San Diego 6 has a good summary of why the sentences for manslaughter were handed out this way, and it shows how Esteban was influenced by his friends. This isn’t too surprising when you look at the photos that Esteban Nuñez had published on his myspace account showing him and his friends drinking, partying, posing like thugs, etc.:

Esteban Nunez of Sacramento pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon for the Oct. 4, 2008, confrontation that took the life of Luis Santos — also known as Luis Dos Santos.

Ryan Jett, 24, of Sacramento, also pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter and assault for instigating the incident, in which two of Santos’ friends were also stabbed and another friend suffered an eye injury.

Two others — Leshanor Thomas, 21, and 20-year-old Rafael Garcia — pleaded guilty to lesser charges and will be sentenced next Friday.

“Had they not all acted together, Luis would still be alive,” Deputy District Attorney Jill DiCarlo said.

Nunez was next to Jett the entire time to “aid and abet” the assault, the prosecutor said.

“He was not a passive participant — he did not play a minor role,” DiCarlo said. “He took on a tough guy, dominating role.”

Hopefully, the family of Luis Dos Santos finds peace and Esteban Nuñez serves out his sentence and avoids this kind of violence in the future. And I hope that politicians such as Mayor Villaraigosa and Kevin de Leon, who were quick to defend the younger Nuñez, think twice about publicly offering support to their colleagues’ children who engage in this kind of behavior. In rushing to defend Esteban Nuñez, these elected officials created an impression that they support deviant behavior.

So here’s the latest:

Ten News in San Diego is reporting that jury selection is being pushed out until Tuesday. And here is a repeat of what is to be decided before the jury:

“Ryan Jett, 24, and Esteban Nunez, 21, are charged with murder, assault, vandalism, conspiracy to commit an assault and conspiracy to destroy evidence in the death of 22-year-old Luis Santos.

If convicted, both face 25 years to life behind bars.

Two co-defendants, 20-year-old Rafael Garcia and 21-year-old Leshanor Thomas, pleaded guilty to lesser charges.”

A few weeks ago, the LA Weekly reported that a hearing was held where the judge ruled that rap lyrics written by Esteban Nuñez could not be brought before a jury, but a text message that Nuñez sent to his co-defendant Rafael Garcia shortly after the killing can be presented to the jury. The message read, “Gangsta rap made us do it.”

Now many of us have heard of the twinkie defense used by Dan White in another high profile California murder case, but I haven’t heard of the ‘gangsta rap’ defense, have you?

It’s also worth listening to this report by KNX 1070.

UPDATED 5/5/2010: Esteban Nuñez and his co-defendant Ryan Jett have pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter in the stabbing death of Luis Santos. Sentencing is scheduled for June 25, and the judge has indicated that he plans to send both young men to prison but may not impose the maximum 16 year sentence. In pleading guilty, both men will now have two strikes. I have a sneaky suspicion that Fabian Nuñez will get on some sort of prison reform kick or will attempt to revise the three strikes law, which I actually think is worth revisiting for drug offenders, not necessarily murderers. I always thought that Esteban had projected an entitlement attitude based upon how he presented himself online and in the remarks he made that became evidence.

Finally, if you want to read about the actual court room drama from today. The LA Weekly has a nice, brief write up of the emotions and mood projected by the Nuñez family.

“Here’s why the political elite in California are watching this tragic murder case involving alleged killers who come from private schools and lives of power and privilege:

The case has elicited the involvement of California’s Democratic Party political stars, from Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to County Federation of Labor chief Maria Elena Durazo — all rallying around the accused while doing nothing to support the family of the widely-loved dead young man, who went, simply, by the name Lu.”

I think that Villaraigosa, Durazo, Romero, and De Leon should have said nothing publicly about Fabian Nuñez’s kid, Esteban and his trials and tribulations, especially without expressing sympathy for the real victim in this case, a deceased young man, Lu Santos. Politically a “no comment on this pending case” would probably have served all of these leaders better than expressing sympathy for Fabian Nuñez and his child, who is out on bail, in my view.

