Deputy DA Sanctioned For Asking Improper Questions –
It was as straightforward a murder case as you will find. There were just two days of evidence in which three witnesses came forward to say that Ignacio Mendoza walked up to his wife in an orchard outside of Zamora and shot and killed her. The closing statements actually took less time in their entirety than the jury instructions.
Mr. Mendoza faces life without the possibility of parole.
According to Deputy District Attorney Larry Eichele, on May 26, 2007, Mr. Mendoza drove into an orchard where his wife, Ms. Benitez, was working and asked her to come with him. Ms. Benitez repeatedly said “No, I will not come with you.”
Mr. Mendoza was then asked to leave by the orchard supervisor. He then drove out of the orchard but immediately circled back around.
Mr. Mendoza pulled out a shotgun from the car and pointed it at his wife. At this point, Ms. Benitez said, “If you are going to shoot me, you will shoot me here.”
“A fellow worker tried to calm Mendoza,” the District Attorney said in a press release late Thursday afternoon, “but his efforts were futile and Mendoza fired one shot from four feet that killed his wife after she refused his demands. Mendoza fled the scene and traveled to Mexico.”
The press release continued, “Yolo County Sheriff’s deputies, working with the FBI developed leads to locate Mendoza in Mexico. In December of 2007 an international warrant was issued and on April 1, 2010 Mendoza was arrested in Mexico. Mendoza was brought back to Yolo County to face trial in October 2010.”
In his closing argument, Mr. Eichele argued that this was simply a cold-blooded killing – willful and deliberate. He said that the elements are all there, there is no surprise ending, and no doubt about who did the killing.
Mr. Eichele argued that it was first degree murder under theories of law, and that it did not matter whether the jury agreed under which theory the first degree murder could be derived. First, he argued that this was a premeditated and willful murder, and secondly that it is first degree murder under the felony crime theory, in which he was attempting to kidnap his wife and during the commission of that felony murdered her.
Defense Attorney Sally Fredericksen, of the Public Defender’s Office, said the issue in question was whether this was a first or second degree murder.
She called it a killing that resulted from upheavel and passion, not an intent to kill premeditatedly. She said, “March 26 was a tragic day for the Mendoza Family.”
The couple had been married for 15 years, but during the spring of 2007, Mr. Mendoza was not living at home.
Some weeks prior to the killing, he had attempted to speak with his wife at the house, but she said, “No, I don’t want to talk”
On the day of the tragic incident, he went by the house again and she was not home. He told his children who were home that he loved them very much.
He went to the orchard after leaving the home. Upon arrival at the orchard, he was asked to leave because there were people at work.
Mr. Mendoza was waiting on the paved road next to the dirt path on which people were working. He pulled out a shotgun which he had in the car and pointed it at Ms. Benitez.
Ms. Benitez said “Shoot me now, if you want to kill me.” The shotgun was immediately fired in Ms. Benitez’s chest and she was pronounced dead. It was an “immediate senseless attack that was not supposed to take place,” Ms. Fredericksen said.
“Mr. Mendoza cared for his wife very much,” his attorney argued.
Ms. Fredericksen said that the defendant did not intentionally shoot Ms. Benitez. “Mr. Mendoza pulled out the shotgun and it just went off.” But even she did not argue involuntary manslaughter.
In her closing statement, she argued that there were no threats by him, no threat to kidnap her. He was loud and agitated.
She argued against the kidnapping, stating that while the prosecutor focuses on the dialogue, he ignores the actions and the fact that there was no movement of substantial distance that would justify a kidnapping charge.
She argued that the wife was bold when she said, if you are going to shoot me, do it now, because she knew the mentality of her husband and that she knew he would not kill her.
Mr. Eichele, in his rebuttal, argued that at this point, she had simply had enough and wanted out, and if Mr. Mendoza was going to kill her, she wanted it in front of witnesses.
The jury took only a few hours to decide that Mr. Mendoza was guilty on all charges. Few can argue that they may have reached the wrong verdict here. The DA, however, was not willing to offer less than Life Without the Possibility of Parole, which is the maximum penalty that Mr. Mendoza faces, anyway.
