryl I was working late this eve on a web server. I am a bit tired at this hour. I will see what I can find out for you and call your office if I dig him up. Tudor is known for hitting on girls he finds attractive once he stops them and lets them off. I will look for him tho. I just want the truth to come out. The video of the beating was so disturbing to me. I will help if i can and call you. I have vast resources to info in town. Have a good eve sir. Thank you for your uphill battle.

sblocal4ever (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2013 at 6:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Restating the obvious:
Too much comical speculation, whether true or untrue.
Denunzio is a drunk that was a menace to public safety and should be locked up and Tudor used way too much force on a drunk. Dunno if the force was because of lack of training or because Tudor is just a jackass but the outcome is the same and obviously Tudor should not be carrying a badge and gun. Geez...

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2013 at 6:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, and Tudor is still carrying a badge and a gun while Denunzio never suffered any legal consequences for his actions. (although he did suffer physically and financially)

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2013 at 7:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In reviewing the video it appears Tudor is on foot (00:01:40) and he is in the headlights of a car that appears to be on a curve. Tudor is running back to the police car (00:11:00). Was Tudor outside his car, above the parking lot of the restaurant and watching the area from this location? It appears Tudor drove past the Hendry's Beach entrance at (00:31:00) and turns onto Los Positas Road at (1:00:00). If this is accurate, when and where did Tudor determine there was no front license plate on DeNunzio's truck?

Where were both vehicles when the police red lights were activated?

There is no law requiring a driver to remain in their vehicle once stopped by police, common sense should tell us it is best to remain in the car.

Also, once a driver has stepped out of their vehicle the officer should use common sense and keep the driver from going back inside their vehicle (unless required due to circumstances). Once a suspect is outside their vehicle the officer can observe if they appear to have any weapons. I would think the officer would not want the suspect to get back inside their vehicle as the officer would not know if the (possibly aggitated/aggravated) suspect would then have access to any weapon(s) concealed within the vehicle. Whether or not Tudor used correct procedure regarding this point is arguable. I believe Tudor was wrong!

It appears Tudor approached DeNunzio (00:05:17), touched his left arm and pushed him against DeNunzio's vehicle. I suspect Tudor advised DeNunzio to get back into his car; when DeNunzio did not comply the pushing occurred and Tudor kicked DeNunzio's leg out (00:05:22) and took him to the asphalt. Likely a "contempt of cop" violation that prompted this action by Tudor. Look at the time frame. In my opinion Tudor was too aggressive for such a short interaction with DeNunzio.

whatsinsb (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2013 at 7:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Best wishes in locating her, Darryl, you're truly a local hero, and you're trying this case for thousands of us who've had similar experiences with LE and the DA's office. We're with you in spirit in your fight for truth and justice. This is a fight for truth against a corrupt legal justice system whose only weapon is to bury it in lies.
The DUI issue seems like an oxymoron to me - if Tudor was acting as a cop concerned about a DUI, there's no explanation for allowing Denuncio to drive over 4 miles without intervention.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2013 at 8:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

whatsinsb: Tudor didn't turn on his lights until he reached Loreto Plaza..

14noscams (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2013 at 8:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank God for the Daryl Genis's of the world. Attorneys like him are all that stand between us and unfettered police power. And if the police and local gov can comment in the press or online, why shouldn't Genis.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2013 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Good point 14 - If Denunzio was such a danger to public safety, then why did Tudor follow him for over 4 miles before conducting a traffic stop? Either Tudor wasn't convinced that Denunzio was a danger for 4 miles or he was following him for some other reason.

If a cop follows me for 4 miles on city streets and I was unaware of his presence, I am almost positive I would break one or more traffic laws along the way. Wouldn't most of us?

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2013 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Quite a distance for a police officer to follow a suspected impaired/drunk driver (Hendry's Beach to Loreto Plaza).

Is it known if DeNunzio turned into Loreto Plaza due to the police lights being activated or did Tudor activate his red lights in Loreto Plaza? Only an issue as the DA, in closing arguments, reportedly stated "Denunzio didn’t pull over immediately after Tudor turned on his flashing lights." An act to consider if he were driving like an ordinary person.

I am an ordinary person and like many of you have experienced driving in front of a police car on the roadway. As I've looked back at the police (or other vehicles) in my rear or side view mirror I sometimes found myself momentarily wavering in my lane. Depending on the driver in front of a police car they may become more nervous the longer the police car stays behind them. Looking into the rear/side view mirrors, more attention being paid to the police behind them than the drive ahead of them, could cause some deviation in driving, slight wavering in the traffic lane, over the line, etc. Police stop these people and they are simply nervous, not impaired.

If Tudor believed the driver he followed was impaired there should have been more substantial evidence seen in the video in a shorter period of time. More than just momentary movement within the driving lane or a turn signal issue. This lack of significant evidence is likely the reason Tudor followed DeNunzio for such a distance, he probably knew he didn't have enough of a (negative) driving pattern to substantiate DUI but just enough to warrant a stop.

At the stop, Tudor's inexperience, lack of discipline, lack of proper training and lack of professionalism escalate this stop into the circus it has become. From what I see on the video Tudor initiated the physical and combative contact. As I've said before probably due to DeNunzio's "contempt of cop" violation when he did not comply with Tudor's order to get back into his vehicle. Did I miss something DeNunzio did that justified Tudor's actions?

whatsinsb (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2013 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As per Validated's failure to understand my comment about Dudley's career, at Edhat there are 57 comments to this story, here 68 and counting, that is about the most on any local story lately. Dudley is an elected official. If she fails to get a conviction again it will be front page headlines in all the local media. The public and her opponent won't forget at the next election. Frankly, I wouldn't want to be DeNunzio here as there will be no stone left unturned in the second trial in the effort to convict.

sbreader (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2013 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ummm..... Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe probable cause for the stop has already been ruled on, but great job you Law & Order fans.

Validated (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2013 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

i hope they lock his habitual dui azz up.

i always thought waiting for the other shoe to drop was just a saying.

lawdy (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2013 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Watch the video. He goes RUNNING, not walking calmly, back to his car to start a pretty aggressive initial pursuit that goes... hmmm what 3 or so miles? What for a front license plate? Tudor was up to something, and it is blatantly obvious by his demeanor as he jumps out of the car and start whacking Denunzio. Yup, I speculated.. go figure, sounds like I wasn't too far off. Tudor has a pattern of behavior that has been documented and the leopard doesn't change his spots. There is more to this story and the DA should get off it's you know what and look into it.

bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2013 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree it is weird that the Denunzio was allowed to get as far as he did.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2013 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, it's been many, many months now since this incident, DarrylGenis, your case is in trial and evidently you still haven't identified or contacted this hostile witness. IMO this is something you could have hired an investigator to find out long ago. I don't even know if you could use this person's testimony at this stage of the litigation. While I recognize the shock value of bringing this up now, at this point it seems like unsubstantiated speculation to me, and completely tangential to the primary issue of whether your client was driving while under the influence of alcohol. I understand that you want to put the focus on other people's behavior rather than your client's behavior, but still, I'm underwhelmed.

I don't know Tudor or Beutel. While I don't think the DeNunzio arrest was SBPD's finest hour, the fact is had your client stayed in his vehicle and followed Tudor's instructions, there would have been no use of force.

You have a sensational case that's getting a lot of public scrutiny - just the situation that you enjoy. IMO your usual tactic of hurling mud that you can't prove to smear these and other officers is unfair and unprofessional. I understand that it's your job to create reasonable doubt in an effort to get your "not factually not guilty" clients found "legally innocent." You're not doing anything I haven't seen before, but you do it with the most flair and legal sleight-of-hand I've seen in a long time. You've had your hand slapped here and there for assorted minor transgressions in court, but you clearly don't like to discuss those. You're a real swashbuckler Darryl, but IMO your methods are damaging to the legal profession.

I also recognize that you don't care what I think because you see yourself as a crusader to get to the truth to defend your clients, but I think that sooner or later your tactics will bring your downfall. Enjoy the ride while it lasts.

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2013 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

yea-it is awfully weird that Tudor followed him through a couple of the worst and most poorly designed intersections in all of SB.

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2013 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes and like Denunzio or not, who knows what would have happened to him had Tudor pulled him over in a remote area out of sight of the general public. The way it escalated, I wonder at what point people start to review this "policy" as dangerous. Makes you wonder of all the places he could have lit him up, why did he do it there? Perhaps he was afraid Denunzio, and this totally awesome collar, would slip through his fingers?

bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2013 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

While I applaud the DA's office for trying to support the PD, a second trial is a waste of time and taxpayer's money.

If DeNunzio is the alcohol consuming person described in previous posts he will possibly be stopped for DUI again in the near future and hopefully the PD will have upgraded their officer's training to eliminate the problems created by Tudor. Tudor stopped DeNunzio, the stop turned into a fiasco (primarily due to actions by police) and Tudor does some creative report writing in an attempt to substantiate the arrest.

Chief Sanchez supports Tudor stating "sometimes police work isn't pretty." Unfortunately, issues of this type are showing up too often and are the product of poor training, supervision and leadership.

Given all that has transpired since this case began I doubt there is much more the DA can find to support their contention DeNunzio was driving impaired. All the defense needs is one juror to believe their presentation and DeNunzio walks again. The DA was presented with a case laden with garbage and even though eight jurors in the first trial voted to convict, the vote count was not close enough for a retrial of this type of case. The Judge acquitted DeNunzio of a separate charge of driving with a blood-alcohol level above 0.08 (DeNunzio was not above the legal BA limit).

