I am constantly told that we have the best legal system in the world. I don’t know if that is true or not, but suppose it is true, does that mean it is beyond reproach? Does that mean that we cannot work to improve it, that we should sit back and not question things when they go wrong?
I have seen dozens of trials over the last 18 months and read intimidate details from dozens of other trials, and on a regular basis I see things that should give us concern.
Dom Kalah was given 32 months in prison, and at 80% with a strike, he will have to serve 18 more months with his custody credit. Now I sat through that trial, at least most of it, and I believe Dom Kalah was completely innocent of any crimes. His only crime being in the wrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong people around him.
I say, in my view, he was completely innocent and up to seven jurors agreed with me. Unfortunately, five disagreed.
Now you say, why take that plea? Well because he saw what Saengphet Onsri got which was convicted on all counts and likely to face 7 to 12 in prison. And Dom Kalah likely had greater exposure than that.
That is our system. Great system, that forces a perfectly innocent man, according to me and 7 jurors, to take a plea for 32 months in prison rather than face a lot more than that. This guy is in his forties, he’s not selling drugs and running with gangs anymore.
That leads me to Ajay Dev.
Jim Smith wrote, “In my book, Ajay was found guilty by a jury after a trial. That decision which is being appealed. That’s how our justice system works. Until that appeal is heard and the jury’s decision is overturned, Ajay is guilty and must do the time as ordered by the judge.”
Matt Rexroad on his website adds, “This was sent to me unsolicited from a juror in the Ajay Dev trial. It confirms what I thought. Someone that heard every single piece of evidence presented in the trial.”
They wrote this: “I just read your blog on the Ajay Dev trial. I was a juror on that trial and I wanted to let you know that your synopsis is pretty much dead on. I will tell you that the most telling part of that phone call is in the first few minutes. Granted it has been 2 years since I have heard it so I may not be spot on in the quoting here. In the first few minutes, the victim calls Dev to tell him that she had been to see a school counselor. The counselor wants to know about her sex life and her abortions. She asks Dev ‘What should I tell him about us Daddy?’ His response is ‘Why did you go to counselor?’ and ‘Good girls dont talk about this kind of thing.’ If he is truly innocent as his family contends, why wasnt his first reponse ‘What are you talking about? What about us?’ Something?????”
The accuracy of her recollection here is in doubt. But that issue aside what she says concerns me. We think we know how people are supposed to respond to certain things. For example, people assume that Casey Anthony killed her daughter because she acted guilty afterwards and went off partying and living it up.
But, they also thought that one reason that Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed for an arson fire that killed his kids, had done it because he was seen right after their deaths drinking and partying.
The problem is that we found out later that forensic evidence has led experts to believe this was no arson fire, and was instead caused by faulty wiring and a short. If there was no arson, there was no murder. And if there was no murder, Mr. Willingham was simply responding to his kids’ deaths in a way people could not fathom.
In Ajay Dev’s case, perhaps he was surprised by the fact that she was going to a counselor to talk about sex and did not even hear the part about telling about “us.”
As I said yesterday, I have not heard the pretext call. I do understand that there was a good deal of dispute between the meaning of some of the words. I also understand that the most critical portion is taken completely out of context.
A person’s life is determined by a subjective judgment of 12 laymen. Couple that with what I am told was critical evidence that the judge failed to allow in, and you have the possibility that an innocent man was put away.
When people raise their voices they are told that is just the way the system works, you are guilty once convicted until and unless you can prove yourself innocent.
A few days ago, the Washington Post article reported that a federal judge threw out a capital murder conviction and death sentence of Justin Michael Wolfe, ruling “that prosecutors withheld or ignored crucial evidence and potential testimony that could have helped Wolfe’s defense.”
Mr. Wolfe has already spent nine years in prison and is now 30.
The Judge found that prosecutors “supported the use of false testimony from the admitted shooter to link Wolfe to the slaying; failed to disclose evidence that others in the drug ring might have wanted to kill Petrole; and orchestrated testimony of key witnesses, among other irregularities.”
These things happen. We like to believe that juries are sacrosanct and that the process works, but we still end up with innocent people put behind bars for years based on all sorts of flaws – some, such as in the case just mentioned, intentional, others unintentional.
