Suddenly Yolo County Public Defender announced that his office has a conflict of interest and can no longer represent Mr. Topete. Mr. Melton gave no reason as to what the conflict of interest was.
In a statement filed before court, Mr. Melton wrote:
“The Public Defender’s Office cannot professionally and ethically represent the defendant herein without breaching professional and ethical duties and responsibilities.”
The decision by the Yolo County Public Defender leaves many unanswered questions. One question will be apparently answered on August 8, 2008, when a Sacramento Judge will hear whether or not to remove presiding Yolo County Judge Dave Rosenberg from the case.
Sacramento Superior Court Judge David De Alba can only rule on the public defender’s request to remove Dave Rosenberg. He cannot consider the defense challenger to the other Yolo County Judges because they have already disqualified themselves (in the case of three judges) or had not been assigned to hear the case at all.
A Brief Look At The Issue of Change of Venue
The question has been repeatedly been raised here and elsewhere, why they have not simply moved for a change of revenue. The answer seems to be there are several reasons. First, Judge Rosenberg would be the person who made the decision on whether there will be a change of venue and the Public Defender’s office clear believes they cannot get a fair trial under Judge Rosenberg. Moreover the criteria for a change of venue may be difficult to establish.
According to California Case law there are “five relevant factors” that have been established for deciding venue motion based on pretrial publicity. There are: “1. nature and gravity of the offense; 2. nature and extent of the media coverage; 3. size of the community; 4. community status of the defendant; and 5. prominence of the victim.”
Furthermore, California Penal Code § 1033 sets forth grounds by which and at what point a change of venue can occur.
Subsection (a) lays forward cause:
“On motion of the defendant, to another county when it appears that there is a reasonable likelihood that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the county.”
But also states that only the trial itself can be moved to another county, the pretrial proceedings shall all occur in the original venue.
“When a change of venue is ordered by the superior court, it shall be for the trial itself. All proceedings before trial shall occur in the county of original venue, except when it is evident that a particular proceeding must be heard by the judge who is to preside over the trial.”
From this it appears then, that pretrial proceedings which are currently going forth, necessarily have to occur in the original venue.
Furthermore, from case law:
“A motion for change of the place of trial must be based upon facts and circumstances from which the conclusion may be deducted by the court that a fair and impartial trial cannot otherwise be obtained.”
One of the standards is pretrial publicity makes it impossible to get a fair and impartial jury. While this case has received a fair amount of pretrial publicity, it is unlikely that the level rises to the standard needed. This has hardly been an OJ Simpson case of such high and sustained publicity that everyone has heard of this case.
Moreover, a disqualification of a judge is not sufficient to move venue.
Based on my limited reading of statutes and case law, it appears most likely that the strategy of the public defender’s office was to disqualify as the Yolo County Judges which would give them a pretty strong case for change of venue.
However, it frankly seems unlikely that even Judge Rosenberg will be disqualified. So despite the strange turns of this case, it seems probable that it will be heard in Yolo County and by Judge Rosenberg.
Then again it is probably safer to hedge a bit given the strange turn of events this week that now sees the Public Defender bow out of this case. That will require someone else to be appointed to represent Mr. Topete. Again, this will not be grounds for change of venue either it would appear.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
this is why it is so much easier in dealing with cop killers when you have “suspect shot while resisting arrest”… (oops, I meant accused cop killers)
this is why it is so much easier in dealing with cop killers when you have “suspect shot while resisting arrest”… (oops, I meant accused cop killers)
this is why it is so much easier in dealing with cop killers when you have “suspect shot while resisting arrest”… (oops, I meant accused cop killers)
this is why it is so much easier in dealing with cop killers when you have “suspect shot while resisting arrest”… (oops, I meant accused cop killers)
I’m not practicing law in the criminal arena. However, DPD, your analysis does not deal with the issue that the victim was well-established around the courthouse in at least two job categories. It seems to me there is a huge conflict of interest?
I would like the case to stay here, as all the players are local, and it should be handled locally. However, given the victim’s long established relationship with the courthouse personnel at all levels, and the Sheriff’s Dept who handles security there, I remain skeptical that the case can fairly stay in Woodland. Do any of us want to give the defendant something to appeal later for years and years? Supreme Court caselaw is made from cases like this one.
