Records seizure in fatal Sonoma County hit-and-run case alarms defense bar

A longtime Sonoma County criminal defense investigator has been accused by prosecutors of dissuading a witness from testifying against his client in a manslaughter trial stemming from an August 2017 hit-and-run crash that killed UC Berkeley’s top lawyer, Christopher Patti.

The allegations have landed investigator Jim Baker, 69, in Sonoma County Superior Court alongside the suspected hit-and-run driver Jonathan Ritter, 29, of Rio Nido, who was recently accused by prosecutors of trying to get the same witness kidnapped and killed.

Baker’s case has sent a shockwave through the local legal community, after Sonoma County sheriff’s detectives recently seized all of his records - including those for unrelated cases - as well as his laptop and the phones from his office and home.

They kept the files for 10 days before turning them over to court custody, in what appears to be a sharp departure from standard procedure governing chain of custody for evidence that may include information protected by attorney-client privilege, according to Baker’s lawyer, Geoffrey Dunham. The potential breach could include a half-dozen other local criminal cases Baker was investigating for defendants accused of crimes in Sonoma County, he said.

“My first and immediate concern is what about files that belong to other clients, and the confidential information contained therein?” said Sonoma County Public Defender Kathleen Pozzi, a top member of the local defense bar who voiced concerns about potential overreach. “What’s the purpose of taking them? What are they doing with them? Are they looking at them? The attorney-client privilege is a very sacred privilege.”

The case highlights the critical yet behind-the scenes role of private investigators for the defense. They interview witnesses, collect evidence and help lawyers prepare for trial, serving as a key counterweight in America’s criminal justice system to the role of law enforcement and prosecutors. The ?attorney-client privilege extends to investigators, paralegals and other staff working on behalf of people accused of crimes.

Brian Staebell, spokesman for the Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office, declined to answer questions about the procedures used in handling Baker’s records or to say what evidence prosecutors have against him.

“We’re following the law. That’s all I can tell you,” Staebell said.

Prosecutors claim Baker became involved with Ritter’s attempts to dissuade a witness in the case from testifying. Among the allegations, prosecutors claim Baker told the witness “to change a specific portion of his initial statement to CHP because it would be better for the defense,” according to the Oct. 15 complaint filed by prosecutors.

Baker, who worked as a police officer in Cotati and Rohnert Park for more than 25 years before becoming an investigator, strongly denies any allegation he acted improperly in his dealings with the defendants or witness in the case.

“I don’t believe, in my heart and in my head, that I did anything wrong,” Baker said in an interview. “If they interpreted something I did as improper, I would like to hear what they say.”

The case has riveted Sonoma County’s defense bar. A hearing last month drew a standing-room-?only crowd that included attorneys and investigators concerned about the implications for those representing people accused of crimes.

Deputy District Attorney Matthew Henning, in court Thursday, asked Judge Jennifer Dollard if he could address the “allegations” voiced in the legal community that Baker’s files have been improperly reviewed. Henning said a sheriff’s detective was assigned to seize the documents and take them into custody.

“They’ve never been inspected by anyone,” Henning said in the hearing. “There is an underlying allegation the people have inspected the documents but it’s just not the case.”

Normally, a certified attorney called a special master takes custody of sensitive documents in cases where there are questions about whether some of the evidence is protected by attorney-client privilege.

The role of special masters was spotlighted earlier this year when a former judge certified for that role was brought in to review evidence seized during the FBI raid on the homes and offices of President Donald Trump’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen.

But that procedure appears to have been delayed for more than a week in Baker’s case.

Geoffrey Dunham, Baker’s attorney, said sheriff’s personnel took Baker’s records Oct. 16, the same day Baker was pulled over by two unmarked sheriff’s patrol cars and arrested. It wasn’t until Oct. 26 that the files were handed over to Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Chris Honigsberg, a former prosecutor appointed to the bench earlier this year.

“If the police can seize records of ongoing cases while they’re still under investigation, it has the potential to make people deeply paranoid,” Dunham said. “I’ve had investigators tell me they are now concerned about investigating this case or speaking to witnesses for fear they could be prosecuted for the same thing.”

At the heart of the case is the death of Patti, 59, whose distinguished legal career led him to serve as chief campus counsel at UC Berkeley, overseeing the university’s top legal matters.

He was an avid cyclist on a solo ride the morning of Aug. 27, 2017, when he was struck and killed. Witnesses told CHP officers that Patti had pulled over on a wide shoulder of Highway 116 west of Guerneville and was checking his phone when a westbound BMW reportedly lost control and slid into him.

The driver sped away.

Two days later, detectives arrested Ritter, a Rio Nido man with a history of public intoxication, trespassing and vandalism arrests. He remains in Sonoma County Jail on $1 million bail, facing charges that include felony vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence, felony hit-and-run causing death and driving without a license.

He retained local attorney Charles Applegate, who hired Baker as investigator.

Last month, prosecutors accused Ritter of conspiring with someone “whose identity is unknown” to dissuade a witness in the case, Timothy Harrington, from attending or giving testimony at any trial or proceeding, according to the nine-page complaint filed Oct. 15.

The complaint also accuses Baker and a woman named Sarah Wagner, 50, of conspiring with Ritter to dissuade Harrington from testifying.

Ritter allegedly told Baker about offering Harrington $1,500 to not testify, according to the complaint.

Prosecutors also accuse Baker of contacting Harrington in August and telling Harrington to do the “right thing,” claiming he offered to search for information about Harrington’s missing brother and help with his legal problems. During a phone call, Baker allegedly told Harrington it would be the best for the defense if he did not testify at all or show up for trial, the complaint states.

Wagner is accused of giving Harrington $50 at the end of the conversation.

Prosecutors have requested all evidence remain under seal, meaning Baker, Ritter and Wagner do not yet know what evidence detectives claim to have against them. All three defendants have delayed entering pleas in the case due to the lack of evidence provided by the District Attorney’s Office.

Baker said his only involvement with Harrington or the other defendants was to determine how the facts impact and possibly assist his client’s defense.

“All I do is try to find the truth,” he said.

The case is being watched beyond Sonoma County.

Mayra Mira, a Santa ?Rosa-based investigator and director for the North Bay district of the California Association of Licensed Investigators, said while the association takes no position on Baker’s case, they have alerted the statewide board about the records seizure and will be following the case closely because of the concerns it presents for investigators statewide.

“The fact that they (Sheriff’s Office personnel) may view these files would prevent the client, the defendant, in any of these cases from having a fair trial because now the county knows everything,” Mira said. “They’re claiming they’re not viewing the files, but we don’t know. So now you have to explain to the client: the Sheriff’s Office has your file.”

Sonoma County Sheriff’s Sgt. Spencer Crum declined to say how Baker came under suspicion or to discuss whether the violent crimes detectives assigned to the case had reviewed the records. Sheriff’s personnel followed the procedures outlined in the warrant to obtain evidence from Baker, he said.

“Violent crimes is following all the rules involving the special master,” Crum said. “If they (Baker’s legal team) have an issue with it, they can appeal anything they want in court.”

You can reach Staff Writer Julie Johnson at 707-521-5220 or julie.johnson@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @jjpressdem.