Often, all the public has to go on is the first-hand coverage of a few high-profile cases and the press releases from the DA’s office that are biased and often run verbatim in the local newspapers and local media.
Part of the problem with evaluating the court system is that each case is both unique and complex. Moreover, there are a variety of different actors involved and thus different variables. In a given case, it is the interaction between the events that led to the arrest, the defendants, the witnesses, the defense attorneys, prosecutors, the Judge, and the California penal code and other applicable laws. At any given point in time, any of these could be considered problematic.
For the purposes of this exercise, we are only looking at cases that went before a jury. That means that some of the more egregious charged cases such as the Cheese Case, the bounced check case, and a few like that will not be evaluated here. We also have Loren Poirier who was facing three strikes until it was shown that he was suffering from mental illness. Or how about the man who sat in Yolo County jail for two months in a case of mistaken identity?
One of the first cases we covered was the Galvan case, a case of two brothers who were beaten, one of them severely, by the West Sacramento Police, allegedly for resisting arrest and battery on the police officers. This was already tried and hung once, and in February it hung again. One juror held out and complained that the others in his case had gone to the jury room with preconceived notions.
Issues of concern: First, the need to prosecute this case to begin with. The brothers were badly beaten. They were charged with very minor crimes. It had already hung once, now it has hung twice, and it will be tried a third time. Second, the jury. Jeff Austin, one of the jurors said, “The jurors did discuss the case and several said they were willing to stay as long as it took. My frustration was that several had already made up their minds as to the defendants being guilty and stated that nothing anyone else said would change their minds. When I tried to point out inconsistencies, medical evidence/testimony etc that raised doubt in my mind, they were unwilling to even consider the possibility that my points had merit or that were worth looking into further.”
Ramiro Leon was handed down a sentence for attempted murder, along with enhancements for criminal street gang activity and firearms. He allegedly shot into a crowd at the park. There was no physical evidence tying Mr. Leon to the shooting. There was no gun introduced. The only evidence was the testimony of witnesses, themselves having an incentive to not tell the truth. In fact, one of the witnesses recanted her story.
The DA even acknowledged some of the problems with the evidence and testimony. In the “People’s Motion to Strike the Enhancement/ Finding of Premeditation/ Deliberation,” Deputy DA Garrett Hamilton wrote, “Regardless of whether she or [another witness] told the complete truth about what they knew was supposed to happen, the actions of Ramiro Leon spoke volumes about what HIS intentions were that day.”
Issues of concern: Lack of physical evidence, unreliability of witness testimony, length of sentence.
We have the case of Anthony Vazquez. Mr. Vazquez was sentenced to 38 years and 8 months in state prison after a conviction of robbery and attempting to dissuade a witness. The jury hung on the attempted murder charge. To briefly summarize the case, Mr. Vazquez entered a car to purchase a large quantity of marijuana with the intent to sell, the DA claims he then attempted to rob them of the marijuana, held a gun to them, and shot the passenger. From jail, he wrote a letter that was intercepted that they said was an attempt to dissuade the witness, which they claimed was a gang-enhanced crime.
The problems with the case are that the letter never got out of the jail, there is no clear nexus to a criminal street gang and in fact, the other gang enhancements the jury found not to be true. For the main crime, the biggest problem is that the three witnesses were the driver, the driver’s brother, and the driver’s girlfriend. It was their word against his. He claimed that they tried to rob him, he wrestled for the gun, and it went off.
Issues of concern: Gun never found, lack of physical evidence or ability to prove the gun was his, witnesses themselves could reasonably be considered suspects, length of sentence.
Steven Hector Martinez was sentenced to 31 years in prison as part of a three-strikes case for a fight that broke out that ended up breaking another man’s eye socket. He was convicted of one count of battery with serious bodily injury.
