One link is on post 92, here’s another one
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/article_771df5ce-bfba-5fff-8cab-d1a30d767310.html
There’s two ways to interpret the sentence, “Monti said that Jimenez testified at his trial”. The word “his” is subject to misinterpretation which is probably what the author intended.
And here's another: Nifonging John Monti? in which it states 1) He was found 'not guilty', 2) The police report taken that day might have been the end of the matter had not Monti filed a grand jury complaint against the San Diego Police Department for failing to investigate human trafficking and child prostitution in McGonigle Canyon. That complaint was filed March 1. Four weeks later (and four months after the original incident) Aguirre's office put out a press bulletin announcing in bold letters that charges were being filed “Against a member of the Minutemen Project."
So, we have a 'he said-they said issue between a photographer and illegals, the photographer is found not guilty at a trial proceeding from charges made only after the photographer filed a complaint against the SDPD.
And you want to defend the illegal plaintiff in this new trial? And then say I should be embarrassed? Yeah, right.