Retry for murder, yes. DUI, no way. Save the taxpayers money. Yes, I understand I (or you) could be a victim of DeNunzio if he chooses to drink and drive, but, Tudor didn't do his job properly, it doesn't appear the DA has sufficient evidence to obtain a unanimous verdict and the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay (again) for Tudor's poor performance.

whatsinsb (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2013 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"If DeNunzio is the alcohol consuming person described in previous posts he will possibly be stopped for DUI again in the near future"....WOW!!!....!!!

Maybe in the near future he'll kill someone too.

I vote to try him again. If convicted I'll send him a post card.

Validated (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2013 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I heard on the news DA Dudley WILL RETRY Denuncio again!!

HAHAHA!!!!

Validated (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2013 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So did you just give us all a "nanny nanny billy goat"? I think this is a total waste of time at this point.

bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2013 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here comes his THIRD DUI with jail time :)

Anyone know where I can find a post card from a SB bar?

Validated (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2013 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok, I will give this string one more post: A little legal advice for Mr. DeNunzio, since he obviously is not getting good advice from his lawyer. DeNunzio should make a deal with the DA to plead guilty to a "wet reckless," take his multi-year probation and multi-year drivers license suspension, and perhaps a monetary fine, and then get on with his life. If he can afford it, he should consider a stint in rehab to help him make decisions about how stay out of his car or truck after he has been drinking. Tudor could use a trip to Holocaust Museum as a reminder as to what the extreme example is of state power to oppress taken to its extreme end. The DA is correct to try to protect us from the public safety threat of DeNunzio's repeated drunk driving and Tudor needs to turn it down a notch or two. There are solutions to all this that don't require another trial.

Eckermann (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2013 at 8:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tudor is on notice by the Public now. And Cam Sanchez is just too pretty to come off as serious member of effective law enforcement.

itsacrockof (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2013 at 10:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A follow up to my previous post, does our DA's Office have the ethics and integrity to closely scrutinize Tudor's story, that has no credibility? Yes DeNunzio drove without a valid license. Yes he had a drink at the Boathouse. But in order to get a conviction, will the DA's Office allow and encourage Tudor to continue to perjure himself as to why he followed DeNunzio in the first place? Tudor's story has absolutely no credibility but he caught an otherwise guilty person. Does Tudor's education at Westmont have any bearing on his ability to lie under oath about this matter? How does this work out? In Santa Barbara I hope we take the high road.

sbreader (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2013 at 10:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I ALWAYS offered to plead DeNunzio to what he WAS guilty of (14601.2 VC - Driving While Suspended) but DA wanted that AND wet reckless and a WET IS a DUI so I told DeNunzio what any GOOD Lawyer would tell him: "here is the deal they offered, and it is the same as pleading guilty as charged. I recommend against it, because I don't believe they can convince 12 unanimously to vote for guilty, but YOU must decide for yourself, as your acceptance must be free and voluntary, knowing and intelligent."

Only a 'Dumptruck' lawyer would FORCE a wet plea upon a client.

DarrylGenis (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2013 at 2:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

We're re-trying Denunzio again? Although I believe he's guilty as sin, this is a total waste of taxpayer's money. The case was tarnished so badly by Tudor's actions, I really doubt they'll get a jury to convict.

But I think this case has more to do with reputations and egos than it has to do with justice, practicality and taxpayer's money.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2013 at 5:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

People of Santa Barbara, do you really know who and what your DA Joyce Dudley really is? Don't take my word for it:

Court documents reflect that Dudley’s track record includes several instances of reported misconduct. For example, during a 1995 case, called People V. Amado Inda, which involved the case of a man accused of repeated sexual abuse of a minor, Dudley’s conviction was reversed for six instances of prosecutorial misconduct. Those circumstances led to a motion for a new trial.

“Although the (judge) has presided over more than one hundred criminal justice trials, this will be the first such motion I have ever granted,” Barbara County Superior Court Judge Patrick McMahon wrote.

In his conclusion, McMahon said: “As I observed 100 pages ago, this is not a happy decision. It involves a prosecutor who I once admired. It was not pleasant to either recall, or recount in print, how she fell so quickly from grace as she endeavored to overzealously obtain a conviction at any cost, and without regard to rules of law, evidence, or ethical probity.

“I felt totally betrayed,” the judge went on to say. According to a New York Times article from October 2006, Dudley was disqualified from a case after it was discovered that she wrote a novel whose facts and characters closely mirrored those in an actual rape case. The crime novel titled “Intoxicating Agent,” had as its heroine “Jordon Danner, the same initials and the same job as Dudley …”

“Acting on a motion from the real defendant in a real rape-by-intoxication case, an appeals court in Ventura ruled on Thursday that Ms. Dudley’s novel had crossed an ethical line,” the article read.

DarrylGenis (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2013 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ah, I get the head fake - you didn't get what you wanted, DarrylGenis, so now you're attacking the District Attorney with something that has absolutely nothing to do with your client's guilt or innocence. It strikes me as a smear tactic.

If you think DA Dudley has done such a bad job then why don't you take out papers and run against her next time? Maybe the citizens will vote her out of office down the road, but even if they do, it has nothing to do with whether your client was drinking and driving in violation of his probation in the case at issue here.

Keep trying your cases in the Comments section here because it's fun to read and you're just freakin' awesome, DarrylGenis.

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2013 at 9:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OK now we've entered the scum zone. Genis' last post was the rant of a child not getting his way after making problems for those making the decision. If it wasn't for all of his out of the court room rantings and posting in the paper the DA might not have not decided to retry. Now she has to for more than just justice reasons.

Genis has the support of about 8 posters here. WOW you've come along way baby.

Validated (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2013 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Although I think Denunzio is guilty, I think trying him again is a royal waste of resources on a dubious outcome.

Validated - And you want him tried again? Is it the safety of our citizens that concerns you or the reputation of the DA's office and the SBPD and it's officers? I don't think anyone here supports your views.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2013 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany, I too think the decision to retry DeNunzio is the correct one.

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2013 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It would appear that some posters don't understand the basics of our legal system, little things like innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, right to a defense, discovery, etc. etc.

Strangely, it appears that the same posters are consumed with anger at the defense attorney. Hopefully you are never arrested and taken to criminal court, or perhaps you should be and thereby learn the value of a bulldog attorney.

BTW, I still think both Beutel and Tudor are guilty, best evidence being the combined efforts of the SPBD, DA and local judge to impede a fair public hearing, even after our mayor promised the public a full and independent investigation. Which is not to say that DeNunzio is not guilty.

Genis - more power to ya. No, strike that. You already have the full force of the law (The Law, not to be confused with our local police and govmafia) on your side. Keep up the fight.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2013 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why is it ok for the DA to present their case publicly but not the defense?!

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2013 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@ Botany... Strictly in the interest of justice. It's Denuncio's THIRD DUI. This guy just doesn't learn and he's going to kill someone. I would say no way if it was his first DUI but he's obviously still getting behind the wheel after drinking.

You want to see alterior motives just look at how Genis has handled the PR. Point fingers at every one else to distract from his clients behavior. All these comments he's posting are not for the best interests of his client. Other Jurist Doctorates must be shaking their heads at this. What a joke.

I support what's in the best interest of society.

Validated (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2013 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree, Validated. It appears that DeNunzio was drinking and driving in violation of his probation. IMO the decision to re-try the case to determine guilt or innocence is appropriate.

I wonder how much time will be spent on the probable cause for the stop this time around. I imagine DarrylGenis [being the competent DUI defense attorney he is] no doubt demanded a pre-trial hearing to explore this issue, and the fact there WAS a trial would seem to indicate that the court decided there was sufficient probable cause for the police to stop DeNunzio. If this issue is already adjudicated, then I don't know if all of this online fretting about Tudor's actions prior to the stop amounts to anything.

I see DarrylGenis throwing mud here, there and everywhere, ginning up people with his unsubstantiated theories and accusations, smearing the arresting officers and DA, trying to turn the focus on their behavior and away from his own client's behavior. That's all he's doing. This is DUI Defense 101. I see his tactics for what they are, and I'm not afraid to call him on them, but I'm not "consumed with anger" toward him either, JohnLocke.

I do think DarrylGenis needs to do his work in court and not in the Comments section here. If he must harangue the public with his unsubstantiated accusations and theories, then I think he should do this on his own website or Facebook page, and if he does, then more power to him.

I don't see the DA spending time in the Comments section; for that matter, I don't see any other local defense attorney doing the same thing. I think this speaks volumes. Character counts.

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2013 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Let me understand your claim:
1. It is okay for Joyce Dudley to make a Press Release statment on the DeNunzio case (several actually) but it is not okay for me?

She makes these Press Release statments precisely to reach the potential jury pool., and also to keep the public informed, but she gives a one sided kind of information.

2. It is okay to attack me personally but it is not okay to attack Dudley?
Sounds like a double standard.

Simple fact is the evidence is exceedingly weak in this case and that is the fault of Tudor. DA had a full and complete hearing in front of a jury and the case they can legally present now is weaker, not as strong or stronger than what they already presented.

I am satisfied to make my motions (win or lose) to Judge Rigali as he is quite fair and inteligent. I am also quite satisfied to take this case in front of another jury and either win it outright or hang it a second time.

