theSheetNews.com

There’s a light at the end of the tunnel for Dick Luman. Whether the light will be redeeming or damning is still unclear.

In the past two weeks, the Personnel Appeals Board has met three times to try to bring the hearing, which has stretched for more than three months, to a close.

Luman was fired from Mono County in 2011 following what the County deemed “mutual combat” with fellow employee, Brett McCurry. Both men took their terminations to the appeals board. A third man, Jim Kerby who was witness to the incident and was put on administrative leave for allegedly lying about what happened will also have a hearing.

But the Luman case is the one currently in the midst of proceedings. The three-month stretch occurred because of new evidence introduced (a sheriff’s report), and scheduling conflicts that occurred following the need to have more hearing dates due to the new evidence.

On June 13 and 18, Kerby took the stand to testify in the Luman case about what he had witnessed on Oct. 3, 2011 when the incident occurred.

Tim Kendall, Assistant District Attorney (soon to be District Attorney) was also among the handful of witnesses that testified this month. Others included Jeff Walters, Rita Sherman, George Booth and Wade McCammond.

Kendall testimony

The District Attorney’s office, in particular Kendall himself, made the decision to reject the filing of the case based on the misdemeanor report filed by the Sheriff’s Department.

Kendall explained during his testimony that “in the grand scheme of the interest of the system” he had determined that the case should not be filed.

“It was not likely that we would determine whether or not a crime was committed and who committed it, and be able to prove it to a jury of 12 people,” Kendall explained. “Either both [Luman and McCurry] could have been charged or neither.” Kendall decided that no one should be prosecuted.

During her questioning, Luman’s lawyer Katie Bellomo, pointed out that there were no notes in the misdemeanor report that explained what Kerby had heard during the incident. Kendall agreed and said that a follow-up with Kerby would have been done if the case had gone to trial.

Kendall did not consider much from Mike Rhodes testimony in the report either. Rhodes, another Mono County employee, overhead the incident on Oct. 3, 2011, but was not in the room to see what occurred.

“So, you didn’t know much about this case when you made your decision, did you?” Bellomo asked.

Kendall stated he only knew what was in the report.

Kendall agreed that he could not rule out that Luman was acting only in self-defense by reading the report.

“These types of cases are difficult to sort out, witnesses report different things,” Kendall explained.

Kerby testimony

Bellomo examined Kerby first on June 13. She had him recount McCurry’s behavior over the years. Kerby explained that the aggressiveness began when McCurry was made a Supervisor. Prior to that time, Kerby and McCurry had been friends. Luman had testified in April that it seemed as though McCurry was under more stress when he became supervisor and “was afraid to be as social and funny.”

Kerby explained that McCurry’s behavior became so bad that at one point Kerby asked Fleet Services Supervisor Jerry Vande Brake if McCurry was having mental or drug problems.

“Vande Brake said that McCurry was ‘out of control’,” Kerby said during testimony. But over the course of the complaints, Vande Brake seemed to do little to stop McCurry’s actions.

Several meetings were held among the mechanics to discuss McCurry’s behavior, which included “screaming and yelling profanities at employees when he was upset,” Kerby said. He could not pinpoint when the meetings were held and who, besides Vande Brake, attended each one.

Kerby recounted the Oct. 3 incident the way he remembered it, pointing out that prior to the altercation, McCurry had been screaming into his [Kerby’s] face and bumping his chest into Kerby.

Kerby explained that he had gone to Vande Brake’s office that day to resolve his issues with McCurry for good. The week prior, McCurry had “flipped out on him” over a Kubota tractor and it was the first time Kerby said he had feared for his safety.

Kerby asked Luman to go with him in order to have a union brother there to witness the meeting with Vande Brake so that he could then make his way up the chain of command if Vande Brake again failed to do anything to stop McCurry.

Kerby told Luman that McCurry had called him a motherf-er behind his back. Mono County Counsel John-Carl Vallejo questioned whether Kerby had told Luman this just to get him riled up. Kerby said no.

