In one of the more high profile cases in Yolo County from the summer of 2008, Marco Topete allegedly shot Yolo County Sheriff’s Deputy Anthony Diaz near the town of Dunnigan. Deputy Diaz had attempted to pull over Mr. Topete on suspicion of drunk driving, and discovered a four-month-old girl inside. Deputy Diaz died at the hospital later that night.
The case received even more notoriety however when the press and family members were locked out of the courtroom during arraignment. This led to a series of accusations from the media, including this site, about the propriety of the process. Attempts to have the venue moved outside of Yolo County have proven futile, despite the fact that the victim worked in the Courthouse for years and knew the staff, the Judges, the attorneys, and the bailiffs.
Mr. Topete told the court the reason he wished to dismiss his counsel was simply due to his constitutional rights to represent himself. However, our observations and conversations with others indicate deeper issues involved.
He was asked to sign the waiver of counsel form. Judge Paul Richardson went through the motion, line by line, to make sure that Mr. Topete understood what he was doing, that this was an entirely willful act that would not allow him any special dispensation once in trial.
Mr. Topete complained to Judge Richardson that he is being refused access to the law library. Judge Richardson told him he was welcome to make a motion to that effect and he would examine the matter. He said that he is not entitled to more time in the law library than any other pro per inmate.
Apparently, Mr. Topete was also upset that the defense attorneys have not given him copies of motions or other paperwork necessary for him to understand and aid in his own defense. The defense attorneys have apparently kept these matterials to themselves and not passed any of this information on to Mr. Topete. Furthermore, Thomas Purtell, the defense attorney who has been assigned to advise Mr.Topete on his case, seems disgruntled about being relegated to the role of adviser. He is entertaining the idea of refusing to advise Topete, should the court allow him to do so.
Others the Vanguard talked to questioned the wisdom of having Judge Richardson, who was just appointed to the bench in 2008 and is himself a former Deputy DA for the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office. They questioned his experience to handle such a complicated case.
Angelique Topete, the wife of Marco Topete, told the Vanguard that she believes that Mr. Topete’s defense is in collusion with the DA’s office. Mr. Purtell and his co-counsel Hayes Gable see Jeff Reisig, who was in the courtroom on Friday, socially. She believes that the DA would love nothing more than put a “closed lid” on this case so that Mr. Topete’s attorneys will roll over and Mr. Topete would be convicted.
In his response to Mr. Topete’s Faretta motion, Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig stated “this is a game for the defendant.” He went on to point out that Mr. Topete called this a “forced Faretta motion in his own declaration,” and alluded that Mr. Topete might be doing this in response to the fact that Mr. Gable was not granted a continuance for this trial (there is a federal case represented by Mr. Gable that is scheduled to be heard at the same time). Because of this, Mr. Reisig believes that this was an improper Faretta motion.
Judge Richardson granted Mr. Topete’s request to act as his own attorney. He said that the “right to self-representation is sacrosanct,” and that upon examining the motion, he believes that even though the motion was filed within a month of trial, Mr. Topete’s Faretta motion has merit.
The DA also raised the issue that all discovery transferred to Mr. Topete must have witnesses’ addresses and other personal information redacted because of Mr. Topete’s “proven violent history.”
Mr. Topete faces either life in prison or the death penalty in this case. While this is a bold move, several people we talked to believe it is the right move. The case should never have been tried in Yolo County, there are too many conflicts and too many people close with the victim. Moreover, too many defendants just meekly go along with counsel and never question anything until it is too late.
On the other hand, this is a complicated case and it will be difficult even for a defendant who appears to be intelligent to provide an adequate and quality defense.
—-David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]Purtell, the defense attorney who has been assigned to advise Mr.Topete on his case, seems disgruntled about being relegated to the role of adviser. He is entertaining the idea of refusing to advise Topete, should the court allow him to do so. [/quote]
How do you know Purtell is entertaining the idea of refusing to advise Topete. Everywhere else you list a source for you information at at least spoke to “someone involved”. This appears to be your opinion.
Many prosecutors and defense attorneys see each other “socially”. There are many community events and fund raisers where both sides of the courtroom attend.
That’s what the family told us. Almost no one spoke to us on the record, so it makes it difficult to quote people other than to report what we heard.
“Many prosecutors and defense attorneys see each other “socially”. There are many community events and fund raisers where both sides of the courtroom attend. “
And the relationship here goes beyond that, although I think even that is somewhat problematic.
I suggest Mr. Topete should hire Colin Ferguson as his legal advisor ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6LagRf_0Bw[/url]). Colin has experience.
Why is this a complicated case? Seems straight forward to me, A guy with a history of gun violence and on parole tries to evade police after someone observes him endangering a child and both he and his car are near the scene of the murder of a cop when the sun comes up.