The result is that a case that really was not in dispute, yet had to go to trial for four days, when it could have been settled at 15 years to life – which most likely would have put away Mr. Mendoza for the rest of his life, anyway.
Despite the relatively straightforward nature of this case and trial, the fact that Mr. Mendoza said these things in front of numerous witnesses and ultimately shot his wife in front of them, nevertheless there was a small bit of drama.
The DA was questioning Barba De Garcia, who was at the orchard on the day of the shooting. During the course of questioning, Mr. Eichele asked misleading questions twice and had the be admonished.
Finally, Judge David Rosenberg sent the jury out of the room. Once they were out of the room, Judge Rosenberg stated that Deputy DA Eichele had persistently asked misleading questions and had ignored his admonishments. He therefore was given sanctions.
After some discussion, the Judge decided to excuse the witness from further testimony and allow the trial to resume.
While the DA issued a press release at 4:45 pm on Thursday afternoon, they mentioned none of this. They did, however, mention that Mr. Mendoza would be sentenced on September 8, 2011.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David
Not until the end if the story do you give evidence to justify the headline. I am perplexed by the reason for the story. Except maybe that the case need not have gone to trial?
I’m perplexed by the question, it was a murder case that we covered, considering it was a slam dunk, it was somewhat interesting.
We complain about spending an extra $40,000 on a city manager, this was an extra $25K (at least) for a four day trial when the only disagreement is whether a parole board will get to look at this guy in 15 years to see if he should be paroled.
Why in heaven’s name would you want this guy to even have a chance of being released in 15 years? Frankly, if I had been the DA, I would have been infuriated at some of the ridiculous statements made by the defense, to wit:
[quote] It was an “immediate senseless attack that was not supposed to take place,” Ms. Fredericksen said.
“Mr. Mendoza cared for his wife very much,” his attorney argued.
Ms. Fredericksen said that the defendant did not intentionally shoot Ms. Benitez. “Mr. Mendoza pulled out the shotgun and it just went off.” [/quote]
Again the Vanguard bashing the prosecution for not doing an unconscionable pro-defense plea deal for what was a righteous case… #$%@^&^%$#$@ (can you see the steam coming out of this email?)
EMR
Please forgive my lack of knowledge. Is your use of the word ” righteous” a legal term, and if so what does it mean in that context? Or were you using it as measure of your sentiment about the case.
I just have one problem with life without parole in a case like this. After, pick an age at which you feel comfortable, 70, 80 ?, there is virtually statistically no chance of him reoffending (with thanks to rrdcanning for his expertise). By that many years down the road, any credence factor from his individual case would long have passed leaving only the vengeance argument still operative. I would prefer not to be spending the amount of money necessary to keep a harmless old man in prison. This is not me being soft on crime. If it didn’t cost us anything, I would be all for locking first degree muderers up and “throwing away the key”. This is about me preferring a softer and gentler approach to the taxpayers wallet.
Sorry, that should have read “deterence” factor. Or maybe evn my iPad finds me lacking in credibility ?
[quote]Please forgive my lack of knowledge. Is your use of the word ” righteous” a legal term, and if so what does it mean in that context? Or were you using it as measure of your sentiment about the case.
I just have one problem with life without parole in a case like this. After, pick an age at which you feel comfortable, 70, 80 ?, there is virtually statistically no chance of him reoffending (with thanks to rrdcanning for his expertise). By that many years down the road, any credence factor from his individual case would long have passed leaving only the vengeance argument still operative. I would prefer not to be spending the amount of money necessary to keep a harmless old man in prison. This is not me being soft on crime. If it didn’t cost us anything, I would be all for locking first degree muderers up and “throwing away the key”. This is about me preferring a softer and gentler approach to the taxpayers wallet.[/quote]
Thoughtful response. My use of the word “righteous” was my emotional outburst at such a heinous crime. I see absolutely nothing untoward about the prosecution going after a life-without-parole sentence. 15 years-to-life for this killiing? The defendant could be out in 15 years (if he is 35 now, he would be 50 years old), especially if he behaves himself and/or the prisons are overcrowded.
