O.C. Corruption Defendant Now in Clear

A judge on Monday dismissed criminal charges against the sister-in-law of former Orange County Assistant Sheriff George Jaramillo as prosecutors refocused a public-corruption case.

“You’re free to go,” Superior Court Judge John D. Conley told Erica Hill on what was supposed to be the first day of a pretrial hearing to determine whether there was enough evidence to bring her and Jaramillo to trial.

Jaramillo, who was fired last year and has sued to get his job back, has been charged with six felony counts of misappropriation of public funds and four misdemeanor conflict-of-interest charges.

He could face up to nine years in prison if convicted. He is free on $25,000 bail.

Hill, who if convicted could have faced up to three years in prison on three counts of misappropriation of public funds, was granted immunity last week before she testified over two days before the Orange County Grand Jury.

Susan Kang Schroeder, a spokeswoman for the Orange County district attorney’s office, said the decision to dismiss the charges did not mean there wasn’t enough evidence to prosecute Hill. Without elaborating, she said the case was reevaluated and prosecutors concluded Jaramillo was most responsible for abusing the public’s trust.

“Based on some of the legal issues and the ongoing investigation, we made a tactical decision. And it wasn’t in exchange for her to testify. It was not a bargaining issue,” Schroeder said. “The reasons will become clear later.”

Hill, who has maintained her innocence, said she would defend Jaramillo and was glad she could do it as a witness instead of a co-defendant.

Joseph P. Smith, who represents Hill, said, “It’s been our position from the beginning that neither defendant is guilty of any criminal activity with which they’ve been charged. My client has to rebuild her life after having gone through an extremely emotionally and financially draining process.”

Jaramillo and Hill were arrested last year and accused of misusing county resources to stage demonstrations for a safety device designed by CHG Safety Technologies, a company that employed Hill as a manager and paid Jaramillo as a consultant. The company had developed a computer chip designed to disable vehicles in car chases and was seeking to promote the product in the hope of winning legislation that would require a computer chip to be installed in every car in the state.

Last week, the district attorney’s office elected to take the case to the grand jury.

Though Jaramillo is already charged in the case, a grand jury indictment would allow the prosecution to avoid a preliminary hearing and advance straight to a jury trial.

After Monday’s court appearance, Jaramillo said he still wanted to testify before the grand jury. But his attorney later informed the district attorney’s office that his client would not be testifying.

“We’re gratified that prosecutors saw fit to dismiss the charges against Erica Hill. She should’ve never been involved in the case in the first place. Neither should my client,” said Joseph G. Cavallo.

“Based on the events that have taken place, we don’t see the necessity. We’re confident that the grand jury ... will come back with a decision not to indict.”

Monday was scheduled to be the first day of a hearing before Conley to determine whether there was enough evidence to bring Hill and Jaramillo to trial.

But that hearing was put on hold last week, when prosecutors shifted strategies and decided to present evidence to a new grand jury.

The previous grand jury heard evidence in the case last year and did not issue an indictment.

Instead, Hill and Jaramillo were charged in a criminal complaint filed by the district attorney’s office.

To date, the only witness to testify in open court is CHG owner Charles Gabbard, who suffers from advanced emphysema and was allowed to give testimony this year in a special hearing. Prosecutors feared he would die before the case went to trial.

Gabbard, who has acknowledged funneling thousands of dollars to Sheriff Michael S. Carona’s 1998 political campaign, was granted full immunity in exchange for his testimony.

He proved to be an unpredictable witness, contradicting himself several times.

For example, Gabbard surprised the courtroom when he said he paid Jaramillo $25,000 in bribes and camouflaged the money as “consulting fees.”

He reversed himself days later, saying Jaramillo was paid as a consultant to help improve the company’s operations and image.

He said he did not hire Jaramillo to help arrange demonstrations with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department and that Jaramillo was more useful in setting up events with police agencies elsewhere.