Shortly after Kerby began his complaint to Vande Brake on Oct. 3, McCurry came to the doorway and Vande Brake told him to come in. Kerby continued his complaint.

“I didn’t get too many words out before Brett flew across the room and got in my face and started screaming ‘you’re a bold-faced f$@*ing liar,” Kerby testified. That was when the “chest bumping” began.

When Luman testified in April, he stated that McCurry did get in Kerby’s face that day in Vande Brake’s office, but since McCurry’s back had been to Luman at the time, he could not see whether or not he was actually touching Kerby.

Kerby stated that Vande Brake said there was nothing he could do about the situation and McCurry stopped bumping him after approximately 30 seconds.

The remainder of Kerby’s testimony was similar to Luman’s testimony two months ago. Kerby agreed that Luman’s comment about McCurry “falling down stairs” was a joke, not a threat, and when the combat ensued between Luman and McCurry, Luman was defending himself.

One item that was pinpointed during Kerby’s testimony was his claim that McCurry had come to the shop to harass him in the “middle of the night” on several occasions prior to the Oct. 3 incident. This was part of the reason the County claimed Kerby was lying because his timecards did not reflect him being at the shop in the middle of the night.

Bellomo, however, pointed out that the term “middle of the night” could be interpreted in various ways.

“Time doesn’t mean a thing to an emergency mechanic,” she said while questioning Kerby.

The issue came up again during Vallejo’s cross-examination. Vallejo had Kerby look through a pile of timecards from October 2010 through July 2011 and pull out those that he believed supported the middle of the night harassment.

The times recorded and whether or not Kerby was just on call or on duty seemed to vary.

The majority of Vallejo’s cross-examination was tense with Kerby at first so often talking back to Vallejo and making snide comments that Bellomo asked him to settle down. Later, Bellomo claimed Vallejo was badgering the witness when he didn’t get the answers he wanted.

One such occasion occurred when Vallejo asked Kerby if he had filed a claim for money damages against the County in excess of the three months pay he believed he should receive for wrongful administrative leave.

“Oh for God’s sake,” Bellomo exclaimed. “He filed a claim at my suggestion to ensure he receives a trial. He’s protecting his own interests.”

Vallejo, however, stated that the claim, which seemed to be in excess of $10,000 “goes to his [Kerby] continued motive to be dishonest.”

During his testimony, in defense of the County calling him a liar, he claimed that when he was interviewed by the York insurance investigators weeks after the incident he was “under duress” and that his comments were not recorded accurately. He claimed interviewer Steve Woods kept turning the recorder on and off during the interview.

“He would scold me because he didn’t like the way I was answering the questions,” Kerby said. His transcript says he didn’t understand the questions that were asked of him, but Kerby claimed he was simply confused by the way Woods was working the recorder.

“Hanson just let me talk,” Kerby said, in reference to Deputy Mark Hanson who took the initial Sheriff’s report shortly after the Oct. 3 incident.

Much of Kerby’s testimony included the words, “guessing,” “approximately,” and “maybe.” His testimony concluded on June 18.

The hearing will continue on Monday, June 25. Luman is expected to retake the stand briefly, and then the two lawyers will make their closing arguments.

Dear Editor:

I am the attorney representing Dick Luman in the appeal of his termination by Mono County. I am taking the unusual step of writing about this proceeding before it is concluded because the case is the subject of considerable public discourse. Notwithstanding the excellent reporting of Lara Kirkner for The Sheet, there are certain key facts that were not captured in her reports. I offer the following information, all from testimony and official documents in the case,  to supplement and clarify information in The Sheet articles:

*  On October 3, 2011, a physical altercation occurred between Dick Luman and Brett McCurry at the Bridgeport Road Shop.  Dick Luman suffered a fractured rib and had a hernia operation as a result. Brett McCurry suffered an abrasion/cut on his nose when his glasses came off.

