Attorneys double down on efforts to move public corruption case out of Merced County

Attorneys for Los Banos school Trustee Tommy Jones and Merced-area contractor Greg Opinski, who are charged with bribing a public official, are opposing a judge’s order and asking an appeals court to move their case to a different jurisdiction.

A writ filed by the attorneys to the 5th District Court of Appeal in Fresno forced another delay for the arraignment of Jones and Opinski, who were arrested in August but have yet to enter any plea. The arraignment was postponed to Dec. 22.

Jones and Opinski were arrested and have been charged with felony counts of bribing Los Banos Unified school Trustee Dominic Falasco.

Case reports from a 10-month investigation say Opinski paid Falasco through Jones to vote to award the $6 million to $7 million Mercey Springs Elementary School expansion project to Opinski’s construction company.

On Nov. 21, Jones’ attorney Kevin Little and Opinski’s attorney Jeffrey Hammerschmidt filed a motion that claimed all judicial officers on the Merced Superior Court, including case Judge Ronald Hansen, should be disqualified because they have conflicts of interest with Falasco, who is a prominent defense attorney in Los Banos, as well as Opinski and District Attorney Larry Morse II.

Disqualifying the entire bench could move the case to another county.

Last week, Hansen issued an order that denied the motion on technical grounds. But he also defended himself as the case’s judge by explaining how any connections he may have with Falasco, Opinski or Morse aren’t significant enough to disqualify him.

The order also states that it can’t be appealed.

However, on Tuesday, Little filed a petition for writ of mandate, on behalf of Jones, to the appellate court to either move the case to a different jurisdiction, or direct the Merced Superior Court to set an evidentiary hearing to consider disqualifying the Merced judges.

“We have also requested a stay of (Merced Superior Court) proceedings” for the arraignment, Little said.

A writ is a less formal but quicker method of appealing a court decision or specific order, based on rules for submitting writs in the 5th District Court of Appeal. The court of appeal has more discretion on whether to consider the writ at all, compared to an appeal.

In the writ, Jones claims Hansen’s order was “erroneous” because it misinterpreted the law and mischaracterized the motion.

It states that Jones’ request was urgent because he would be required to stand trial “even though his legal rights are violated.”

It states that Hansen’s order is “invalid,” and that the motion shouldn’t have been denied because judges can be disqualified if the facts may “reasonably entertain a doubt” of the judges.

Hammerschmidt said he also will file a writ of appeal on behalf of Opinski on Tuesday.

During the Tuesday hearing, Hansen, who didn’t comment on the writ, said it usually takes about 10 days for the court of appeal to render a decision on the writ. So the arraignment hearing was continued to Dec. 22.

This story was originally published December 6, 2016 at 6:41 PM with the headline "Attorneys double down on efforts to move public corruption case out of Merced County."