I’m not practicing law in the criminal arena. However, DPD, your analysis does not deal with the issue that the victim was well-established around the courthouse in at least two job categories. It seems to me there is a huge conflict of interest?
I would like the case to stay here, as all the players are local, and it should be handled locally. However, given the victim’s long established relationship with the courthouse personnel at all levels, and the Sheriff’s Dept who handles security there, I remain skeptical that the case can fairly stay in Woodland. Do any of us want to give the defendant something to appeal later for years and years? Supreme Court caselaw is made from cases like this one.
I’m not practicing law in the criminal arena. However, DPD, your analysis does not deal with the issue that the victim was well-established around the courthouse in at least two job categories. It seems to me there is a huge conflict of interest?
I would like the case to stay here, as all the players are local, and it should be handled locally. However, given the victim’s long established relationship with the courthouse personnel at all levels, and the Sheriff’s Dept who handles security there, I remain skeptical that the case can fairly stay in Woodland. Do any of us want to give the defendant something to appeal later for years and years? Supreme Court caselaw is made from cases like this one.
I’m not practicing law in the criminal arena. However, DPD, your analysis does not deal with the issue that the victim was well-established around the courthouse in at least two job categories. It seems to me there is a huge conflict of interest?
I would like the case to stay here, as all the players are local, and it should be handled locally. However, given the victim’s long established relationship with the courthouse personnel at all levels, and the Sheriff’s Dept who handles security there, I remain skeptical that the case can fairly stay in Woodland. Do any of us want to give the defendant something to appeal later for years and years? Supreme Court caselaw is made from cases like this one.
Mike – He hasn’t been convicted yet. However, you are worried that holding the trial in Yolo County will open the door to an appeal overturning his conviction.
I guess that you won’t be part of an impartial jury pool.
I’m sorry, but how well known and well liked the victim was around the courthouse has nothing to do with where the trial occurs. As for the local sheriff’s department providing security during the trial, maybe it would be cheaper to hire an outside agency to provide security, than it would be to move the entire trial. Topete is already being housed over in Sacramento. If local deputies wanted to attend the hearings, they could be made to come in their street clothes to avoid the intimidation that is occurring right now. The jury would not have to view the “show of force” and be able to concentrate on the facts of the case.
Mike – He hasn’t been convicted yet. However, you are worried that holding the trial in Yolo County will open the door to an appeal overturning his conviction.
I guess that you won’t be part of an impartial jury pool.
I’m sorry, but how well known and well liked the victim was around the courthouse has nothing to do with where the trial occurs. As for the local sheriff’s department providing security during the trial, maybe it would be cheaper to hire an outside agency to provide security, than it would be to move the entire trial. Topete is already being housed over in Sacramento. If local deputies wanted to attend the hearings, they could be made to come in their street clothes to avoid the intimidation that is occurring right now. The jury would not have to view the “show of force” and be able to concentrate on the facts of the case.
Mike – He hasn’t been convicted yet. However, you are worried that holding the trial in Yolo County will open the door to an appeal overturning his conviction.
I guess that you won’t be part of an impartial jury pool.
I’m sorry, but how well known and well liked the victim was around the courthouse has nothing to do with where the trial occurs. As for the local sheriff’s department providing security during the trial, maybe it would be cheaper to hire an outside agency to provide security, than it would be to move the entire trial. Topete is already being housed over in Sacramento. If local deputies wanted to attend the hearings, they could be made to come in their street clothes to avoid the intimidation that is occurring right now. The jury would not have to view the “show of force” and be able to concentrate on the facts of the case.
Mike – He hasn’t been convicted yet. However, you are worried that holding the trial in Yolo County will open the door to an appeal overturning his conviction.
I guess that you won’t be part of an impartial jury pool.
I’m sorry, but how well known and well liked the victim was around the courthouse has nothing to do with where the trial occurs. As for the local sheriff’s department providing security during the trial, maybe it would be cheaper to hire an outside agency to provide security, than it would be to move the entire trial. Topete is already being housed over in Sacramento. If local deputies wanted to attend the hearings, they could be made to come in their street clothes to avoid the intimidation that is occurring right now. The jury would not have to view the “show of force” and be able to concentrate on the facts of the case.
