I am ‘not a victim,’ driver says of Hwy. 101 protest, despite goading by DA’s Office
One of the drivers listed in the District Attorney’s Office’s complaint against protest leader Tianna Arata says he’s “not a victim,” and he called out a DA’s investigator for trying to cajole him into indicating he felt threatened by marchers who blocked Highway 101.
The latest twist in the case came in a letter from the driver’s attorney to the DA’s Office, on the eve of a court hearing for four San Luis Obispo protesters accused of holding motorists “hostage” during a July 21 march on the highway.
The motorist, who’s referred to as John Doe in at least one of 16 counts in the DA’s complaint, says a DA’s Office investigator ignored his statements to the agency and tried to goad him into saying he feared for his safety during the march.
“It would really help us out if you were scared,” the alleged victim says the investigator told him during their interview, according to a letter from the man’s attorney sent to the District Attorney’s Office and obtained by The Tribune.
On Thursday morning, Superior Court Judge Matthew Guerrero is scheduled to hear a motion to dismiss the case against local Black Lives Matter activist Tianna Arata, who is facing 13 misdemeanors including false imprisonment and obstructing movement on a public roadway for allegedly leading the protest that blocked traffic on Highway 101 for almost an hour.
Neither Arata nor co-defendants Amman Asfaw, Marcus Montgomery, and Joshua Powell — who were charged last Friday, along with three other protesters in a separate case stemming from the same July 21 demonstration — have yet entered pleas in the case.
Arata’s attorneys filed the motion to dismiss the case based on First Amendment grounds, claiming she was singled out among the hundreds of mostly white protesters, as well as a request for a gag order to prevent police and CHP from continuing to make allegedly inaccurate and inappropriate statements to the public about the case.
Deputy District Attorney Delaney Henretty, the prosecutor in Arata’s case, filed a blistering response to the defense last week, arguing that Arata can’t claim freedom of speech protections if she violates the safety and liberty of others “because of her animosity and hatred for the police.”
All four co-defendants are facing misdemeanors in the case. Each misdemeanor carries a maximum sentence of six months in County Jail and a $1,000 fine.
Many of the charges in the case stem from confrontations between protesters and motorists. Though witnesses said some drivers were the aggressors and at least two actually struck marchers, no motorist faces any charges for the July 21 event.
Noting that attorneys are prohibited by California State Bar ethics rules from commenting on pending cases, Chief Deputy District Attorney Jerret Gran declined to comment on the letter.
“Since we just received this email late this afternoon, we will review it and handle like any other correspondence received during the pendency of a case,” Gran wrote in an email.
‘He is not a victim’
According to Count 5 of prosecutors’ complaint in the case, Arata and co-defendant Montgomery are accused of “violat(ing) the personal liberty of John Doe, driver of a Black 4-door BMW at the southbound Hwy. 101 Santa Rosa Street off-ramp.”
The letter sent to Henretty Wednesday by Gregory Gillett, attorney for a man he says is the unnamed “victim” listed in Count 5, advises Henretty that while his client will cooperate with the District Attorney’s Office’s case as required by law, it’s his position “that he is not a victim.”
The letter says that John Doe “takes issue with the accuracy and manner of your office’s investigation,” and that the form of questioning from an unnamed District Attorney’s Office investigator was “inappropriate.”
“Specifically, the investigator was leading the investigation with what appeared to be a determined outcome in mind. During the interview, the investigator asked several times if Mr. Doe was ‘scared’ during the ‘riot,’” Gillett writes. “Even after Mr. Doe indicated there was nothing to fear about the incident, the investigator insisted that “it would really help us out if you were scared.’”
Gillett wrote that after his client reiterated that he was not scared, the investigator suggested that “’sometimes men are afraid to admit they are scared and that nobody would judge (John Doe),” if he were scared.
The letter also says that despite the man’s continued opposition to being involved, the District Attorney’s Office has contacted him several times requesting that he come up with a demand for restitution in the case “despite Mr. Doe making it clear that he does not want to press charges or to be contacted about the matter further.”
“These conversations were similar to the one with the investigator insofar as they were suggestive and seemed to be agenda driven,” Gillett wrote. “Mr. Doe is not seeking any restitution as there were no damages.”
If there were damages and Doe was indeed a victim, he would be entitled to restitution if Arata and Montgomery are found guilty of Count 5.
The alleged victim’s attorney demands that the DA’s Office cease its communication with him.