But I have the same First Amendment rights as anyone else on this bb and some of the posters are lawyers and other employees of SBPD and the DA's office, so enough with the double standard.

Also, I don't give one iota of a thought to what another attorney would do. And in fact, I happen to know at least two respectable attorneys that have posted here and also about their own cases in the past.

DarrylGenis (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2013 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't know a single person in SB who doesn't think Beutel and Tudor, among other sbpd cops are crooked. I don't think a retrial will lead to a conviction. Total waste of money!

sbs124 (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2013 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

An assertion is not true just because DarrylGenis says it's true. For the record, I am not an employee of either the SBPD or the SBDA's office; even if I was, I am entitled to my opinions just as much as DarrylGenis or anyone else is. And like Eckermann wrote way back when this thread started, I too am old enough to be Tudor's daddy. Like Eckermann, I don't drink and drive, either.

I believe the two attorneys DarrylGenis mentions in his previous post are both DUI defense attorneys from out of the SB area. If I'm wrong, then show me where I'm wrong.

I believe it's standard for most DA offices to issue such press releases. I wasn't surprised to see a press release about re-trying the DeNunzio case. But I don't see the DA's office trying the case in the media as DarrylGenis wants others to believe they are.

What's keeping DarryGenis from issuing his own press releases?

If DarrylGenis really thinks the DA has acted improperly in the past then I think DarrylGenis should man up and either start a proper recall campaign to get her out of office or else run against her the next time she's up for election. My guess is he won't do either. I'm tired of reading DarrylGenis' sneaky ad hominem attacks in the Comments section. I think these types of attacks should be beneath you, DarrylGenis, but in any event if you have to make them, then they belong in your own press release, or on your own website or Facebook page, and not here. JMO.

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2013 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Isn't Dudley up for re-election anyways?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2013 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If DeNunzio was in violation of his court ordered probation, there were court orders (terms and conditions) with which he must comply to remain on probation, i.e., no consumption of alcohol. Was he ordered not to consume alcohol?

It is also likely DeNunzio received a suspended sentence as part of his probation. For those that want DeNunzio incarcerated (and to save taxpayer's money), why doesn't his probation officer violate his probation and have a judge impose the suspended sentence? Forget the second trial for the current arrest as it appears he is definitely in violation of his probation, intoxicated or not, if court ordered not to consume alcohol at any time while on probation.

Is it possible the DA would like to secure a conviction to minimize or eliminate any liability to the PD (if) a conviction helps the PD liability issue?

whatsinsb (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2013 at 3:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The arrest was a long time ago now and I don't remember every detail, whats in sb, but I believe DeNunzio was on probation at the time of this last arrest, and that one of the terms of his probation was that he was not allowed to drive with any alcohol in his system. I do not know this for a fact, though.

I doubt if the DA's office is really thinking about any civil lawsuit/liability against SBPD in their decisions about the case - if they were, then they likely would have filed resisting arrest charges against DeNunzio at the outset, and they didn't. Again, I don't know this for a fact, but that is what I believe.

Ken_, Dudley was elected in 6/2010. I think she is up for re-election in 2014, but I could be wrong.

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2013 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dudley's not on my list of favorites anyway. It has nothing to do with the Denunzio case at least until now. It was the post-election payback given to Josh Lynn that was despicable.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2013 at 5:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You nailed it whatsinsb. At the first trial, a paralegal from the Santa Barbara City Attorney's (Steve Wiley) office sat and took notes, and even went as far as to advise Tudor on his wardrobe choices. Additionally, the supervising DDA for Ms. Trieu is Ms. Scott who came from the City Attorney's office where she defended cops as defendants in civil cases.

The DA already got the sentence they asked for on the 14601 (Suspended License) charge. There never was a probation violation.

The ONLY reason the DA won't just leave it alone is because she thinks her job is to spend taxpayer money to help insulate the cops from a sizable civil judgment.

DarrylGenis (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2013 at 5:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So, his drivers license was suspended at the time of the arrest, for a previous DUI, I gather. I wonder what terms and conditions were involved in the disposition of the previous DUI case - e.g., he not to drive with any alcohol in his system, right? I believe this is a common requirement when a license is suspended for DUI. Or was he not to drive at all until the suspension was lifted? Or just allowed to drive to/from work? I'm just trying to get my facts straight here...

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2013 at 6:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeti,
Problems with the probation order contents made the job for the prosecution insurmountable.

The thing that the general public seems not to appreciate is that it is part of our culture to over-price things in order to posture for the negotiating a final 'closing' price. Criminal law is no different. Prosecutors file at 'retail' and settle for a median 'price' and this is based or determined by the true value of the case, not emotional attachment.

Think about it in terms of real estate. If the seller is emotionally attached to the property and is listing it himself, it will be hard to negotiate a deal that can actually close.

Here, the DA got emotional about things that are not evidence in the trial (and their judgment remains clouded In this way). The priors and the suspended license and the PV are NOT admissible evidence and therefore must be stripped away when evaluatimg the strengths and weaknesses of the case.

How good are the states witnesses? How bad is the driving? Are there any admissions to having had too much to drink. Are there any SFSTs or FSTs and how good or bad was the performance? What is the evidence of the BAC and how if at all can it be related back to the time of driving?

When you look at it this way, you can see how weak or strong the case is OBJECTIVELY. The evidence must be evaluated in the context of the rules the jury is made to operate by namely 1) that the accused must be presumed innocent (unlike in a forum like this one) 2) that the prosecution bears the entire burden of proof and that the burden never shifts. 3) that burden is Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. 4) Circumstantial evidence is okay, but when two or more interpretations are possible and at least one of those points toward innocence, that innocent interpretation MUSt be adopted and the guilty one rejected.

When viewed in this way, I believe even those who think they know someone is guilty would still have to find that person not guilty. This is what is meant by 'legally innocent' as opposed to factually innocent, and that is in DA handbooks, not stuff I made up here.

DarrylGenis (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2013 at 7:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

With such a compelling argument "DarrylGenis," it's inconceivable that only 4 of 12 jurors swallowed it.

As I said March 13, 2013 at 6:47 p.m.:
"I look forward to the retrial."

binky (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2013 at 7:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The complete picture is not "4 of 12 jurors swallowed it":
At the onset of deliberations the jury was evenly divided at 6/6. It gradually changed and at one time it was 8/4 for acquittal, and at another point it was 11/1 for guilt, and then started back toward innocence but the jury threw in the towel at the close of the second full day of deliberations having spent 12 full hours trying to reach a unanimous decision upon a single question: has the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that DeNunzio was so impaired by alcohol at the time he was driving that he no longer had the ability to drive as well as an average person? THE FIRST JURY HAD A BLOOD RESULT AND TESTIMONY ABOUT WHAT IT MEANT.

At any second trial, there will be NO BLOOD EVIDENCE and no testimony about any such things.

So I too look forward to a second trial, if it ever gets that far.

Unlike you, I will actually be there, so when I say I look forward to it, I actually mean it.

DarrylGenis (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2013 at 8:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Some of you sound kind of jealous of Darryl and he answered all your arguments. Second, I don't care what suspended license previous BS, etc.. does anyone deserve (via your constitution) to be stalked and almost attacked, then have their ass royally kicked by a cop (with a marginal at best track record) when they exit their car? looks like damage control by the DA to cut down on the civil suit, stay in office, and suck up to the cops. It is ridiculous.

bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2013 at 11:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Reasonable minds may differ. While I still think the decision to retry Denunzio is the correct one, I find what DarrylGenis just wrote to be interesting and educational - especially so since it was without the usual posturing and subjective judgments/commentary about the integrity and motivations of his opponents [and others such as myself who don't have a dog in this fight but who are still interested the outcome] - though I confess I'm not entirely sure what "PV" means...probation violation, maybe??

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, bimbo, and I think we all want justice - though each of us have our own opinion about what "justice" means. I don't know where jealousy enters into this at all.

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2013 at 11:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So Darryl, if you get an acquittal or at least not a conviction, are you or Denunzio going to go after the taxpayers for a civil judgment?

Inquiring minds want to know.

The answer to that question might affect my opinion about re-trying Denunzio.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2013 at 3:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Not if Tudor is fired. That is the deal. And he should be prosecuted for HIS felonious conduct, but the statute of limitations is running out.

Also PV does mean probation violation.

DarrylGenis (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2013 at 5:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

At this point in time I don't forsee that Tudor would be fired. It appears Sanchez isn't the type of person to admit he made a mistake (in his review of Tudor's actions relative to DeNunzio). Sanchez is not a leader and based on all the recent problems it appears he did not surround himself with well experienced leaders. Time for someone with cajones to step in and start cleaning house.

A lengthy suspension for Tudor without pay, a probationary period and mandatory counseling might be possible. But, is the PD and the city in a dilemma by retaining Tudor? If Tudor was involved in other excessive use of force issues that were proven, isn't there a term known as "negative retention" that could haunt the city and Tudor if he remains on the department?

Example: An employer in any business/profession retains an employee they know has a specific problem(s). The employee, after their problem has been identified, is again involved in a similar incident (theft, excessive force, drinking on the job, records fraud, etc.) that has a negative impact on a customer, co-worker or the general public. I suspect the employer is now subject to greater liability for retaining the employee knowing they have a history of similar behavior.

In what police position is Tudor currently assigned?