* Mr. Luman and Mr. McCurry each accuse the other of being the agressor in the altercation.

*  There were three (3)  eyewitnesses to the incident:   Jim Kerby (Mechanic III), Mike Rhodes (Parts Dept), and Jerry Vande Brake (Fleet Services Supervisor).

*  Eyewitness Jim Kerby provided sworn testimony when interviewed by Mono County about the incident.  He testified McCurry grabbed Luman “pushed him back into the corner of the door” and “grabbed him, and spun around, and threw him into the tool chest on the outside of the office.”  Mr. Kerby provided a consistent account when interviewed by Mono County Sheriff’s Department on the morning of the incident.  In June, Mr. Kerby will testify in this proceeding and detail what he witnessed.

*  Eyewitness Mike Rhodes has testified that he saw Brett McCurry shove Dick Luman against the tool cabinet:  ”…next thing I knew I heard scuffling, and I looked up and Brett had Dick pinned up against the specialty tool bins outside of Jerry’s door.”  Mr. Rhodes provided a consistent account to the Mono County Sheriff’s Department on the morning of the incident, and has twice provided sworn testimony.

* Eyewitness Jerry Vande Brake is the supervisor in whose office the physical assault occurred.  The Sheriff’s Department report taken on the date of the incident summarizes Vande Brake as reporting Luman was “walking towards the door to leave but Brett McCurry was in the doorway not letting him out” and he witnessed “as Brett grabbed Dick’s shoulders and shoved him into the office and into the book shelves.”  A supplement to Sheriff’s report was written after Deputy Hansen was directed to review the transcripts of interviews conducted by an investigator for Mono County’s workers comp insurance company.  The Supplemental Sheriff’s report states “…it appears that Jerry Vande Brake’s statement in the transcript differed from his initial statement to me on the day of the incident”.  In his testimony a week after the incident, Vande Brake described Luman’s approach to the door as “…it was pretty rapid in what I would consider an aggressive move.”

* According to the report of the Sheriff’s Department, the physical altercation occurred when Jim Kerby and Dick Luman were in the office of their supervisor Jerry Vande Brake. According to the Sheriff’s Dept. report, Vande Brake indicated the meeting was to discuss Kerby’s complaint that “he had a problem with Brett McCurry the Thursday before and he and Dick needed to talk to him [Vande Brake] about the incident.”  Vande Brake related that Kerby “was making a complaint that Brett has been constantly intimidating him and causing a lot of problems in the shop.”

*  Joel Erickson, Lead Mechanic under Vande Brake, testified before the Personnel Board that group meetings had been held with him, Vande Brake, and the mechanics to discuss concerns about McCurry’s behavior at work and the negative impact it had on the work environment.  Luman confirmed that he had attended at least one of the meetings. Vande Brake testified that he did not document the complaints of the mechanics and did not document the meetings.

The hearings resume on May 16 for a half day, to be followed by the anticipated conclusion of the hearings in late June. Upon conclusion of the hearings, the Personnel Board, composed of Undersheriff Ralph Obenberger, Supervisor Tim Hansen, and Ken Goode,  will decide whether the County was justified in terminating Dick Luman as a result of the incident on October 3, 2011.

Katie Maloney Bellomo
Attorney for Dick Luman

Justice may be blind but it shouldn’t also be deaf and dumb.

That was a sentiment expressed publicly by Mono County citizen Jeff Hansen during day four of Dick Luman’s Personnel Appeals Hearing. Luman’s hearing is one of three appeals against the county regarding the disciplinary action that followed what the county deemed a mutual fight in the workplace on Oct. 3, 2011.

A week into the hearing, Personnel Appeals Board member Ken Goode changed his mind on an important Board ruling, seemingly in an effort to not sit deaf and dumb on the dais.

