Did ADA Hurlbert Manipulate the Grand Jury to get Indictment?

We have provided overwhelming evidence that John San Agustin is completely innocent of Kidnapping and Assistant District Attorney Mark Hurlbert is guilty of corruption and abuse of power.  In the last two articles we have laid out many facts showing San Agustin’s innocence. Read Story 1; Read Story 2. These facts were presented to investigators, the grand jury, and at the Maketa trial.  What about the evidence that was not presented to the grand jury?  Is that relevant?  We explained in another article that the District Attorney runs the grand jury and there is no obligation to provide exculpatory evidence (Latest News – August 8th).  Think about this, if you were the prosecutor what would you do if you found out the witness you subpoenaed and was about to call as a witness was not going to give the testimony you wanted?  Should you still allow them to testify or prevent them from testify because they might lessen your chances of getting an indictment?  Shouldn’t it be the goal of a district attorney to get to the truth, no matter what the truth is? Would it ever be ethical to not allow a witness (you have already subpoenaed) to testify because they might provide exculpatory evidence? The truth is the truth; why would a honest prosecutor be afraid of the truth?

This is exactly what happened with ADA Mark Hurlbert. According to our sources, he was presenting the Maketa case to the grand jury and he subpoenaed a witness to testify.  When he was contacted by the witness’s attorney Hurlbert told the attorney he expected the witness to testify that Sheriff Maketa ordered him to make sure Kelli Trull was arrested.  When the witness was relayed this information he told his attorney he had no idea what Hurlbert was talking about and he could not testify to something that never happened.  When the witness’s attorney told Hurlbert what his client told him Hurlbert told him he no longer wanted his client to testify to the grand jury and told the witness’s attorney they could ignore the subpoena.  The witness thought that was the end of it.  It was not, a week after he was scheduled to testify to the grand jury he was indicted for Kidnapping.

Who was this witness who refused to provide false testimony to the grand jury?

It was John San Agustin.

It is fact that John San Agustin was subpoenaed to testify to the grand jury investigating Terry Maketa. It is fact that Mark Hurlbert listed San Agustin as a witness. It is fact that Hurlbert told San Agustin’s attorney he expected San Agustin to testify about Maketa ordering Kelli Trull arrested.  It is fact that after San Agustin refused to provide the false testimony Hurlbert wanted, Hurlbert did not call him as a witness and indicted him for kidnapping a week later.

Was San Agustin indicted because he would not lie to the Grand Jury for Hurlbert?

How ironic is it that if John San Agustin had been willing to be as unethical as Hurlbert and lie to the grand jury he would not have been indicted. Sometimes integrity has a price; this time it was a very high price.  John San Agustin’s life has been ruined because he refused to lie to the grand jury. Does this sound corrupt? It should.

Hopefully all these facts will come out at trial.

There needs to be a special prosecutor assigned to investigate Mark Hurlbert, Dan May, and Bill Elder for their illegal and unethical prosecution of John San Agustin.

 

This is proof that ADA Mark Hurlbert is corrupt and unethical. He needs to be held accountable.

“Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light” 

George Washington

 

 

Still not enough?  Go to the trial and watch for yourself.  You will be amazed.