Thank you for a legally-based discussion of the change of venue issue.
Thank you for a legally-based discussion of the change of venue issue.
Thank you for a legally-based discussion of the change of venue issue.
Thank you for a legally-based discussion of the change of venue issue.
Mike,
It should not stay local. There is a clear violation.
Since you cannot be impartial then don’t be a part of the jury pool.
Sounds like you are sucking up.
Mike,
It should not stay local. There is a clear violation.
Since you cannot be impartial then don’t be a part of the jury pool.
Sounds like you are sucking up.
Mike,
It should not stay local. There is a clear violation.
Since you cannot be impartial then don’t be a part of the jury pool.
Sounds like you are sucking up.
Mike,
It should not stay local. There is a clear violation.
Since you cannot be impartial then don’t be a part of the jury pool.
Sounds like you are sucking up.
I think that we are much closer to closure on these issues than people realize. Questions associated with the arraignment and venue are going to get resolved shortly (legally speaking, anyway), one way or the other, and the process will start moving forward.
–Richard Estes
I think that we are much closer to closure on these issues than people realize. Questions associated with the arraignment and venue are going to get resolved shortly (legally speaking, anyway), one way or the other, and the process will start moving forward.
–Richard Estes
I think that we are much closer to closure on these issues than people realize. Questions associated with the arraignment and venue are going to get resolved shortly (legally speaking, anyway), one way or the other, and the process will start moving forward.
–Richard Estes
I think that we are much closer to closure on these issues than people realize. Questions associated with the arraignment and venue are going to get resolved shortly (legally speaking, anyway), one way or the other, and the process will start moving forward.
–Richard Estes
Whether the trial remains in Yolo County or is moved to another county the only potential jurors who will remain on the panel are those that can afford not to have to go to work for six to nine months and have their lives put on hold.
My school district had a 6thgrade teacher chosen for a triple inmate/correctional officer slaying at CMF and she was kept out of her class room for almost the entire school year
So the final cut of jury selection will be comprised of retired pensioners,UC Davis and other public employees who will still be paid ,spouses of a principle bread winner and independently wealthy persons.
And remember that is if they are totally ignorant of the facts in the case of a two strike felon taking the life of a deputy whose story is the American Dream.
PD Barry Melton is an excellent defender of the constitutional rights of the accused and his office would have given a “Dream Team” defense but they are conflicted out.
If I were on trial for a capitol offense, I would plead to have my case before Judge Rosenberg for he is obsessive in his fairness to all parties while protecting their constitutional rights
Whether the trial remains in Yolo County or is moved to another county the only potential jurors who will remain on the panel are those that can afford not to have to go to work for six to nine months and have their lives put on hold.
My school district had a 6thgrade teacher chosen for a triple inmate/correctional officer slaying at CMF and she was kept out of her class room for almost the entire school year
So the final cut of jury selection will be comprised of retired pensioners,UC Davis and other public employees who will still be paid ,spouses of a principle bread winner and independently wealthy persons.
And remember that is if they are totally ignorant of the facts in the case of a two strike felon taking the life of a deputy whose story is the American Dream.
PD Barry Melton is an excellent defender of the constitutional rights of the accused and his office would have given a “Dream Team” defense but they are conflicted out.
If I were on trial for a capitol offense, I would plead to have my case before Judge Rosenberg for he is obsessive in his fairness to all parties while protecting their constitutional rights
Whether the trial remains in Yolo County or is moved to another county the only potential jurors who will remain on the panel are those that can afford not to have to go to work for six to nine months and have their lives put on hold.
My school district had a 6thgrade teacher chosen for a triple inmate/correctional officer slaying at CMF and she was kept out of her class room for almost the entire school year
So the final cut of jury selection will be comprised of retired pensioners,UC Davis and other public employees who will still be paid ,spouses of a principle bread winner and independently wealthy persons.
And remember that is if they are totally ignorant of the facts in the case of a two strike felon taking the life of a deputy whose story is the American Dream.
PD Barry Melton is an excellent defender of the constitutional rights of the accused and his office would have given a “Dream Team” defense but they are conflicted out.
