|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A San Mateo County Superior Court judge on Dec. 1 dismissed two counts of conspiracy brought by the county against Juan Pablo Lopez, a former Sheriff’s Office deputy and a write-in candidate for sheriff in 2014.
Mr. Lopez, who worked in the county jail, had pleaded not guilty to a charge of conspiracy with corrections officers and a gang-affiliated jail inmate to smuggle in two cellphones and Oxycontin over several months, and to allow the inmate to use the phone openly in the jail.
Prosecutors subsequently brought charges of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and gang involvement against Mr. Lopez. He pleaded not guilty to them all; those charges were later modified to two counts of conspiracy.
Representing Mr. Lopez, attorneys Tony Serra and Maria Belyi of the San Francisco-based law firm Pier 5 filed a motion to dismiss the two counts on the premise that the prosecution, in presenting evidence to the grand jury, “did not present the full scope of the evidence” and left out material that could have been exculpatory to Mr. Lopez, Ms. Belyi told the Almanac.
Criminal Presiding Judge Donald Ayoob “had serious concerns,” Ms. Belyi said. In summarizing the morning’s events, she noted two arguments that the judge agreed on and that led to the dismissal:
• The prosecutor “was imprecise with his language” in describing to the grand jury a letter from a witness, Ms. Belyi said.
In an interview, Deputy District Attorney Sean Gallagher, who is supervising the prosecution of the case, acknowledged that prosecutors did not present the grand jury with an actual piece of paper.
• A photo submitted as evidence allegedly showed an inmate using a contraband cellphone, but the photo actually showed an inmate using a phone borrowed from a deputy because of an emergency, Ms. Belyi said.
In determining the basis for their motion, Ms. Belyi said, she and Mr. Serra “went through all the evidence and saw what was presented and what was left out that needed to presented to the grand jury for them to see the full picture.”
“We’re very happy with the dismissal of the indictment,” she said. “We’re waiting to see what happens.”
Mr. Gallagher said that prosecutors “absolutely (disagree), no question,” with Judge Ayoob’s conclusion that the District Attorney’s Office erred in presenting the case.
Prosecutors can appeal the decision or refile the case. “We don’t have a timetable on the decision,” he said, in part because there are other defendants in the case for whom decisions are pending.
Other charges
In connection with Mr. Lopez’s unsuccessful 2014 write-in campaign for sheriff against then two-term sheriff Greg Munks, the former deputy faces seven election-related charges: fraud, conspiracy, perjury by filing a counterfeit document, an election code filing violation, an election code voting violation and two counts of forgery, prosecutors said.
Mr. Serra and Ms. Belyi have filed a motion to dismiss this case as well, but their arguments won’t be heard until Jan. 25, Ms. Belyi said.
Mr. Lopez has been out of custody on $100,000 bail on the jail-related charges, and out on $170,000 bail on the election-related charges.
Related stories:
Renowned attorney to defend ex-deputy, candidate for sheriff against criminal charges
Defense attorney accuses DA of vendetta in prosecution of sheriff’s deputy
‘Near-miss’ sends firefighters searching for crashed paraglider at SLAC campusJanuary 17, 2026 12:48 pm
‘The end of an era’: After 36 years in Palo Alto, Il Fornaio prepares to closeJanuary 13, 2026 2:05 pm
After a decade of ‘embarrassing’ delays, West Menlo Triangle annexation moves aheadJanuary 15, 2026 12:45 pm
This article leaves out that SMC DA Wagstaffe also threw the book at Lopez’s girlfriend with various false criminal charges that were also dismissed.
Within the context of Lopez having the “temerity” to run against Wagstaffe’s crony Greg Munks for SMC Sheriff, this whole episode of Wagstaffe using public resources to carry out a vendetta against someone who dared to actually present a choice in an election against a made man like Munks should be very disturbing to all citizens.
This issue deserves national-scale attention. It’s that serious. It’s that reprehensible.
Let’s not forget it’s incredibly important to turn away Wagstaffe protege Karen Guidotti who is running to succeed him as DA, and Munks protege Carlos Bolanos (also a “made” gangland-style man within the SMC law enforcement “mafia”) who is running to succeed him as Sheriff (after being appointed by the Board of Supervisors without any public comment). These two individuals are committed to furthering the ample legacy of corruption by Wagstaffe and Munks.
This is all just so shocking. I agree with everything “ Disgusting” says. This should be a national story. Corruption runs rampant in the San Mateo District Attorney’s office.
Political Prosecution of Juan P. Lopez & Prosecutorial Misconduct and fabricating evidence 12 minute recording Karen Guidotti claims in e-mail to me she listened to it. Her Investigator under oath stated he did NOT record the conversation.
Look no further than William Massey Senior Investigator for the District Attorney’s office.