Secondly, justice is also about deterrence. What message is sent to women of domestic violence, if this guy were to get off in 15 years? Think about that long and hard. If you know anything about domestic violence, the most dangerous time is when the woman has had enough of the abuse and tries to leave, as this woman was trying to do.
I cannot believe the Vanguard could suggest the DA should have accepted a plea deal of a mere 15 years-to-life for a crime like this. This is a prime example of the ridiculous bias YJW is showing against the local DA, that oftentimes is completely unwarranted and brings into question the credibility of dmg on matters involving our court system…
I don’t necessarily think a 4 day trial for murder is too much or asking for life without parol, however I do think the DA’s office does need to begin comparing the cost to incarcerate vs. the real threat to society the defendant poses.
“Finally, Judge David Rosenberg sent the jury out of the room. Once they were out of the room, Judge Rosenberg stated that Deputy DA Eichele had persistently asked misleading questions and had ignored his admonishments. He therefore was given sanctions.”
I remember reading in post articles that judges admonished defense attorneys in front of the jury. Do you think they have learned from their mistakes or is this preferential treatment for the prosecutors?
Themis do you have a mechanism for [quote]comparing the cost to incarcerate vs. the real threat to society the defendant poses.
[/quote]?
Think Garrido…
The guy is guilty of first degree murder for the public murder of his wife and you are complaining about the 5 digit cost of his trial! Have you totally lost it? When the cost of trying capital cases is more important then justice we have completely lost our bearings as a society. Now the savings provided by not giving the guy a cell on death row might be worth arguing, but, if, in your blinded animosity for the DA, you want to attack Reisig for bringing murderers to trial instead of pleading them out to save a few bucks I think you should check your meds.
[i][quote]“Finally, Judge David Rosenberg sent the jury out of the room. Once they were out of the room, Judge Rosenberg stated that Deputy DA Eichele had persistently asked misleading questions and had ignored his admonishments. He therefore was given sanctions.”[/quote][/i]What sanctions were imposed?
“What sanctions were imposed? “
He did not disclose that.
“Why in heaven’s name would you want this guy to even have a chance of being released in 15 years?”
Because I’ve watched the parole board deny every 30 year old murder request for parole, if they want to release him in 30 years, when he’s 70, I hardly think that’s worth it.
The point is, that DA could have taken the Second Degree Murder, probably gotten a similar ultimate result, and saved the county by my figures at least $25,000 perhaps more.
“I see absolutely nothing untoward about the prosecution going after a life-without-parole sentence.”
It’s a matter of resource allocation. If defense is willing to give you second degree and life, why not take it? Put your resources towards another case.
BTW, I made the comment in passing, I see no language that could reasonably be construed as bashing.
“Frankly, if I had been the DA, I would have been infuriated at some of the ridiculous statements made by the defense, to wit: “
You’d be infuriated by the defense trying to minimize the crime and appeal to the jury for mercy on her client? You wouldn’t last long as a DA if you got infuriated at every single trial. LOL.
“The guy is guilty of first degree murder for the public murder of his wife and you are complaining about the 5 digit cost of his trial! Have you totally lost it? When the cost of trying capital cases is more important then justice we have completely lost our bearings as a society.”
I respectfully disagree. We have a finite amount of money. I fail to understand the functional difference in the ultimate outcome. If you get defense to take a plea for life, you take you chances that no parole board is going to let the guy go before he’s too old to do anything to anyone. It’s not like he’d have been out in 15 years, he’d be eligible for parole at that point. So why not take economics into consideration?
medwoman,
Why do you suppose an old man is harmless?
I hope to live to be a crotchety old bastard at 80; with my shotgun by my side.
And don’t you dare try to deny me my right to be!
[quote]“What sanctions were imposed? ”
He did not disclose that.[/quote]
Then how the heck could you possibly KNOW what sanctions (other than perhaps a “tsk, tsk”) were imposed, if what took place was behind closed doors?