If I were on trial for a capitol offense, I would plead to have my case before Judge Rosenberg for he is obsessive in his fairness to all parties while protecting their constitutional rights
Whether the trial remains in Yolo County or is moved to another county the only potential jurors who will remain on the panel are those that can afford not to have to go to work for six to nine months and have their lives put on hold.
My school district had a 6thgrade teacher chosen for a triple inmate/correctional officer slaying at CMF and she was kept out of her class room for almost the entire school year
So the final cut of jury selection will be comprised of retired pensioners,UC Davis and other public employees who will still be paid ,spouses of a principle bread winner and independently wealthy persons.
And remember that is if they are totally ignorant of the facts in the case of a two strike felon taking the life of a deputy whose story is the American Dream.
PD Barry Melton is an excellent defender of the constitutional rights of the accused and his office would have given a “Dream Team” defense but they are conflicted out.
If I were on trial for a capitol offense, I would plead to have my case before Judge Rosenberg for he is obsessive in his fairness to all parties while protecting their constitutional rights
Here is my best guess as to the legal situation at present, as an opinion from an attorney who does not practice criminal law:
According to Cal-Jur, “the general rule is that the determination of an application for a change of place of trial is within the discretion of the court in which the application is made… A court has no power to change the place of trial except in the cases and for the causes specified by express law…if the court designated in the complaint is the proper court, the place of trial cannot be changed except for some reason authorized by the code.”
CA Penal Code gives only two instances under which venue shall be changed, which are
1) On motion of defendent, to another county, when it appears there is a reasonable likelihood that a fair trial cannot be had in the county.
2) On its own motion when it appears it will be impossible to secure a jury to try the cause as a result of exhaustion of the jury panels called.
So it would appear that Judge Rosenberg cannot change venue even if he wants to (unless I am missing something), except if the defendant requests it. Now the defendant’s public defender might try a strategy of keeping the case right where it is, figuring his defendant’s best defense is to raise the issue of a non-public arraignment on appeal, to bolster an argument the defendant did not get a fair trail.
However, I would think it would be mandatory for the defense to raise this issue before trial with a motion to change venue, otherwise the opportunity to argue this may be lost for good? On this point, I am unsure. Can some criminal defense attorney shed light on such a strategy?
This is all by way of saying I believe the ball is in the defendent’s court, in regard to changing venue. Under the circumstances, I would think Judge Rosenberg would be wise to grant such a motion, which as yet has not been made. However, Yolo County will have to pay for the all costs of the trial, whether it is held here or in another county.
Nevertheless, failure to make the arraignment public was a colossally stupid mistake of huge proportion. Why? Because it unnecessarily handed the defense a solid issue to argue on appeal, which if nothing else, will hold up any conviction/execution for extra years to come. It could also cause the prosecution to bargain for life without parole instead of the death penalty, to “nullify” the mistake of a non-public arraignment.
My hope is that Judge Rosenberg has been embarrassed enough to realized he must gain better control of his courts, and the officers that man them. At the very least, some additional training is in order, to make sure the Sheriff’s Dept and all court personnel (including the judges) understand the 6th amendment’s full scope, that demands every part of the criminal proceeding must be held IN PUBLIC – and that would include any arraignment.
Here is my best guess as to the legal situation at present, as an opinion from an attorney who does not practice criminal law:
According to Cal-Jur, “the general rule is that the determination of an application for a change of place of trial is within the discretion of the court in which the application is made… A court has no power to change the place of trial except in the cases and for the causes specified by express law…if the court designated in the complaint is the proper court, the place of trial cannot be changed except for some reason authorized by the code.”
CA Penal Code gives only two instances under which venue shall be changed, which are
1) On motion of defendent, to another county, when it appears there is a reasonable likelihood that a fair trial cannot be had in the county.
2) On its own motion when it appears it will be impossible to secure a jury to try the cause as a result of exhaustion of the jury panels called.
So it would appear that Judge Rosenberg cannot change venue even if he wants to (unless I am missing something), except if the defendant requests it. Now the defendant’s public defender might try a strategy of keeping the case right where it is, figuring his defendant’s best defense is to raise the issue of a non-public arraignment on appeal, to bolster an argument the defendant did not get a fair trail.
However, I would think it would be mandatory for the defense to raise this issue before trial with a motion to change venue, otherwise the opportunity to argue this may be lost for good? On this point, I am unsure. Can some criminal defense attorney shed light on such a strategy?