Munks and his underboss, Bolanos, are caught & detained by the FBI, at an illegal Las Vegas human trafficking site featuring underaged indentured Asian sex slaves and ecstasy drugs; enabler District Attorney Steve Wagstaff defends the duo’s conduct, saying “Munks is a man of integrity, such that it would not in any fashion affect his office’s ability to enforce all laws in the state of California”; Deputy Juan Lopez runs for office against Munks and Wagstaff subsequently goes after him, using the full resources of both his and Muni’s public offices….. Got it.
San Mateo County Legal Counsel was part of this Dog Pile on Juan P. Lopez and others.
It’s going to be Very Interesting for the District Attorney’s Office to explain a few of the charges they filed against X Deputy Lopez, regarding loan papers.
After Juan P. Lopez filed his Write In Candidate Papers for Sheriff his car was broken into at his Redwood City residence. He reported the crime to the S.O. Some of the stolen items were his loan documents for a refi.
What are the odds of that happening?
Number 1 issue–THANK YOU TO DAVID BOYCE of the Almanac.
We see this News outlet is on this story!!!
Shame on SMC District Attorney’s office for trying to destroy former Deputy Sheriff Juan Lopez. I agree with the other persons who are saying this should be brought to the attention of the national media.
I can only imagine how much money this is causing former Deputy Juan Lopez.
PLEASE HELP GET THIS OUT TO EVERYONE!!!
Lopez’s attorney Tony Serra needs to file Bar complaints against Wagstaffe; Sean Gallagher and every other prosecutor involved in this bogus case. Total violations of the Brady Law. I also hope Serra holds a press conference to denounce this horror show.
Warning you since 2001of the Corruption in the DA’s Office.
Michael Stogner <michaelgstogner@yahoo.com> Dec 2 at 10:37 AM
To
Don Horsley Dave Pine Warren Slocum Carole Groom David Canepa and 3 more…
Dear San Mateo County Leaders,
I and many others have been reporting Prosecutorial Misconduct to the Board of Supervisors since 2001.
A simple Single Point Data Base where whistleblowers and victims could report the mis deeds of those trusted with enforcing the laws of this State and Nation.
Former Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez was the 4th defendant to have his case dismissed yesterday the first day a Judge was able to hear from his attorney in more than 3 years in the Court System. There are more Dismissals on the way. I have NO IDEA why you choose to ignore this issue for so long, you have damaged the County.
Judge dismisses cellphone smuggling case against former deputy sheriff
When is the SMC public/voters going to wake up?
Fw: Please ref this criminal complaint the the A.G. of the State of California
Michael Stogner <michaelgstogner@yahoo.com> May 3 at 8:14 AM
To
Dave Pine Warren Slocum Carole Groom David Canepa Don Horsley and 2 more…
CC
Dear Supervisors,
Please put Eliminating Prosecutorial Misconduct on a near future Agenda Item.
As you can see 1 year ago I asked Karen Guidotti to make a copy of a recording she claims she listened to. I explained that her Inspector Jordan Boyd testified in court that he DID NOT RECORD IT. So you can imagine my surprise when she made that statement.
As you can see by the title of my e-mail I also requested that she ref. this criminal complaint to the Attorney General of the State of California. Please check with her to see if she has done that and if not please do it yourselves.
Yesterday Former Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez replaced his attorney Stuart Hanlon with attorney Tony Serra. His has invested $116,000 to date to defend himself. To this day he has Never received a copy of the recording Karen Guidotti claims she has heard.
This should not be that difficult.
Lets Make San Mateo County Safer.
Thank You
Michael
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Karen Guidotti <kguidotti@smcgov.org>
To: Michael Stogner <michaelgstogner@yahoo.com>
Cc: Bryan Abanto <babanto@smcgov.org>; John Warren <jwarren@smcgov.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 8:57 AM
Subject: RE: Please ref this criminal complaint the the A.G. of the State of California
Good morning Mr. Stogner: I am not sure why Mr. Hanlon has not been able to verify the existence of the recording. However, I will ask DDA Bryan Abanto to reach out to Mr. Hanlon to verify that he did receive that item of evidence from our office.
Sincerely,
Karen Guidotti
From: Michael Stogner [mailto:michaelgstogner@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 8:42 AM
To: Karen Guidotti <kguidotti@smcgov.org>
Subject: Re: Please ref this criminal complaint the the A.G. of the State of California
Good morning Karen Guidotti,
As of today Stuart Hanlon has not been able to verify the existence of the 11 minute recording that you have listened to. Would it be possible for you to make a copy available to Mr. Hanlon so he could pass it on to Juan P. Lopez and in turn he could pass it on to Irma who is very interested in hearing it.
Just to clarify I am not asking you to review this part of the transcript for accuracy, I was a witness to the entire PH and I have a complete copy of the transcript.
San Mateo County District Attorney Inspector Jordan Boyd testified he did NOT record the interview.
