Attorneys for Alameda Cops Charged in Mario Gonzalez Death Try to Dismiss Case Over Filing Deadlines

Updated 12:46 p.m. Friday

An Alameda County judge is considering a motion to dismiss the case against three Alameda police officers charged in connection with the death of Mario Gonzalez after their attorneys alleged that prosecutors failed to meet the statute of limitations on the case.

Gonzalez’s family and supporters rallied Friday morning outside the county courthouse in Oakland, where Judge Scott Patton listened to arguments at a hearing on the motion.

“He’s a human. My son was a human. In the United States, we’re supposed to respect the lives of human people, so they need to charge those three police officers,” said Edith Arenales, Gonzalez’s mother.

Patton did not issue a ruling on the motion, and the next hearing is scheduled for Oct. 11.

There was some commotion in the hallway after sheriff’s deputies asked members of the public to immediately vacate the courtroom following the hearing. Supporters wearing shirts that read “Justice for Mario Gonzalez” began to chant as the crowd filed out, and as the chants grew louder, deputies demanded that they stop and threatened legal action.

One protester was singled out by a deputy who approached and said they would be detained for allegedly causing the disruption. After the crowd began to scream and protest, the person was eventually allowed to leave, and no one was detained.

Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price charged Eric McKinley, James Fisher and Cameron Leahy with involuntary manslaughter for the 2021 death of Gonzalez earlier this year, reversing a decision by the previous district attorney, who did not charge them after finding no evidence of wrongdoing.

Price’s office filed the criminal complaint and obtained certificates of probable cause signed by a judge on April 18, but the officers’ attorneys argue that wasn’t enough to officially start the felony prosecution within the three-year statute of limitations because arrest warrants for the officers were never filed after Gonzalez’s death on April 19, 2021.

“The district attorney’s office has conceded that they did not secure an arrest warrant. In fact, they contend that they affirmatively declined one, which was a fatal error, in our view,” said Alison Berry Wilkinson, Leahy’s attorney.

Price’s office declined to comment in an email.

Gonzalez, 26, was unarmed when the officers responding to a call of a man behaving oddly pinned him to the ground in an Alameda park.

Body camera footage released by the city shows Gonzalez, who does not appear to be fully lucid, mumble multiple responses to the officers’ questions and resist putting his hands behind his back when they try to handcuff him. After several minutes, officers pin Gonzalez on his stomach, and footage shows at least one officer press an elbow and knee into his back and shoulder as he cries out.

His calls become weaker, and he remains pinned down for about five minutes before appearing silent and motionless. About 15 seconds later, officers roll him onto his side and declare that he is becoming unresponsive.

Officers administered CPR and at least two doses of Narcan before Gonzalez was taken to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

Gonzalez’s family accused the officers of murder after viewing the video and called it a case of clear police brutality. An initial autopsy by the Alameda County coroner classified Gonzalez’s death as a homicide but noted contributing factors to his cardiac arrest were the “toxic effects of methamphetamine” and “other significant conditions,” including stress related to altercation and restraint, morbid obesity and alcoholism.

The district attorney’s office, led at the time by Nancy O’Malley, cleared the involved officers of any criminal liability.

Shortly after taking office in January 2023, Price reopened Gonzalez’s case through her administration’s new Public Accountability Unit. A second, independent autopsy requested by attorneys representing Gonzalez’s family found that his death was “a result of restraint asphyxiation.”

Price’s office filed charges against the officers on April 18 and notified them of the charges the following day with a notice to appear in court.

Defense attorneys argue that simply filing the charges and obtaining the certificates of probable cause was not enough to meet the three-year statute of limitations, which Wilkinson said expired on April 18 at 11:59 p.m. In its opposition to the motion to dismiss, the district attorney’s office argued that the way the timeframe has been “consistently applied by California courts” would extend the statute of limitations through 11:59 p.m. on April 19 and that it began prosecution on time.

“They say that they believe a notice to appear, which is an informal letter sent by the district attorney’s office to someone who has been charged with an offense, is sufficient,” Wilkinson said. “Unfortunately, the California Legislature doesn’t agree with them. And so the Legislature says one of four things has to happen.”

In their motion, the defense attorneys say prosecution commences when an indictment or information is filed, a complaint charging a misdemeanor or infraction is filed, the defendant is arraigned on a felony complaint, or an arrest or bench warrant is issued.

“They didn’t do any of the four,” Wilkinson said.

Price’s office responded in its opposition that it did commence timely prosecution and that by acknowledging receiving the complaint, probable cause declaration and notice to appear letter on April 19, “defendants cured any remaining jurisdictional defects.”

Those documents established probable cause to arrest and gave defendants notification of the prosecution before the deadline of April 19 at 11:59 p.m., Price wrote, adding that her office opted for that procedure instead of arrest warrants in part as a “courtesy” to the officers.

“The statute of limitations did not expire, and the case should not be dismissed,” Price wrote in her opposition.

However, Wilkinson believes Price failed to fulfill the “everyday steps required to start a criminal case” and that the charges might have been rushed because of the recall election Price faces in November.

“This filing occurred just within a day or so of the DA’s recall being certified,” she said. “It appears that they rushed to file these in a political effort to help support her recall campaign. We don’t know that for certain, but that is certainly how it appears.”