[quote]If you get defense to take a plea for life, you take you chances that no parole board is going to let the guy go before he’s too old to do anything to anyone.[/quote]
You also take the chance the parole will let him go in 15 years for good behavior or if the prisons are overcrowded – a very real possibility. It also sends a clear message that women are only worth 15 years of a man’s life. Are you friggin’ kidding me? This is by far the absolute worst conclusion/opinion you have come up with thus far – that a woman’s life should only be worth $25,000 court costs or 15 years of a man’s life, whichever is less! I cannot conceive you actually believe your own drivel…
Sorry to be so harsh, but you really hit a nerve w this one. You clearly do not understand domestic violence AT ALL…
[quote]Because I’ve watched the parole board deny every 30 year old murder request for parole, if they want to release him in 30 years, when he’s 70, I hardly think that’s worth it. [/quote]
How many parole board hearings have you watched? Obviously not enough. You might want to rethink your uninformed opinion –
Only tiny portion of a much larger list from website http://www.wesleylowe.com/repoff.html
[quote]John McRae — Michigan/Florida. Life for murder of 8-year-old boy. Pedophile. Paroled 1971. Convicted of another murder of a boy after parole, in Michigan 1998. Charges pending on 2 other counts in Florida.
—————————————
John Miller — California. Killed an infant 1957, convicted of murder, 1958. Paroled 1975. Killed his parents 1975. Life term 1975.
—————————————
Michael Lawrence — Florida. Killed robbery victim. Life term, 1976. Paroled 1985. Killed robbery victim. Condemned 1990.
—————————————
Donald Dillbeck — Florida. Killed policeman in 1979. Escaped from prison in 1990, kidnapped and killed female motorist after escape. Condemned 1991.
—————————————
Edward Kennedy — Florida. Killed motel clerk. Sentenced to Life. Escaped 1981. Killed policeman and male civilian after prison break. Executed 1992.
—————————————
Dawud Mu’Min — Virginia. Killed cab driver in holdup. Sentenced 1973. Escaped 1988. Raped/killed woman 1988. Condemned 1989. Executed 1997.
—————————————
Viva Nash — Utah/Arizona. Two terms of life for murder in Utah, 1978. Escaped in 1982. Murdered again. Condemned in Arizona, 1983.[/quote]
From wikipedia:
[quote]In 1994, Vikernes was convicted of the murder of his Mayhem bandmate Øystein Aarseth, known by his stage name Euronymous. Vikernes was further convicted of four counts of arson involving the burnings of historic churches, and was sentenced to 21 years in prison. Having served almost 16 years of his sentence, Vikernes was released on parole in early 2009.[3][4][/quote]
From baynews9.com:
[quote]Giddens charged in new murder
Now, months later, authorities have arrested Giddens for the murder of another woman.
After serving only 15 years of a 35-year murder sentence, Giddens was released from prison at the beginning of this year.
Giddens faces a new charge of strangling an adult dancer in Orlando in January, 16 days after he was released from Hardee Correctional Institute.[/quote]
From sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com:
[quote]SAN QUENTIN (CBS SF) – After 24 years of incarceration, Ernest Morgan, who was freed from San Quentin State Prison Thursday morning, planned to head to Mama’s restaurant in San Francisco’s North Beach with his family for an omelette.
He also intends to take in a Giants game and a 49ers game soon, but his top priority is spending with his loved ones and getting to know them again.
In September 1987, Morgan shot and killed his 14-year-old stepsister Chari McCline when she came home as he was burglarizing his stepfather’s apartment in Oakland. He was 18 at the time.
He was later convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. He ended up spending more than two decades behind bars, the last 13 years at San Quentin….Morgan was supposed to be freed by Wednesday, his 42nd birthday, but his release was delayed by bureaucratic obstacles, his family and his lawyer Johanna Hoffmann said.[/quote]
Need I say more?
[quote]Why do you suppose an old man is harmless?
I hope to live to be a crotchety old bastard at 80; with my shotgun by my side.