This is all by way of saying I believe the ball is in the defendent’s court, in regard to changing venue. Under the circumstances, I would think Judge Rosenberg would be wise to grant such a motion, which as yet has not been made. However, Yolo County will have to pay for the all costs of the trial, whether it is held here or in another county.
Nevertheless, failure to make the arraignment public was a colossally stupid mistake of huge proportion. Why? Because it unnecessarily handed the defense a solid issue to argue on appeal, which if nothing else, will hold up any conviction/execution for extra years to come. It could also cause the prosecution to bargain for life without parole instead of the death penalty, to “nullify” the mistake of a non-public arraignment.
My hope is that Judge Rosenberg has been embarrassed enough to realized he must gain better control of his courts, and the officers that man them. At the very least, some additional training is in order, to make sure the Sheriff’s Dept and all court personnel (including the judges) understand the 6th amendment’s full scope, that demands every part of the criminal proceeding must be held IN PUBLIC – and that would include any arraignment.
Here is my best guess as to the legal situation at present, as an opinion from an attorney who does not practice criminal law:
According to Cal-Jur, “the general rule is that the determination of an application for a change of place of trial is within the discretion of the court in which the application is made… A court has no power to change the place of trial except in the cases and for the causes specified by express law…if the court designated in the complaint is the proper court, the place of trial cannot be changed except for some reason authorized by the code.”
CA Penal Code gives only two instances under which venue shall be changed, which are
1) On motion of defendent, to another county, when it appears there is a reasonable likelihood that a fair trial cannot be had in the county.
2) On its own motion when it appears it will be impossible to secure a jury to try the cause as a result of exhaustion of the jury panels called.
So it would appear that Judge Rosenberg cannot change venue even if he wants to (unless I am missing something), except if the defendant requests it. Now the defendant’s public defender might try a strategy of keeping the case right where it is, figuring his defendant’s best defense is to raise the issue of a non-public arraignment on appeal, to bolster an argument the defendant did not get a fair trail.
However, I would think it would be mandatory for the defense to raise this issue before trial with a motion to change venue, otherwise the opportunity to argue this may be lost for good? On this point, I am unsure. Can some criminal defense attorney shed light on such a strategy?
This is all by way of saying I believe the ball is in the defendent’s court, in regard to changing venue. Under the circumstances, I would think Judge Rosenberg would be wise to grant such a motion, which as yet has not been made. However, Yolo County will have to pay for the all costs of the trial, whether it is held here or in another county.
Nevertheless, failure to make the arraignment public was a colossally stupid mistake of huge proportion. Why? Because it unnecessarily handed the defense a solid issue to argue on appeal, which if nothing else, will hold up any conviction/execution for extra years to come. It could also cause the prosecution to bargain for life without parole instead of the death penalty, to “nullify” the mistake of a non-public arraignment.
My hope is that Judge Rosenberg has been embarrassed enough to realized he must gain better control of his courts, and the officers that man them. At the very least, some additional training is in order, to make sure the Sheriff’s Dept and all court personnel (including the judges) understand the 6th amendment’s full scope, that demands every part of the criminal proceeding must be held IN PUBLIC – and that would include any arraignment.
Here is my best guess as to the legal situation at present, as an opinion from an attorney who does not practice criminal law:
According to Cal-Jur, “the general rule is that the determination of an application for a change of place of trial is within the discretion of the court in which the application is made… A court has no power to change the place of trial except in the cases and for the causes specified by express law…if the court designated in the complaint is the proper court, the place of trial cannot be changed except for some reason authorized by the code.”
CA Penal Code gives only two instances under which venue shall be changed, which are
1) On motion of defendent, to another county, when it appears there is a reasonable likelihood that a fair trial cannot be had in the county.
2) On its own motion when it appears it will be impossible to secure a jury to try the cause as a result of exhaustion of the jury panels called.
So it would appear that Judge Rosenberg cannot change venue even if he wants to (unless I am missing something), except if the defendant requests it. Now the defendant’s public defender might try a strategy of keeping the case right where it is, figuring his defendant’s best defense is to raise the issue of a non-public arraignment on appeal, to bolster an argument the defendant did not get a fair trail.