Politicians on both the left and the right have been guilty of this kind of spending. We have seen this in California with former assembly speaker Fabian Nuñez spending campaign cash on French wine and Louis Vuitton. This kind of expending should not be excused, and I think that Latino politicians have to be extra careful in not appearing to be “on the take.” And Rubio should be especially careful, as he has been running on the “fiscal conservative” platform and lists “spending” as the first issue on his website (under the “issues” tab). There is also this idea that Miami, where Rubio is from, is a place known for fraud, just google “fraud and Miami” to get an idea. So Rubio and his people should have definitely been on top of any spending that might look questionable in the eyes of the public.

The Democrats in Florida have already jumped on this Rubio “spending spree” with this short ad:

In concluding, I should note that Marco Rubio has agreed to pay back some of the charges to the state GOP, namely some airfare charges that he says were a “mistake.” But what are your thoughts? Should the public forgive and forget or should we be angered that our politicians think that they can get away with these expenditures, especially at the expense of one’s political party or campaign? If you donate to a party or political campaign, how do you expect those dollars to be used?

I think that whether Fabian Nuñez makes a run for the state treasurer in four years will largely depend how the murder trial that his son is involved in turns out. The trial of Esteban Nuñez is scheduled for April of this year after being rescheduled. If you all remember, the younger Nuñez displayed a very interesting myspace page that has since been taken down. I’m still bothered when I look at the pictures of young Esteban Nuñez. What does this say about his father and his agenda in the public sphere? Tell us what you think. Should Fabian Nuñez return to public life or should he stay in the private sector? I personally think that he shouldn’t even be in lobbying because he represents part of what many people loathe, the revolving door where electeds become lobbyists and continue to feed at the public trough. And Nuñez is certainly young and resourceful enough to reinvent himself.

The LA Times reports:

“Rafael Garcia, a college student in Northern California, pleaded guilty to felony conspiracy to destroy evidence, including a bloody shirt. In exchange, prosecutors dropped a murder charge against him in the Oct. 4 death of Luis Santos.

As part of a plea bargain, Garcia agreed to testify against three co-defendants: Ryan Jett, Esteban Nuñez and Leshanor Thomas.”

In other Fabian Nuñez related news, his consulting firm is working a new gig for Mayor Villaraigosa and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.

In other Villaraigosa news, it looks like he has tossed some work to former Assembly Speaker turned lobbyist Fabian Nuñez, to gut the enforcement of a law requiring the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. The irony is that the mayor had established a goal to cut emissions by 2020, as stated in the first paragraph of this piece. This arrangement that Villaraigosa has with the city of Los Angeles DWP and the lobbying firms smells fishy, but the timing seems right since Fabian Nuñez’s son’s murder trial is coming up and will need money for legal bills.

I think that in a climate where so many of us are penny pinching, asking students to make sacrifices or go without summer school, Cal Grants, and face fee increases at public colleges and universities, it certainly leaves a bad taste in the mouths of Californians to have to foot the bill for luxury cars for the state’s already well compensated elected leaders. I do want to note that Assemblyman Juan Arambula and Senator Gloria Romero are two noted Latinos who have declined a district car. Gracias Assemblyman Arambula and Senator Romero for not taking advantage of your benefits at our expense. You give me a bit of faith that perhaps the others will see the light.

Latinos were not the only legislators with fancy wheels, as others have taken advantage too. However, given the Southern California car club culture in our communities, these revelations play to a certain stereotype that we are materialistic and not very serious about our jobs and how we conduct ourselves.

On page two of the LA Times piece, I was particularly disturbed by this:

“Californians have paid for several accidents in the last three years that happened when lawmakers’ relatives were behind the wheel.

Maria Robles, the wife of then-Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez, was driving his official vehicle in October 2006 when it struck the rear of another vehicle, costing the state $19,000.

Then-Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia’s son Javier “made a right turn in front of oncoming traffic” in a December 2006 accident that cost the state $22,000, state records say.”