Sounds like requesting a retrial is simply buying time for the statute of limitations to run out. Can't prosecute Tudor, the primary witness against DeNunzio, while pursuing the conviction of DeNunzio. Then again, I don't see Tudor being prosecuted at any time. If what I read previously is accurate, that Tudor perjured himself, hasn't this person lost all credibility, especially as a police officer?

whatsinsb (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2013 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If a defendant is charged with resisting arrest, is it easier for the defense to review the arresting officers personnel file?

whatsinsb (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2013 at 9:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I second the motion that Darryl should run for DA.

sbs124 (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2013 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have ZERO INTEREST in ever being a prosecutor:

"We, as criminal defense lawyers, are forced to deal with some of the lowest people on earth, people who have no sense of right and wrong, people who will lie in court to get what they want, people who do not care who gets hurt in the process. It is our job–our sworn duty–as criminal defense lawyers, to protect our clients from those people." —Cynthia Roseberry

DarrylGenis (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2013 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There are many dedicated and hard-working people in these public service agencies that people find so easy to slur. I've met many prosecutors over the years who are just as dedicated to their jobs as DarrylGenis is dedicated to his.

Police work is a very tough and demanding job; some officers do it better than others, but no one is perfect. I've met many hard-working and dedicated police officers over the years, officers who make many arrests and only use that much force as necessary to control a situation or take an offender into custody. I've also encountered a few officers here and there over the years whose work ethic and/or competency did not impress me. It's the same way in any organization.

Chief Sanchez has already stated that in his opinion Off. Tudor did nothing wrong in arresting DeNunzio. For all the chatter I've read over the months about how Off. Tudor does his job, I really don't know how many complaints he has had lodged against him nor how many lawsuits against him the city has had to defend. My guess is the numbers are few and that overall Off. Tudor does his job competently and makes many arrests without much use of force. If the opposite is true, I'm thinking Tudor would have been reassigned long ago. Perhaps he will be reassigned in the future, or perhaps even terminated, but you need a lot of solid evidence to take such action, and unsubstantiated allegations and speculation don't work and don't impress anyone.

As I've written before, I don't think the DeNunzio arrest is the SBPD's finest hour, but in my experience had DeNunzio stayed in his car and followed Off. Tudor's instructions, the force used against him to take him into custody would not have occurred.

Some people find it easy to push other people's integrity buttons, but don't handle it well when their own integrity buttons are pushed.

It remains to be seen how this will all play out. I hope some measure of justice is achieved.

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2013 at 12:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hmmmm........ I certainly think Denunzio deserves due process, but just as important, I think Tudor deserves due process as well. I think an investigation of Tudor's actions should occur, but the public shouldn't be held hostage by the results either. If the investigation determines that Tudor should be fired, then so be it. If not, the public should not be held hostage by the threat of a lawsuit either. This is more complicated than I originally thought. I could envision a scenario where re-trying Denunzio would be in the best public interest. A deal that could avoid a retrial and protect the public interest might also be possible.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2013 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yetil, I don't think anyone knows how many complaints have been filed against Tudor (I seem to recall that our fine upstanding police are protected by union contract against having such things made public). But if it's only one, IMO, that's one too many.

And how many prior DUI's Denunzio may or may not have is irrelevant to the current arrest, as I think Mr. Genis would attest.

If retrying Denunzio is indeed a govmafia tactic to ensure that Tudor doesn't have to face charges, then this gov stinks even more than I thought - and that was a lot!

And I agree with K_V and others who ask why it is so 'wrong' for the defense to go public when the DA does it all the time.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2013 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"But if it's only one, IMO, that's one too many." WOW, JohnLocke. That's a very tough standard to live up to - I don't think that I could. I gather therefore that your own work record is spotless and no one has ever complained about how YOU do YOUR job.

As I wrote before, police work is a very tough and demanding job. In my experience not everyone is happy to see a police officer arrive at a scene. Sometimes people don't like what an officer does or how s/he does it, and a complaint can be the result.

And it may come as a surprise, JohnLocke, that not everyone is overjoyed when they find themselves being arrested, and they just don't enjoy the experience...

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2013 at 2:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Validated: All you people crying foul about his arrest should realize your name could be published as the one he kills next time this alcoholic gets behind the wheel.

The DA's argument is that this case involved a driver who was DUI and whose impaired driving represented a serious hazard to others, and that Officer Tudor's actions were motivated by his interest in public safety. Tudor's actions in the interest of public safety were to follow this menace to society for miles, making no attempt to remove this threat from public roads,
and allow him to make an independent decision regarding what length of time and what distance in miles he chose to present a potentially fatal hazard to others. When he reached his destination and coincidentally made the personal decision to relieve others on the road of consequences resulting from any impairment in his driving, turned off the ignition in his truck and got out, he was knocked down by Tudor, who then beat the **** out of him.

The DA's office and SBPD defend Officer Tudor's actions as essential to public safety. What did Officer Tudor do to protect other drivers from a dangerous drunk? NOTHING, ZIP, NADA.
And if Tudor truly believed the DUI line, his failure to intervene was ridiculously irresponsible.
It's surprising that both the DA and SBPD are insisting on maximum PR in a demonstration of SBPD's irresponsible and negligent attitude towards public safety.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2013 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

First of all JL, the privacy of Officer Tudors personnel record has nothing to do with the "union" he belongs to. It's state law.

Denuncio's prior DUI's being used in the trial is up to the judge, but as a citizen it matters to me. The prior punishments obviously haven't worked and he's proven himself to be a nuisance to society.

This is his THIRD (3rd) DUI so the next one is a FELONY with possible prison time. These people kill well over 10,000 people a year in this country.

You see a few posters here wanting him to walk free simply because of their opinions of cops. According to someone out there in any city or county the police are corrupt. Usually the same people that get in trouble.

Validated (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2013 at 4:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@14noscams... I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but neither Officer Tudor, Chief Sanchez, DA Dudley, or anyone besides Duncio are on trial here. This is a DUI trial, not about police tactics.

Most jurors, 8 out of 12 at least, are not that stupid.

Validated (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2013 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Validated - It's not the opinion of cops that makes most of us hesitant to have this retried. It's the fact that Tudor's actions made this case very difficult to win. One has to weigh justice avoided against the fact that this case may not be winnable. With two prior DUI's, this case should have been a slam dunk. Thanks to Tudor, it's anything but.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2013 at 5:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

IMO were it not for Tudor's actions there would be no case at all. Tudor's job is to look for and arrest drinking drivers. DeNunzio chose to drink and drive. His actions at the point Tudor contacted him certainly escalated and complicated the situation.

DeNunzio has a competent attorney, and the DA's office is doing what they think is right. I'll be interested in the final outcome of all of this.

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2013 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Some of the more objective of you might find a ride-along with SBPD [or with any other law enforcement agency] both interesting and educational.

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2013 at 6:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ride-alongs could become the next tourist attraction.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2013 at 6:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's just a suggestion, Ken...

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2013 at 6:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's a good one.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2013 at 7:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Been on one, but it was long long ago.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2013 at 8:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tudor does ride-a-longs, but only for cute single girls, and you have to agree to sit on his lap!

Applications can be found on his Facebook page, and if you are special, he may send you one unsolicited!

Now, THAT was tongue and cheek, so spare me the nasty accusations.

Robin Williams says: "Joke em if they can't take a Phuck"

DarrylGenis (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2013 at 8:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is this really DG? Anyone could claim the same.

sbreader (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2013 at 8:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's good to know that sometimes you're kidding when you write stuff that's in questionable taste, DarrylGenis...

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2013 at 8:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If the attorney representing me was to act as unprofessional as that last post he'd be fired instantly. Genis, you used your first amendment right to make an a$$ of yourself.

What a disgrace to the profession.

Don't drink and blog boys and girls.

Validated (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2013 at 9:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't drink and drive, either...

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2013 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Validated,
The Robin Williams quote was clearly meant for people like YOU.

You DO realize Tudor violated SBPD employee handbook policy by arresting Jane Doe for DUI and then asking her out on a date by sending a message to her Facebook account, and that this happened approximately 30 days after the Lorreto Plaza beating, and within 1 day of Tudor's breaking of Jane Roe's arm while handcuffing her. Would you like to see the video? It's quite violent, especially when you hear the arm breaking, and the poor victimized little 90 pound girl crying: "why did you break my arm?" Followed by Tudor's adoptive admission.

DarrylGenis (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2013 at 9:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

(This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of use policy.)

14noscams (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2013 at 9:55 p.m.

So I gather all of these assertions have been reported to SBPD, your client[s] have filed a personnel complaint against Officer Tudor, the complaint is being investigated, and you'll be suing Tudor, SBPD, and the city for all of this for Big Money, right, DarrylGenis? Or is there another side to all of these stories that we're not reading?

Is it your ultimate goal to dismantle SBPD's Drinking Driver Team by smearing every member of it in public like this? Because that's what it's starting to look like...

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2013 at 10:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The problem is there is no investigation against these officers that have been alleged to engage in misconduct. The SBPD won't do any real investigation and the city council won't even discuss the subject.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2013 at 10:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bimboteskie: The front license plate was later creative writing. Tudor's initial story was that he was following Denuncio due to unsafe lane changes. It didn't fly because Las Positas is one lane for 1 1/2 miles, and because the video (uncut) showed Tudor wasn't in his car at the time Denuncio left.
I'm really glad that this incident demonstrated that SBPD policy is to follow DUI's to wherever they're going without trying to stop them. The unedited video should make other drivers more careful about avoiding drunks as well as cops who don't stop at stop signs.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2013 at 11:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would really like to know the other side of these allegations. I doubt if the arm-breaking was intentional.

