Two weeks ago, the Board of Supervisors heard about the current budget problems and spoke of closing down the the Leinberger Memorial Detention Center. In the last three years, the Yolo County Sheriff’s Department has cut forty-two positions, through layoffs and declining to rehire vacant positions.
Most devastatingly, early this year, ten deputies were laid off. There is a good amount of research emerging about how costs can be contained within the system. Some ideas that have come out have been to reduce sentences for drug offenses, shift the death penalty convictions to life without parole, and move inmates from state prison to county jails.
Earlier this week, we attended what looked to be the beginning of a trial. But the District Attorney moved to dismiss it due to lack of evidence. That is at least the fifth time this year we have seen the DA move for dismissal of a case, all due to lack of evidence. Is that a trend? Hard to know.
In one case, the substance found was determined by a lab not to be a controlled substance. In another, they found only a smear of meth, which meant that it was determined not to be a usable amount. That standard is very low because last year we saw a trial in which they had scraped a pipe and found .018 grams and determined that was a usable amount.
In the case this week, it was a domestic violence case where a man was accused of assaulting his wife. However, this one also had extenuating circumstances as, since that arrest, the woman was twice arrested for assaulting the defendant in this case. The DA obviously determined that it would be impossible to convince a jury that the man was the aggressor when the woman had assaulted him twice.
So, are these isolated incidents or part of an emerging pattern of greater discretion? We cannot remember a single case last year where the DA moved to dismiss, based on anything. That does not mean it did not happen, but it was rare enough that we never saw one.
These incidents aside, the overall trend is keeping up with what we have seen before. A large number of cases, some of them questionable at best, pushed forward and toward trial.
Public Defender Tracie Olson told the Board that there were a large number of jury trials in the last few years. “It’s absolutely true that we’re having more and more jury trials,” she told the Board. “I think we had 112 last year, 121 each of the two years prior which prior to that I think we had 50 or 60 jury trials. So [our] workload is still very very high.”
This is not merely due to a rise in crime – of which there is no evidence. Tracie Olson told the Board of Supervisors, “It is my opinion that the number of jury trials has nothing to do with the crime rate.”
“There are some cases that you just have to try because we think the facts are one way and the District Attorney thinks its the other, both are legitimate, and a jury has to figure out for themselves which ones they believe and which witnesses are credible,” Ms. Olson said.
However, she said that there were a lot of jury trials where the two sides should be meeting in the middle. She said her office has had 11 acquittals since the start of the year, including three acquittals on one day, and two of those three they could have settled.
Part of the problem may go back to grant funding. As the DA’s Office has increasingly relied on grant funding to fund their operations, they are forced to adhere to the terms of the grants, which at times are very specific that they need to show increased prosecutions and convictions of crime.
Gang cases have proven particularly problematic. One of the grants for them is the Gang Violence Suppression Grant which has a requirement, “As a result of the specialized GVS unit, the agency must be able to increase the number of individuals identified as gang members and the number arrested for violent, gang-related crimes.”
That has led to some interesting decisions by the DA’s Office. For instance, for some of the lesser players in the Memorial Park attack, the DA’s Office offered a promise of no state prison time in exchange for gang admissions.
Then there is a case that we have been waiting to come to preliminary hearing now for over nine months. It is basically a pot possession case where two young adults were found in Davis with a quantity of marijuana on them. But they have been charged not only with possession for sale but gang enhancements.
To date, we have not heard the evidence that these two are gang members, but it seems very questionable based on what we do know. Is the need to identify gang members in the county driving these decisions?
Fortunately these people are not in custody, but they do face up to 13 years in prison for this. And this is going to end up costing a lot of money to try if it goes to trial, which it will unless the DA agrees to drop the gang charges.
Speaking of money, there is also the Topete case, and the trial is set to finally begin next week. They have spent the last month in death-qualifying jurors, and now they will finally do their selection of jurors and begin opening arguments next week.
The Vanguard is trying to figure out how much money the county has spent on this case, but in general, the penalty phase of a capital murder case costs about $1.1 million on average. You can see why. First of all the guy has been housed in solitary for almost three years now. That’s a huge cost just there. Then you have the lengthy trial, heightened security, the cost of defense, the cost of prosecution, the disruption to the entire court’s calendar which has been a huge problem, and much more.
You have expert witnesses on both sides. And we have not gotten to the trial yet or the separate penalty phase, or the automatic appeals.
The point that should be made here is that they could probably have had this done with two years ago had they wanted to take a life-without-parole plea. But according to our sources, that has never been offered.
The chance that Topete will actually be executed by the state as opposed to dying of natural causes is remote. And he’s young. He could sit on death row for 30 or 40 or more years. California could save hundreds of millions by abandoning the death penalty and commuting the sentences to life without parole. Except for 13 people, that is exactly what we have had now since the 1970s. A very expensive life-without-parole system.