The case hung once, primarily because of the inability for the victim to even be sure they had the right guy. Mr. Martinez denied responsibility for the attack and questioned the witness identification and even the extent of injuries during the trial. “One person out of all the people on these jam-packed streets testified, saying Mr. Martinez was the person that hit Mr. Tamayo,” Mr. Van Zandt his defense attorney said referring to the Picnic Day crowds. “Not even Mr. Tamayo, in his testimony, was sure that Mr. Martinez was the right guy.”
Issues of concern: ambiguous case, obviously, that one jury was hung on, lack of evidence other than one witness who wasn’t sure, length of sentence.
Daniel Estep was charged with residential burglary after a dispute with ex-girlfriend. He claimed he was getting his belongings. His girlfriend said he stole her property. The jury sided with him.
Issues of concern: from our perspective this could have been handled outside of the criminal system, through mediation. This was a waste of court time and resources. There was no clear crime here.
Rudy Ornelas was convicted and sentenced to 45 years in prison after being convicted of shooting at his friend Abel Trevino. This is a case where we believe the police got the wrong person. The co-defendant cut a deal, Claudio Magobet. The problem here, as we reported, was that Mr. Ornelas did not have the motive to shoot or kill Mr. Trevino. Mr. Trevino went from not remembering a thing on the stand to the next day recalling every last detail. Mr. Magobet had cut a deal and therefore, in order to insure his deal stayed, had to testify against Mr. Ornelas. The other witnesses either had conflicting testimony or failed to recall events.
Issues of concern: the deal with Magobet, Mr. Trevino’s sudden memory of events, length of sentence. We believe that Mr. Magobet likely was the shooter and Mr. Ornelas is in prison for that crime.
Brie Holmes was a UC Davis student, involved in the student protests. She became involved in some altercation with the police and was arrested for battery on a UC Davis police officer and resisting arrest. The jury deadlocked, and the DA has decided not to retry. The vote on the battery charge was 10-2 for acquittal and a 6-6 deadlock on the resisting arrest charge.
Issues of concern: this shouldn’t have been tried, the evidence was weak, and the university had made a deal in which they were suppose to ask the prosecutor not to prosecute.
Daniel Carter was released from a mental hospital, heavily medicated and got lost in Davis. He was confronted by a Davis Police Officer who found a beer and then an open knife in his pocket. He was eventually convicted, after an initial deadlock, for having a concealed dirk.
Issues of concern: there was an implication that the jury was coerced into the verdict after a deadlock. There are questions about Mr. Carter’s state of mind and the fact that he had just been released from a mental hospital. There are also questions about whether he was concealing an open knife or it was used as a tool and he hadn’t realized it was open. He did not attempt to hide the knife from the officer, in fact, he told him a knife was in his pocket. Finally there are questions as to whether he was racially profiled.
Maria Pastor brought a meth pipe through security in Department 9. It was discovered, they found a small amount of meth, a total of 0.018 grams, and arrested her and charged her with a felony. She claimed that it was a friend’s purse but the jury did not find that a credible claim.
Issues of concern: If you want an example of the jury correctly convicting someone this is an obvious example. She clearly violated the letter of the law and they made the right call. However, I have to question the DA’s office for prosecuting as a felony such a small amount of meth. This was a waste of court time and an example of the ridiculousness of our drug laws.
Eric Sass faced trial for molesting an 11-year-old. He did not deny the charges, however his defense team argued that he had a brain ailment that limited his ability to control his impulses. The jury hung.
Issues of concern: Here is probably the example of the jury probably making the wrong move in not convicting the man. To me, the act was too calculated and typical of child molest cases to really argue that it was the brain cyst that caused him to behave in that manner.
Jesse Garcia was involved in a domestic dispute with his girlfriend. He may have struck her, although there were no visible injuries. In the course of their fighting, he apparently threatened her if she told the police. For that offense, a simple misdemeanor assault case turned into an 8-year-prison sentence. The victim changed her story on the stand and said that she had made it up because she was angry with him. During her victim impact statement, she was crying, begging the judge for mercy. “This was taken way out of proportion,” she said. She described Mr. Garcia as a good man who has been a good father to her son. She said this was something that all couples go through.