Some argue that Californians are already over-taxed, and a few weeks ago, we witnessed the governor’s ballot measures fail at the polls, which would have helped close the gap in the state budget. UCLA economists expect that unemployment will rise to 12.1% by the end of the year and not go back to single digits until late 2011, yet some of our leaders are content to continue living the high life taking full advantage of every tax payer funded perk.

While car expenses can be viewed as a drop in the proverbial bucket, I believe that we should not turn a blind eye to these kinds of abuses. Every penny adds up. The $3.2 million that state legislators’ cars cost tax payers for three years could have been used to purchase textbooks, hire teachers, buy supplies in public health clinics. Why should we be paying for Maria Robles’s fender benders (wife of Fabian Nuñez) or for the son of former Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia’s accidents? How can anyone reasonably justify these costs?

Photo: Cadillac STS, the most costly vehicle driven by Sen. Ron Calderon (D-Montebello)

In January of 2004, Stephen Brixey sued Loretta Sanchez for divorce citing “irreconcilable differences.” Oddly enough for the Congresswoman’s 2003 Holiday card, Brixey appeared with her and the cat, Gretzky, flexing their biceps. However, as the Orange County Register article covering the divorce explained, “Court filings, which gave no description of specific problems, said the couple have [sic] been separated since Dec. 30. It also noted that BRIXEY had been living in San Diego County for at least three months before the Jan. 15 filing. BRIXEY and SANCHEZ appeared together on her holiday greeting card in December.”

On May 10, 2005, Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez wrote a letter to the Clerk of the House of Representatives indicating that she had legally separated from her husband, Stephen Brixey on October 1, 2003, which culminated in an issuance of a divorce decree on October 18, 2004 in describing her financial disclosures. On November 24, 2003, she claimed an expense for her annual holiday cards with a $3,329 receipt from One Image Photography in Irvine, California, in addition to a December 11, 2003 holiday card direct mailing receipt of $140,574 from Kennedy Communications for this very card that pictured the man she was legally separated from. While her marriage was crumbling, Congresswoman Sanchez chose to deceive her supporters with this costly, “happy couple” card.

A source close to the Einwechter family has communicated to me that Rep. Loretta Sanchez used her position of “public power and trust to pursue a sexual relationship with a married Army officer assigned to escort her on tax-funded official overseas travel beginning in 2003.” While this might not be perceived as an issue, Congresswoman Sanchez was still married at the time, as was John P. Einwechter. According to the Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 134, adultery is unacceptable conduct.

With all of the violations that one could commit in the armed forces, adultery is probably not a highly prosecutable offense, especially since the victimized spouse would have to testify against the offending partner. One can surmise that the military courts do not want to be backlogged with adultery cases, but what makes this case particularly interesting, as described by my source close to the Einwechter family is that Congresswoman Sanchez is a member of the House Armed Services Committee, which has a critical oversight role of the Department of Defense and the US armed forces. Furthermore, the UCMJ states that in determining if adulterous acts are prejudicial to good order “The co-actor’s marital status, military rank, grade, and position, or relationship to the armed forces” can be considered. Serving on the House Armed Services Committee certainly connects Congresswoman Sanchez to the armed forces.

Additionally, at the time this relationship commenced between Congresswoman Sanchez and John P. Einwechter, my source says that he was still in the Army serving as a legislative counsel and later a prosecutor in the Office of Military Commissions while still married to his wife Rebecca with whom he has eight children. As a prosecutor, he was tasked with advising military justice matters, and as such, he should have been fully aware of the Article 134 provisions. To add fuel to the fire, John P. Einwechter earned his bachelor’s degree from Cedarville University, a small Baptist college in Ohio. My source also reveals that Einwechter and his wife appeared to be a committed “Christian” family.

By 2005 according to John P. Einwechter’s biography on the Greenberg Traurig website, he had left the Army as a prosecutor and began working at his current law firm. According to the FEC, Einwechter gave Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez $1000 in campaign contributions in 2005, split in $500 increments. His leaving the military made it less likely that anyone would look at his personal relationship with Sanchez, except for one minor thing. He chose to focus his practice on Defense and Homeland Security issues, and Congresswoman Sanchez sits on both the House Armed Services and Homeland Security Committees. Lobbying can become easier when one’s significant other or spouse sits on the committees that his clients seek to influence.

