This story first appeared in the Daily Post print edition on Dec. 18. If you want to keep on top of important local news stories, pick up the Post in the mornings at 1,000 Mid-Peninsula locations.
BY AMELIA BISCARDI
Daily Post Staff Writer
A San Carlos woman whose alleged rapist took a plea deal that resulted in no jail time is suing the San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office, saying her case was mishandled.
Carrie Banks says she wasn’t told about the plea deal, which she alleges in her federal lawsuit is against Marsy’s Law. Marsy’s Law gives specific rights to victims, such as keeping them up to date as the case goes through the court system, including if there is a plea bargain.
Banks and Fernando Altuna Mendoza, 37, of Menlo Park, met at a bar in San Carlos on July 16, 2021, after she had attended a concert in Redwood City. The two had a conversation and went their separate ways, according to District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe.
Sometime after Banks went home, she went to sleep and then woke up to find Mendoza naked, standing over her, and that he had sexually assaulted her, Wagstaffe said.
Banks’ attorney, Aaron Zisser, argues that Wagstaffe and Chief Deputy DA Shin-Mee Chang failed to intervene in the case after learning that Marsy’s Law had been violated.
“We believe that the allegations of misconduct by my prosecutors are not accurate,” Wagstaffe said. “We’re going to fight it because it’s simply in our mind, not true.”
Wagtaffe says the law requires the victim to ask to be kept in the loop.
Wagstafle says his prosecutor and victim advocate said Banks never made that request.
The DA’s office opted for a plea deal with Mendoza because they weren’t certain a jury would convict Mendoza due to a witness who said Banks made belligerent statements that night, Wagstaffe said after Mendoza’s Nov. 28, 2023, sentencing.
Zisser called Mendoza’s plea deal a “sweetheart deal,” since he didn’t get jail time or have to register as a sex offender. He only pleaded guilty to a trespassing charge.
Zisser said Banks was not told about the plea deal beforehand and did not get any notification when Mendoza was released.
The suit says that Banks and Mendoza met on the day the incident occurred.
Zisser’s suit says Banks fears she will be attacked again and that her rights won’t be protected by the DA’s office and the Probation Department.
The suit also says that the defendants caused intentional emotional distress and had a lack of training.
What stopped Carrie Banks from following the case of Fernando Mendoza in the courts? Was she unable to read a newspaper? Was she prohibited from visiting the courtroom when he was arraigned? Did somebody stop her from pulling the court records in this case? Or did she need to be told about every event in the case by the DA because she was too dumb to follow it herself? She should have taken some responsibility through this process.
I am far from “too dumb” to navigate this process. I attended hearings, meticulously documented every step, educated myself on victims’ rights, and presented compelling evidence of violations—so much so that NBC News investigated my story, attended hearings alongside me, and aired it in two separate segments.
Wagstaffe’s statements are not only false but highlight why I continue to advocate for the women of San Mateo County. His actions reflect a troubling disregard for victims of rape and domestic violence.
My lawsuit is a matter of public record. Before passing judgment, I encourage you to read the 40+ pages of my complaint. Only then will you understand the depth of my efforts and the validity of my claims.
Happy Holidays,
Carrie
What would you do if this was your sister? I know what I’d do. I’m not afraid to go back to prison!
How is she supposed to know where the case stands and/or if there was even a case?
Certainly you’ll note how the court dockets aren’t reported in newspapers and how notoriously late and incomplete the police blotters are.
And who can forget Wagstaffe’s defense for letting some notorious stalker off — someone who’d harassed a woman jailer for years and so often she had to switch jobs because the stalker kept getting arrested for years to be with her: that the stalker ONLY harassed ONE woman REPEATEDLY but if he’d only harassed MORE women he might have done something about the stalker.
Such lame excuses.
Jam, you can keep track of a case two ways. You can look at the case online, just google “San Mateo County Superior Court criminal” and you can find a database listed by the defendant’s name. It won’t give you all the documents filed in the case, but will give dates for hearings. The other way is to physically go to the Hall of Justice. Once you go through security, proceed past the escalators to the clerk’s office and ask for the file.
I don’t know what the police blotter has to do with your argument since that concerns listing the names of those arrested, not the status of their cases.
As for your claim about the comments made by Wagstaffe, I follow his statements rather closely and I don’t recall anything like that. I’m not defending him since it’s my job to oppose the prosecution in court. Could you provide a date and the name of the defendant? Without corroboration, I’m going to disregard it.
What if she had a weak case and this was the best deal Wagstaffe could get? I mean she had been drinking, which would have affected her recollection. Juries take that kind of thing into account. Some of this sounds like a “she said, he said,” which suggests a reasonable doubt.
[Comment deleted — Terms of Use violation. Please only use one name when commenting. No sock puppets.]