Story Published:
Apr 22, 2009 at 9:23 PM PDT
Story Updated:
Apr 23, 2009 at 1:33 PM PDT
LYNWOOD — Compton Superior Court Judge Eleanor Hunter denied motions Tuesday to continue the pretrial hearing of former City Council members Louis Byrd and Fernando Pedroza and ordered the trial to start May 13.
The trial will begin almost two years after their arraignment on May 15, 2007.
Byrd and Pedroza, who were recalled by voters in 2007 along with two other council members, were initially indicted in April 2007 with former council members Arturo Reyes, Ricardo Sanchez and Armando Rea.
Charges Sanchez and Rea were dropped in March 2008 and Reyes pleaded guilty to one count of grand theft as part of a plea bargain he made with the District Attorney’s Public Integrity Division last September.
Byrd and Pedroza are the two remaining defendants charged with allegedly misappropriating public funds, including the alleged abuse of city-issued credit cards, per diems, and travel and monthly stipends while serving on the City Council between 1999 and 2003.
The May 13 court date is scheduled to take place in Department D, normally presided over by Judge John J. Cheroske, the same judge who presided over their arraignment.
“Officially, the date is called a jury day,” said prosecutor Gary Neilsen. “Because it’s what you might consider tentative since you never know what the judge will want to do on that day … and also, there is really no intention to start a trial on that specific day,” because a jury would still need to be selected.
The defense attorneys also cited a case currently being heard at the Supreme Court level that could affect the outcome of the charges against their clients but the judge denied that request as well.
Although acknowledging he is not a legal expert on the Supreme Court case, Neilsen said it has to do with misappropriating public money, which is what the defendants are charged with.
“The Supreme Court, with this case, will be interpreting that crime, in terms of what kind of intent is required to violate that law,” he said.
“If the court rules in favor of the case, then it could alter the interpretation of the law that we would be using. It’s a crime that’s been in the books for more than 100 years. The question is, will the Supreme Court add any nuance to the interpretation of the law and will that affect our case.”
Until the Supreme Court speaks, all parties interested will have to wait and see.
As far as May 13 goes, Neilsen said, “We don’t know what’s going to happen on that day, it all depends on if the defense is ready, and what the court wants to do in terms of whether the court is going to push [the defense] to begin or not. We really won’t know until that day arrives.”
RSS Feeds 