Previously the Board had voted 2-1 to block any new evidence materials from being used in the hearing that had not previously been used in Luman’s Skelly Hearing (A Skelly Hearing is part of the the county’s due process obligation prior to an employee termination). Goode and fellow Board member Tim Hansen originally voted to keep new materials out, while the third, Ralph Obenberger was amenable to allowing certain new evidence to be presented. Obenberger felt that anything that occurred after Oct. 3, 2011 should not be allowed but any supporting materials that led to Luman’s termination should be allowed.

Even with the extensive discussion and vote from the Board on that first day, the issue continued to come up.

“We’re still just accusing him of getting into a fight and lying about it,” John-Carl Vallejo, who is representing the county in the hearing, had stated on that first day. “We’re talking about supporting evidence. The Skelly hearing doesn’t require every shred of evidence to be given to the employee.”

Stacey Simon, who is serving as advisory counsel to the Board, agreed that there is no rule saying every shred of evidence must be presented at the Skelly.

“It’s a fast process,” Simon said. “The employee just needs a reasonable opportunity to be heard at the Skelly.”

But Luman’s attorney, Katie Maloney Bellomo strongly disagreed.

“You must give an employee notice and allow them to defend themselves before action is implemented,” Bellomo said on April 4. “I’m going to argue on the basis of the Skelly case, that’s why the employee receives a Skelly hearing. You can’t enter new evidence because his job has already been terminated and he therefore wouldn’t have the opportunity to be heard before his property [job] was removed.”

Bellomo had also pointed out last week that new evidence would allow her to subpoena more witnesses and present new materials as well, which would greatly lengthen the hearing.

Even with the potential of dragging the hearing on into an unforeseeable future, Goode gave in to Vallejo when the topic was raised for the third time on April 11.

“There are incredible allegations against the county and it will need to defend itself against the alleged bias,” Vallejo said on Wednesday. “We need to reopen the evidence issue from the Skelly hearing.”

Vallejo explained that if the county were prevented from bringing in new evidence, it would be a huge issue for its case. Vallejo claimed that allegations regarding Luman’s workers compensation denial and its relation to an alleged bias from the county’s insurance company were the items to which he referred.

Goode seemed to hear him. He called for a closed session between Board members.

The Board emerged after lunch with a new split vote. It was now 2-1 in favor of allowing new evidence materials. Hansen remained against changing the original ruling, claiming that it protected the county.

Vallejo said he expected to have one new document and one new witness for the county under the Board’s new ruling. The new witness is expected to be Mono County District Attorney George Booth.

Bellomo, however, claimed she would now need time to restructure her argument of the case.

“I was not at all prepared to go forward on this changed ruling,” she said. “I strongly feel that the [new] ruling is incorrect.”

After a half hour break for Bellomo to gather her thoughts, she told the Board she was not ready to move forward any further that day.

“You will be reopening the county’s case to put in this new information, so I won’t proceed until the county completes its case,” she said.

Vallejo, however, argued that the county would merely be rebutting evidence that alleges the county is biased.

“The county’s case is closed, we would just be presenting rebuttal evidence and witness,” Vallejo said. “The county has the burden of proof here, just like in court, so we go first and last.”

Simon, however, pointed out that according to Mono County’s Personnel System Code, both parties are allowed the opportunity to rebut.

“The appointing authority or department head shall present its evidence first. The employee may then present evidence and each shall then have the right to present evidence in rebuttal,” according to section 2.68.302, F in the code.

The hearing will need more time than originally expected. The Board recessed until Friday afternoon, April 13 to give Bellomo time to figure out whom else she might like to subpoena, who she will need to re-subpoena, and to decide if there is any new evidence she might want to present.

With scheduling conflicts between all interested parties, the new timeline for the Luman hearing may very well stretch into May, effectively putting Jim Kerby’s hearing on hold until Luman’s is completed. The evidence ruling from the Board will apply to Kerby’s hearing as well.

At the start of the hearing it was explained that the Personnel Appeals Board acts like a judge. Judges reserve their rights to change their rulings at any time, and therefore the same prerogative is given to the Appeals Board.

