Man Convicted of Brutally Beating Stripper

Ten years?...he's a defective unit that needs to be permanently removed from circulation.

The Montecito Motors guys got more prison time than this animal....what's wrong with our system when a violent monster gets less time than a white collar criminal?

Shows you the prevailing values.

Close down the clothing-optional beaches but add the strip clubs. Good ol' Yuppie values.

10 years for Violence AND a criminal past? He needs to be removed from society forever. He has had his chances. A lighter sentence because she was a stripper doesn't matter in my book.

Hopefully, the judge will give him the entire 10 years. Didn't Sanger defend this jerk? If so, Sanger once again has proven that he has no moral compass.

I have a question: Was it Sanger who defended the two guys who beat Loyd (sic) Hembree to death outside that bar on De La Vina street about 20 years ago?

Mr. Clausen et al: suggest that you read something more meaningful than Walden's press release statements, i.e., the trial transcript wherein the complaining witness perjured herself repeatedly in open court while admitting to having committed more than 100 felony thefts and to being an active heroin addict...all pursuant to repeated and varying lies she told to police and DA investigators for the purpose of distracting them from the fact that she robbed this man of $400 cash prior to their physical altercation.
Why did she risk perjury? Because the DA promised to get her med bills paid and not to prosecute her and the other prosecution witnesses, each of whom has a far greater criminal history and convictions than this gentleman (who has no prior convictions of any kind).
Why did this trial take "a month" as this article states? It was actually 8 days of testimony...interrupted by repeated DA delays (Waldman takes a vacation while the defendant waits in jail...and the jury grows bored & restless? The right to a speedy/fair trial here was clearly ignored.)
Your reactionary sympathies are transparent; you--like the sleepy jury impatient to reach a 90-minute verdict so that they could wrap things up in time for Fiesta-- will no doubt believe that the DA actually had a case, when, in fact, all she had was a blizzard of accusations, defective police work (i.e., zero crime scene investigation, zero physical evidence of this man having hit anyone), and a series of witnesses willing to lie on the stand to avoid prosecution themselves. The corruption and "win at any cost" mentality of the DA in this case is apparent in her quickly slandering the defendant in the press as broadly and quickly as possible to further her own win-loss record. The entire transcript is a shameful read...and I recommend it to those of you who pop off in public.

OldSchool: Can you tell me please where I can get these transcripts? By the way, who beat the woman so severely that she needed titanium implants in her face? Was it the hotel clerk? Is this a case on the order of "yes, my client raped the woman, but considering how she was dressed, she deserved it"?

By the way, if you are correct, shouldn't your wrath be directed at The Independent?....who reported the story?

You make some interesting contradictory statements, and while they maybe true, (stranger things have happened) the story seems pretty cut-and-dry.

I take issue with "using the opportunity to re-examine her life." as if the victim had been doing something detrimental or harmful or even shameful. It implies the victim somehow deserved what happened to her. Seriously over these Puritans and hypocrites on either side.

Court transcripts aren't as free as the opinions of people who read blogs and then feel entitled to slander/libel those of whom they make moral judgments, that is true. But get the police report; that's free if you know where to look. In it, you'll discover that the complaining witness fled the scene before the defendant did, in the company of her companion (read "pimp"), and was not located by police for 2+ hours, and then was contacted at the 7-11 at Montecito & Carrillo (shooter's alley)...at 4:00 a.m., following personal contact with yet another pimp at her home. The fact that the defendant was verifiably relieved of $400 cash which was never found--because the cops never looked for it--and that the complaining witness has a 20-year history of this kind of stuff was somehow disregarded by the DA/jury. Titanium "plates", by the way, are 1mm thick, 3mm long. More like...filaments, certainly not what the word "plates" conjures up.
Oh...and let's not forget the police interview recordings of the defendant which the DA successfully excluded from jury evidence. Why would she do that? Because it may be patently exculpatory and did not support her version of the "facts" for this verdict. Justice? Questionable at best, and certainly the evidence was rife with reasonable doubt, a concept with which this jury appears to have been sadly unfamiliar.
And...as one who seems to comment frequently in this town, I'd suggest that you look twice at everything that seems "cut-and-dry" in a media release.
For example, the police shootings in Santa Maria of late seem "cut-and-dry" too...but why did the police chief there abandon ship so quickly?