And don’t you dare try to deny me my right to be! [/quote]
To medwoman: DO NOT ASSUME A MAN IS HARMLESS AT 80 YRS OLD. I remember watching a reality police show, where a man nearly 90 years old, surrounded by guns and drunk as a skunk, was threatening to shoot his wife in her late 80’s. The police chose to call the man’s adult son, who removed all the guns from the house and took them to his own home. He also took his mom home for the night until the dad “slept it off”. Apparently you are not well educated on domestic violence, which takes place among the elderly quite frequently. Those suffering from dementia and Alzheimer’s Disease can become quite violent (especially in their sleep), and so can their caregivers who become very frustrated.
[quote][b]”Deputy DA Sanctioned For Asking Improper Questions”[/b][/quote]What things did he say? This is one of the more interesting elements to this “straightforward murder case” report. Why would an Deputy DA get himself in in a position where he “persistently asked misleading questions and had ignored (Judge Rosenberg ‘s) admonishments”?
Usually a judge’s warning is adequate to stop bad behavior in the courtroom. Does Mr. Eichele have a history of this? And where is he planning to be working in the future?
ERM
I actually am quite well acquainted with domestic violence. And I agree with you that the safety of women trumps the cost of a trial and the cost of incarceration. But I also feel that anecdotal evidence regarding the violent potential of some elderly does not mean that prison is necessarily the most cost effective means of safely housing the extreme elderly.
Jimt
I make no such assumption about the afety or lack thereof of any particular individual. And your post illustrates this point nicely. You may indeed be highly dangerous at 80. Another individual may be feeble, wheelchair bound, and completely unable to lift a weapon even if they could acquire it. The problem with life without the possibility of parole is that it takes away any opportunity to distinguish between the two and locks us into an expensive incarceration of the harmless as well as the potentially dangerous.
One problem with the lists and examples posted by Elaine is that they do not tell the other side of the story. What we can’t compare with is a similar list of individuals who have pulled their lives together, eventually been released and lived constructive lives nev repeat offending.
“Then how the heck could you possibly KNOW what sanctions (other than perhaps a “tsk, tsk”) were imposed, if what took place was behind closed doors?”
First of all, it did not take place behind closed doors, it took place in open court but outside of the presence of the jury. All the Judge said was that he was going to sanction the attorney. He did not say what the sanctions were.
“Sorry to be so harsh, but you really hit a nerve w this one. You clearly do not understand domestic violence AT ALL… “
I would suggest that you are too close to this issue to have any sort of objectivity. I don’t think this guy would have been paroled in 15 years. More to the point, when we are forced to cut funding, I think anytime you can save trial expenses, you ought to do it. You are so concerned about domestic violence, but appear not at all concerned that we are cutting funding that could go toward prevention and other efforts.
“Usually a judge’s warning is adequate to stop bad behavior in the courtroom. Does Mr. Eichele have a history of this? And where is he planning to be working in the future?”
I don’t know the history. My sense has always been Eichele is one of the more reasonable guys in that department.
“One problem with the lists and examples posted by Elaine is that they do not tell the other side of the story. What we can’t compare with is a similar list of individuals who have pulled their lives together, eventually been released and lived constructive lives nev repeat offending”
Actually the lists and examples posted by Elaine omit too much:
1. What percentages of cases are paroled at all, my suspicion is that that number is exceedingly low
2. What percentage of paroled cases result in recidivism
3. Did the parole board ignore risks in those case?
To me without knowing particularly the answer to the first two questions, she might be cherrypicking a few results that back up her point missing that she is arguing a point based on exceptions rather than the rule.
[quote]First of all, it did not take place behind closed doors, it took place in open court but outside of the presence of the jury. All the Judge said was that he was going to sanction the attorney. He did not say what the sanctions were.[/quote]
Then you have no idea if the sanction was a mere “tsk, tsk” or anything more severe.
[quote]I would suggest that you are too close to this issue to have any sort of objectivity. I don’t think this guy would have been paroled in 15 years. More to the point, when we are forced to cut funding, I think anytime you can save trial expenses, you ought to do it. You are so concerned about domestic violence, but appear not at all concerned that we are cutting funding that could go toward prevention and other efforts.[/quote]
1) Perhaps you are too far from this issue/uneducated on the issue to have any sort of objectivity.