However, I would think it would be mandatory for the defense to raise this issue before trial with a motion to change venue, otherwise the opportunity to argue this may be lost for good? On this point, I am unsure. Can some criminal defense attorney shed light on such a strategy?
This is all by way of saying I believe the ball is in the defendent’s court, in regard to changing venue. Under the circumstances, I would think Judge Rosenberg would be wise to grant such a motion, which as yet has not been made. However, Yolo County will have to pay for the all costs of the trial, whether it is held here or in another county.
Nevertheless, failure to make the arraignment public was a colossally stupid mistake of huge proportion. Why? Because it unnecessarily handed the defense a solid issue to argue on appeal, which if nothing else, will hold up any conviction/execution for extra years to come. It could also cause the prosecution to bargain for life without parole instead of the death penalty, to “nullify” the mistake of a non-public arraignment.
My hope is that Judge Rosenberg has been embarrassed enough to realized he must gain better control of his courts, and the officers that man them. At the very least, some additional training is in order, to make sure the Sheriff’s Dept and all court personnel (including the judges) understand the 6th amendment’s full scope, that demands every part of the criminal proceeding must be held IN PUBLIC – and that would include any arraignment.
Does anyone have any idea why Melton bowed out? I find it curious, since he waited so long to do it. I thought he was part of the arraignment process? Am I incorrect? If not, I don’t understand Melton not recusing himself much earlier. The only reason I find this peculiar, is thinking maybe he does not want to get caught up in all this Rosenberg mess. Anybody know, or have any guesses?
Does anyone have any idea why Melton bowed out? I find it curious, since he waited so long to do it. I thought he was part of the arraignment process? Am I incorrect? If not, I don’t understand Melton not recusing himself much earlier. The only reason I find this peculiar, is thinking maybe he does not want to get caught up in all this Rosenberg mess. Anybody know, or have any guesses?
Does anyone have any idea why Melton bowed out? I find it curious, since he waited so long to do it. I thought he was part of the arraignment process? Am I incorrect? If not, I don’t understand Melton not recusing himself much earlier. The only reason I find this peculiar, is thinking maybe he does not want to get caught up in all this Rosenberg mess. Anybody know, or have any guesses?
Does anyone have any idea why Melton bowed out? I find it curious, since he waited so long to do it. I thought he was part of the arraignment process? Am I incorrect? If not, I don’t understand Melton not recusing himself much earlier. The only reason I find this peculiar, is thinking maybe he does not want to get caught up in all this Rosenberg mess. Anybody know, or have any guesses?
“Does anyone have any idea why Melton bowed out?”
Yes, the trial conflicts with Barry’s upcoming musical performances.
In 1965, I co-founded the musical group Country Joe and the Fish, and began my career as a guitarist and singer, recording and touring with “Country Joe” McDonald as a duo and with various bands, with my own bands and as a solo artist under the name Barry “The Fish” Melton.
“Does anyone have any idea why Melton bowed out?”
Yes, the trial conflicts with Barry’s upcoming musical performances.
In 1965, I co-founded the musical group Country Joe and the Fish, and began my career as a guitarist and singer, recording and touring with “Country Joe” McDonald as a duo and with various bands, with my own bands and as a solo artist under the name Barry “The Fish” Melton.
“Does anyone have any idea why Melton bowed out?”
Yes, the trial conflicts with Barry’s upcoming musical performances.
In 1965, I co-founded the musical group Country Joe and the Fish, and began my career as a guitarist and singer, recording and touring with “Country Joe” McDonald as a duo and with various bands, with my own bands and as a solo artist under the name Barry “The Fish” Melton.
“Does anyone have any idea why Melton bowed out?”
Yes, the trial conflicts with Barry’s upcoming musical performances.
In 1965, I co-founded the musical group Country Joe and the Fish, and began my career as a guitarist and singer, recording and touring with “Country Joe” McDonald as a duo and with various bands, with my own bands and as a solo artist under the name Barry “The Fish” Melton.
topete should get a fair trial. After which he should stand before a firing squad.
topete should get a fair trial. After which he should stand before a firing squad.
topete should get a fair trial. After which he should stand before a firing squad.
topete should get a fair trial. After which he should stand before a firing squad.
“topete should get a fair trial. After which he should stand before a firing squad.”