And Ken--if you were at all familiar with the "victim" in the stripper case, you'd realize she's far more than a "girl working her way through college doing a little exotic dancing"; she is, in fact, a 40-year-old heroin addict and convicted serial thief and admitted perjurer...who's biggest fan this week is DA Waldman. Birds of a feather.

Even if she is all that, she deserves to be beaten by one guy; then subjected to the lifestyle judgements by your pal the DA?
You need to take your own advice, and stop that knee from jerking.

Amigo, she ripped the guy off and tried to split with his money. Even the arresting cop said that this defendant showed no physical signs of ever having hit anyone, but that he'd been scratched and bitten.
The lesson: if a woman steals money from you, it's hers and you're the problem.
The SB courts & juries are quite amusing...and dangerous.

OldSchool, if I agree with your version of events, what happened is that a John got ripped off by a hooker (gasp! when has that ever happened?) and then beat her. I couldn't care less if the woman is a hooker and junky. It is not right to hit a woman. The John should have called the police if he was indeed robbed. Instead the coward administered a savage beating to someone smaller and weaker than himself. In prison the bully can pick on people his own size. Good luck to him.

OldSchool has a strangely odd and personable touch to this story. My guess is that he/she is the defense attorney for Nicolas.

My question for you Oldschool is you state that Nicolas did not have a criminal past. The DA is quoted in the story saying that due to his criminal past he had to serve 85 percent of his time. Those two statements seem at odds with each other.

Also, he was out on bail for a previous kidnapping charge in Ventura. Wouldnt this be considered a "criminal past"?

I apologize if I am not using the correct legal lingo. But you seem to have some inside knowledge into the defense of Nicolas.

Oldschool is more credible than the SB DA frankly. Funny how Dale1210 and DeniseL always take the DA's viewpoint..

I have no idea what happened in this case, but I can tell you this with 100% confidence: The SB DA's office is a cesspool. Justice takes a back seat to ego, politics, favoritism, cronyism, and money. Based on my experience with Dudley's administration and her flock of flying apes this is my firm opinion and that of everyone I've spoken to about it.

Eckermann's comment reflects how I feel 100%.

Here is the bottom line: OldSchool is contradicting what Tyler Hayden wrote. Mr. Hayden, would you please address this issue? Is OldSchool a troll or a whistleblower? P.S. Even if OldSchool is correct, this doesn't necessarily reflect badly on Mr. Hayden, as Hayden may be the victim of a false report, it which case, it should be looked into.

Time to step up and address this. No matter what happened, the john had no right to attack that woman. She posed him no physical threat.

It was in fact Sanger who represented one of the defendants that murdered Lloyd Hembree back in the 1990's. He also represented Jonathan Childers who brutally murdered both of his parents.

I too agree with Eckermann.

Bill, I disagree with your assertion that Oldschools allegations need followup by the author, unless Oldschool wants to post specific facts. I was never one to automatically believe what is written by an anonymous person on the internet. Their motivation could be for any reason. If I alleged some far blown allegation just to write it would that warrant investigation?

I think a better course of action would be for Oldschool to contact the author discreetly and relay their concerns. They do appear quite at odds with the printed story. I would be curious if any were true. But then again I give them their appropriate weight.

Lastly why does it matter about Sanger? Was he the defense in this case? I don't agree with people picking at defense attorneys based on the charges of people that they have to defend. A good defense is a constitutional right afforded any of us. But for the grace of God that could be any of us.

There is a problem with Eckermann's comment that everybody seems to be agreeing with:

"The John should have called the police if he was indeed robbed. Instead the coward administered a savage beating"

Can anybody else see it? The problem is that the John can't call the cops because PROSTITUTION IS ILLEGAL.

The reason why this woman was beaten is because.......PROSTITUTION IS ILLEGAL!!

Whether a John steals from a hooker or a hooker steals from a John or one gets beaten up or screwed over, NOBODY CAN CALL THE COPS BECAUSE PROSTITUTION IS ILLEGAL.

The solution to the problem is very simple. Legalize prostitution so that when there needs to be mediation or resolution, that these situations can be avoided!!

Good point loonpt, but that opens up a whole different debate. Just because one person is involved in a crime doesn't mean they can commit a different crime. You can't murder a hooker. You can't get robbed by one or rob one. Two wrongs don't equal a right.