So, when I hear things like the juror decided he was guilty based on his response to some pretext question – which does not even take into account potential cultural reactions to discussion of sex – it concerns me.
The case is in the hands of the appellate court, but before an appeal can be filed, they must settle some things about the original trial record. Another hearing is scheduled for late this week on that matter which could be crucial in terms of key evidence that somehow did not end up in the jury room for them to deliberate on.
There are a lot of things that trouble me about this case, but the thing that troubles me the most is the reaction of Mr. Dev’s extended family, including a large number of people who are not directly related to him but who have examined the trial record and evidence closer than anyone else.
Wrongful convictions occur unfortunately all too frequently. Frankly, I think the number is a lot higher, when we consider that DNA evidence only exists in a fraction of all cases but makes up the bulk of exonerations.
We may or may not have the best judicial system in the world, but that does not mean it couldn’t be improved.
Unfortunately, incentives play a role in the way prosecutions are run. Jim Smith scoffed at the notion that “Some people have claimed Ajay was treated unfairly because of his race, or because the DA’s Office was trying to boost its conviction rate to continue receiving federal grant money.”
But I would argue otherwise. In times of monetary shortfall, one way that the District Attorney has been able to generate funding is through grants – many of these grants require that they show that they have prosecuted more cases and gained more convictions.
Moreover, the internal structure of the DA’s is set up so that those who get the convictions, get the promotions.
Does the idea of “Cash for Convictions” prove Mr. Dev’s innocence? No, but it does provide an incentive for the DA to go after the conviction all the more zealously.
In the end, Mr. Dev was put into prison due to the legal system, and short of a gubernatorial pardon, the legal system will get him out of prison. But as past exonerations show, it may take 10 to 20 years.
Mr. Dev will have lost the chance to see his young sons grow up, to be with his wife, to live out his dreams. That has been taken away from him.
With the 378-year sentence seems ridiculously long, given the fact that many murderers get far less, at least we could live with it had we assurance that a guilty man had been incarcerated. With looming doubts, the sentence is all the more questionable.
Maybe Mr. Dev was given what would constitute a fair trial in most places, but if the family is right and key evidence was excluded from court by the judge, then we have a problem. What is even scarier is that if the judge gets his way with regard to record this week, he may get away with most of it. And we will never know the difference.
That is how the system works. We are, after all, the best in the world.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[i][quote]“So when I hear things like the juror decided he was guilty based on his response to some pretext question – which does not even take into account potential cultural reactions to discussion of sex – it concerns me.”[/quote][/i]Of course, you did not hear that “the juror decided (Dev) was guilty based on his response to some pretext question,” did you? The juror made no such claim.
[i][quote]“Jim Smith scoffed at the notion that ‘Some people have claimed Ajay was treated unfairly because of his race, or because the DA’s Office was trying to boost its conviction rate to continue receiving federal grant money.’ But I would argue otherwise.”[/quote][/i]Of course, you didn’t see any such thing, did you? “Scoffed at” means “to mock at or treat with derision or scorn.” There’s no hint of scoffing in the sentence you selected to quote and then “argue otherwise” for some unfathomable reason. In fact, there’s nothing remotely close to scoffing in Smith’s straightforward description of the Dev case history or in the portion that includes your “scoffing” sentence:[i][quote]“A lot of allegations have been heaped on the rape victim herself, including that she ‘was convicted of passport fraud’ by the government of Nepal. Some people have claimed Ajay was treated unfairly because of his race, or because the DA’s Office was trying to boost its conviction rate to continue receiving federal grant money.”[/quote][/i]He did ridicule the tactic of generating hundreds of identical emails to the media (which I’d say also applies to a similar strategy applied to an elected county official). It doesn’t seem right that you engage in personal attacks of Smith and Rexroad for being the messengers of information that conflicts with your own.
[i][quote]“With the 378 year sentence seems ridiculously long given the fact that many murderers get far less….”[/quote][/i]I certainly agree that an innocent person shouldn’t be sentenced to a single day in prison. If you were the judge, how many years would you give a man guilty of 73 counts of sexual assault over five years and three counts of “dissuading a witness”–perpetrated on his adopted minor daughter?
Assuming he still would be in prison until he dies under your sentence, why waste time on whether a 99-year life term or a 378-year life term makes any difference?
