Ms. Muller’s follow-up article is up. The highlights:

1. Cardoza had not seen the memo from Gallegos to Keats about recusing themselves and Mr. Dikeman from the case until after the plea because it was was written 5 days later. Cardoza admitted the error stating that he had not reviewed the file in its entirely before commenting earlier this week. However, Mr. Cardoza vehemently insists that Gallegos had made no contact with him about the case prior to the plea, and that Gallegos did not realize that the plea had already been entered when he wrote the memo (which makes sense, or he wouldn’t have bothered, or if he wanted to be dishonest, he would have predated it).

2. Wes Keat admitted that “the other paper” got the information wrong in that he called the AG Office in San Francisco rather than Sacramento. He was trying to reach a particular woman, but spoke to a male associate instead. He believed that the call was made in mid-July, probably the 19th – the day the plea was entered. He did not know whether it happened before or after. He emphasized that Cardoza was acting independently throughout.

3. Cardoza complained about the “sloppiness” of the original story and said that he should have been contacted for it. As I’ve said, I certainly agree that it would have cleared up some facts about the plea itself, though he would not have been able to address the issue of the donation itself and the appearance of an impact on the plea agreement.

4. I don’t know what to make of this:

In an e-mail exchange with The Eureka Reporter, Cardoza explained that he had a busy court calendar, and added, “As far as my responsibility to the media is concerned, I invite your attention to the California Public Records Act, the California Rules of Professional Conduct, the American Bar Association Model Code of Professional Responsibility and the National Prosecution Standards. I will continue to fulfill my responsibilities as set forth therein to all media outlets, including yours. If you feel I am in violation of any or all of those directives, I suggest you file a formal complaint with the California State Bar.”

He followed up with some colorfully testy comments.

5. At least one of the charges to which Bowman pled involved a serious incident of violence against his mother-in-law with the assistance of his wife/her daughter. The allegations would seem to indicate that this guy has a history of violence against women.

6. The article references a “sidebar” containing some comments made by Gallegos, but they don’t appear to have made it into the on-line version of the article.


KMUD picked up on the story last night via Daniel Mintz. Estelle Fennel promised a follow-up tonight with an interview with Paul Gallegos on the controversy. The Graham trial jury is deliberating, or was at last report, so it’s conceivable that something could break there that eclipses the Bowman issue, but I’ll be listening at 6:00.