SAN JOSE — A pastor and former head of a South Bay civil rights group, who was convicted earlier this year for a 2024 misdemeanor domestic violence assault allegation from another nonprofit leader he was dating, will get a new trial after a judge threw out the conviction after finding jurors got faulty court guidance.
Rev. Ray Montgomery speaks at a May 26, 2021 vigil at St. James Park in San Jose for the victims of a mass shooting at the VTA light rail yard. Montgomery, the former head of a local civil-rights nonprofit, was convicted July 1, 2026 of misdemeanor domestic violence assault against his ex-girlfriend. That conviction was overturned in October and Montgomery was granted a new trial. (Nhat V. Meyer/Bay Area News Group)
Rev. Ray Montgomery, 59, of San Jose, petitioned for a new trial following his July 1 conviction and ahead of his scheduled September sentencing. On Oct. 28, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Kemi Mustapha — who presided over the trial — sided with Montgomery and vacated the guilty verdict and sentencing, re-entered a not guilty plea for him, and set a prospective trial date of Feb. 8, 2027.
When reached for comment on the judge’s decision, the District Attorney’s Office said that it will retry the case. Montgomery’s attorney, Michael Pierson, did not respond to a request for comment, but wrote in his earlier motion for a new trial that his client was “denied due process and a fair jury determination.”
Montgomery and Pierson took issue with how during jury deliberations, a juror asked the attorneys and court for clarity on the legal definition of trespassing. Montgomery had claimed self-defense on the grounds that while he had initially allowed his accuser into his home the night of the reported assault, he later withdrew that permission and resorted to physically removing her only after she refused to leave.
But the definition that the court gave the jury was incomplete, the defense petition asserted, because it only addressed trespassing in the context of unconsented entry. Pierson called that “nonresponsive and affirmatively misleading” because it did not address how someone can become a trespasser if they remain on a property after consent has been revoked.
The prosecution opposed the defense motion in part by arguing that the juror did not expressly ask about consent, and that the judge sufficiently answered the question posed.
“Even assuming it was error, it was harmless because even if the victim was a trespasser, (the) defendant was not authorized to use unlimited force against her,” Deputy District Attorney Sungmin Park wrote in an opposition filing.
The case garnered public attention prior to trial in part because prior to being criminally charged, Montgomery sued his accuser, his former girlfriend, for defamation on the premise that her allegations forced him out of People Acting in Community Together, the San Jose-based community advocacy nonprofit where he was executive director. The woman, whose identify is being withheld by this news organization because she is a reported domestic violence victim, later countered with a cross-complaint accusing him of serial abuse.
The criminal charge alleges that on June 6, 2024, the woman who Montgomery had been dating for four years went to his home and found him with another woman, with the accuser’s litigation further detailing that Montgomery answered the door in his underwear.
Police and prosecutors contend, drawing from the accuser’s account, that Montgomery physically intimidated her, picked her up, dragged her down the hallway, and squeezed her neck between his forearm and bicep, causing her to nearly lose consciousness. After she collapsed to the floor, she recounted running to a bathroom, locking herself inside and calling a friend to rescue her.
The woman went to a hospital the next day to document bruising to her neck and reported the assault there; she alerted police about five months later. In her cross-complaint, she accused him of being menacing, abusive and manipulative during their relationship.
Montgomery refuted her claims.
In his defamation suit, he asserted that she had been the aggressor on the night of the reported assault, and that he had been making “peaceful efforts to defuse the situation and facilitate (her) safe departure.” His explanation for the underlying scenario was that the woman had “arrived at plaintiff’s private residence uninvited and unannounced,” and that “at the time, (Montgomery) was entertaining a female friend.”