“The reason why they’re blowing it out of proportion is that they know that the federal government subsidizes the DA’s office, and maybe the police, in effecting domestic violence cases,” Defense Attorney Charles Pacheco told the Vanguard. “This has been the problem with regards to these DV cases, people say stuff, people don’t mean it when they say stuff – and the listener realizes that they don’t mean it because that’s the way they talk. That’s the way that they live with each other. They say stuff like that. But the police love to hear the words because if the words come out, boom, you’re done, according to the law.”
Issues of concern: this is classic overcharging. It was reasonable to charge him with a misdemeanor DV. It was reasonable to find him guilty of the DV charge. Adding the threats was over the top compared to the severity of the crime. The jury was acted appropriately according to the law, but the DA overcharged the case.
Jesus Arias just turned 18, and he was on juvenile probation when the Gang Task Force entered his home on a probation search. He informed them of a gun in his mother’s room. He was charged with possession of a stolen weapon and violation of probation. He was also charged with two gang enhancements.
Issues of concern: It was reasonable of the jury to convict on the violation of probation, and the defense attorney conceded the violation which only had to show that the gun was near him. On the possession, they were unable to show that he possessed the gun or that he stole it, but he also could not account for why it was there and why he originally lied to police. It probably does not break reasonable doubt, but it is probably close enough to convict on. The problem I have is the gang enhancement here. While they showed that he was a gang member, they really did not prove the elements needed for 186.22 or the showing it was for the benefit of the criminal street gang.
Miguel Ruiz was involved in a supposed conspiracy to shoplift about $150 worth of merchandise with Tiffany Dougherty. They claim she went into Wal Mart, found identical merchandise (to what was attempted to be stolen), purchased the merchandise and returned to the car. With a bag and a receipt she then went back into the store and attempted to leave with stolen property. She was apprehended and pled out. He was convicted of four felonies.
Issues of concern: First, four felonies for $150 worth of merchandise is over the top and clear example of overcharging by the DA. Second, while some was caught on tape, the key question is whether or not he knew when she exited the vehicle that she intended to steal. You can make assumptions, you can infer, but we are not able to know what was said in that car and what he knew when she exited the vehicle. To me that puts it at reasonable doubt and he should have been acquitted. The jury saw otherwise.
Anthony Eugene Hunter was involved in some sort of an altercation with Daniel Hernandez. There were about five different versions of the story, Mr. Hunter claimed it was self-defense and the jury acquitted him of the charges.
Issues of concern: Mr. Hunter charged racial bias both by the police, the DA, and the participants. Other than that, it was probably a tough case to try, given it was a he-said, they-said, she-said case.
Michael Artz was acquitted on the main charge in this case, that he forced a 16-year-old classmate to have oral copulation with him. However, it was clear in this case that while force was not proved, he had sexual contact with a minor and had a conversation with her, asking asking for sex. The jury acquitted on the main charge, but convicted on the second and third charges.
Issues of concern: Why is the DA’s office prosecuting statutory rape with a two-year age difference? The defense raised the issue of the constitutionality of PC 188.3. And finally the DA’s office heavily prevaricated in their press release on this case.
So, for our first seven months of court coverage, I think a few things can be noted. Yes, we did agree with convictions by the jury in some cases and on some charges.
Second, the cases where we question the outcome are cases in which there was a lack of physical evidence, and the witnesses were either biased or unreliable. The Vazquez case is a prime example, in which the witnesses there were really suspects.
Third, the DA’s office overcharges on a number of cases and gets sentences in cases that are disproportionate to the actual crime. We can think about life terms, but the Jesse Garcia case was really a misdemeanor assault case, the Maria Pastor case with 0.0118 grams of meth is absurd, and the shoplifting case with four felonies for a small value of stolen merchandise is another problem.