Yes I think as far as that angle of the case goes, it is straight forward. I see no reason to doubt his guilt. And yet the handling of this case by the Sheriff’s Department, the courts, and the DA’s office has turned one of the most high profile open-and-shut cases into one fiasco after another.
dmg: “That’s what the family told us.”
I would hardly call the family of the accused unbiased in this case…
dmg: “While this is a bold move, several people we talked to believe it is the right move.”
Who would tell you it is in the defendant’s interest to represent himself? It almost never is. What is the expression, “Someone who represents themself has a fool for a client”…
[quote]I would hardly call the family of the accused unbiased in this case… [/quote]
They are if you want to understand why the guy dismissed his council. As they say in legal parlance, it was not introduced for the truth of the matter, only to understand the mindset of the defendant and why he would choose what he did.
“Who would tell you it is in the defendant’s interest to represent himself?” I can’t tell you exactly who told me this, but it might surprise you that it was actually defense attorneys. In this case, he could not afford private council and did not believe he was getting or going to get effective council from within the system. It’s a tough call.
dgm:”They are if you want to understand why the guy dismissed his council. As they say in legal parlance, it was not introduced for the truth of the matter, only to understand the mindset of the defendant and why he would choose what he did.”
Just bc the defendant and his family SAY defense council is biased in favor of the DA doesn’t make it so… However, the defendant’s MINDSET may get him convicted for sure. The defendant is at an extreme disadvantage trying to represent himself in court…
dmg:”Mr. Purtell and his co-counsel Hayes Gable see Jeff Reisig, who was in the courtroom on Friday, socially.”
What is being said here, that defense counsel cannot ever socialize with the DA at any level, bc it is somehow a conflict of interest? This is a small county, where just about everyone knows everyone. Secondly, it presupposes that a defense attorney does not have the capability of being able to excercise his/her independent judgment if s/he winds up at the same social event as the DA. It is an attorney’s ethical responsibility to use his/her own independent judgment to defend the client vigorously. To do anything less can get the attorney disbarred.
Elaine: You’re a lawyer. As I told you, I was trying to explain why they dismissed counsel, not use their comments to show that counsel was what they claimed.
“This is a small county, where just about everyone knows everyone.”
That’s precisely the problem.
If you don’t doubt his guilt what is the problem? It seems you are so outraged by the DA that you tilt at windmills. Topete will get his day in court to defend himself. His trial will be looked at by higher courts. He will have a fair process. If you want to nit pick every issue you demean yourself. I was at a party last night and spoke with two people independently that are well connected, one a republican and the other a democrat. They both thought that your attacks on the DA were unreasonable. The constant drumbeat against the DA is hurting your reputation. You need to be more selective in your criticism. Being a champion for cop killers, gang bangers and child molesters undermines your credibility on issues where criticism of the DA is warranted.
What do you mean Mr. Toad – even if he’s guilty is he not entitled to a fair process and not to get railroaded? Moreover, the key question is still looming – death or life. Do you believe he has had a fair process so far?
David… is your issue the death penalty? his incarceration in prison, &/or the term thereof? his guilt? process for the sake of process? I don’t necessarily disagree with some of your points, but it certainly appears that Topete needs a serious “time-out” from the general society for all of our sakes.
hpierce:
In my view, the question is the choice between the death penalty and life in prison without parole, if he did it, and again, at this point no reason to doubt that he did, but he does have the right to a fair and impartial trial to determine that.
What has happened though is a problem with process. He was brought in, the sheriff’s deputies stacked the room and kept his family and media out. That’s a problem.
Second problem, given the fact that the deputy killed worked in the court, it is unlikely that he can get a fair trial in Yolo County. So the trial should be moved. That is my second problem. And there’s a lot there that I won’t go into, but I have serious doubts he can get a fair trial here.
Third problem, at least according to him is that the attorneys he assigned are too close to the DA and the system and so he dismissed them. I don’t know that that is true, but that’s his impression. That’s the most recent development.
Again, if he did it, I believe he should get life without parole, I’m fine with that, but a fair and impartial process should determine that.
What is unfair about his representation? Everything will be looked at upon appeal. He will get a fair trial. You’re barking up the wrong tree.
Are you serious Toad? You’re willing to overlook things and not give him a fair trial because they’ll look at it on appeal? And say they do, and throw out the conviction is that fair to Diaz’s family to make them go through this all again when every last bit of it was preventable and none of it was necessary?
I’d definitely agree that the proceedings need to be “in order”, that is to say without the “taint” of impropriety, so that in the event he is found not guilty, he can move on, and in the event that he is found guilty, he may be sentenced accordingly, with little or no grounds to sustain one or more rounds of appeals, which will only serve to be a jobs stimulus measure for attorneys, and further burden the taxpayers.
I get really torn by the death penalty. On one level, (if carried out) it does absolutely prevent recidivism by the individual. It satisfies a certain sense of “justice”. Yet, for those of faith, it is of questionable morality, and considering everything, it is as expensive as hell.