Luman’s testimony

Luman originally took the stand to tell his side of the story on Friday, April 6. Brett McCurry, the other individual involved in the incident that Mono County deemed a mutual fight, had been on the stand on April 4 (see last week’s story “Luman Challenges Termination”].

However, Luman did not get to say much on April 6. A comment that the Appeals Board Chairman, Tim Hansen made prompted Goode to question Hansen’s impartiality. At first, Goode requested that the chairmanship be transferred to Obenberger, but then he conceded to have the clerk transcribe Hansen’s comments for further review. The Board recessed until Monday, April 9, when, after review of the transcript, Goode withdrew his motion to remove Hansen from the Chair’s seat.

The comment in question was transcribed as follows, “I mean this is good testimony that I’ve been awaiting for three days to hear actual facts about this case opposed to: he drove fast and squirted cinders on Mr. Arkens’ car. I mean, you know, we’re getting down to facts …”

Goode had been concerned that Hansen was being prejudicial. He felt Hansen was saying that with Luman’s testimony they were finally hearing the truth. Hansen claimed he just meant it was valuable and relevant testimony.

With the Board remaining as originally seated, Luman continued his testimony on April 9.

Bellomo started her questioning by asking about Luman’s injuries from the Oct. 3, 2011 incident. Luman stated he had suffered a hernia, which required surgery, as well as a broken rib.

Bellomo then had Luman testify to McCurry’s character. Luman stated that he had witnessed McCurry in confrontations with other employees on several occasions. Luman also testified that the mechanics had met at least twice to discuss McCurry’s aggressiveness with Jerry Vande Brake, their supervisor.

Luman’s testimony differed from McCurry’s as well as Vande Brake’s in several ways. Perhaps most significant was when it came to the alleged threat that Luman was said to have made to McCurry prior to the start of the alleged fight.

McCurry had fallen down his stairs at home a month or so before the Oct. 3 incident. He claimed he had tripped over his dog, but according to Luman, the employees at the shop were making jokes behind McCurry’s back regarding the incident because they believed McCurry had been drunk and had fallen down the stairs because of his intoxication.

On the day of the Oct. 3 incident, Luman testified that shortly after McCurry came into Vande Brake’s office and Kerby began to explain his allegations against McCurry, McCurry called Kerby a bold-faced liar and got in his face, saying “You have a problem with me and I want to know what the f**k it is.”

McCurry eventually backed off and that, according to Luman, was when he said, “And I suppose you didn’t call Mosley [another employee] and I motherf**kers, either.”

McCurry allegedly told Luman he would have the balls to say it to Luman’s face if he was going to say it.

That’s when Luman said, “If you had the balls to say it, you’d probably be falling down your stairs again.”

While McCurry and Vande Brake took this as a threat, Luman testified that he meant it as a wisecrack.

“I meant that if he had the balls to say it, it would probably be because he was drunk and his mouth would be loose,” Luman said. He claimed he was referencing the wisecracking that had been going on in the shop regarding McCurry’s previous accident.

Luman then proceeded with the rest of his testimony about the alleged fight, which he claimed was actually an attack by McCurry. The recollection of how the incident occurred varied greatly between the two men’s testimonies.

Kerby, the fourth party in the room during the time of the incident was suppose to testify in the Luman hearing on Wednesday, but due to the Board’s change in ruling, had not yet been given the opportunity.

Board member’s impartiality called into question … again

Dick Luman briefly took the stand in his own appeals hearing on the afternoon of April 6. But before he could really get into his testimony the bias of one of the Personnel Appeals Board members was called into question. The question forced the hearing into a premature recess until Monday, April 9.

As Luman was being asked by his lawyer, Katie Maloney Bellomo, to recount some occasions in the workplace that showed the demeanor of Brett McCurry, Luman’s alleged assailant, Mono County’s Counsel, John-Carl Vallejo objected to prior instances of conduct being used to determine the incident at hand.