We have not discussed the very costly three strikes law. There are legitimate reasons to keep dangerous people in prison for lengthy sentences. However, the current law does not discriminate between the person who shoots someone and the person who steals a $3.99 bag of shredded cheese from the Nugget.
And yes, it is great that that individual did not get life for committing that crime, but he still got 8 years in prison which will cost the state taxpayers $400,000. It seems there could be a better way.
But as we have suggested before, politicians are very reluctant to be seen as soft on crime. But there is increasing evidence that the voters are more likely to re-examine these laws. We will see what comes of the recent poll that showed an overwhelming majority of voters, regardless of their partisan affiliation, supporting the reduction of possession of drugs to misdemeanors.
Think about how much we pay to incarcerate someone for 16 months to three years. And a lot of these cases also have violations of probation for previous possession charges, and often you end up with people in prison for five or more years.
That is $250,000 we are spending. Seems like we could spent a fraction of that on a good treatment facilities and put the rest into education programs, and we would end up with a much better outcome.
People want to argue that there are unintended consequences of such actions. There may be, but that argument can be used for any change in law. And the bottom line is, if a law is not working, we need to change it and deal with the consequences when they arise.
We cannot afford to continue to have business as usual for the way we prosecute and punish crime. We do not have the money or resources to do that. And the current system does not work. It just produces more recidivism and harder criminals who are more difficult to deal with.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Not sure what your point is here… would the costs of Topete’s been acceptable if he faced only LWP? Should he be only subject to a fine? Should he be released?
I don’t know if I didn’t make the point clearly enough – it costs a lot more to trial a capital murder case and to house someone on death row than it does when they face LWP. In this case, they will end up spending on a trial when they could have avoided it by offering a plea.
“Should he be only subject to a fine? Should he be released? “
Where do you come up with this?
Topete allegedly killed a police officer, so it is highly unlikely he will not be tried w the death penalty in mind for sure, as long as the death penalty is on the books as a possible punishment. Law enforcement would be extremely upset w the DA were it otherwise, and I can understand their point.
If the voters feel the way you claim they do, then I would assume there will be various ballot measures coming up, that will address the issues you mention. It will be interesting to see where the people come out on these issues when push comes to shove. Because thus far, the voters seem to be foursquare in favor of being tough on crime. And, by the way, so does Gov. Brown…
Elaine: I understand that point. My point is not taking that or other factors into account, I’m looking strictly at economics. If you could save $1 million, shouldn’t you do it particularly considering it’s more likely that you get hit by a car than Mr. Topete will be executed.
dmg: “Elaine: I understand that point. My point is not taking that or other factors into account, I’m looking strictly at economics. If you could save $1 million, shouldn’t you do it particularly considering it’s more likely that you get hit by a car than Mr. Topete will be executed.”
Hey, I’m not an advocate for the death penalty in CA or anywhere else. But since we have it, and Topete is the poster child for the death penalty, it would surprise me if the DA DID NOT go after the death penalty. From a political point of view, he really could not afford to not go after the death penalty…
It would me as well. However, from a financial standpoint that makes no sense and at some point a DA has to think about finances.
[quote]from a financial standpoint that makes no sense and at some point a DA has to think about finances. [/quote]
David, what are you thinking, NO he does not. The DA does not report to you and anyone, he does want he wants, then releases his false and misleading press releases and everything is fine.
What makes you think the DA has to do anything? As long as no one questions him or holds him accountable, no one runs against him, he basically has a lifetime appointment and can do what he wants.
[quote]“However, the current law does not discriminate between the person who shoots someone and the person who steals a $3.99 bag of shredded cheese from the Nugget. And yes, it is great that that individual did not get life for committing that crime….”[/quote]And, even greater that Reisig had taken the death penalty off the table.
The District Attorney is not concerned with what other departments and tax payers have to pay to house an individual on death row or the cost of the decades long appeal prosess. He’s got his eye on the prize as far as pulling down his own funding streams from grants, state and federal funding, etc. Even if that means to over reach and over charge individuals so that it looks good on paper to get that money coming in. He is not interested in justice, or prosecuting for “the people”, that is a political smoke screen. He has sold his sole for the almighty dollar which is prevailing evident.
I meant to say he sold his *soul. Also I would like to mention that David Greenwald brings subjects like this to light. No other media source in Yolo County is on top of stuff like this. The Daily Democrat usually prints the DA’s press releases – wow, those are objective, not! The Daily democrat never prints the stories of acquittals either, which are equally important.
[i]”The Vanguard is trying to figure out how much money the county has spent on this case, but in general, the penalty phase of a capital murder case costs about $1.1 million on average.”[/i]
How much of that $1.1 million is fixed cost? How much of the trial expenses are covered by the State of California?
It’s misleading to say the county is spending $1.1 million on this trial if some or all of that amount is money going to county employees who would be paid the same amount whether they were working on Topete or working on another case.