Today’s commentary is set up with a handful of misrepresentations that then are knocked down with a rehash of earlier reports. You could have better used the time and effort to respond to the observations generated by your earlier articles and by the county report.
“Of course, you did not hear that “the juror decided (Dev) was guilty based on his response to some pretext question,” did you? The juror made no such claim. “
Put together with other statements, I would say yes, the juror and other jurors made their decision based on the pretext call. If you are claiming that that was not the sole reason for their decision, I would not necessarily disagree.
I disagree with you there is no hint at scoffing – I think it’s clear he is.
“He did ridicule the tactic of generating hundreds of identical emails to the media (which I’d say also applies to a similar strategy applied to an elected county official).”
What people were doing was signing onto the text of petition and that is what was sent to Mr. Smith and the public officials.
“It doesn’t seem right that you engage in personal attacks of Smith and Rexroad for being the messengers of information that conflicts with your own.”
What [b]personal attack[/b] have I made against either?
“If you were the judge, how many years would you give a man guilty of 73 counts of sexual assault over five years and three counts of “dissuading a witness”–perpetrated on his adopted minor daughter? “
A judge does not have the ability to make a determination. A jury found him guilty and the sentencing scheme largely dictates the sentence.
“Assuming he still would be in prison until he dies under your sentence, why waste time on whether a 99-year life term or a 378-year life term makes any difference? “
You are arguing at the wrong point of entry.
“Today’s commentary is set up with a handful of misrepresentations that then are knocked down with a rehash of earlier reports. You could have better used the time and effort to respond to the observations generated by your earlier articles and by the county report. “
I appreciate your critique. Thanks for reading.
The juror’s comments are interesting. It shows that he/she really didn’t understand some basic things.
1. There were two phone calls that night. The first phone call was 8 minutes. It was between Peggy Dev and the accuser. Ajay refused to talk to the accuser. At the end of the first call the accuser threatened to go to the police if Ajay didn’t talk to her when she called back.
2. For the month previous to this phone call, Ajay and the accuser had been fighting over allegations she made to her biological parents that Peggy and Ajay had physically abused her regularly.
3. The juror’s memory of exactly what was said is also incorrect.
So when the pretext phone call starts, Ajay is thinking that the accuser is going to go to the police about the physical abuse allegations she has made to her parents. When the accuser starts talking about going to her counselor about the pregnancies, Ajay is not thinking that she is talking about him because the accuser has not said anything about sexual abuse before. Ajay knows that the accuser has had an abortion after being impregnated by a boyfriend.
This is another example why context is so important. To make a judgement about someone’s reactions without looking at what has led up to that point is not fairly looking at the whole picture.
I am convinced that were I accused of something as horrorific as this, I would much rather be judged by a team of impartial judges or attorneys from across the country with experience reviewing and analyzing evidence, than a group of 12 people with no such experience and only limited access to the evidence. Not only that, I hope I am never put in the position of serving as a juror on a trial with only convincing circumstantial evidence, rather than real, indisputable PROOF (like DNA or videos). I suspect I would really annoy the other jurors who wanted to return to their lives and comfy homes, because I´d refuse to say ¨guilty¨ in the absence of indisputable evidence. No one has written or shown anything of the kind in this case as far as I can see. What gives here? The stakes are oh-so-high–Now we have a man in prison for therest of his life and two children without a father, based upon a district attorney´s interpretation of a bilingual conversation, and one which he can only personally understand a part of. Now that´s REALLY something that scares the hell out of me.
I agree with David. Over the last year many cases have come to light that should cause us all to question what is happening in our court and with our DA. If I recall the public defender was asked if the crime rate had increased in Yolo County because the case load had. Her response was no, the crime rate had not changed, but the DA’s office was overcharging cases and/or taking cases to trial that they shouldn’t causing the increase in cases. Or something like that – it was in a previous article.
This should all make us stand up and question why. What is going on? I’ve read many articles regarding various people saying they had unfair treatment. The Dev supporters are not the only ones. They are also saying that. Do you all remember the Noori case? They were all acquitted and are also saying there are major problems with the DA and Davis police. What about the Galvan brothers? I could name many others.
Closing our eyes to people who say there is a problem on perpetuates the problem if it exists. We pride ourselves in being a country of the people for the people. We should ask the questions, seek the answers and look into it further.