Thank You
Michael Stogner
From: Karen Guidotti <kguidotti@smcgov.org>
To: Michael Stogner <michaelgstogner@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2016 6:58 AM
Subject: RE: Please ref this criminal complaint the the A.G. of the State of California
Good morning Mr. Stogner: Thanks for your information. Can you please clarify what you are asking me to do? Are you asking me to review this part of the transcript for accuracy? Or are you asking for a formal internal affairs investigation of Jordan Boyd?
Thanks,
Karen
From: Michael Stogner [mailto:michaelgstogner@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 6:46 AM
To: Karen Guidotti <kguidotti@smcgov.org>
Cc: Steve Wagstaffe <swagstaffe@smcgov.org>
Subject: Re: Please ref this criminal complaint the the A.G. of the State of California
Karen Guidotti,
Thank You for the response and this new information regarding an Interview with Irma Lopez that was recorded.
At the Preliminary Hearing D.A. Inspector Jordan Boyd testified that he did NOT record it. Now Irma Lopez wants to hear that recorded interview and so would Juan Lopez.
Mr. Hanlon, Q. Is there any reason you didn’t tape record that interview? Boyd answered NO
Thank You
Michael Stogner
From: Karen Guidotti <kguidotti@smcgov.org>
To: Michael Stogner <michaelgstogner@yahoo.com>; Steve Wagstaffe <swagstaffe@smcgov.org>
Cc: John Warren <jwarren@smcgov.org>; Bryan Abanto <babanto@smcgov.org>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2016 3:59 PM
Subject: RE: Please ref this criminal complaint the the A.G. of the State of California
Mr. Stogner:
I have looked into this matter and have confirmed that Inspector Boyd did indeed conduct an interview with Irma Lopez on December 8, 2014. It was recorded, and a report was written regarding that conversation. I have personally read the report and listened to that eleven minute interview. Perhaps Mr. Hanlon can confirm the existence of this evidence for you, as he was provided with discovery of that phone call well before the preliminary hearing.
Once you have verified my information, please advise me if you wish to continue with your complaint about Inspector Boyd.
Sincerely,
Karen Guidotti
From: Michael Stogner [mailto:michaelgstogner@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2016 9:12 AM
To: Karen Guidotti <kguidotti@smcgov.org>; Steve Wagstaffe <swagstaffe@smcgov.org>
Subject: Please ref this criminal complaint the the A.G. of the State of California
Steve and Karen.
Irma Lopez was never interviewed by Jordan Boyd. This is a PC115 (A) violation
Many of my family and friends know that I have been doing my best to eliminate Prosecutorial Misconduct in San Mateo County for the last 16 years. Here is just one example. It is also a perfect PC115 (A) Felony filing a false statement to a Judge to get a warrant.
Preliminary Hearing 3/29/2016
Hon. Judge Lisa Novak
Stuart Hanlon attorney for Juan P. Lopez asking San Mateo County District Attorney Inspector Jordan Boyd who is on the witness stand under oath.
“You testified about taking a statement from Irma Lopez, Juan Lopez’s sister, correct?” Jordan Boyd answered Correct
Where was the statement taken? Was it on the phone? In person?
Jordan Boyd answered “It was on the telephone.
What day was it taken?
Jordan Boyd answered “I don’t recall the date, I have to check my report.”
You have no report of this interview you simply mention it in a Search Warrant Affidavit.
“I have no reports of an interview with Irma Lopez. I only have a statement by you and an affidavit for a search warrant or arrest warrant, I’m not sure which saying, you talked to her. I’m asking you when did you talk to her?”
Jordan Boyd answered “I don’t have that.”
Here is the short answer as to why Jordan Boyd and Mr. Abanto never passed on to Mr. Hanlon in discovery the information regarding an Interview with Irma Lopez.
The alleged Interview NEVER happened.
The problems with law enforcement and the judicial system run wide and deep in SMCo.
Re Bolanos: In the past 6 months I have lodged two written/verbal complaints regarding inappropriate behaviors of members of Mr. Bolanos deputies. In one, two deputies vehicles drove onto my gated property at ~3:00 AM with no lights on, drove way to the rear of the property then turned around and left. When I personally spoke by phone with Mr. Bolanos he said “the deputies did exactly the right thing.” No further explanation no rationalization – just go pound sand. In the second, a few weeks ago, 1 1/2 hours after an accident closed Los Trancos Rd for what on scene 5 officers from both PA and SMCo as well as WFPD said would be many hours, said officers (not WFPD) stood around chatting among themselves while a line of more than 20 vehicles waited without explanation or advice as to the expected duration of the closure and the available detour. An e-mail to Mr Bolanos and others in the county regarding this behavior has gone unanswered.