Fourth, while we did not bring it up, the DA has repeatedly brought up gang issues in cases that are not gang cases. Jesse Garcia and Ornelas among them. It is not clear that the Vazquez case was a gang case either.
Fifth, when I think the jury gets it wrong is that they seem, when the evidence is ambiguous, to side with the prosecution and law enforcement. That reverses the burden of proof and creates, as many have charged, the presumption of guilt, that people would not be there unless they had done something wrong and that the police do not make mistakes and arrest innocent people.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
A few points…
You didn’t review the case in Nov/Dec where a Winters man was accused of killing his (estranged?) wife. (before your ‘project’) Physical evidence was presented, but no body has been found. He was convicted. Wonder what your critique of that case would have been.
My father served on several juries, including a murder case. Based on his experience, he told me that if he was arrested for a crime he committed, he’d want a jury trial… if he was innocent, he’d want to waive his right to a jury trial & go direct to the judge to decide.
For some of the cases you cited, with lack of “evidence”, particularly if this is not a “technical” issue, and you think someone was wrongly convicted, remember those folks had the right to waive a jury trial. If they were ‘rightly’ convicted, and your only issue is “style points”, am not sure that “reform” is needed, just education.
I agree with you that some laws should not be on the books, and I agree with you that some transgressions should either not be prosecuted, or should be prosecuted as misdemeanors rather than felonies.
Without having attended the trial, it’s hard to know. It may be that they were right.
In terms of right to waive a jury trial, that’s a misconception. An individual has the right to a trial by jury, but interestingly enough not the absolute right to waive that trial. In order to waive a jury trial, the defense and the prosecutor must both waive the trial. And it must be approved by the judge.
David,
Thanks for giving a breakdown with whats really been going on through the Yolo County judicial system. The Memorial Park incident was not brought up, that gives you more gang enhancement admittances. The injunction trial will be starting back up next week, so Reisig and his entourage will be working very hard this week to try to add some more to his list. Question? The injunction zone is based in the Broderick area, so does that mean that Reisig is going to try to include everyone from Yolo County including Woodland,Winters, etc. so it makes his gang list look good when presented in front of the judge.?
I only really covered jury trials here.
In terms of the injunction trial, they can only introduce areas in the safety zone or just outside of it, not in Woodland or the rest of the county.
david,
After going back and reading the article again,you did state these were jury trials. Sorry!!! But my thank you still stands.
Good coverage, and not one of the issues you reported was ever reported in the local paper, why? Since the local papers only print what the DA give them. And since there is no law for lying to public or misrepresenting facts in press releases, the DA will continue to out and out lie to confuse and mislead people about his real motives and the “lack of justice” in Yolo county.
Thanks for trying to make a difference.
ISSUES OF CONCERN ABOUT VANGUARD’S YOLO JUDICIAL WATCH:
1) Heavy bias against law enforcement, the DA, the Yolo Court system, judges, juries – regardless of what the facts in a case are.
2) Heavy bias in favor of just about every defendant – regardless of the evidence in a particular case even if overwhelming, and despite a guilty verdict.
3) Cherrypicking facts/cases/statements/creating innuendo to justify a preconceived agenda that law enforcement, the DA, defense attorneys and the court system are all corrupt and in collusion with each other.
4) A basic lack of understanding of the legal system and how it works.
5) Criticisms often directed at the wrong institution/party/branch of gov’t.
6) Demand for absolute perfection, despite the impossibility of perfection being attainable (note some fault was found in every single case mentioned).
7) Substituting personal opinion for what justice/sentencing should be over that of what is already settled law, voted for by our elected representatives.
8) Failure to put blame on the responsible parties in a crime, deflecting attention from the real issues.
9) Substituting personal opinion for what the verdict “should have been” according to own internal moral compass, that may not jive with the ethics of society as a whole.