Lyah: I agree with you. Over the last year there have been several cases that have come forward that have questioned the integrity of what is happening in Yolo County. Ajay Dev’s case is just one of them.
If people choose not to believe the supporters of Ajay, they should at least question why have there been so many complaints by so many different people.
That old saying comes to mind…where there is smoke, there is fire.
David I agree with you that the legal system should be improved. Cash for convictions is just one reason for the DA’s office to overcharge and/or bring to trial as many cases as possible, political motivation also plays a very big role. When judges and DAs take donations to run for office they need to show how “tough on crime” they are not how fair the system can be. Grant money and political donations both need to be changed. Sandra Day O’Connor and other prominent judges from around the country are trying to change the process from electing judges to appointing judges because they have seen a difference in they way the judges rule when they need to run a campaign versus are appointed. Both grant money and political donations make unscrupulous people play the system to benefit themselves.
A system that prohibits defendants from bringing evidence to trial that can help exonerate them also needs to be changed. I find it extremely unjust when it comes to light that a prosecutor lied, hid evidence, etc. and the defendant doesn’t automatically get a new trial. There are many flaws in our system, so when protestors ask for an investigation and no one listens, people in the community, as well as the legal profession should both be outraged that the citizenry are not being heard. After all isn’t it supposed to about getting it right not about winning and losing.
[quote]In times of monetary shortfall, one way that the District Attorney has been able to generate funding is through grants – many of these grants require that they show that they have prosecuted more cases and gained more convictions.
Moreover, the internal structure of the DA’s is set up so that those who get the convictions, get the promotions.
Does the idea of “Cash for Convictions” prove Mr. Dev’s innocence? No, but it does provide an incentive for the DA to go after the conviction all the more zealously.[/quote]
So here are my questions for you:
1) Should the DA not go after grant money because it creates an incentive to zealously prosecute those types of crimes?
2) Should grants of that type not be permitted, because it creates an incentive to zealously prosecute those types of crimes?
3) Is it perfectly legal for prosecutors to go after grant money, even thought it could create an incentive to zealously prosecute those crimes?
4) Should the Yolo County DA forgo such grants, while other counties go after such grant money?
5) Please explain how the internal structure of the DA’s Office is set up to promote those who get convictions.
6) If the “Cash for Convictions” doesn’t prove Dev’s innocence, what does it have to do with the case specifically?
[quote]What is even scarier is that if the judge gets his way with regard to record this week, he may get away with most of it. [/quote]
If the judge gets his way how? Who may get away with what?
I find it interesting that the Vanguard discounts an actual juror’s viewpoint in the case, but somehow implicitly believes family members of the defendant that was convicted by the jury. Which one is more objective, a jury or family members of the defendant?
ERM, David was referring to the hearing scheduled for Friday in which Judge Fall must decide if the evidence that he did not allow into the trial should be allowed onto the record that will go to the appellate court.
6) If the “Cash for Convictions” doesn’t prove Dev’s innocence, what does it have to do with the case specifically?
ERM I don’t think David’s article was just about the Dev case. “Cash for Convictions” should be investigated. You, as well as the DA’s office should be happy to have an independent and thorough investigation if you think that everything is truly on the up and up. The fact that some people keep denying and/or questioning how this grant money might effect cases in Yolo county makes me think there is something to hide.
To highbeam: Thanks for the clarification.
[quote]ERM I don’t think David’s article was just about the Dev case. “Cash for Convictions” should be investigated. You, as well as the DA’s office should be happy to have an independent and thorough investigation if you think that everything is truly on the up and up. The fact that some people keep denying and/or questioning how this grant money might effect cases in Yolo county makes me think there is something to hide.[/quote]
I doubt an “independent investigation” would show much of anything. Let me ask you, what is the “smoking gun” you are looking for to prove the “Cash for Convictions” theory? My guess is all you will have is a lot of guesswork and not much to show for it. You would have to show causation, and that would be extremely difficult…
Personally, I think this sort of grant money just should not be allowed, period. No county should be getting it, so there is not even the “appearance of impropriety”…
“I doubt an “independent investigation” would show much of anything. Let me ask you, what is the “smoking gun” you are looking for to prove the “Cash for Convictions” theory?”