2) Based on research, it is clear that it is not uncommon for those who receive a sentence of 15 years to life to get out in 15 years. So your statement that it is unlikely to happen is factually incorrect.
3) You want to save trial expenses every time it can be done, ergo the prosecution should except every defense deal offered to save the time and money of a trial. Is that the position you really want to take?
4) I think a woman’s life is worth more than $25,000 or 15 years of a man’s life.
5) You did not answer a single one of my comments on domestic violence, the deterrence effect, and what message would be sent if this man had gotten off with a 15 year to life sentence.
[quote]I actually am quite well acquainted with domestic violence. And I agree with you that the safety of women trumps the cost of a trial and the cost of incarceration. But I also feel that anecdotal evidence regarding the violent potential of some elderly does not mean that prison is necessarily the most cost effective means of safely housing the extreme elderly.[/quote]
I am not suggesting incarceration is the only means to handle domestic violence among the elderly, as my discussion of the police reality show clearly describes. It was a simple intervention, with no law enforcement action per se. Clearly it will depend on the circumstances involved. But in the case described in the Vanguard article, the defendant was NOT ELDERLY. THe article itself does not state his age, but it intimates he could be as young as 30 years old. That would mean if he was sentenced to 15 years to life, he could be out when he was 45 years old. THAT IS NOT ELDERLY BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION, and young enough to get involved w another woman and kill her. It happens all the time, as my research shows.
[quote]One problem with the lists and examples posted by Elaine is that they do not tell the other side of the story. What we can’t compare with is a similar list of individuals who have pulled their lives together, eventually been released and lived constructive lives nev repeat offending.[/quote]
The dead victims don’t get to pull their lives back together…
And how often/how likely is it domestic violence offenders “pull their lives together” and stop offending? For most, it is a way of life, a permanent attitude towards women. This case is a prime example – “if I can’t have you, then no one will”… Think about it…
[quote]Actually the lists and examples posted by Elaine omit too much:
1. What percentages of cases are paroled at all, my suspicion is that that number is exceedingly low
2. What percentage of paroled cases result in recidivism
3. Did the parole board ignore risks in those case?
To me without knowing particularly the answer to the first two questions, she might be cherrypicking a few results that back up her point missing that she is arguing a point based on exceptions rather than the rule.[/quote]
I did a quick internet search, and came up with specific examples that refute your GUESS that 15 year-to-lifers never get paroled. Who is cherry picking here? You are cherry picking out of thin air. At least I did some very quick research and proved you wrong.
From the CA Dept of Corrections:
[quote]Suitability criteria
Parole hearings are not to decide guilt or innocence. The BPH accepts as fact the guilty verdict imposed by the courts. The purpose of a parole hearing is to determine if or when an inmate can be returned to society. Under normal circumstances, the panel or the Board shall set a release date unless it determines that the gravity of the crime (offense), or the timing and gravity of current or past convictions, requires a more lengthy period of incarceration to ensure public safety.
In general, some of the factors considered by the panel and which are discussed in the hearing include:
*counseling reports and psychological evaluations
*behavior in prison (ie, disciplinary notices or laudatory accomplishments)
*vocational and educational accomplishments in prison
*involvement in self-help therapy programs that can range from anti-*addiction programs for drugs and alcohol to anger management
*parole plans, including where an inmate would live and support themselves if they were released[/quote]
You want to err on the side of the convicted. I want to err on the side of public safety. My guess is more people are of my view than yours.
You didn’t answer my question, what is the universe that your examples come out of? Also, my observation comes from the string of denied paroles we have seen coming out of this county. There was only one example of an approved parole, it was 30 years after the fact and overturned by Governor Brown. That’s my basis, and I never said never, I said it was unlikely. And he is released after 30 years, I fail to see the functional difference.