10) Only covering one side of the story, and then touting it as gospel, in most cases failing to concede that it is only one side of the story being presented.
I am not an apoligist for law enforcement, the Yolo DA or the court system. I have definite concerns about some issues/cases. However, if someone is truly trying to OBJECTIVELY point out imperfections in the legal system, or show corruption, it would seem wiser to pick issues that are glaring examples, rather than cherrypicking/nitpicking every minor nuance. Just my opinion 🙂
Some examples that concern me about Yolo’s court system are:
News media printing verbatim what DA sends in for publication, in place of news media doing their own investigation.
Topete case – clearly defendant cannot get fair trial in Yolo County after the arraignment debacle in which public was impermissably excluded by court personnel in concert with law enforcement.
Galven case – I wonder how much the DA’s prosecution has more to do with backing the WSPD than any belief in the merits of the case?
Elaine got it right but on some of the specific cases you also lack context. The Ramiro Leon case was the second drive by shooting of a kid on the way home from school. The first shooter got 23 to life but it didn’t deter Ramiro and his friends so the courts upped the ante on poor Ramiro. As a result there have been no more drive by shootings of school kids in Woodland. No more talk of “I can do the time” from hoodlums on the streets. The cops knew who did it for quite some time before they could get anyone to talk. They did repeated interviews and worked the case hard. Finally someone cracked and gave Ramiro up as the shooter.
By the time they made the case against Ramiro much of the evidence was gone but that doesn’t mean he didn’t do it. The jury found him guilty. So you want to do away with the jury system or what?
Anthony Vasquez shot someone in the chest trying to steal a bag of weed and then tried to intimidate the witnesses. He hid out for months instead of coming forward to tell his story. Just because you don’t like the evidence doesn’t mean he isn’t guilty. Again the jury found him guilty.
The streets are safer with people who would shoot others over minor issues out of circulation. You may not like the cops or the DA but you know who is worse? The people who would run the world if there were no cops.
There may be things to fairly criticize local law enforcement. The Navarro killing and charging transportation of drugs for simply carrying them from one place to another come to mind. But when you want to defend Leon, Vasquez, Dev and others whose convictions help keep civilized society safe you undermine your credibility on the cases and issues that deserve to be called into question.
Elaine:
I’m not going to get into a tit for tat with you. I do take exception to a lot of what you have written here.
The key question that I seek to ask in each and every case is whether the authorities acted appropriately in the case. This isn’t a true crime watch, this isn’t the police files, etc. You talk about my demand for absolute perfection, so let’s talk about two cases that you apparently don’t have a problem with.
First case is Anthony Vazquez. My problem in this case is there is no physical evidence. They don’t have a gun. They can’t show whose gun it was, which is a huge issue here. They can’t show who fired the gun or whose fingerprints are on the gun. So they are left with essentially a witness case. In the car were four people, one of them was a drug dealer, his brother and his girlfriend. They all gave different stories about what happened. Those stories changed over time. They change so much, in a motion the DA had to address the fact that the story was changing. So you are basically taking the word of the drug dealer, his brother and girlfriend over the word of Mr. Vazquez. I don’t know what happened in that case, but I do know based on what we saw and read that their story has some holes in it and some huge inconsistencies. However because the police said it happened and because Mr. Vazquez is not a saint, the jury just like you, took their word over his.
Is that a demand for perfection or is that simply a belief that the constitution means what it says when it says that an individual is innocent until proven guilty and he must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes a jury ruled him guilty, do you want to go through all of the cases where the jury proved a guy guilty who turned out to later be exonerated through DNA or other hard evidence? You think juries are infallible? You think the DA and police don’t make mistakes especially since in this case at least there was a clear crime that occurred and they had to get someone to pin it on even if the evidence was weak?