Re. Building Code Enforcement:
We have had two successive, 2year duration, industrial, live work uses of Resource Management zoned property here in Vista Verde. While the Code enforcement staff quickly labeled these as “Illegal Uses of the property” nothing was ever done to really expeditiously enforce termination of the illegal use. The first one ended on its own accord at the end of the occupants 2 year lease. The second ended about 2 months after the Health Department finally Red Tagged the property on August 8th, 2017 almost a full year after the county was presented with a Health Department test affirming the raw sewage flowing down the local creek. (A verbal complaint at the Board of Supes meeting 3 days prior to the red tag may have just helped too – or at least created some red faces.)The industrial use continued. There have also been extensive un-permitted construction and building modifications on the property. It shouldn’t be surprising I guess seeing as both of these illegal activities were partially financed by some of the biggest venture capital dudes in the area – probably underwirte some other activity too.
What’s also not surprising is that law enforcement and judicial process in SMCo is blind, equally enforced for all in the county – as long as you have the money and position to demand and get whatever you want. What does it take to have legal rights enforced and well performing public service people as well as people who are willing to address well intentioned critique in this county? Certainly won’t happen through the process of elections.
This news site is right about former Deputy Juan Pablo Lopez next hearing– Jan. 25, 2018. Another site is stating Dec. 8, 2017.
The national media should interview former Deputy Juan Pablo Lopez after January 25, 2018. On January 26, 2018 he can tell the media how it feels to win his case (s).
Just contacted ( news site -name withheld) a news site that had the wrong date on upcoming court hearing for former Deputy Juan Lopez and they said would publish correction. I again thank The Almanac for getting the date correct.
DAVID BOYCE of the Almanac, please see this comment, and ask Mr. Lopez and or his attorney.
My understanding is Jan. 25, 2018 is to hear the motion for 2nd case remaining charges.
Please get both sides of the story–not just one.
What happened at the hearing on Friday December 8, involving the other defendants in the Lopez case? Were those charges dropped as well?
Charges were not dismissed, continued to Jan 10, 2018
Michael, thanks for the update.
So why were these charges not dismissed?
This case has a lot of moving parts, many attorneys and defendants.
The motion for dismissal was set for 10AM, when it finally got called, there was a missing attorney, and defendant which DDA Bryan Abanto requested a bench warrant for George Ishmal. Judge Ayoob did not grant it at the AM session, he set it for 1:30PM everybody and their attorneys came back. Still had missing people, I don’t know if warrant was issued I had to leave at 2:20 to avoid Gridlock.
Hope this helps
Judge Ayoub throws out most of Lopez charges on December 1, 2017 . And on December 17, 2017 San Mateo District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe, in a highly unusual move, tries to get Ayoub thrown off a case involving a child molester. It is extremely uncommon for a DA to do this. http://padailypost.com/2017/12/17/da-unable-to-get-judge-off-of-child-molestation-case/
Interesting that Wagstaffe is concerned about the suspect not getting enough time in a molestation case, yet when there was a case in his office involving a wealthy individual accused of the same thing and more, he basically ignored it.
Welcome to San Mateo County, the most corrupt county in California. When will the sheeple of SMC wake up and figure it out?
Judges have the power to throw prosecutors off cases, as one did in Orange County: https://www.ocregister.com/2014/03/15/judge-kicks-prosecutor-off-cases-for-withholding-evidence/
To Almanac reporters: to the best of your knowledge, has San Mateo District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe in his career ever tried to get a judge thrown off any other case?
Holly, former Santa Clara DA Dolores Carr used the “peremptory challenge” against judges who had ruled against her. It was considered bad form (as in the judge was biased/incompetent as opposed to an objective individual viewed the case differently) and part of the reason she lost her seat. Carr did it when a judge ruled one of her prosecutors committed prosecutorial misconduct, which, while inappropriate, I would say is a much less aggressive maneuver than Wagstaffe’s attempt to disqualify Judge Ayoob merely because he ruled against him. Every case has one side that receives an unfavorable ruling.
In San Mateo County, many years ago, Steve Wagstaffe used the peremptory challenge against Judge Carey on every criminal case that came before him for awhile, because Judge Carey refused to schedule a courtroom for a case he considered to be a vendetta/frivolous prosecution (similar to the Lopez situation). By the way, before becoming a judge, Judge Carey had Wagstaffe’s job and was considered a VERY “law and order” DA.
In attempting to disqualify Judge Ayoob, Wagstaffe was definitely sending the message he was very displeased with Judge Ayoob’s verdict in the Lopez matter and doesn’t think he can be fair for the prosecution in any criminal matter. It’s a really dumb idea because other judges do not like it when this happens to a colleague.
I was told by a few people that I trust, most judges come from the District Attorney’s office. My sources have told me Judge Ayoob is one of the few that has not worked for the San Mateo County District Attorney–Fox or Wagstaffe.