Interesting point though and i do understand what you are saying.

1. Sanger's a defense attorney providing his clients access to their Constitutional right to a fair trial in our adversary system of justice. Attorneys are not to be judged by their defendants' character or crimes; if that were the case, lawyers would only take on the defense of purely "innocent" clients, and the Police State would hold sway over us all.
2. Get your hands on this police report. You'll wonder why the DA went forward with this case in the first place. This defendant was trying to stop someone from stealing his money; purely a hooker/pimp setup to rip off a drunk.
3. This defendant's "prior criminal history" is at this point only an allegation, has not been adjudicated, and is not the proper subject of the SB DA's speculation, as she is not party to something outside of this county. Her media releases and comments about out-of-jurisdiction matters, as a matter of fact, open her up to charges of improper conduct to to a mistrial.
Loonpt, you make a great point. Prostitution should be legalized...as well as most drugs. But that would be bad for the liquor and prison business, wouldn't it? It's always about...the money.

OldSchool, the loss of money does not justify the beating of a woman. Have you lost whatever sense of chivalry your mother tought you? A man's reputation follows him everywhere regardless of jurisdiction. You are only what would you have done and nothing else. So, is it moral for a defense attorney to attempt to get a guilty client aquitted? Is not the whole concept of justice that the guilty are punished? Your defense of this bully seems strange.

While loss of money doesn't justify any woman-bashing, neither does a john's refusal to be a victim of theft give her additional rights to make any claim under the sun or to protect her initial set of lies with another set of lies which the D.A. has suggestively "approved" for testimonial purposes.

D.A.s get away with a wide range of ethical abuses, including prosecutorial misconduct, which is taking place in the United States every day.
If the prosecutor has exculpatory evidence showing that the accused did not commit the crime, she doesn't tell the arraignment court judge about such evidence, and the judge rubber stamps the complaint without any further bench inquiry.
The prosecutor's interest in the prosecution is to win, and for the unscrupulous, unethical prosecutor (read Waldman here in this case) to win regardless of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
The loss of a criminal case can cause a reversal in a prosecutor's career, and with such pressure to succeed, what difference does it make if the prosecutor cuts a few corners here and there?

As is obvious this week, a prosecutor like Waldman wants publicity more than truth. Have you ever seen Joyce Dudley or lizard-lipped Waldman pass a video camera without stopping to "comment"? It's the Howdy Doody Show all over again, kids! And...when they stop to provide local news with "a story" (why do you think they use the word "Stripper" in all the articles about this case?) the prosecutor is rewarded with favorable publicity.
Judges are there ostensibly to protect you and me from oppression, but prosecutorial oppression occurs without any adversary, and any efforts to expose combat prosecutorial oppression can be expected to result in even more oppression, more prejudicial, illegal activity, a greater chance for conviction, and a longer sentence.
Those in Santa Barbara working in the criminal justice system "know" that a person is not charged unless he/she is guilty, especially when provided reports from the media or clumsy police. If you're a defendant in SB, your guilt is very much presumed...and while the judge may refute that by admonishing all in the courtroom that innocence is the presumption, the actions of bailiffs and court staff in full view of the jury belies that shibboleth.

When a defendant dares to complain about prosecutorial misconduct, it's just one more pain-in-the-butt matter for the judge to deal with. If the complaint is dismissed immediately, there is less work to be done on the matter, and the defendant gets trotted off to prison; but if the complaint of prosecutorial misconduct is handled properly, there might be actual hearings to schedule and conduct, discovery to review, and decisions to write - all of which would take the judge away from the other pressures of his caseload, or have him getting home late for dinner like most of the rest of the working world.

You want justice? Stay out of our Santa Barbara courts!

Old school, in regards to your 3:28 pm post,

1) I totally agree with you. Our system of law is set up so that everyone is afforded a good proper defense. People may not like the system but we need to respect it and live with it. It is never perfect but this is what we have. To blame a defense attorney for doing their job is not healthy or safe road to travel in respect to our freedoms. But in the same breath the system that you and I say should protect the defense attorney you are saying should be changed? You can't have it one way and want to change another just because your horse lost the race.