Perhaps no one has actually come forward with a complaint that the department can investigate. Or perhaps the department and city are convinced that there is nothing to these allegations, and they are just gearing up for the inevitable civil action[s] to come. Who knows.

I find it hard to believe that the best way to get an officer dismissed is to attempt to discredit him online like this, but I imagine this tactic is convincing some folks out there. I'm underwhelmed, however.

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2013 at 11:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You can clearly see unsafe lane changes by Denunzio in the video once they enter the two lane sections: he changes lanes willy nilly without signalling, and is swerving. He is a menace on the roadways.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2013 at 11:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

He's also swervy in the one lane section. There are NO heroes in this tale. Tudor should've pulled him over much sooner and we are lucky nobody was killed.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2013 at 11:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh my gosh, at 9:07 pm on March 17, 2013 I was ... INVALIDATED! What to do???

DarrylGenis (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2013 at 3:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

LY - Tudor could have pulled out his service revolver and shot Denunzio and they still wouldn't have investigated. Please name one time any allegation against a SBPD officer has been investigated. They just won't do it. (at least if they do, they won't publicize it) They stand up for their own no matter what.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2013 at 6:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Genis, you're truly pathetic when it comes to being a professional. I don't care why you wrote that comment. Just the fact you've been posting like a jealous middle school girl on facebook shows your intellect. I hope the next jury is reading this.

3:07am on a Monday morning and you're still thinking about me?

Validated (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2013 at 6:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

maybe DG is a good attorney ( jury is still out on that ) but his running commentary is irritating as.

dg, you are like that trash talking athlete on tv..... the one where viewers say please stfu.

i'll give you this...you have successfully made this about tudor with these posters instead of your crim.

lawdy (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2013 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Everyone is debating over who is right, yet one fact remains in the case. He drove with alcohol in his system. He may not be guilty of the tecnical specifications of processing a DUI, but he is guilty of stupidity. This should be a lesson to everyone, dont drink and drive. period.

skaterspoint (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2013 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This case has become one about the integrity of the SBPD, and the integrity of the Santa Barbara District Attorney's office. For this reason I just sent the following letter to our DA:

Dear Joyce:

As reported by KCOY Channel 12, as well as KEYT, Channel 3 (and other print and internet news outlets):

“District Attorney Joyce E. Dudley released the following statement Thursday afternoon:
"Although members of our community disagree regarding the events that occurred during the arrest of Mr. DeNunzio--some believing he unlawfully resisted arrest, while others believing he was the victim of excessive force--that issue, although significant in its own right, does not control the issue of whether Mr. DeNunzio was driving under the influence. Clearly, the crime of driving under the influence can destroy lives and those who do drive under the influence should be held accountable. Therefore, given the present state of the evidence in this case, I believe it is our responsibility to re-try this defendant."”

Joyce, I recall many years ago, my good friend and colleague Jeff Gray was defending a homicide that was being litigated on the archaic “provocative act” doctrine. The name of the case was People v. Mac Moore. Then head of the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, Gil Garcetti, came out of his Ivory tower office to sit at counsel table in court and became THE trial lawyer, because he believed in the prosecution of that case so much, and he believed the people he served deserved the very best.

Since you have publicly stated that you believe the seriousness of the charge of this DUI and the strength of the evidence in this case justifies a re-trial, perhaps you will personally handle the retrial of People v. DeNunzio. As the Hallmark slogan goes: "When you care enough to send the very best." Do you care enough to send your very best?

May I expect the pleasure of your company as opposing counsel in the Santa Maria Miller Branch of the Santa Barbara County Superior Court Department 2, Starting March 25, 2013? I sincerely hope so.

--
Best regards,

Darryl Genis

''It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."--- Upton Sinclair; and

"You never know how much a man can't remember until he's called as a witness."---Will Rogers

"Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized. In the first it is ridiculed, in the second it is opposed, in the third it is regarded as self-evident." Schopenauer
----------------------------------------------------
Darryl Genis, Esq.
Practice Exclusive to DUI Defense

DarrylGenis (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2013 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany, it's happened before - the most public case I remember from the early 1990's involved a Capt. Greg Stock, who I believe was prosecuted for brutality. At least one other officer testified against him.

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2013 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

DarrylGenis, I think you've convinced everyone that you are who you claim to be, but I think you're getting carried away here, buddy. This is the Comments section for one story about one of your cases, not a pulpit. The DA isn't going to respond to your draft letter in this forum either, assuming you're actually going to send it.

Also, while it's certainly been entertaining, I think you should be spending more time in your office preparing to present your cases IN COURT rather than spend so much time pontificating in this forum. Not everyone agrees with or believes what you've put forth. You've got some people stirred up over a couple of cops you have issues with, clearly. This isn't the actual decision-making forum, but good job getting some people riled-up, since that's clearly your goal. It comes across as demagoguery to me, not the vigorous defense that criminal defendants such as Mr. DeNunzio are entitled to.

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2013 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeti - Seems to me Genis is spending sufficient time preparing his case(s). You may not agree with Genis or believe what he says but you aren't required to read his posts if they irritate you.

There are officers within the PD that have "some people stirred up," not Genis. If the overly agressive acts by police had not occurred the material Genis has to discuss would be minimal. The police officers involved created the problem and should be held accountable if there was wrongdoing. If reported history of certain officers is accurate, it is the officer's, not Genis, that have issues. Those of us that live in the city should be concerned with how the suspected issues are resolved.

whatsinsb (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2013 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeti, I have never beaten or tased anyone. A complaint about my job performance is not quite in the same league as a complaint about a thug with a badge. Damn right it's a tough standard - or should be. The local kneejerk reaction to protect or make excuses for any and all police activity is IMO criminal in itself. Even LA behaves better and they are LEGENDARY for police problems. And Yeti, you seem to be treating this as your own pulpit, while scolding Genis for doing just that. Two words: First Amendment.

As for Denunzio changing lanes without signalling, that issue is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard. Signalling turns is virtually unheard of in this town, much less signalling lane changes, so for the police to claim that as a reason for stopping someone is just fatuous BS.

.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2013 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Everything about this case fails the smell test of common sense. While I don't know any of the people involved in the case, I do know people who witnessed the arrest of Mr. Denunzio in the parking lot and I have seen the dashcam video posted on Youtube. Here is what my gut tells me, and I am guessing it is same thing a lot of people believe. First, Mr. Denunzio is guilty of making a very stupid decision. Driving with alcohol in your system (with the exact level being the subject of disagreement) after two prior alcohol-related driving convictions? Seriously, when will he learn? Hopefully before he hurts someone. Secondly, Officer Tudor stakes out the Boathouse, waiting for Mr. Denunzio to leave. That seems to be the only logical explanation for him to be running back to the patrol car and chasing after one vehicle in particular. Looks very much like a vendetta by a power-tripping cop. Then both gentlemen make more stupid decisions in the Gelson's parking lot. Finally, Mr. Genis and his grandstanding style get involved. Sadly, there are only two outcomes possible in this. Either the defense wins or the prosecution wins. My money is on the defense because Mr. Genis has the easy job -- he just has to cast one shadow of reasonable doubt on this case and it is done. As the law states, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution. That is the hard part. And therefore, when he does, Mr. Genis will crow about how good he is. While Mr. Genis has a right to say whatever he wants and however he wants, I happen to find his style disgusting. After all, as he stated last year while trying to boast about his results, "The best oncologist in the world loses 98% of his/her patients. My stats are much more impressive than that." To compare what you do, Mr. Genis, to battling cancer is an embarrassment to your profession. You get to attack every possible angle of a case to try to cast doubt or get a charge dismissed. Oncologists don't. And another quotation from Mr. Genis. "My comments here are limited, and there is no need for my further participation." That didn't last too long now, did it?

information_overload (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2013 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LY - That was under a different administration. Do you have anything to indicate that Sanchez or anyone in the current SBPD administration has ever investigated any officer for anything?

The SBPD culture has definitely changed over the past two decades.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2013 at 1:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The PD culture has changed as there appears to be a problem with training, supervision and lack of leadership in the command structure.

I'm confident many officers on the PD are competent and dedicated. But, all their efforts and professionalism are in question due to a handful of incompetent officers and a command staff that does not appear willing to correct their problems. Does it make any sense for any agency to retain an officer that lacks credibility?

whatsinsb (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2013 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The men with the muck rakes are often indispensable to the well being of society; but only if they know when to stop raking the muck." - Theodore Roosevelt

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2013 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Hubris is one of the great renewable resources." - P. J. O'Rourke

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2013 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JohnLocke, I doubt if many police officers can attain the lofty standard of zero complaints that you state they should attain, except those officers who don't do much of anything out in the field.

I know I didn't attain that standard back in the day, and I was then and I am now far from perfect, but the number of thank-you letters from citizens and letters of commendation from my superiors I received far outweighed the number of complaints about me that my superiors had to investigate over the years.

Police officers are fallible human beings just like you and me.

I know for a fact that I am not a criminal defense attorney talking about an active case of mine with a bunch of yokels like me online. That's one difference between DarrylGenis and myself.

