|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A one-year difference in the victim’s age means that a former part-time East Palo Alto city employee accused of repeatedly molesting a teen faces reduced potential prison time after two charges were revised.
Investigators previously believed that Redwood City resident Rafael Prado, 28, allegedly began sexually abusing the boy when the boy was 13 years old and Prado was 25. At a hearing March 5 in San Mateo County Superior Court, the District Attorney’s Office said it now believes that the victim was 14 years old. That distinction changed two of the charges against Prado to lewd acts with a minor between the ages 14 and 15.
Prado is now charged with five counts of lewd acts with a minor between 14 and 15. Previously, he faced three of those counts plus two counts of lewd acts with a minor under 14. He is still facing one count of possessing child sex abuse material. If convicted on all six counts, the maximum sentence is half of what it would have been before the two charges were modified, dropping from 12 years in prison to down to five years and three months.
During the preliminary hearing, Judge Jeffery Finigan ruled that prosecutor Kara Szkotak had shown enough evidence to move forward on all six counts.
“This is classic predatory behavior,” Finigan said about Prado. “And the presumption of guilt is great based on what I’ve heard today.”
The allegations against Prado
As first reported by this news organization, Prado, who worked as a part-time, on-call employee for the city of East Palo Alto from July 2022 to April 2025, is accused of repeatedly molesting and supplying drugs to a middle school boy he met at the East Palo Alto Library sometime between late 2022 and 2023. Investigators say they recovered a video that allegedly shows Prado having intercourse with the teen and found Instagram messages they exchanged that helped confirm that they had sexual relations over a number of months.
Prado, who is sometimes referred to as Rafael Prado Caballero in court documents, was arrested by police on June 17 and has been in custody ever since.
Last June, Prado’s attorney, Neil Hallinan, unsuccessfully sought to have Prado released pending trial and submitted several character reference letters to the court, including one from East Palo Alto Council Member Carlos Romero.
Romero told this news organization that his letter was only intended to describe his interactions with Prado, who worked with the councilman as a community outreach volunteer during the COVID-19 pandemic. His reference, on letterhead from his city council office, was not meant to address the merits of the case or speak on behalf of the city of East Palo Alto, Romero said.
After details of Romero’s letter were published last month, two other members of the East Palo Alto City Council denounced the reference letter and called on Romero to resign. Romero declined, saying they were politically motivated and argued that the council should instead focus on how to better support youth in the community.
The hearing
The preliminary hearing on March 5 was one of the first opportunities for prosecutors to lay out their case in front of a judge. Unlike in a jury trial, the judge only ruled on whether there was sufficient probable cause to proceed.
Two detectives testified in support of the District Attorney’s Office: East Palo Alto Detective Salvador Perez and Redwood City Detective James Schneider.
According to Perez’s account of the victim’s interview, the teenager first met Prado after school at the East Palo Alto Library. Afterward, Prado and the teen connected over social media and shared explicit photos, Perez testified.
During the hearing, defense attorney Hallinan argued Perez’s police report was not fully accurate. In one instance, the victim contradicted himself about what Prado was allegedly doing when he said he saw Prado at his middle school, saying he wasn’t sure if he was dropping off a package.
After Judge Finigan ruled that the prosecution could proceed on the revised charges, Hallinan asked Finigan to reconsider his motion to release Prado without bail while he awaits trial. Hallinan had sought Prado’s release in July, but was denied by Judge Jeff Jackson.
According to Hallinan, Prado has already spent more than 260 days in jail.
Prado had previously served jail time for misdemeanor embezzlement on an unrelated case and for driving under the influence. Prosecutors say Prado has been on probation almost continuously since he turned 18. He also violated his probation terms several times and fled police once, according to prosecutors.
Finigan ruled that Prado must remain in jail until trial, after reviewing the defense’s arguments and supporting character references, including Romero’s letter. The judge added that if Prado “can’t even obey misdemeanor probation,” he did not have confidence in Prado’s ability to obey the conditions of pre-trial parole.
If convicted, Prado would need to serve a minimum of half of his sentence because lewd acts with a minor between the age of 14 and 15 is not considered a violent or serious felony. He would have been required to serve at least 80% of any prison sentence if he was convicted of lewd acts with a minor under age 14.
Prado is next due in San Mateo County Superior Court in Redwood City on March 19 for an arraignment based on the updated charges.
Joan Lane, trailblazing volunteer and Stanford’s go-to for ‘sticky problems,' dies at 97March 25, 2026 3:23 pm
It’s worth notice that these are tickets are written in such a way that it’s easy to assume the accused met the victim while carrying out his work duties. He was a part time, on call employee, and not involved with the library at all, which is run by the county. Was Prado also working elsewhere?
During the time Councilmember Romero interacted with him, the accused worked for the county.
As regards earlier reports about the victim being propositioned by construction workers, what construction projects were happening in EPA at that time?
Lastly, are any reporters investigating Councilmember Dinan’s racist posts, rumors that Mayor Lincoln didn’t live in EPA when he previously ran for office, or Lincoln’s questionable lawsuits he keeps losing?
*articles, not tickets
Nicole Jamaisse Steward Crooks,
This comment is a masterclass in motivated reasoning, so let’s take it apart.
First: you complain the articles are “written in such a way” that readers might assume Prado met the victim through his city duties — then quote the article, which states plainly that he met the boy at the East Palo Alto Library after school. The article isn’t misleading you. You’re misleading yourself, or hoping others won’t read carefully.
Second: yes, the library is county-run. Nobody disputes that. Prado wasn’t there as a city employee — he was there as a predator. The distinction you’re drawing doesn’t exonerate anyone or change anything about what allegedly happened to that child.
Third: your claim that Prado “worked for the county” during his time with Romero is unsupported by anything in this or any prior reporting. Romero himself said he knew Prado as a community outreach volunteer. If you have evidence of county employment, share it. Otherwise you’re just making things up.
Fourth: the construction worker angle was reported. Reporters followed it. It didn’t lead where you apparently hoped it would.
And then we get to the real point of your comment: attacks on Mayor Lincoln’s residency (a years-old smear with zero supporting evidence), his litigation record (which has actually produced court rulings in his favor), and a pivot to Councilmember Dinan — none of which have anything to do with Rafael Prado or a child who was allegedly abused.
You buried four paragraphs of political opposition research inside a question about journalism. At least own what you’re doing.
Your frustration with local government stems from your own complicated departure from EPASD.
It’s clear by your content and typical Lincoln style of attempting to invalidate my comments and making assumptions you’re a Lincoln family member or Lincoln adjacent.
Why are you and the bigot felon so focused on Nicole?
Your lack of facts about Prado’s previous employment and Mayor Lincoln’s litigation record shows your issue with grasping facts or maybe a poor memory. As for his residency, you don’t know who knows what about it. A scrubbed internet doesn’t erase all evidence. As for Dinan’s racism, there’s evidence.
How odd for you to concern yourself with my question about the construction workers and make assumptions I had a hope of where it might lead.
I never pretended my comments were all about the Prado case, as evidenced by literally asking questions about other subjects. How odd for you to concern yourself with my questions for this news agency.
Happy Spring and tell the Lincoln Loudd clan Nicole says hi!