Second case is Jesse Garcia. He got into a fight with his girlfriend. He hit her. But he barely hurt her if at all. Firefighter testified that he did not see any indication of injuries, no redness, no bruising, nothing. That’s a misdemeanor assault. But because he got angry during the fight and yelled threats to her, they got him for two additional crimes plus an enhancement because there was a kid in the car. Again, is Mr. Garcia in the right here? No, he’s not. But the punishment does not fit the crime. I’m not making this up. She testified that it got blown out of proportions. So why is that?
You talk about the failure to blame the responsible parties in a crime, I’m not covering these cases from that perspective. This is a judicial watch, we’re watching the legal system and seeing if it works appropriately. I’m interested in what our government is doing, because when Jesse Garcia hits his girlfriend, the police will lock him up. When the government acts in an abusive fashion there is little most of these people or even you can do to stop them.
I can’t print out a 5000 word story or no one would read it. So I have to summarize and pick what I think are the good points. Each story has an element to it. I try to as accurately as possible present the defense, the prosecution, the outcome, and what I think about it. Sometimes, not often, but sometimes we can talk to the family or the defense and get a few extra things to add to the story. You often think I do that as though I were using it to make an argument, but usually I do that to add information to the story so that you have additional things to consider. I’d love the DA and the prosecutors to talk to us, I met with one of the DAs when we started this project, they were not interested in talking to us about cases after the fact, so that doesn’t happen. If the DA wanted to talk, I’d be happy to print what they wanted to say. Since they only seem to like sending out press releases, if I get a press release, I tend to print from it. You get their perspective that way. It’s not the best situation, but it is what it is.
[quote]Anthony Vasquez shot someone in the chest trying to steal a bag of weed and then tried to intimidate the witnesses. He hid out for months instead of coming forward to tell his story. Just because you don’t like the evidence doesn’t mean he isn’t guilty. Again the jury found him guilty. [/quote]
He did shoot someone in the chest, interestingly enough he was not convicted of shooting someone in the chest. He was convicted of Robbery though. Again, I just explained this one above, Vazguez was a young kid. He was scared, he shot someone. He knew the other guys in the car would put it on him. I don’t think that’s evidence of guilt. The only way we know or are led to believe he initiated it is that the drug dealer, his brother and girlfriend said so.
I don’t think we’re safer because Vazquez is in prison.
The Leon case is an example of thinking they had the right guy, and convicting him on very poor evidence. The jury convicted him. Great. Doesn’t prove anything for me, they convict the wrong guy probably 20-25 percent of the time once you factor in plea bargains into the equation. If you assume 10% of the people convicted are in prison, and most of the people have taken pleas, that puts the number of wrongful jury convictions quite high.
Mr. Toad, forgot to mention in addition to Mr. Vasquez disappearing, so too did one of the witnesses in the car. How come, Mr. Vasquez is assuming to be guilty because of that, but not the key witness, the drug dealer in this case?
Because the DA rightfully believes that shooters are more dangerous than weed dealers.
dmg: “The key question that I seek to ask in each and every case is whether the authorities acted appropriately in the case.”
And in EVERY instance you have found fault. Doesn’t that suggest to you a heavy bias…
[quote]And in EVERY instance you have found fault. Doesn’t that suggest to you a heavy bias…[/quote]
Everyone has a bias. You do. I do. Toad does. That’s not a point in question. The question whether in every instance there were problems and whether or not they were avoidable.
[quote]Because the DA rightfully believes that shooters are more dangerous than weed dealers. [/quote]
The problem is, we don’t even know whose gun it was. And we only have the word of the dealer’s brother and girlfriend, neither unbiased sources, to say it was Vasquez rather than the dealer who used the gun first.
You mean the testimony of the victim and his girlfriend and probably the bullet and the gunshot wound and the letter and the jury. You want to second guess all of that go ahead but you embarrass yourself.
The question with the bullet and the gunshot is not who fired it, but whose gun it was, because there are two versions of the story, one in which it was Vasquez’ gun and he tried to rob them, and the other in which it was the drug dealer’s gun and he tried to rob Vasquez, they wrestled and the gun went off and hit the passenger in the back.