ERM I am not personally saying there is a smoking gun, what I am saying is if there are so many people in the community that claim something is going on and protesting for an investigation who are you to say nothing is happening. I have seen you defend a judge for yelling at a defense attorney in court with the jury present. I think you are a very biased person in all matters concerning both the courts and the DA’s office. I don’t know if that is who you work for, but it sure seems like it. Why do you claim an independent investigation wouldn’t show anything? Are you naive enough to think bad things can’t be happening where you live?
With all due deference, we owe a debt of gratitude to the juror who responded to Mr. Rexroad’s editorial with a prefabricated justification in tow for the conviction of Mr. Dev.
Fortuitously, we are now in possession of the necessary and sufficient insight to probe, explore and explain the praxeology of the jury, who in the absence of a scintilla of forensic evidence remanded Mr. Dev to California’s penal system for the better part of 370 + years.
What can best be described as a spontaneous and collective affliction of [i][b]Cognitive Dissonance[/b][/i]–no juror has yet come forward to logically explain why favor was granted to the plaintiff who was shown to have conscientiously and repeatedly lied under oath about core and critical details germane to the allegations brought against Mr. Dev.
Notwithstanding the jury’s willingness to suspend and ultimately abrogate their critical faculties, nevertheless, reasonable doubt prevailed in the People v. Dev, by virtue of the plaintiff’s serial and pathological prevarications in perpetuity.
In Sacramento 99% of all cases prosecuted take a plea. Many many cases that have the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence are prosecuted. The DA overcharges to such a huge extent that, guilty or not,defendants are pushed by their lawyers to take the plea for fear of getting a disproportionately huge sentence. Every plea counts as a conviction for the DA’s office, which has given Sacramento the dubious distinction of being the third worst city for crime in California. Let’s get real here. It isn’t that we are so crime ridden in Sacramento,it’s that the rating makes the city eligible for big grant payoffs. As a wise man once said, if you want to know the motivation, just follow the money.
Ajay’s conviction seems to have been based almost entirely on the tape recording of the pretext telephone call between the accuser and the accused. there seems to be much dispute about the translation of this conversation. I presume that neither the prosecutor nor the jury could understand nepali. How does one get a copy of this tape recording? I am a Nepali speaker and I would like to listen to it myself.
Also how does one get a transcript of the trial?
1) Should the DA not go after grant money because it creates an incentive to zealously prosecute those types of crimes?
NO! The practice of granting money for convictions should end – it creates an obvious conflict of interest and it promotes “witch” hunting. Prosecution should be based on the evidence of a crime and not an opportunity to reduce a budget shortfall. Additionally, one county should not prosecute more than another county simply because they are better at applying for grants. Besides, the State and Fed are out of money and eliminated these grants would be a good way to save money.
Themis,
“ERM I don’t think David’s article was just about the Dev case. ‘Cash for Convictions’ should be investigated.”
Yesterday’s article? If so, it was alomost exclusively about the Dev case and the responses from Smith/Rexroad. The issue concerning grants wasn’t even mentioned, was it? This article spent little time on that issue, relatively speaking.
As David points out, Dev’s conviction will be resolved through the proper channels of justice. However, as I said yesterday, the Dev supporters may want to rethink their strategy if they wish to shed light on the so-called “Cash for Convictions” issue.
They should also provide some compelling research/evidence if they believe grants lead to injustices. My understanding is that the research that has been done indicates that the DA’s Office received monies for prosecuting certain crimes, which is outcome-based (i.e. they must increase prosecutions or convictions to continue to receive these monies). Am I correct?
Let’s face it, unless the Dev supporters can show this causes harm to the public/defendants, whose going to complain about the DA’s Office pushing harder to prosecute sex crime cases?
The Dev case and the protesters themselves overshadowed that issue, evidenced by the relatively little acknowledgement by local media and Rexroad (note: Rexroad said he would not investigate this CASE and didn’t even mention “Cash for Convictions” from what I remember).
“what I am saying is if there are so many people in the community that claim something is going on and protesting for an investigation who are you to say nothing is happening.”
Having x number of people claiming this, especially if the vast majority are also the same supporters who are claiming Dev is innocent , which happens to fit nicely with the narrative re: injustices surrounding the investigation into the crimes and prosecution of Dev…then no, that doesn’t prove much at all.
