In closing arguments in Sonoma County court Tuesday, prosecutors began their last attempt to convince the jury that two North Bay men worked together to violently kidnap and rape a San Francisco woman waiting for a rideshare in 2018.

Defense attorneys, though, countered that the woman’s drunken state, inconsistent statements and lapses in memory were enough to call her reliability into question — and cast doubt on the accusations made against their clients.

Fredi Lopez-Flores, 37, of Novato, and Christian Quintero, 27, of Sonoma, sat side-by-side as they listened on Tuesday to Deputy District Attorney Matthew Hubley’s closing arguments. The pair have been using headphones to listen as interpreters convey court testimony to them in Spanish.

They are each charged with six crimes in connection with the early morning assault on April 14, 2018, including kidnapping, robbery and multiple counts related to rape. They could each be sentenced to life in prison if convicted.

Prosecutors have built their case around DNA evidence, the police investigation and the emotional testimony of Jane Doe, as the accuser has been referred to in court. All of that together, prosecutors believe, proves that the men abducted, beat and raped the woman, who had been waiting for transportation to get back to her Richmond District home.

On Tuesday, they showed the jury a final piece of evidence — an assemblage of surveillance footage reconstructing the path of Lopez-Flores’ Dodge Magnum as it traveled from San Francisco to Sonoma.

“Even though you have an important decision ahead of you, this case will never truly be your case. This case belongs to Jane Doe,” Hubley told jurors. “It’s hard to watch Jane Doe’s testimony and not feel she at least blames herself in part in some way. You as members of the jury have an incredible opportunity to help Jane Doe understand, ‘This is not your fault.’ ”

Nicholas Sandler, Quintero’s attorney, focused on the inconsistencies in Jane Doe’s memory of the incident.

He reminded the jury that she first told police the Uber driver had raped her and then, three times, she failed to identify the two defendants in photo lineups.

Gabriel Quinnan, Lopez-Flores’ lawyer also focused on contradictions in the woman’s statements to police and in her court testimony about having “blacked out” that night.

He reiterated his client’s tearful testimony that he did not intervene in Quintero’s violence because the man had threatened him with a gun

Quinnan also rehashed the results of DNA analysis on sperm samples left on the woman’s body and found on the interior of her clothes, which showed that they were a much greater match to Quintero than Lopez-Flores.

“We do not contest the broad-brush strokes,” Quinnan said. “It was clear she was raped. It was clear she was beaten. It was clear she was left on the streets of Sonoma.”

But, the specifics of the incident are not clear, and that is enough to acquit Lopez-Flores, Quinnan argued.

“Fredi is no hero in this story,” he said. “But it is absolutely the law that we are not required by law to be a hero.”

Also on Tuesday, Judge Christopher Honigsberg instructed jury members on how they are to reach their verdict.

In order to find the men guilty on any of the counts, the jury must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the men intentionally committed these crimes.

Prosecutors will address the jury Wednesday morning before it convenes for deliberation.

You can reach Staff Writer Emily Wilder at 707-521-5337 or emily.wilder@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @vv1lder.

The post Closing arguments heard in trial of North Bay males accused of kidnap, rape of San Francisco girl appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

The Alaska Supreme Court on Thursday heard a case that unions say could affect the pension plans of thousands of former state employees.

It is not the first time this case has been heard by the country’s highest court.

Juneau resident Peter Metcalfe said he was making college money in the early 1970s when he got a government job that involved “stamping kettles” at the Capitol. He basically worked as a chimney sweep using a four-foot brush to pull gallons of soot out of chimneys.

“I was wrapped in cloth to keep the soot away from me,” recalls Metcalfe. “I only remember standing in the Capitol fountain with the sun shining and sweat running down my face, and I’m sure I was all black. I thought ‘I have to be somewhere else.’ “

After only a few weeks, Metcalfe left town to try his hand at commercial fishing.

Metcalfe said he really didn’t get it at the time, but had he stayed in the state he could have been taken on as a Level I employee.

These Tier I benefits are known to be generous. These included a defined benefit retirement plan, cost of living adjustments, and family medical insurance upon retirement at age 55.

“A gold chain in Juneau with ‘Tier I’ on it, everyone loves you!” said Metcalfe’s attorney Mark Choate with a laugh. “You know you are the object of desire because it’s such a great pension system.”

These advantages – this “gold chain” – are no longer available to new civil servants.

Metcalfe didn’t work for the state again. But the crux of the matter is what would happen if he wanted to do that now.

In the early 1980s, he triggered his retirement account. But by then he could have paid his pension back and returned to work as a Level I employee.

He can’t do that now. If he went back to work for the state, he would get a new type of pension that is not as generous as his original plan.

In 2005, the legislature ended membership in all defined benefit pension plans and introduced the new defined contribution Tier IV plan.

“It just felt like Fiat was making laws,” Metcalfe said. “In other words, the governor and the legislature, the ruling party had majorities in both houses and the governor was Republican and they just got it through.”

Metcalfe believes this is against the Alaskan Constitution. In particular, he refers to Article XII, Section 7, which states that a worker’s pension must never be reduced and that membership of a pension plan is a contractual relationship with the state.

In this photo taken in February 2015, attorneys from left, Mark Choate, Jon Choate, and Kevin Wakley, along with Larry Davis of the Alaska Division of Retirement and Benefits, are preparing for a hearing in the Alaska Supreme Court in Juneau. (Photo by Matt Miller / KTOO)

Oral arguments before the judges on Thursday should focus on the interpretation of the pension benefits section of the Constitution and whether it is unconstitutional to deny Metcalfe’s potential pension benefits.

Prosecutors refused to do a taped interview for this story. But they argued before the Alaska Supreme Court five years ago that Metcalfe finally ended his contractual relationship with the state when he paid off his retirement. They also said he waited too long to file a lawsuit.

Two incumbent judges have withdrawn because of a possible conflict of interest.

Two former judges, Dana Fabe and Warren Matthews, came out of retirement to hear and rule the case.

The Alaska Supreme Court usually delivers an opinion 6-12 months after oral arguments.

State workers’ unions have stated that a decision in favor of Metcalfe could also affect up to 85,000 former workers who may wish to return to a state job and be carried over into their previous retirement plans.

The post Retirement advantages case heard once more by Alaska Supreme Court docket appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.