Problem is that because of Rosenberg’s failure to control his own courthouse, Topete’s conviction may be overturned on appeal, delaying the “firing squad” punishment that much longer. How sad for the victim’s family. It also makes our court system look like something out of the dark ages, where there is a perception that a fair trial cannot be had. Don’t be surprised if some other convicted felons try and claim some part of their trial was less than perfect and thus not fair. Rosenberg’s blunder was massive and stupid.
“topete should get a fair trial. After which he should stand before a firing squad.”
Problem is that because of Rosenberg’s failure to control his own courthouse, Topete’s conviction may be overturned on appeal, delaying the “firing squad” punishment that much longer. How sad for the victim’s family. It also makes our court system look like something out of the dark ages, where there is a perception that a fair trial cannot be had. Don’t be surprised if some other convicted felons try and claim some part of their trial was less than perfect and thus not fair. Rosenberg’s blunder was massive and stupid.
“topete should get a fair trial. After which he should stand before a firing squad.”
Problem is that because of Rosenberg’s failure to control his own courthouse, Topete’s conviction may be overturned on appeal, delaying the “firing squad” punishment that much longer. How sad for the victim’s family. It also makes our court system look like something out of the dark ages, where there is a perception that a fair trial cannot be had. Don’t be surprised if some other convicted felons try and claim some part of their trial was less than perfect and thus not fair. Rosenberg’s blunder was massive and stupid.
“topete should get a fair trial. After which he should stand before a firing squad.”
Problem is that because of Rosenberg’s failure to control his own courthouse, Topete’s conviction may be overturned on appeal, delaying the “firing squad” punishment that much longer. How sad for the victim’s family. It also makes our court system look like something out of the dark ages, where there is a perception that a fair trial cannot be had. Don’t be surprised if some other convicted felons try and claim some part of their trial was less than perfect and thus not fair. Rosenberg’s blunder was massive and stupid.
To Puzzled
It is not usual for defense attorneys to have to bow out of a case after receiving information from the prosecutor in the case. What likely happened is that the prosecutor turned over some discovery which disclosed about a witness for the prosecution which the public defender’s office had represented before.
Now the public defender has a duty to their past client to maintain confidences, but they would also have a duty to Mr. Topete to use any information about the past client to impeach him or her. Thus there is a conflict and the ethical rules lawyers live by say they must recuse themselves.
Recusal in these circumstances must be without disclosing the exact nature of the conflict because to disclose the conflict would require a breach of confidence.
So this case is likely on a hold until the county is able to supply Mr. Topete with new counsel. Which likely means private contract counsel, so this is going cost the county a lot of money it doesn’t have.
To Puzzled
It is not usual for defense attorneys to have to bow out of a case after receiving information from the prosecutor in the case. What likely happened is that the prosecutor turned over some discovery which disclosed about a witness for the prosecution which the public defender’s office had represented before.
Now the public defender has a duty to their past client to maintain confidences, but they would also have a duty to Mr. Topete to use any information about the past client to impeach him or her. Thus there is a conflict and the ethical rules lawyers live by say they must recuse themselves.
Recusal in these circumstances must be without disclosing the exact nature of the conflict because to disclose the conflict would require a breach of confidence.
So this case is likely on a hold until the county is able to supply Mr. Topete with new counsel. Which likely means private contract counsel, so this is going cost the county a lot of money it doesn’t have.
To Puzzled
It is not usual for defense attorneys to have to bow out of a case after receiving information from the prosecutor in the case. What likely happened is that the prosecutor turned over some discovery which disclosed about a witness for the prosecution which the public defender’s office had represented before.
Now the public defender has a duty to their past client to maintain confidences, but they would also have a duty to Mr. Topete to use any information about the past client to impeach him or her. Thus there is a conflict and the ethical rules lawyers live by say they must recuse themselves.
Recusal in these circumstances must be without disclosing the exact nature of the conflict because to disclose the conflict would require a breach of confidence.
So this case is likely on a hold until the county is able to supply Mr. Topete with new counsel. Which likely means private contract counsel, so this is going cost the county a lot of money it doesn’t have.