“When judges and DAs take donations to run for office they need to show how ‘tough on crime’ they are not how fair the system can be.”
Seeing as how unlikely it is that an incumbent DA will be unseated, I don’t really think he has to prove anything to his donors. He wasn’t challenged this last time and there were all kinds of allegations thrown about. In terms of job security, I doubt he’s too concerned.
“so when protestors ask for an investigation and no one listens, people in the community, as well as the legal profession should both be outraged that the citizenry are not being heard.”
What would you like investigated and by whom? Even if the BOS or whomever conducts an independent investigation of this case, then what?
Frankly, they need to get sharp legal minds to help Dev out, but if they want to change the system then they need to refocus their efforts, IMHO.
Here’s what the letter, posted on Rexroad’s blog, reads re: “Cash for Convictions.” The primary focus of the letter is the Dev case. Note that at no point do the Dev supporters ask that “Cash for Convictions” be investigated or reexamined, just that it be stopped. The letter does not provide any evidence as to why.
We are asking you to help us by:
1. Request an investigation into Ajay Dev’s case. (Yolo County Case #062444)
2. Requesting an investigation into the charging policies of the Yolo County District Attorney’s office. There is a pattern of stacking up counts for minority defendants compared to similar cases with white defendants. Stacking up charges tends to secure more convictions—more grant money.
3. Stop grants that reward money based on increasing arrests and convictions.
We are angry that someone can make false allegations against a U.S. citizen in order to gain access to our country and that our tax dollars are being used in such a way that encourages district attorneys to seek convictions over the truth.
Here are my answers to Elaine’s questions:
I think grants need to be redone so that they do not create an incentive structure by which prosecutors are rewarded for prosecuting more cases.
I’m not sure what you mean by permitted, I’m not sure who the controlling authority would be there. IT seems to me your questions miss the mark, the real question is whether you think there is a problem here and if you believe that there is a problem, then you have to figure out what the solution is. I believe there is a problem, I’m not sure what the solution is to that problem.
“I find it interesting that the Vanguard discounts an actual juror’s viewpoint in the case, but somehow implicitly believes family members of the defendant that was convicted by the jury. Which one is more objective, a jury or family members of the defendant?”
This is the point I made to Rexroad, the jury was recalling information from two years before and got that information wrong. If that is the case, why are they entitled to carte blanche acceptance if they had factual errors in their account of what happened?
“Personally, I think this sort of grant money just should not be allowed, period. No county should be getting it, so there is not even the “appearance of impropriety”…”
I agree that their should not be “grant money” for the legal system because it puts forward special agendas. Our justice system is supposed to be about the pursuit of the truth and punishing those who commit crimes. The grant money just muddies the water so to speak. In some cases it will give an appearance of impropriety, but in other cases it will give a motivation for wrong action / careless action / or looking the other way. Which I personally believe has gone on in Yolo County. There are just too many instances of justice gone awry here.
[quote]ERM I am not personally saying there is a smoking gun, what I am saying is if there are so many people in the community that claim something is going on and protesting for an investigation who are you to say nothing is happening. I have seen you defend a judge for yelling at a defense attorney in court with the jury present. I think you are a very biased person in all matters concerning both the courts and the DA’s office. I don’t know if that is who you work for, but it sure seems like it. Why do you claim an independent investigation wouldn’t show anything? Are you naive enough to think bad things can’t be happening where you live?[/quote]
You are conceding there is no “smoking gun” – in other words no evidence to support the allegations of the claim of “Cash for Convictions”, then turn around and suggest an independent investigation would show something. You cannot have it both ways.
Secondly, I do not work for the DA’s Office. I just poke holes in illogic. As I stated clearly, I am opposed to these grants altogether bc it gives the “appearance of impropriety”.
[quote]This is the point I made to Rexroad, the jury was recalling information from two years before and got that information wrong. If that is the case, why are they entitled to carte blanche acceptance if they had factual errors in their account of what happened?[/quote]
You totally sidestepped my question – which is more likely to be biased, a juror, or family members of the defendant convicted by the juror?