The letter does not go to the issue of culpability in the main incident, he doesn’t admit to doing anything more than shooting in self-defense.
The jury heard two sides, and sided with the DA and cops. It happens. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are proven wrong.
I find fault with our local paper printing a DA press release with a byline of Enterprise Staff. Let’s Libby to change that so it is more accurate and transparent.
lobby!
David… thank you for clarification re: waiver of trial by jury… I’ll accept that you know more about the process than I do…
I actually just learned this not long ago myself, previously I had been under the same impression as you.
This explains it a bit: click ([url]http://apublicdefender.com/2010/05/04/the-defendants-right-to-trial-by-jury/[/url])
dmg: “Everyone has a bias. You do. I do. Toad does. That’s not a point in question.”
That is exactly my point – that your bias against the DA/Yolo court system is so strong, it colors your thinking, making your commentary about a court case over the top at times at not particularly persuasive. As an example, you often fault the DA for what is essentially a problem with the legal system that stems from legislation at the federal level. So often, your overly biased commentary doesn’t really support your general preconceived thesis that the Yolo DA is corrupt…
Let me give you a concrete example which may further explain my point. Any good trial attorney knows s/he has to “educate” the judge in a case. However any good trial lawyer also knows that to throw every bit of information/piece of evidence/legal theory one has at their disposal and present it to the judge will not be persuasive. The better approach is to select evidence/legal theories carefully, and go with what will convince the judge. See where I am going with this?
SODA: “I find fault with our local paper printing a DA press release with a byline of Enterprise Staff. Let’s Libby to change that so it is more accurate and transparent.”
That is primarily the fault of the media, who if ethical, would make it clear the press release is from the DA’s office.
I am not an apoligist for law enforcement, the Yolo DA or the court system. I have definite concerns about some issues/cases. However, if someone is truly trying to OBJECTIVELY point out imperfections in the legal system, or show corruption, it would seem wiser to pick issues that are glaring examples, rather than cherrypicking/nitpicking every minor nuance. Just my opinion 🙂
Elaine, with your legal experience, your personal investment in the Vanguard (as someone who regularly posts articles and comments), and your strong feelings about the tone of coverage of the Yolo County courts, why don’t you put some time in to post articles covering the county courts? It seems that David and his intern(s) can’t cover everything that comes up, anyway.
I really appreciate that David has taken the time cover the county courts. I have realized that I know next to nothing on the local courts from local papers (Enterprise and Democrat). From my perspective, David’s work (even if it is biased) is very informative. The comments to the articles provide a chance to question the tone and perspective. On balance, this is all of tremendous value to the community.
wdf1: “Elaine, with your legal experience, your personal investment in the Vanguard (as someone who regularly posts articles and comments), and your strong feelings about the tone of coverage of the Yolo County courts, why don’t you put some time in to post articles covering the county courts? It seems that David and his intern(s) can’t cover everything that comes up, anyway.”
Would that I had the time, but I don’t, but thanks for asking 🙂 What I can do within my time constraints is at least put my views out there as to where I think David is getting it right, and where he is getting it wrong. Obviously what I have said has hit a nerve at times, but that is all part of critical thinking and the joy of blogging. Nor am I always right about things – at times others have stepped in to correct me when they know something I don’t. And some things are a matter of opinion where there is not necessarily a right or wrong view.
I think it is a very important part of this blog for people to speak up and agree/disagree when s/he feels strongly about something. (I frankly was amazed at how many people disagreed with the entire concept of Zipcars and back-in angled parking. It was nice to know I was not the only one who thought these ideas were not so great.) I have found the back and forth with the court cases very illuminating. I understand why people often have the misconceptions they do about our court system. When I went through a 3 1/2 year divorce, I was utterly confused about the process, so decided to return to school and get a law degree at age 37 with 3 very young children. So much about our legal system became clearer once I attained my law degree. Then when I started trial work, albeit in the family law arena, things came even more sharply into focus. Also did some trial work while volunteering my time in legal aid arena (small claims court, appellate work, arbitration).
