Focus turns to Acosta civil suit

Now that Costa Mesa’s criminal case against student and protester Benito Acosta has been dismissed, attorneys are turning their attention to the civil suit Acosta filed earlier alleging the city violated his civil rights.

The civil case is set for trial in April 2008, and both sides are building their cases. The suit and Acosta’s criminal trial stemmed from a Jan. 3, 2006, City Council meeting where Acosta, 26, was one of many speakers who supported or opposed a city plan to enforce immigration laws.

Acosta, who uses the name Coyotl Tezcatlipoca, was arrested after being admonished by the mayor and escorted out by police. City Prosecutor Dan Peelman, an attorney with Jones & Mayer, which provides Costa Mesa’s city attorney services, filed two misdemeanor charges alleging Acosta violated city code regarding conduct at council meetings, but a judge threw out the case Monday because of a technical error.

The truncated criminal case may have been a preview of things to come, but the issue is far from resolved. In fact, ACLU attorney Belinda Escobosa Helzer, who represented Acosta in the criminal case and filed the civil suit, fired another shot Tuesday, saying the city prosecuted Acosta simply to cover itself with respect to the civil case.

“It really was just an obstacle that the city put in the road to attempt to try to gain some sort of advantage in the civil case, I believe,” she said.

Among evidence introduced in court Friday was a series of e-mails between local attorney Chris Blank and former Police Chief John Hensley. In a Jan. 5, 2006, response to Blank’s offer to mediate a meeting between the chief and Acosta, Hensley wrote, “I suspect Mr. Acosta has an attorney and so I will not talk to him about his criminal charges. If we drop them, he will sue us for false arrest and I am not going to let that happen.”

Police testimony indicated it was Hensley, rather than Mayor Allan Mansoor, who directed police to remove Acosta from the meeting. Hensley, Mansoor and several police officers are defendants in the civil suit.

It’s likely much of the evidence and testimony presented in the two days of the criminal trial will figure into the civil case, especially a videotape of the council meeting. But both sides still differ in their interpretations of what the tape shows.

“I think the most important thing is to look at the videotape and see that Mr. Acosta was merely trying to express his views,” Helzer said. “The city overreacted.”

Attorney Dan Spradlin, of Woodruff Spradlin & Smart, is representing the city in the civil case. He said he doesn’t expect the criminal case’s outcome to have any bearing on the civil suit, because none of the claims of the ACLU suit — that the city violated his free speech, equal protection and due process rights — were decided in the criminal case.

Acosta’s attorneys argued their client was treated differently than another speaker at the meeting, Jim Gilchrist, who lauded the immigration plan, but Spradlin said the evidence shows otherwise.

He said the video substantiates the city’s position that “the mayor attempted to control Mr. Gilchrist in the same manner that he attempted to control Mr. Acosta. Unfortunately Mr. Acosta’s response was something that required response by the police.”

Peelman said Monday he filed a motion in appellate court to prevent the criminal case’s dismissal.

ALICIA ROBINSON may be reached at (714) 966-4626 or at alicia.robinson@latimes.com.