The incident at hand is a fight that occurred between Luman and McCurry in the Mono County workplace on Oct. 3, 2011. Luman contests that it was not a fight, but that he was assaulted and then unfairly terminated from the County. Read The Sheet’s earlier story by clicking here.

The Appeals Board Chairman, Tim Hansen disagreed with Vallejo.

“You’ve gone back into everyone’s behavior,” Hansen said, referring to a story that Vallejo had earlier in the hearing asked Mono County CAO Jim Arkens to recount about Luman’s erratic driving behavior. The story showed Luman in a negative light.

Hansen then stated that with Luman’s testimony the Board was finally getting down to the facts after three days of listening to other testimony.

Shortly after his statement, his fellow Appeals Board member, Ken Goode asked that the three Board members be allowed to meet briefly in closed session.

When they returned from behind closed doors, Goode explained that he had raised a concern about Hansen continuing as the Board Chairman. He made a motion that Hansen step down as Chairman and that the third board member, Ralph Obenberger, be appointed the position.

It came out that Hansen’s comment about finally hearing the facts had seemed prejudicial to Goode and made him think twice about Hansen’s position. He felt that Hansen was making the statement that now that Luman was on the stand, those listening to the hearing would finally be getting the truth.

It was the second time in three days that Hansen’s impartiality was called into question. On the first day of the hearing, Vallejo had objected to Hansen sitting on the Board because of his friendships with many of the people involved in the hearing.

On Friday afternoon, Hansen responded to Goode’s concern by saying that his comment had been misinterpreted and that the stuffy room and the long day were making it difficult to concentrate and express his thoughts accurately.

Two questions then hung in the air: what were the exact words Hansen had used, and was a change of Chairman in the middle of the hearing allowed?

The Board decided to take a recess until Monday morning in order to allow Clerk/Recorder Lynda Roberts to download the digital recording of the hearing and transcribe verbatim the words that Hansen had spoken.

The hearing will reconvene Monday, April 9 at 9 a.m. at the Bridgeport Courthouse.

Preliminary hearing for Walker, Bourne reset for Feb. 10 

Mammoth residents Dr. Andrew C. Bourne, 46, and Joseph T. Walker, 48, were briefly back in Santa Barbara Superior Court on Thursday, Jan. 19.

The two men were arrested on Jan. 4 on several charges related to having an inappropriate sexual relationship with a Santa Barbara girl, now 15.

The relationship may date as far back as two years.

Inside the courtroom defense attorneys Samuel K. Eaton (representing Walker) and Ron Bamieh (representing Bourne) said they had received more than 125 pages in discovery documents thus far from Deputy District Attorney Mary Barron.

Judge George C. Eskin did make one ruling Thursday before continuing the hearing to Feb. 10 — that Walker and Bourne are to have no direct or indirect communication with each other until the next hearing without attorneys present.

He said he would “err on the side of caution” after D.A. Barron made vague references to a suggested “conspiracy.”

Barron said she was happy to call Santa Barbara Police Detective Jaycee Hunter as a

witness to support her position if necessary.

Eskin said he didn’t have time for testimony and would grant the temporary order.

Family members for both defendants were in attendance.

Mammoth Hospital CEO Gary Boyd confirmed on Wednesday, Jan. 18, that Dr. Andrew Bourne’s contract with the hospital had been terminated.

“He can’t fulfill his contract terms because he can’t physically be here,” Boyd explained. “He needs to focus on his legal issues at this time.”

Boyd met with Bourne on Sunday, Jan. 15, to deliver the termination. “Both of us agreed that this was the right thing to do,” Boyd said.

“I wanted to talk with him personally and make sure he heard it from me. I didn’t want him to read about it in the paper,” he added as explanation of why he had not made the announcement to the public any earlier.

To cover the extra work left by Bourne’s absence, the hospital is using a combination of traveling surgeons and part-time surgeons already on staff at Mammoth Hospital.

“Two physicians that are on staff are providing some coverage,” Boyd explained. “Both are second homeowners.”

