The badge of the Pima County Sheriff's Department.
A former Pima County Sheriff’s Sergeant accused of sexually assaulting another deputy has filed a motion to dismiss his case.
Ricardo Garcia faces charges of sexual assaulting a female deputy at a department holiday party at his house in December 2022. His trial is set to begin next month, but his defense claims the case should be dismissed for various due process violations, mainly that the Sheriff’s department handled the initial investigation instead of an outside law enforcement agency.
“The failure to have an independent law enforcement agency investigate this matter resulted in repeated improper contact and communications between members of PCSD and the alleged victim in an ongoing criminal investigation,” Garcia’s lawyer Louis Fidel wrote in the motion to dismiss filed earlier this month.
Garcia’s attorneys cite statements made by various PCSD employees that the investigation should have been outsourced.
The filing also alleges that the victim deputy maintained that nothing happened the day after the party, until members of PCSD “supplied information” that got her to change her story.
The prosecution, being handled by the Santa Cruz Attorney’s Office, denies this claim in a response to the motion filed Nov. 18.
The victim was “visibly too drunk to consent to intercourse and even unresponsive at relevant points,” writes Santa Cruz County Attorney George Silva.
Garcia’s attorney further alleges PCSD violated his right to conduct an independent investigation.
In the days immediately following the party, Garcia hired a private investigator to conduct interviews of other people who attended the party, according to court documents.
A PCSD captain allegedly ordered the private investigator not to contact witnesses, and a lieutenant in the department ordered people at the party not to communicate with the investigator via a text message.
The defense claims Garica had the right to “independently investigate allegations that he adamantly denies and to develop exculpatory evidence from eyewitnesses when their memories were fresh.”
In response, the prosecution argues PCSD’s denial of witnesses happened before Garcia was even charged, and the defense has had full access to witnesses since.
Garcia’s defense has also filed a motion to exclude expert testimony from a DNA analyst at the trial on the basis that the expert “did not perform any of the work involved in obtaining the DNA profiles from the items that were tested.”
According to the motion, Garcia’s lawyers claim he has the “right to confront the person who actually did the lab work.”
The victim’s attorney claims “there is a 38 quadrillion to one DNA match for bodily fluid” matching Garcia.
The case has prompted scrutiny by the Pima County Board of Supervisors, who called for the Arizona Attorney General’s office to conduct an investigation.
The resulting report listed four areas of potential policy violations in the Department’s handling of the case, including command staff potentially neglecting their duty to aid other department members exposed to danger, failure of an off-duty officer to act in an official capacity, improper documentation and reporting requirements, and failing to properly secure evidence.
The motion filed by Garcia’s defense also attempts to cast doubt on the validity of the AG’s findings, alleging PCSD withheld critical information, including a secret meeting with the victim deputy, himself, and the detective handling the case a few days after the party. They have called an employee of the AG’s office to testify.
If there are no delays stemming from the motions, the trial is set to begin Dec. 2.
By submitting your comments, you hereby give AZPM the right to post your comments and potentially use them in any other form of media operated by this institution.