Our system of government is set up with three distinct branches that are to check each other. You allege that two are incompetent or malicious. You blame the victim, the police, the DA, and then the judge. Never do you assign any wrongdoing to the suspect, who is accused of doing something very similar in Ventura. You claim we can use that against him, well you are correct, but that is only in court. In the court of public opinion where you are here we can use it, sorry we are not restricted like the legal system. Since he was arrested in Ventura county does that mean they are as screwed as Santa Barbara is?

Sorry but I still agree with Eckermann, you can not beat a woman to a point that she requires a plate in her face and claim self defense. You can try and minimialize that all you want but at the end of the day that fact still exists he beat a woman senseless.

When is he going to be tried in Ventura?

"Waldman said she was proud of the victim for cooperating with authorities during the investigation."
Are both sides absolutely nuts here? Gee what could possibly go wrong as a sleazebag male meeting a sleazebag female anonymously in a sketchy hotel to engage in illegal sexual contact for money?
Legalize prostitution for gawd sakes and let losers like these two have at it...

Dale1210, the point is that by going to the police to mediate your drug/prostitution disputes, one would be incriminating themselves for a non-crime crime (drugs/prostitution). So in order to avoid criminal prosecution, the person must commit a violent crime in order to resolve their dispute without facing criminal prosecution. So the system actually perpetuates real crimes (violent assaults, etc.) by banning non-criminal activities (drugs/prostitution).

You can not be convicted of a crime solely based on your admission or confession.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_d...

And what is a non-crime crime? Do you mean a non-violent crime? And I am sorry the your second to your last sentence confuses me. I understand your last sentence.

It seems to me that Old School is a little more involved here than just an interested newspaper reader -- could he/she be related?!? The titanium was only 1mm thick!?! Titanium is titanium. Any injury that would require that kind of replacement is a severe injury.
I guess the defense attorney Sanger did not do his job very well ie fighting for his client. It is his job to fight to keep evidence in or out, its his job to convince the jury of his client's innocence -- all he needed to do was to convince one! Seems to me that this convicted felon needs to go to prison and old school needs a life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Innuendo and presumption are squishy and feel good as they slip through our lives; facts are stubborn, sticky, hard, and not nearly as comforting. Learn them before arriving at "seems to me..." positions...

Well, well must have hit a nerve old school! Facts?? I think you hit the nail on the head, facts are stubborn etc -- exactly -- face the facts, he beat a woman, has been found guilty of that offense by a jury of his peers and now he has to pay the consequences.

I need to restate one of my facts. I dont seem (oops there it is again!) to have the gift of words that old school does. Correction -- he stood accused of beating a woman.
Take a piece of your own advice and face those stubborn, sticky, hard and not comforting facts.

So funny how quick we are to judge from the media and not the facts! This gentlemen doesnt have 10 years of criminal history pull up the transcripts and you'll all shut your mouths real quick! This man was set up by a pimp and a 40 year old HOOKER that probably cant get anymore business! So they had to rob this guy... So easilyl influenced by media little puppets!

'been staying out of this fray because, as jesusrx13 writes, we are judging from media reports and I know full well I don't have all the facts. Nick Mc doesn't have 10 years of a criminal history. No matter what, pimp and 40 year-old hooker etc., beating another human that hard [assuming it's true] is not acceptable. If prostitution were legalized, then it wouldn't have to be hidden this way thus allowing apparently criminal acts to pyramid... it's a sad tale, really.

Did you ever think that maybe he chose to rob/beat a hooker because they rarely report the crimes? This is a sad case but like DrDan said beating another human is unacceptable. EIther way lives have been changed forever. Let Mr Mc go thru the system and appeal. By the way how do we pull up the transcripts Jesusx13? Would love to be able to read for myself.

Just caught onto this thread, which seems to be going on forever. Probably because this is the most lame excuse for honest journalism around. As mentioned earlier, this is all about a "media report" that is pretty inflammatory and seems to take the side of the prosecutor just because she got her guilty verdict. Maybe it's just me, and because I'm studying journalism, but this "article" by Mr. Hayden appears to be a screed fed to him directly by Mrs. Waldman. BTW, here's her star witness in this case:
http://www.facebook.com/sonia.blumberg

Pretty sad. Mrs. Waldman may be a good lawyer, but she's covered in the fleas of corruption (from lying with dogs).