These two physicians are Dr. Bryan Fandrich from Sacramento and Dr. Marc Sedwitz from San Diego.

Boyd explained the contracting in the following way: “Dr. Bourne was contracted to provide general surgery services 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. While he was here he subcontracted with these two individuals [Fandrich and Sedwitz] to assist him since one person cannot work every day of the year, 24 hours a day. We [the hospital] are now contracting with these two directly.”

The traveling surgeons, also known as locum tenens are available at the hospital on a somewhat revolving basis.

“There is one here now until about this time next week,” Boyd said on Tuesday.

Boyd confirmed that the traveling surgeons do cost slightly more than the other doctors at the hospital.

“The locum tenens cost a little more because we have to pay per diem, whereas the other doctors receive a general rate,” Boyd said.

Bourne, also a member of the Mammoth Unified School District’s Board of Education, resigned from his post there on Friday, Jan. 13.

MUSD Superintendent Rich Boccia commented to The Sheet, “It was a wise decision.”

According to the Board’s Bylaws, “When a vacancy occurs four or more months before the end of a Board member’s term, the Board shall, within 60 days of the date of the vacancy or the filing of the member’s deferred resignation, either order an election or make a provisional appointment.”

The only reason for a mandated special election would be if the vacancy occurred from six months to 130 days before a regularly scheduled Board election at which the position is not scheduled to be filled.

Bourne’s term was set to expire this year. School Board elections will be held in November.

On Wednesday, Jan. 4, members of the Santa Barbara Police Department with the assistance of the Mammoth Lakes Police Department arrested Bourne, and Walker in Mammoth Lakes.

According to the Santa Barbara Police Department, Walker was arrested and booked for 6 counts of 288.3 PC, illegal communication with a minor to facilitate sexual activity and 1 count of 288 (c)(1) PC, unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. Bourne was arrested and booked for 8 counts of 288.3 PC, illegal communication with a minor to facilitate sexual activity.

Both men were released last week on reduced bails of $750,000 each.

UPDATED Jan. 12, 8:47 a.m. The Santa Barbara County Jail stated that both Andrew Bourne and Joe Walker had posted bail.

——————————————————————–

At a hearing in Santa Barbara Superior court on Tuesday morning, Jan. 10, Judge George C. Eskin heard from attorneys representing Dr. Andrew C. Bourne and Joseph T. Walker arguing for a reduction in bail.

The two men were arrested on Jan. 4 on several charges relating to an inappropriate sexual relationship with a Santa Barbara girl who was under the age of 16.

Bail had been set at $1 million each. It was reduced on Tuesday to $750,000 for each Mammoth man.

The reduction in bail included the following conditions: no contact with direct or indirect witnesses; no contact with unrelated minors or the alleged victim; electronic monitoring; gps installed on cars.

When the Judge announced the bail reduction, Bourne turned to his attorney and shook his head, appearing to indicate that bail had not been lowered enough for him to meet.

After the Judge made his announcement, Bourne’s wife, Gilann began to shudder and cry. Joe Walker, on the other hand, did not betray any emotion and neither did his family members (father Sam, mother Shelly, brother Chris) who were present in the courtroom.

The arrest was made following a months-long investigation. Police say more than 1,000 emails were obtained as evidence.

The content of some of those emails was revealed by Santa Barbara Deputy D.A. Mary Barron on Tuesday to show that Messrs. Bourne and Walker posed a flight risk and should not have their bail reduced.

The emails provided the first small glimpse of state’s evidence.

Barron said evidence showed how one of Bourne’s vehicles had been equipped with enough supplies and weapons to last a few days and had $5,000 dollars in it that his wife was unaware of.

It was suggested by the prosecutor that Bourne had outfitted the vehicle because he had a plan to flee with the young girl.

The next hearing is set for Thursday, Jan. 19. Both men were still in custody as of the time of this post.

The Sheet will have complete coverage of Tuesday’s bail hearing, and how it affects the local community in Friday’s print version of the paper.