Jaramillo Says Charges Lack Merit

Attorneys for former Orange County Assistant Sheriff George Jaramillo and his sister-in-law argued Wednesday that some of the corruption charges filed against them should be dropped because the statute of limitations had expired, and that others needed to be clarified because they were too broad and vague.

Jaramillo, 44, was charged last week with six felony counts of misuse of public funds and four misdemeanor conflict-of-interest counts for allegedly using Sheriff’s Department resources to stage demonstrations of a product developed by a company that had hired him as a consultant. Erica Hill, 33, faces three felony counts of misuse of public funds for allegedly helping Jaramillo. Each remains free on $25,000 bond.

Jaramillo showed up in court with his new attorneys, Joseph G. Cavallo and Peter W. Scalisi, the same pair who represented 19-year-old Gregory Haidl in a high-profile rape case. The teenager, who is awaiting retrial, is the son of another former assistant sheriff, Don Haidl.

Cavallo wasted no time in challenging the prosecution’s case, asking Superior Court Judge Marc Kelly to allow his client to withdraw his initial not-guilty plea -- a matter of procedure -- so that he could argue why some charges should be dropped and others should be made more precise. Hill’s attorney, Joseph P. Smith, joined the request.

The judge declined to immediately rule on the matter but agreed to hear arguments Nov. 19.

Cavallo did not specify in court or in the brief he filed which charges he believes should be dropped because the statute of limitations had expired. Outside the courtroom, Cavallo said they included some of the felonies. He also promised that Jaramillo would be vindicated, no matter what charges he ultimately faces in this case.

“We’re hoping several counts are dismissed,” Cavallo said. “They don’t have a case. George Jaramillo will not be convicted. He’s innocent and there’s no facts they can allege as I see it that have any basis for a jury to find him guilty.”

Deputy Dist. Atty. James Laird said the motion was a typical and expected move by the defense and that he looked forward to arguing otherwise.

“We will show with evidence that the statute of limitations has not run out on any of the charges,” he said, and added there was no need for clarification of any charges. “The complaint clearly recites facts which constitute the public offenses of misappropriation of public monies and conflict of interest.”

The charges are the outcome of one of several investigations that have been made public since Jaramillo, once Carona’s chief lieutenant and top confidante, was fired as an assistant sheriff six months ago.

Another investigation, by federal authorities, led last month to a subpoena ordering the sheriff’s private charitable organization, the Michael S. Carona Foundation, to turn over a variety of financial documents.

The sheriff has declined to comment on the subpoena but has stressed that the foundation itself, which exists to help at-risk youths, is not a target.

A new charge against Carona’s foundation surfaced this week, however, when state Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer asked the Franchise Tax Board to review the tax-exempt status of the foundation. The move was reported on Wednesday by the Orange County Register.

Tom Dresslar, a spokesman for Lockyer, said Wednesday that the foundation had repeatedly failed to file tax documents on time with the state. The foundation did provide the same information in a timely matter to the Internal Revenue Service, he said.

Dresslar said his office received some of the delinquent forms late Wednesday and expected the rest would arrive by today via overnight mail. Therefore, he said, the foundation’s tax-exempt status would not be stripped and the $800 in penalties it faced would not be imposed.

Michael Schroeder, a lawyer for the foundation, said it was a mix-up. Schroeder said the forms were filed on time and were even available online but that no one at the attorney general’s office bothered to check the website before sending out delinquency notices.

Then, he added, the foundation didn’t get the delinquency notices because they were sent to an old address.