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2013 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@JohnLocke: "It would appear that some posters don't understand the basics of our legal system, little things like innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, right to a defense, discovery, etc. etc."

@JohnLocke: "The local kneejerk reaction to protect or make excuses for any and all police activity is IMO criminal in itself."

Irony, thy name is JohnLocke.

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2013 at 4:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeti - If officer's are hitting the streets and doing their job, there are people, justified or not, that may end up filing a complaint against an officer. The more an officer is involved in a negative contact with a citizen, I'm guessing the odds are greater for a complaint against them. Not many people are very happy when stopped/detained by police.

Do you agree we are not discussing minor infractions or minor issues relative to complaints about the officers involved? Sounds like you have a law enforcement background. During your career how many officers were known to have broken a limb of a suspect? How many did you know, without doubt, perjured themselves during court testimony. These are major issues. I agree we are all "fallible human beings." But, how long do we allow major errors by an officer to continue before stepping in and taking corrective action?

If Tudor, or any other officer, has an excessive force issue/problem that has not been addressed and corrected that could affect the general public, are we safe? Or, are we as likely to be injured by this officer during a contact as by an impaired driver? I'll take my chances with the impaired driver. They car can only hit you once. An officer with an attitude, impaired judgement & lack of discipline carries a semi-automatic weapon that can be used against you multiple times in one contact! If they overreact to something you did, something you did not do or something they perceived you did their actions can be as fatal as that of an impaired driver.

I'm not too concerned about the minor issues, although, over time, they will indicate how an officer handles negative contact situations. Once a problem area is identified I suspect you would agree additional training and supervision (at a minimum) should occur.

Someone earlier stated the PD culture has changed over the past two decades which brings to mind a question. Have the hiring standards for police officers been lowered during the past two decades?

whatsinsb (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2013 at 5:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

whats: I certainly agree that most people don't enjoy being contacted/stopped/arrested by the police. Looking back at those occasional instances over the years when I had to use force against someone, I'm comfortable with the decisions I made whether to use force and on the amount of force I used, and no, it wasn't always pretty. But it's also true that I never broke a bone of anyone I had contact with.

Based on these posts I acknowledge that there is certainly a perception among some members of the community that Officer Tudor has a problem with excessive force, and I think SBPD needs to address this perception in some manner.

If Officer Tudor actually does have a problem with excessive force and his superiors weren't aware of it before, then they most certainly are aware of it now, and his superiors know they have [or will have] to address it. But I doubt if you're going to get a play-by-play account of what they are doing about it here.

I also doubt if the hiring standards have been lowered.

The other questions about police culture might best be answered for yourself by going on a ride-along, asking your questions and making your own judgments and decisions based on what you see and hear, not on what you read in a forum such as this one.

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2013 at 5:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

thanks, Yeti. An explanation/investigation of Tudor and Beutel are all many of us have been asking for, as opposed to those who have expressed entrenched opinions on guilt or innocence. I've personally concluded guilt is highly likely in both cases specifically because of the refusal of the SBPD, courts, DA, admin, and Council to address the issues.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2013 at 5:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, Off. Beutel is no longer on the Drinking Driver Team, and I believe she is now a Beat Coordinator. I don't know if that was at her request or was her superiors' decision, but it was likely time to get some of the heat taken off of her. In either event, I don't see her being blasted in the media quite as much or as often as before.

Many months ago I opined herein that Off. Tudor might be reassigned from the DDT so as to lower his public profile, but to my knowledge that didn't happen - which oughta show you how much direct knowledge I have about the situation...

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2013 at 6:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DDT is a rotational 2 year assignment. Tudor finished his this last December. The current DDT is Officer Jon Palka, and he will be so assigned until the end of December 2014.

What should prove interesting is an enquiry into what the DUI arrest figures were for 2012 (a CPRA request is pending). Beutel sported 330-350 per year for two years. My work with Lance brought those numbers way down, which reflected in lower income, but it was the right thing to do. Tudor's numbers were lower still, and to be honest, I have only seen one arrest by Palka and I didn't even know he was the DDT until I got the arrest report on that case a few weeks ago (and we are ending the first quarter of 2013)!

DarrylGenis (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2013 at 6:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks, DarrylGenis - I didn't know how SBPD worked it. I believe I saw a blurb on Edhat which said SBPD made 48 arrests for DUI in February...don't know if that's up or down.

I imagine we'll be hearing more about Off. Palka [whom I have never heard of until now] in the months to come, no?

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2013 at 6:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I see that Genis has thrown down the gauntlet to Dudley asking her to retry Denunzio personally. This gets more interesting every day. Full Disclosure: I have a rather low opinion of Dudley, given that she fired her opponent the day she took office, for no apparent reason other that he ran against her. But yet she won't go after apparently dirty cops. Hmmmm....

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2013 at 10:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JohnLocke: Beutel's forgeries were verified as forged signatures. Beutel blamed them on an unnamed SBPD employee under oath to avoid forgery charges. Brian Hill, a judge acting as a prosecuting attorney, managed testimony to prevent ID on the forger, providing another predator protection from attack by the law and SB residents. The issue isn't Beutel's innocence - it's the cost of legal decisions against the city. The city of SB has exchanged the safety of residents for the potential liability to the city for damages caused by corrupt city employees, and is pretending to have its head in the sand regarding SBPD crimes in an attempt to delay the inevitable. The feds have a different perspective.
Found a quote for Darryl Genis; "Silence isn't always golden, sometimes it's yellow". (anon)

14noscams (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2013 at 10:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Although Joyce Dudley has 'vouched' for the evidence in her Press Release on the retrial (an act which is expressly forbidden by prosecutors), she refuses to accept my offer to come down from her cushy top floor office and litigate for her client in person. She also refused my offer to put both Tudor and DeNunzio through extensive Polygraph tests at my expense, with the understanding that if Tudor passed, DeNunzio would plead as charged.

That is VERY telling.

DarrylGenis (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2013 at 6:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Darryl: Can you use Dudley's refusal to polygraph Tudor as a defense for Denunzio in the retrial?

14noscams (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2013 at 6:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@14: Seems you and I share views in common on this one. While I consider Beutel's and Tudor's guilt or innocence an issue, I fully agree that the bigger issue is a corrupt local gov. Is there some federal action afoot to address that (I hope)?

Gee, why would Dudley refuse to polygraph Tudor? And can Genis demand a poly himself?

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2013 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Darryl - What polygraph questions would be asked of DeNunzio and Tudor?

I'll guess that since you offered to have a polygraph test given to DeNunzio you already had him tested and it's likely the results were favorable to DeNunzio. Wouldn't be too good for you to allow your client to be tested by Dudley without knowing the results (of their test) in advance. If you didn't know DeNunzio's results in advance of Dudley's exam wouldn't it be like asking a witness a question during trial to which (you) did not know the answer? I believe someone already posted that law prohibits Tudor from being required to take a polygraph.

whatsinsb (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2013 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

My understanding is polygraph testing requires the agreement of both parties, and then the results are simply presented to juries for their interpretation. In other words, this a red herring typical of the crap Genis likes to fling around -- useless in court.

Just like the description he gives about the jury deliberations ("At the onset of deliberations the jury was evenly divided at 6/6. It gradually changed and at one time.... blah, blah, blah...") when Genis knows that only one vote is uncontestable and only one vote counts -- the final one. Which was 8 for guilty, 4 for innocent.

In fact Genis did his job, which was to create enough uncertainty that the jury couldn't reach a unanimous decision. We'll see how he does next time.

djfranchise (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2013 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Very telling indeed. Seems to be two different levels of transparency being approached here. Who has something to hide? This crappy cop behavior needs to be addressed. Giving cops a free pass to kick a$$ is the kind of stuff that escalates into stuff you watch on the history channel or witness in third world countries. It has got to be kept in check. With all the liberal views around here, I can't even believe we are having this conversation.

bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2013 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bimboteskie: "liberal views around here"! LOL - Dudley was and probably is the liberals' - that is, progressives' (the preferred term) favorite.

That the DA refuses the offer to have both parties take lie-detection tests is very telling.

at_large (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2013 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok, I stand corrected. Regardless of what side of the fence you are on, this SB seems to be pretty well educated, two colleges, has pretty decent median income, lots of professionals etc... I find it ironic that people don't see the writing on the wall regarding police brutality, corruption, bad leadership etc... The cops are supposed to be working FOR you, as well as the DA. Weather Denunzio get off or not, I think the police/DA behavior is of far greater concern.

bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2013 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with you, djfranchise - it's just another smokescreen designed to stir up uncertainty in people who don't know any better.

We will see how DarrylGenis does this time around, and I'll be waiting see if a campaign to discredit the new DDT officer begins shortly thereafter.

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2013 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

any chance you could overstate it a little more bimbo.

history channel, third world country......dial back on the hysteria.

denunzio is on trial. not joyce, not tudor, not beutel, not sbpd.

DG has turned this thread into the hall of mirrors.

lawdy (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2013 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

lardy: Good point - the prosecution has no case and isn't really isn't involved.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2013 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Not just mirrors, lawdy - there's a lot of smoke, too.

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2013 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, if you ever wind up on the receiving end of it, we will see if you feel the same way. Once one cop can get away with it, why can't the rest? At least they will have the confidence to know they can just in case.

bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2013 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Guess I'm not alone in my disgust of Genis' professional demeanor. An opinion in the News-Press.....