[quote]I’m not sure what you mean by permitted, I’m not sure who the controlling authority would be there. IT seems to me your questions miss the mark, the real question is whether you think there is a problem here and if you believe that there is a problem, then you have to figure out what the solution is. I believe there is a problem, I’m not sure what the solution is to that problem. [/quote]
That is the key question – where are the grants coming from? Gov’t? Private non-profits? But I don’t think there would be anything stopping the legislature from passing a law that disallowed such grants – except the prosecutor’s lobby!
You are conceding there is no “smoking gun” – in other words no evidence to support the allegations of the claim of “Cash for Convictions”, then turn around and suggest an independent investigation would show something. You cannot have it both ways.
ERM I am not conceding anything! Just because I might not be privy to what other people know doesn’t mean there is nothing there. What I am saying is, there seems to be enough people in the community asking for an investigation. So why not have one. You and a couple of others seem to think that just because some of us care about openness in government and some kind of watch for the court system we must be one of the people protesting.
I have a question…If we have such an elaborate, expensive justice system, why do we not have quality representatives placed in those positions?
Themis et al [quote]there seems to be enough people in the community asking for an investigation[/quote]
What percentage of Yolo County’s population of 200,849 (2010 US Census) do you all think this very small group represents? Is that small percentage truly “enough” people, really? Exactly how many supporters are there, again?
“What percentage of Yolo County’s population of 200,849 (2010 US Census) do you all think this very small group represents? Is that small percentage truly “enough” people, really? Exactly how many supporters are there, again?”
AdRemmer just because a small percentage of people are asking for an investigation doesn’t mean there is nothing there. What is so wrong with finding answers? I still haven’t heard anyone on this website offer a decent answer as to why the DA’s office shouldn’t be investigated about “Cash for Convictions.” As a matter of fact, aside from the protesters this website has also addressed the issue. As I have said before oversight is important.
“You totally sidestepped my question – which is more likely to be biased, a juror, or family members of the defendant convicted by the juror?”
In the abstract, without any additional evidence, the family member. However, in this case, I know for a fact that this particular juror (A) is wrong about some claims she made here and (B) has made a series of erroneous claims to investigators. Also a lot of family members not directly related to Mr. Dev, but related by marriage. It is not clear that his wife’s family is automatically going to stand by Mr. Dev. I could certainly see a lot of scenarios where they would not if they had a hint that he was guilty. But in the main, the juror made errors, the family has always backed up their contentions with examples from the court record.
[quote]That is the key question – where are the grants coming from? Gov’t? Private non-profits? But I don’t think there would be anything stopping the legislature from passing a law that disallowed such grants – except the prosecutor’s lobby![/quote]
Generally they are government grants. The police and corrections lobbies might have a say as well. To answer your main question, I think the grant situation destabilizes the system enough that they ought not to do it. Moreover it gives law enforcement a tremendous advantage over the defense.
“What I am saying is, there seems to be enough people in the community asking for an investigation. So why not have one”
I would just say, there will be one, it will be by the appellate court, I think that needs to play out first before the family should look at additional potential remedies.
[i][quote][u]JS[/u]: “I find it interesting that the Vanguard discounts an actual juror’s viewpoint in the case, but somehow implicitly believes family members of the defendant that was convicted by the jury. Which one is more objective, a jury or family members of the defendant?”
[u]David[/u]: “This is the point I made to Rexroad, the jury was recalling information from two years before and got that information wrong. If that is the case, why are they entitled to carte blanche acceptance if they had factual errors in their account of what happened?”[/quote][/i]I went to Rexroad’s article, but couldn’t find any response from you. Where can it be found?
I’m sort of at a loss trying to comment before I’ve had a chance to see what you said to Rexroad. Without reading your comments to Rexroad, I can’t understand how you get to the charge that anyone said a real juror in this case is “entitled to carte blanche acceptance.”
You imply all of the juror’s posted recollections are wrong. Granted that [u]everyone[/u] involved is talking about old happenings, but can’t you be specific about what you think the juror got wrong in the post supporting Rexroad’s stand?
Might Mr. Dev’s family/supporters also be subject to memory lapses? Anyway, you’ve avoided dealing with my point/question about the relative objectiveness of jurors and family members about the trial that resulted in Mr. Dev’s conviction on so many counts.
high beam, I saw some posts that mentioned the judge would be deciding appeal issues, but didn’t see anything about the process or the issues under consideration. DidI miss something?