So Justice for Diaz’s family is what you are worried about.
I listed out my concerns, apparently you only got one thing from all of that?
“The constant drumbeat against the DA is hurting your reputation. You need to be more selective in your criticism. Being a champion for cop killers, gang bangers and child molesters undermines your credibility on issues where criticism of the DA is warranted.”
The DA, judges and police have too much power over a community when there is no one watching over them. There should always be checks and balances. Everyone deserves a fair trial. Just because someone is accused of a crime doesn’t mean they are guilty.
And, even if they are guilty, they deserve consideration of the punishment fitting the crime…
dmg: “Elaine: You’re a lawyer. As I told you, I was trying to explain why they dismissed counsel, not use their comments to show that counsel was what they claimed.
Yes, I’m a lawyer. So what?
erm: “This is a small county, where just about everyone knows everyone.”
dgm: “That’s precisely the problem.”
The problem is that this is a small county? The county is what it is. What do you propose, that defense attorneys not be allowed to show up at the same social event/movie theater as a DA? You are not williing to concede that defense attorneys can be ethical and still be present at the same social event as the DA? You must have a very low opinion of defense attorneys…
dmg: “Third problem, at least according to him is that the attorneys he assigned are too close to the DA and the system and so he dismissed them. I don’t know that that is true, but that’s his impression. That’s the most recent development.”
The key words here are “ACCORDING TO HIM”… Your other two points are well taken (stacked courtroom; cannot get fair trial in Yolo), but your third one is really reaching…
[quote]Yes, I’m a lawyer. So what? [/quote]
You should understand the difference between getting into someone’s mindset versus reporting it for the truth of the matter. If you look at hearsay exemptions, you’ll understand my point. Hearsay is not always inadmissible, but it generally is when you asserting truth of the matter, however you can use it for other purposes, and that’s my purpose here. To report on why Topete might dismiss his attorney not to assess whether he’s being accurate. As an attorney you should understand that distinction.
dmg: “Hearsay is not always inadmissible, but it generally is when you asserting truth of the matter, however you can use it for other purposes, and that’s my purpose here. To report on why Topete might dismiss his attorney not to assess whether he’s being accurate. As an attorney you should understand that distinction.”
This blog is not a court of law… so I’m not really getting your point here…
ERM: If I understand what David is saying. It is that David himself is not saying anything about the closeness of Defense Attorneys and District Attorneys. David is trying to relay to readers what Mr. Topete is saying Mr. Topete’s reasons are for dismissing his council. I believe through David’s comments he is trying to make that point clear. If I’m wrong, maybe we can get more clarification.
Thank you Iyah, that was my point. I don’t know if Elaine is intentionally being dense or what.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that one of the members of the public defender’s office who has a deep streak of paranoia and tends to get fired from every job he’s ever had has now been at the public defender’s office long enough for his paranoia and bad judgment to become evident to his coworkers and supervisors. How could he strike back at the people he now perceives as his enemies? Well, he could accuse his fellow public defenders of being too cozy with the district attorney’s office. And suggest to the defendent that it would be better for him to represent himself than to rely on the people who are doing the both of them wrong. With a generous helping of self-serving publicity from the Vanguard.
[quote]Well, he could accuse his fellow public defenders of being too cozy with the district attorney’s office.[/quote]
The problem with that theory is that neither Mr. Gable nor Mr. Purtell are public defenders, now are they?
dmg: “Thank you Iyah, that was my point. I don’t know if Elaine is intentionally being dense or what.”
LOL The implication here was that there was merit to Topete’s accusation of collusion…
I couldn’t let the “Sanity Defense” comment above go without some sort sane response. This is the type of cowardly and mindless prosecution prattle that I would expect from you. Yes, I know you. You slander and liable while hiding behind a moniker.
The shame of it is that there are those that would put their trust in you and as a result the innocent get convicted. You don’t want to hear facts do you. Come out of the shadows and let’s do this public. How about the fact that that troublesome document called the US Constitution is in its entirety no more than a restriction of the government and those like you that would propagate ignorance with public power. Have you read it? Those pesky paranoid framers.
Some more facts: The person of which you speak has held probably close to 30 jobs since age 9. Check with the IRS to document this fact. He has been fired from only one and that was a job as a prosecutor because he refused to lie. Let’s not forget two “jobs” as a prosecutor and two “jobs” as a public defender and ten years as a private attorney with over 100 trials to which I challenge you to compare your record. Exactly. Keep hiding.
Not only did you spell “defendent” wrong but you know that the Sacramento County Jail where Topete is being held has a running record of all visits which record you can easily access. You know that the attorney of which you speak has not visited or talked to Topete in the two years that Topete has been represented by Mr. Gable and Mr. Purtell. How is it then that he could “suggest to the defendent that it would be better for him to represent himself?” Are we talking telepathy? Now who sounds like the nut?