Jane Gray, President, Santa Barbara Women's Political Committee

I recently read the March 15 article headlined "DeNunzio to stand trial a second time" and was deeply disturbed by attorney Darryl Genis' statement about Deputy District Attorney Mai Trieu. Not only was his statement unprofessional, but it is completely denigrating to women. The statement reflects a lack of respect for women and Mr. Genis' misogynistic attitude.

Such graphic and abusive language cannot and should not be tolerated in any forum, and especially not where justice is to reign. While courtrooms are arenas in which tensions run high and emotions dominate, the law and legal professionals have a duty to use logic and reason to make their polemics, not insults and certainly not aggressive and brutal comments suggesting violence. Society cannot stand for this prejudicial, damaging and profoundly bellicose conduct. The court should consider holding Mr. Genis in contempt for his use of this kind of language.

Validated (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2013 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The statement was admittedly "an indelicate attitude toward political correctness". The statement was in no way misogynistic, as I can assure you I would have made the exact same statement at that moment if the prosecutor had been a man instead of a woman. Further, the statement was made outside of court, so it could never be the proper subject of a contempt proceeding. It was metaphorical. It was graphic. It related to the prosecutor's complete lack of awareness of the fact that the prosecutor (without regard to gender) failed to make a timely objection to a procedure that literally eliminates the ability to go back to trial. Penal Code section 654 prohibits a retrial of the DUI if the conviction for the suspended license charge proceeds to sentence. It did. Immediately after that court recessed and we stepped outside. That is when I made the comment. Would Cyrus Vance have said such a thing? No way. Should I have chosen a more subdued metaphor? Indeed. Am I repentant for having used such a powerful metaphor? Upon reflection, yes.
But the fact is, the prosecutor did not know the law, and if the Judge follows established statutory and case authority persuant to Penal Code section 654 and People v. Morris, (1966) 237 Cal. App. 2nd 773, this case will be over before the second trial starts.

And for those of you who think I am trying the case in the media, consider this: The Judge makes these decisions and he is not influenced by the media, only the law and the facts as he sees them. Win or lose, I have confidence He will call it fairly according to how he sees it.

My point here is to open up the process for all of you to see and understand especially since DA Dudley moved this local matter 70 miles to the north and with gas prices exceeding 4 dollars a gallon many of you who might otherwise have come down to have a look are left watching from afar.

Finally, those of you who find nothing wrong with DA Dudley's Press Release statment do not realize a DA is not supposed to vouch for her witnesses or evidence, and she clearly did that when she said "given the present state of the evidence in this case, I believe it is our responsibility to re-try this defendant."”, which is wrong according to case law. given the present state of the evidence in this case,People v. Ellis (1996) 65 Cal. 2nd 529; People v. Reese (1963) 220 Cal. App. 2nd 143; People v. Adams (1960) 182 Cal. App. 2nd 27; and People v. Perez (1962) 58 Cal. 2nd 229 State v. Leon, supra, United States v. DiLoretto, 888 F,2nd 996 3rd Cir 1989)(prosecutorial vouching for credibility of witness is reversible error per se when based on facts outside the record); United States v. Ludwig, 508 F.2nd 140 (10th Cir 1974)

DarrylGenis (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2013 at 4:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What exactly is the statement in question?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2013 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To be clear on the claim of vouching:
"I Believe" as in I'm Joyce Dudley and this is what I believe the evidence shows. That my fellow Santa Barbarians is called Vouching and it is a prosecutors MORTAL SIN.
And why do that unless you are trying to taint the jury pool. A pool DA Dudley said was already so tainted that all her witnesses should have to suffer a 150 mile round trip at taxpayer expense: orginally because her agents (SBPD) released the video directly into the media!
Take your blinders off. The standards are different for prosecutors and defense lawyers according to the United States Supreme court.

DarrylGenis (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2013 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The [prosecutor] is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor -- indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one." It is fair to say that the average jury, in a greater or less degree, has confidence that these obligations, which so plainly rest upon the prosecuting attorney, will be faithfully observed. Consequently, improper suggestions, insinuations and, especially, assertions of personal knowledge are apt to carry much weight against the accused when they should properly carry none.United States v. Berger, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935).
But defense counsel has no comparable obligation to ascertain or present the truth. Our system assigns him a different mission. He must be and is interested in preventing the conviction of the innocent, but, absent a voluntary plea of guilty, we also insist that he defend his client whether he is innocent or guilty. The State has the obligation to present the evidence. Defense counsel need present nothing, even if he knows what the truth is. He need not furnish any witnesses to the police, or reveal any confidences of his client, or furnish any other information to help the prosecution's case. If he can confuse a witness, even a truthful one, or make him appear at a disadvantage, unsure or indecisive, that will be his normal course. Our interest in not convicting the innocent permits counsel to put the State to its proof, to put the State's case in the worst possible light, regardless of what he thinks or knows to be the truth. Undoubtedly there are some limits which defense counsel must observe but more often than not, defense counsel will cross-examine a prosecution witness, and impeach him if he can, even if he thinks the witness is telling the truth, just as he will attempt to destroy a witness who he thinks is lying. In this respect, as part of our modified adversary system and as part of the duty imposed on the most honorable defense counsel, we countenance or require conduct which in many instances has little, if any, relation to the search for truth.”United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 256-58 (1967)

DarrylGenis (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2013 at 4:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DarrylGenis, I'm not going to be able to read all of your most recent posts because there's just too much verbage there and I do have a life away from this internet machine.

IMO you have the thinnest skin of any criminal defense attorney I'm aware of. I imagine the statement you made was designed more for bravado and shock value than anything else, but I can also see why others would consider it misogynistic. Wrong move, buddy. JMO.

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2013 at 5:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well Genis? You like talking about yourself so please restate your comments.

IMO Genis has a problem with speaking before thinking. Lets not forget the Tudor Facebook issue. The young lady involved stated through her actual attorney that she was "horribly embarrassed" by Genis' statements. Another insensitive statement in the search of sensationalism??? You be the judge.

If Genis chooses to bash all the players in public before the retrial lets not ignore his issues.

Validated (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2013 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Validated - I wonder if Jane Gray and her political committee would get off their rear ends and make appointments to make her comment that I've quoted to Police Chief Sanchez, his staff and the City Council: "Society cannot stand for this prejudicial, damaging and profoundly bellicose conduct," as it relates to police officers Sanchez and his staff have trained. What could be more "bellicose" and "misogynistic" than the recent conduct reportedly exhibited by some officers the PD? I can't think of a better group of people that should hear her comment!

What would Gray or any member of her committee think if they were contacted by an officer and “without warning or lawful justification violently grabbed [her] and rammed her against the vehicle breaking plaintiff’s upper right arm.”

Further, what if it was Gray or any other female that alleged the hood of the car was hot, and she “pleaded to be taken from the hood and complained of pain to no avail.” Are these not (thee) truly denigrating act(s) that Gray and her committee and the general public should be infuriated about? Do these acts not reflect a lack of respect for women, the police badge and the citizens of our city?

Jane Gray. Genis' attitude and comments are not injuring people! You may not like what he has to say but as I've said before, we don't have to read anything he writes. You may not like the way Genis openly comments about his cases, I may not, but this doesn't appear to be illegal.

In my opinion Jane Gray's disgust is not directed at the right person(s)! I wonder if Gray is "deeply disturbed" by the reported actions of some members of the PD?

whatsinsb (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2013 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LengendaryYeti: Mike McGrew testified against Capt. Greg Stock, a probable police chief candidate. I think this was after the $3 million SBPD sex discrimination decision against the city, biased by "the seething anger McGrew displayed on the witness stand that convinced a Santa Barbara jury more than anything else that the police department was indeed a hostile work environment for the two women officers suing the department for sex discrimination. As a result, the jury awarded those women a couple million bucks, then an unheard-of amount for Santa Barbara's notoriously stingy juries. In 2005, Mayor Marty Blum and Dan Secord opposed POA's demand for a 5% raise. McGrew emailed his members en masse, warning them that he expected Mayor Marty to dis the cops at Tuesday's meeting and asked them to show up in force. They did just that. And just in case anyone missed the point, McGrew was quoted in the News-Press as saying that if Blum didn't vote right, the police union was going to take her out. When you're the 8,000 pound gorilla, you don't need to pound your chest. In fact, you ought not to. " Nick Welsh, April 11, 2005. Nick Welsh and the Indy don't publish this type of news any more.
http://blogabarbara.blogspot.com/2005...
The link below is the same issue reported by city council members in Costa Mesa, Buena Park and Fullerton; http://www.voiceofoc.org/oc_coast/art...