What do we know about things that are affecting the budget?
1. There are double the jury trials, but the crime rate is not higher?
2. The appellate court has overturned a rather high percentage of cases lately. So that we have either to retry these cases(more money) or maybe these cases shouldn’t have been tried in the first place.
3. The public defender talked to the county supervisors about the fact that there are more acquittals than usual.
People have been saying that the DA’s policies have brought up the costs to the taxpayer by:
1. Making misdemeanor cases into felony cases.
2. By asking for unreasonable sentences–7 years for stealing a bag of $3.99 worth of cheese. Someone is paying for this jail time.
3. Retrying cases past the point of getting a favorable verdict.
[quote]It’s misleading to say the county is spending $1.1 million on this trial if some or all of that amount is money going to county employees who would be paid the same amount whether they were working on Topete or working on another case. [/quote]
You can’t justify mismanagement, inappropriate charging, waste of tax payer money, waste of court resources with an argument that these people are getting paid anyway? That is like saying cops should be able to sit in donut shop all day since they are getting paid anyway. Does not make a good argument to me.
[i]”You can’t [b]justify[/b] mismanagement, inappropriate charging, waste of tax payer money, waste of court resources with an argument that these people are getting paid anyway?”[/i]
I never justified anything.
If Reisig offered Topete Life without parole it would:
A- Get him the conviction
B – Save the cost of Jury Trial
C- Save the cost of the lengthy and costly appeal process
In the end, he is getting the same result only without all of the cost so why not do it?
Why do you think Topete & his attorney would settle for LWOP, Technichick?
After all, David has pointed out that the probability of execution prior to natural death is minuscule, and DP inmates are in less danger from the general population in prison, as I understand it. Free food, free medical, so for Topete LWOP = DP. Why would they settle, particularly when it only takes one juror out of twelve to vote ‘not guilty’ to beat the charges completely? Ever play poker and figure the odds?
hp makes very good points. Additionally, if Topete gets a death conviction, he will also get a much more comprehensive defense team lined up (over the next 25-35 years) to appeal his case. The cost of appeals is a part of the reason (though not the whole reason) why death cases are so expensive–because the appellate process is expensive and extensive and the attorneys who work those appeals must be death qualified and hence they charge more.
Can’t deny some of the logic used by hp. just wish I felt that the judicial system was more than a high stakes poker game and it frequently doesn’t seem that way.
I agree David, there has to be a better way than the current legal system. In a time of huge budget deficits and people looking under every rock to save a penny. I cannot understand why larger cuts aren’t made to the huge prison industry. Perhaps it’s the large union, but a large part of that is the DA’s interested only in furthering their career – like in Yolo. The Yolo DAs are so out of touch with reality. Who in their right mind puts someone in prison for 8 years for stealing cheese? No one! I don’t care if it’s the 10th time. This is ludicrous and just one example of the ridiculous behavior of the Yolo DA’s office. As a society we can’t afford to allow the criminal justice system to run-a-muck and we definitely cannot afford it in these deficit times where education and health programs are on the budget’s chopping block.
If the criminal justice system were run as it is supposed to with the DA thoroughly investigating cases without bias and then seeking reasonable punishments (what a novel idea), that would substantially reduce the burden it currently places on our budget.
Rifkin: “hp makes very good points. Additionally, if Topete gets a death conviction, he will also get a much more comprehensive defense team lined up (over the next 25-35 years) to appeal his case. The cost of appeals is a part of the reason (though not the whole reason) why death cases are so expensive–because the appellate process is expensive and extensive and the attorneys who work those appeals must be death qualified and hence they charge more.”
It is my understanding that the fees for death penalty cases are limited – there is a set schedule that is fairly modest in comparison to what an attorney could make as a private pay criminal defense attorney.
technichick: “…
The District Attorney is not concerned with what other departments and tax payers have to pay to house an individual on death row or the cost of the decades long appeal prosess. He’s got his eye on the prize as far as pulling down his own funding streams from grants, state and federal funding, etc.”
What this says to me is that the entire court system/law enforcement/prison system needs an overhaul/realignment, so that the costs of everything are factored in when deciding whether to arrest, what to charge, length of sentence, etc. We have finite resources, and law enforcement/DA/public/politicians have to understand this.
To FAI: What we need to know is if Yolo County has a greater number of acquittals than other counties. But of the approx. 60 counties reporting, only Yolo and one other county were unwilling to share their data based on what I read…
Perhaps “unwilling” is too strong a word. Let us just say “did not for whatever reason”.
Hold the DA accountable! This will never happen. The DA operates on dirty tricks and lies. There have been several cases in Yolo where the DA investigates what they want. The PD office waits months to receive so called evidence. They won’t stand up to the DA. There are even plea deals being made with threats attached not to mention the ones that are being revoked because of lies. The Yolo County justice system does not exsist. The justice system is not running a muck in Yolo County the DA and his band of idots are.