To Puzzled
It is not usual for defense attorneys to have to bow out of a case after receiving information from the prosecutor in the case. What likely happened is that the prosecutor turned over some discovery which disclosed about a witness for the prosecution which the public defender’s office had represented before.
Now the public defender has a duty to their past client to maintain confidences, but they would also have a duty to Mr. Topete to use any information about the past client to impeach him or her. Thus there is a conflict and the ethical rules lawyers live by say they must recuse themselves.
Recusal in these circumstances must be without disclosing the exact nature of the conflict because to disclose the conflict would require a breach of confidence.
So this case is likely on a hold until the county is able to supply Mr. Topete with new counsel. Which likely means private contract counsel, so this is going cost the county a lot of money it doesn’t have.
Latest word is that the PD’s office is able to stay on, Rosenberg had already lined up two pretty well regarded attorneys to represent him just in case, but that’s not a problem now.
Latest word is that the PD’s office is able to stay on, Rosenberg had already lined up two pretty well regarded attorneys to represent him just in case, but that’s not a problem now.
Latest word is that the PD’s office is able to stay on, Rosenberg had already lined up two pretty well regarded attorneys to represent him just in case, but that’s not a problem now.
Latest word is that the PD’s office is able to stay on, Rosenberg had already lined up two pretty well regarded attorneys to represent him just in case, but that’s not a problem now.
The defendant would be better off with the two other attorneys who have actually gone to trial on death penalty cases instead of newbies. Has any of the public defender attorneys actually gone to trial on a death penalty case?
The defendant would be better off with the two other attorneys who have actually gone to trial on death penalty cases instead of newbies. Has any of the public defender attorneys actually gone to trial on a death penalty case?
The defendant would be better off with the two other attorneys who have actually gone to trial on death penalty cases instead of newbies. Has any of the public defender attorneys actually gone to trial on a death penalty case?
The defendant would be better off with the two other attorneys who have actually gone to trial on death penalty cases instead of newbies. Has any of the public defender attorneys actually gone to trial on a death penalty case?
Provide Mr. Topete with private counsel.
If representation by the Public Defender’s Office is problematic, resolve that by bringing attorneys from the outside. There are too many factors that may result in this man having justified appealable issues later if he is found guilty.
Provide Mr. Topete with private counsel.
If representation by the Public Defender’s Office is problematic, resolve that by bringing attorneys from the outside. There are too many factors that may result in this man having justified appealable issues later if he is found guilty.
Provide Mr. Topete with private counsel.
If representation by the Public Defender’s Office is problematic, resolve that by bringing attorneys from the outside. There are too many factors that may result in this man having justified appealable issues later if he is found guilty.
Provide Mr. Topete with private counsel.
If representation by the Public Defender’s Office is problematic, resolve that by bringing attorneys from the outside. There are too many factors that may result in this man having justified appealable issues later if he is found guilty.
To anonymous 2:33 pm, very plausible explanation. Thanks!
To anonymous 2:33 pm, very plausible explanation. Thanks!
To anonymous 2:33 pm, very plausible explanation. Thanks!
To anonymous 2:33 pm, very plausible explanation. Thanks!
I happen to know that several of the Public Defenders have worked on more than one death penalty case. Barry Melton, himself, worked on several cases and other Public Defenders have as well.
Fact is that Public Defenders are frequently the most experienced criminal lawyers around. They sometimes have a bad reputation, but they do frequently give better reputation than some private attorneys I know.
I happen to know that several of the Public Defenders have worked on more than one death penalty case. Barry Melton, himself, worked on several cases and other Public Defenders have as well.
Fact is that Public Defenders are frequently the most experienced criminal lawyers around. They sometimes have a bad reputation, but they do frequently give better reputation than some private attorneys I know.
I happen to know that several of the Public Defenders have worked on more than one death penalty case. Barry Melton, himself, worked on several cases and other Public Defenders have as well.
Fact is that Public Defenders are frequently the most experienced criminal lawyers around. They sometimes have a bad reputation, but they do frequently give better reputation than some private attorneys I know.
I happen to know that several of the Public Defenders have worked on more than one death penalty case. Barry Melton, himself, worked on several cases and other Public Defenders have as well.
Fact is that Public Defenders are frequently the most experienced criminal lawyers around. They sometimes have a bad reputation, but they do frequently give better reputation than some private attorneys I know.