14noscams (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2013 at 10:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

(Too long for 1 post) SB residents don't file complaints against SBPD due to threats and retaliation. I tried to file a complaint that the family court facilitator called criminal negligence of one of my kids who lived with his dad at that time, (joint custody), McGrew said he'd arrest me for negligence and felony filing a false police report. I was the only parent in the state, this wasn't possible - a medical issue - he was sick when his dad left, I took him to his MD, then cottage ER for severe pain from otitis media and possible strep throat at 2:45 am. have the report McGrew wrote, a PI has a copy. He called my son and said "So your mom's trying to get your dad in trouble, buddy..." That was the first of 4 - dispatch had no record of the next day.The PI who witnessed the next has a copy. I told SBSO detectives about the next one for criminal neglect, the last a motorcycle accident and disabling injury - shattered lumbar vertebrae, with a road racing bike that wasn't street legal - no brake light, turn signals, reg. or insurance, no skills to ride it within weeks of getting his license. These all have LE mandatory reporting requirements. I have records stored, SBSO and SBPD have none, none were included in SBPD or DOJ crime stats or investigated. Since then, consistent fabricated police reports, suborned trespass on my property, damage to my property, malicious litigation pursued by the DA for months with no evidence, dismissed when it got to court after costing $1000's no reported incidents recorded or investigated, bogus traffic tickets, etc. ( see Sentinel Matt Mazza's story of a "no seatbelt" citation in a city parking lot immediately after mention of AG oversight in the Sentinel since then he stated in the Sentinel he'd never criticize SBPD). I don't know where the line is between union thugs and organized crime, but SBPD has a long-term institutional problem and doesn't function as LE, and attorneys and local judges aren't isolated from it. Rewarding Kasi Beutel for use of criminal measures in DUI arrests is a symptom, and pretending Tudor's violent attack is justified is a symptom, neither of them is the much more serious disease. I've also been permanently injured by an SBPD oficer, have a witness's statement that SBPD violence was totally unjustified, no aggression or hostility by me, and when the officer was intentionally hurting me and I complained, they escalated it. I hadn't committed any crime, but the report charged me with resisting arrest. This was 17 years ago, & my attorney said there was no recourse, since the DA didn't ever file charges against cops.
Tudor's attack on Denuncio has gotten a lot of attention not because it's an unusual incident, solely because there were many witnesses.
Darryl Genis and his clients are courageous people. Statements like this and those of Genis's clients are costly, a mandatory expense to ensure the public safety of SB residents.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2013 at 10:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

14noscams.....your tale of woe has no relevance here. besides, thats your side of the story.

DG loves seeing his name in print and his clients are all charged with dui.( DG says he is exclusively a dui lawyer).

nothing even remotely courageous about that.

lawdy (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2013 at 8:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

lawdy - "noscams" statement is relevant as police credibility is an issue that is involved in the DeNunzio case and other recent cases handled by the PD. Lawdy's statement is relevant as she is another person in an unfortunately long line of people that have issues with the PD similar to the type identified with DeNunzio in his contact with the PD.

Credibility, especially for an officer, is the foundation of their work. Who are you going to believe? If police are known to lie why should any of them be believed? If it is continually reported various officers have not been truthful in their statements why should we believe any officer on the PD? They all receive the same training. Goes back to the thought that one bad apple spoils the whole barrel.

I have no doubt the majority of officers on the PD are dedicated, competent and are an asset to the department. But, you get a few a$$holes past the hiring process and they will continue to undermine this department and leave a negative opinion of all officers on the department. Based on the identified issues I believe it could honestly be stated there are a number of persons in supervisory and staff positions at the PD that give meaning to the "peter principle."

Probably a good time for rank and file officers to consider having a heart-to-heart discussion with those officers they know (and they do know) that are creating problems for the department. The PD doesn't appear to have the leaders in place to handle this issue.

whatsinsb (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2013 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

noscams, my recollection is that the prosecution of Capt. Stock for brutality happened long, long before the sex discrimination lawsuit.

I respectfully disagree with your characterization of DarrylGenis and his clients as "courageous people." DarrylGenis' clients are just people who have been arrested and charged with DUI, some more often than others. Most of them are paying DarrylGenis a lot of money to try to get them off. IMO there is absolutely NOTHING courageous about that.

IMO DarrylGenis is a very well-paid DUI defense attorney with a predilection for bombast and outrageous statements designed to produce confusion, consternation, and more outrage in the continuing effort to get his clients off. He figures the more he repeats something, the more the masses will believe it. There are people in history who used the same tactic. DarrylGenis is good at what he does, but IMO he will eventually have to change his tactics.

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2013 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Legendary Yeti: "it was McGrew's testimony a few years back that helped bring down his superior officer, Captain Greg Stock, who had a good shot at becoming chief" Same Indy article as above - I don't have a number to associate with "a few". This is the only action against LE mentioned in comments, and it was an action involving only LE. My experience is relevant only as an example of SBPD and DA policy. Unfortunately, the only way to expose the policy is through personal examples, as several of Genis's clients have acknowledged their experiences with retaliation by the DA and city attorney after mentioning Beutel's misconduct.
.http://blogabarbara.blogspot.com/2005_04_01_archive.html

14noscams (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2013 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Did Daryll finally bow out of the conversation??? He wouldn't answer my question so I found the answer....

http://santabarbaranewspressblogcom.b...

More of Genis' past indiscretions....

"Although Genis insists that he had in fact been retained by the woman in question, attorney Martin Cohn — whom she hired the same day Genis went public with her story — denied this. “My client insists she never hired him,” Cohn said. “They met; they talked, but that’s as far as it went,” Cohn said. Cohn confirmed Genis’s allegation that Tudor expressed an interest in “hanging out” as well as discussing church service schedules, but denied that this conduct — while inappropriate — approximated “stalking.”

Genis has suggested that Cohn “has made his deal with the devil and is working in concert with the police to falsify allegations against me.”

http://www.independent.com/news/2011/...

I believe my opinion that Genis' is a scumbag may be shortsighted. He's a PARANOID SCUMBAG!!

Validated (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2013 at 9:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Marty and I have made peace over this with his acknowledgment that I was in fact retained by her at the time of the comment. The defendant pleaded guilty and was given a very (as in sweetheart) deal for a second offense, but before she could come close to fulfilling her obligations, I learned through public information she was picked up on a third dui offense (again by SBPD - but this officer had the good sense not to ask her out on a date).
Validated, you should find a better outlet for your news. Talk is cheap, and I hear you get yours wholesale.
On a different note, I hope you never get arrested and charged with a crime, but at least if you do you will have an opportunity to learn first hand just how wrong you have been about so many things.
All the best to you in life, and may you lose your petty minded judgmental and self righteous attitude, as it is most unattractive.

DarrylGenis (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2013 at 11:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh thank you Daryll you're so sweet. I'm getting my news from this site and the News-Press, you know, where you like to try your cases. Sweet dreams my little DUI warrior.

Validated (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2013 at 3:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

3:02am on a Thursday morning and you're still thinking about me?
Pathetic.

DarrylGenis (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2013 at 4:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ohhh this is getting HOT!

bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2013 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

DarrylGenis, I think you've proven yourself here to be more judgmental and self-righteous than Validated...

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2013 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

but can he bake a cherry pie?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2013 at 1:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't know about the cherry pie, but he apparently knows how to slit a throat.

Validated (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2013 at 8:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I love how the comment mocking Validated's 3:02am posting was itself posted at 4:19am. Of course, that is all PDT and it is entirely possible that one of the participants was in a different time zone....

information_overload (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2013 at 10:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hitler.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2013 at 10:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dudley and Validated have done us a great service in providing support for the lack of confidence in government that we've seen demonstrated by phenomenal gun sales. Dudley has also demonstrated excellent skills as a sycophant of Tom Sneddon. I don't know if allegations of his organized crime affiliation are true, but his legacy of personal vendettas and abuses of office are preserved in court records demeaning his status as a DA as well as his perversion of the intent of the law.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2013 at 10:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually the number of people who own guns is at an all time low, the same people keep buying guns.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2013 at 11:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ya see, Ken, those gun-buyin' folks, most of them are afraid, very afraid, so they gotta keep buying more ammo, more guns, bigger magazines...

DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 22, 2013 at 3:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

DrDan: Actually, the cops are the people who are afraid. The number of unnecessary shootings by cops in the county is a symptom of lack of confidence and poor training in LE that makes them unable to manage situations in non-violent ways.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
March 22, 2013 at 7:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Nothing justifies the beat down Tony DeNuzio sufferd at the hands of Aaron Tudor. That man should not be a police officer. He should be on trial himself and charged with assault under the color of authority.
@Vindicated - The system is corrupt. The police lie and lie routinely. Everyone knows it. That includes the judge and the DA. But they don't care. Because it's not about justice. It's about money and politics. One day you or someone you love will be caught up in the system and you will know what I know: The police lie and the government will protect them. The only chance at justice you will have is if you can afford to hire a lawyer like Darryl who is willing to go toe to toe with the state.
Darryl is not only my lawyer he is my friend. He is a fine and ethical man who is fighting a system that is ever chipping away at our civil rights. I find if offensive that you {Vindicated} would stoop to calling him names based on your perception of his physical characteristics. That was below the belt. Would you like to be judged like that?? It's easy to take cheap shots at people in the comfort of anonymity.

BarbaraC (anonymous profile)
March 25, 2013 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Did he get you off your DUI BarbaraC?

lawdy (anonymous profile)
March 25, 2013 at 5:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You don't have to be a drunk driver or been acquitted of such to be against police brutality. Some people seem to think this is an either/or situation, a hero and a bad guy. They both behaved horribly.
Imagine if it weren't a drunk but some confused elderly guy on medication?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 25, 2013 at 6:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@lawdy- yes he did

BarbaraC (anonymous profile)
March 25, 2013 at 6:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Humpty Dumpty, baby. Don't say I didn't tell you so. If the DA ever bothered to read the law she would have made the decision to dismiss many thousands of dollars ago.

DarrylGenis (anonymous profile)
April 11, 2013 at 8:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: