Judge to decide appropriate restitution from ‘Manila 5’ next month

Court proceedings related to a homicide in Manila four years ago are wrapping up as the judge prepares to decide how much restitution the convicts owe the victim’s family.

“Everyone wants this to come to some conclusion,” Judge Christopher Wilson said in Humboldt County Superior Court on Friday morning.

That conclusion may come as soon as April 9 when Wilson said he will issue a tentative decision on how much compensation the “Manila 5” owe. Each of the five agreed to plead guilty to various crimes linked to the Dec. 12, 2016 homicide of 20-year-old Tyson Eduardo Claros:

• Catherine Suzanne Lynn Fode, 23, voluntary manslaughter and a special allegation of having a firearm;

• Hector GodoyStandley, 25, accessory to the crime after the fact with a special enhancement for a firearm;

• Brandon James Mitchell, 26, carjacking and voluntary manslaughter with a special enhancement for using a firearm;

• Tamara Nicole Thomson, 22, voluntary manslaughter and enhancement for using a firearm;

• Cesar Octavio Valenzuela, 27, carjacking and using a firearm.

“If there’s a request for additional time for additional information I can entertain that as well at that time,” Wilson said.

Defense attorneys for the five challenged how much restitution the family was seeking at a previous court hearing and on Friday requested subpoenas for tax documents that would elucidate how much restitution was reasonably owed.

Deputy Public Defender Casey Russo, who is representing Valenzuela, said the documents that were before the court were “not enough information” for the court to come up with a reliable amount of damages that were owed.

Valenzuela, in particular, was in a different situation than the others because he pleaded guilty to carjacking, Russo said.

“In terms of lost wages for Mr. and Mrs. Claros you have just a list of court dates,” Russo said. “I went through them; of the 25 of the live court dates, I believe only 13 of them were applicable to Mr. Valenzuela, and many of them were very short — trial confirmations, setting dates.”

Fode’s defense attorney Neal Sanders said he was concerned with the process that was taking place because the documents used by the District Attorney’s Office had no “indicia of reliability.”

“They are not documents under penalty of perjury,” Sanders said, “they aren’t part of any testimony.”

Sanders pointed to the Fifth and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution that require “due process when any person is deprived of life, liberty or property,” though he noted other courts “shot down” that argument.

Deputy District Attorney Carolyn Schaffer said the law was “pretty well settled” in California as far hearsay documents meeting the threshold of reliability for restitution hearings.

“The restitution hearing is treated as part of the sentencing process,” Schaffer said. “And the case law is settled that in sentencing proceedings, counsel does not have a Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross examine the way that they would at trial.”

Wilson said there may be some confusion regarding “what would be out-ofpocket restitution in a criminal case” and the compensation that would result from more amorphous damages, such as the loss of a child, a jury in a civil case could determine they were entitled to.

“Certainly the victim’s families have the ability to bring a civil suit that would address those more head on,” Wilson said.