Since 2005, according the lobbying profile database at OpenSecrets.org, Einwechter has represented Heckler and Koch. Heckler and Koch manufactures firearms that are used by the Department of Homeland Security, again a government entity over which Congresswoman Sanchez has critical oversight. Beginning in 2008, according to the same lobbying profile database, Einwechter has also represented L1 Identity Solutions, which provides face, palm, and iris recognition products used by the Department of Homeland Security. L1 Identity Solutions also provides products to help implement the Real ID Act. The CEO of L1 Identity Solutions is Robert La Penta, who co-founded L3 Communications, a company that makes surveillance and reconnaissance equipment for the Department of Defense and Departments of Homeland Security. L3 Communications was the third top contributor to Loretta Sanchez’s campaign committee in the last election cycle.

The Protective Group is another one of John P. Einwechter’s clients who he has represented since 2006. This company has been awarded contracts in the millions of dollars for armor, aircraft and airframe structural components, and clothing to the Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Customs Service, and Defense Logistics Agency. Again, the buyers of goods from The Protective Group fall under the oversight of Congresswoman Sanchez in her role on both the House Armed Services and House Homeland Security Committee.

According to records from The Sunlight Foundation in September of 2007, Einwechter in his capacity as a lobbyist at Greenberg Traurig arranged a meeting with Congresswoman Sanchez on behalf of his client, the Kurdistan Regional Government.

How much Einwechter’s lobbying influences Representative Sanchez is not easy to determine, but having an intimate relationship with a congressional member who sits on two committees related to his work can create the appearance of collusion. In California, when it was revealed that former Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez’s wife Maria was lobbying on behalf of the hospital industry, the California Nurses Association asked that he recuse himself from the health care debate because of the appearance of a conflict of interest. If, in fact, Congresswoman Sanchez and Jack Einwechter are involved in a close intimate relationship, could we ask her to recuse herself from anything related to his lobbying on behalf of clients seeking to do business with the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense? I think that it is a reasonable question, especially in a political climate where Sanchez has already been scrutinized because of her ethics in regard to personnel matters and in relation to the thousands of dollars she has accepted from the PMA Group.

In fairness to Congresswoman Sanchez, I have given her office an opportunity to comment on these allegations. She has a history of dodging questions, as evidenced by the time TMZ approached her asking about donations from Hugh Hefner. Additionally, her office did not release a statement about the Caroline Valdez embezzlement case. As in other instances, her office has not returned the calls of bloggers and the requests of a reporter with a news bureau in Dallas regarding this matter. Noted British historian, C. Northcote Parkinson once said, “Delay is the deadliest form of denial.” I believe that may be playing out in this case.

Photo Credit: 2003 Sanchez Holiday Card by One Image Photography & Kennedy Communications, Small Photo taken of Rep. Sanchez and military escort in civilian clothes on an Army Base in Germany circa 2003 (photo has since been removed from the Congresswoman’s website)

We have already documented how some Latino political figures such as Mayor Villaraigosa, Assemblyman Kevin De Leon, State Senator Gloria Romero, and LA County Federation of Labor Head Maria Elena Durazo have publicly expressed support for Esteban Nuñez, the son of the former Assembly Speaker, who is facing trial for murder and his family. Even Villaraigosa’s ex-wife, Corina chimed in expressing, “I know that Esteban is in school and working toward a bachelor’s degree” according to the LA Weekly piece.

I encourage you to read this well researched and thoughtful piece. Writer Christine Pelisek details the players in this case in a way that I would have liked to do if I had more time and resources to devote to this. One interesting glimpse into the Nuñez family is how Pelisek notes, Esteban’s mother, Maria Robles, a nurse and non-profit executive, smoking outside of the courtroom with her grown children. I was under the impression that she and Fabian had three children (pictured here), Esteban, a teen girl, and the younger boy, but regardless, smoking is a dirty habit for someone in a profession dedicated to health and wellness.