[quote]You didn’t answer my question, what is the universe that your examples come out of? Also, my observation comes from the string of denied paroles we have seen coming out of this county. There was only one example of an approved parole, it was 30 years after the fact and overturned by Governor Brown. That’s my basis, and I never said never, I said it was unlikely. And he is released after 30 years, I fail to see the functional difference.[/quote]
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. I came up with specific examples where defendants get out after 15 years and murder again. You came up with a mere guess that it isn’t likely to happen when in fact it does happen. You want me to prove a negative to bolster your thin air argument – that it does not happen that often. But the fact of the matter is – IT DOES HAPPEN. The jury apparently agreed w me…
Secondly, you still have not answered my questions on domestic violence and what a woman’s life is worth (and by the way, domestic violence also happens to men, just with less frequency)…
medwoman,
Point conceded; I do think that many convicts undergo a genuine change of heart & attitude and are no longer a danger after a long decade or three in prison.
Certainly, at minimum they must at least be able to maintain a civil appearance in order to qualify for parole consideration; I would venture to guess most felons can at least manage that.
At the same time; I would not necessarily oppose death penalty imposition for a crime like this. It is a matter of personal responsibility and accountability for the murderer; anyone who is willing to take someone else’s life like this must concede to have his own life taken in return. This is respecting each person as having free will and being responsible for his actions; instead of viewing and treating him like an animal who is at the mercy of his impulses and the environment.
There are a lot of delusions that take place here at the Vanguard and this particular story and the comments that have followed it bring those delusions into sharp relief.
The first delusion is David’s. If I take his words at face value, he actually believes that he knows better than anyone else on the planet the minds, intentions, morals, and ethics of the people involved in these cases. He apparently deems himself qualified to render an opinion on whether the defendant in this case is likely to hurt anyone else, for example.
He may actually believe such a ridiculous proposition.
I do not, however, take David’s words at face value and that’s where the delusions of others posting here are important.
Story after story has plainly been intended to attack the District Attorney’s office and support defense attorneys. Anyone with half a wit of objectivity recognizes the bias. David has, for example, written that by and large members of the DA’s office are shady and underhanded while writing that by and large every defense attorney he has met is ethical and honest.
So many of you know that what he writes on this topic is far from objective and that there is a goal other than providing factual information. Elaine, you have acknowledged as much several times.
Remember when he said the Yolo Judicial Watch was going to have less editorial and more factual reporting? That obviously has not occurred. There are many ways to bias a story as you have seen since.
More important, it is a delusion to think that only his stories about the DA’s office contain bias and ulterior motives.
So regular commenters are deluding themselves when they view stories on which they happen to agree with David’s general argument are any less biased and less disingenuous.
Nothing that is written at the Vanguard can be considered journalism or “reporting.” It is David’s personal bully pulpit – one that he uses to advance his causes and the causes of his friends – and he will work the story around to fit whatever message he wants it to convey.
Those who continue to engage him as if the Vanguard was anything else are, wittingly or unwittingly, abetting him in his goals and stoking his delusion.
[quote]Those who continue to engage him as if the Vanguard was anything else are, wittingly or unwittingly, abetting him in his goals and stoking his delusion.[/quote]
If it is allowed to go unchallenged, it misleads the public. That is one of my greatest concerns about YJW, and why I try and stay patient and address issues that I believe the Vanguard has misunderstood or gotten wrong. You are correct that I am fully aware of the bias of YJW against the Yolo County DA in favor of the defense, no matter the case/situation. This is unfortunate, bc I think at times YJW makes valid points, but its extreme bias has undermined its credibility on any and all points.
Sanity Defense
I believe that most of the people who read David’s posts are capable of making the distinction between David’s factual statements and his opinions. On those occasions when it is not clear, David has usually answered queries within a reasonable amount of time. I also think those of us who follow these posts are capable of detecting bias. I find it rather patronizing to suggest that because people agree with some of David’s points (and in the comparatively short time I have been following the YJW, I have not encountered many people who do not appear to question, challenge or disagree with David at least some of the time). I also do not see why David’s apparent bias should be seen as undermining the YJW credibility on “any and all points”. Again this would suggest that people do not have the ability to judge each assertion on it’s own merits.