So these brothers go to rob this guy who struggles in self defense and the gun belonging to the brothers goes off. Dashell Hammet you are not. If I’m going to rob someone why would I bring my girlfriend and the weed?
BTW, I got the facts reversed, the dealer was the one who got shot, the driver was not the dealer.
As I understand it, it was argument that developed over the amount and the dealer pulled the gun, they wrestled, he got shot.
“If I’m going to rob someone why would I bring my girlfriend and the weed? “
Why would you even if you’re only intending to sell pot? I don’t think that kind of logic applies, I have seen far stranger stuff than that.
In addition, I have a real problem with your claim the streets are safer. The time someone stabs someone, find ten random people and execute them without a trial. I guarantee you, no one is going to stab someone again. And if they do, kill twenty. It will stop very quickly, I guarantee it. But then again, is that the type of society you want to live in?
Hyperbole, a bit. But there is a reason we have basic guarantees such as the presumption of innocence, meaning that it is better that ten guilty men or even 100 guilty men go free, then one innocent person incarcerated.
Here’s a favorite recent article of mine:
Netherlands to close prisons for lack of criminals
[url]http://www.nrc.nl/international/article2246821.ece/Netherlands_to_close_prisons_for_lack_of_criminals[/url]
In summary, Netherlands closed 8 prisons and laid off 1,200 prison workers because of a drop in crime.
I wonder what reaction you’d see in the U.S. if that came to pass. Perhaps accusations that the incumbant party was being soft on crime and not enforcing the laws adequately and making those arrests.
But closing 8 prisons in California for lack of crime would sure be welcome for the state budget.
[quote]The time someone stabs someone, find ten random people and execute them without a trial. I guarantee you, no one is going to stab someone again. And if they do, kill twenty. It will stop very quickly, I guarantee it. But then again, is that the type of society you want to live in? [/quote]
[quote]But there is a reason we have basic guarantees such as the presumption of innocence, meaning that it is better that ten guilty men or even 100 guilty men go free, then one innocent person incarcerated. [/quote]
[quote]Hyperbole, a bit. [/quote]
You think?
You blur the lines between the death penalty and someone being put in jail/prison (both are incarceration, unless an artist of lexicon shows me to be in error).
Many killers are psychopaths… will they be deterred by the random execution of people? I think not…
Should people (you say men, assume you mean women also) NOT be incarcerated until their cases are adjudicated?
If 100 people are convicted, based on evidence, by a ‘jury of their peers’, I’d rather pay restitution to the one, later exonerated, than have the other 99 out one the streets…
Are you saying no one should be in jail until there is a trial?
“Many killers are psychopaths…” – In a true sense, by the strict definition almost no killers are true psychopaths.
Why do we have so many more murders in this country than anywhere else in the world?
I’m okay with holding certain people in jail prior to their trial.
dmg: “Why do we have so many more murders in this country than anywhere else in the world?”
Because so many get away with it. It is my understanding that the stats are pretty high for unsolved murders.
That’s far too simple an explanation. It’s not simply a matter of getting caught, and it’s not altogether clear that in other countries it’s easier to get caught. If anything our investigators have much more practice, expertise, and developed techniques. So of all explanations, that makes the least amount of sense.
And it also suffers from the chicken and egg situation, in order for it to have been difficult to be caught, there must have been murders to begin with.
Why do we have so many more murders in this country than anywhere else in the world?
Check out the list of countries by homicide rate:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate[/url]
We don’t look good among developed democracies, but we’re far from the worst.
David thank you for bringing your questions about the DA, police, judges and the whole judicial system to light. There are too many people who seem to defend these agencies and seem so upset when anyone questions what they do. I am very glad you have taken on the task of bringing a different perspective to the community.