This past weekend, the Woodland Daily Democrat had a small story on Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig. He had given a speech last week at the Woodland Chamber of Commerce laying out the fact that the DA’s office was facing budget cuts that will result in a reduction of services and prosecutions.
He told the audience that with the new budget cuts and the fact that staff has already been cut as much as possible, services will suffer. At the same time he said that between 30 percent and 35 percent of the DA’s Office is funded by grants which are used to investigate and prosecute different areas of crime.
Grants allow for very specific types of prosecution, however, there is a severe downside to receiving those grants. A group of protesters a little over a week ago, charged the DA’s office with engaging in a “cash for conviction” enterprise in which they prosecuted, or rather over-prosecuted certain cases in order to obtain grant money for those programs.
The Vanguard has looked into the charges and found that there is some merit to those complaints. The DA’s office does rely heavily on grant money to bridge the gap in county general fund money. That money is reliant at times on increased prosecutions of crimes. Thus, as money becomes more and more scarce, the DA’s office will be forced to increasingly rely on such grants.
On November 17, 2009 the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office announced that the United States Department of Justice has selected his office to receive funding from the Child Sexual Predator Program Grant. The Yolo County District Attorney’s Office will receive $290,180 in funding over a two year period. The grant will be used to pay for computer forensic equipment and fund a District Attorney Investigator. An existing DA Investigator will focus his efforts on computer and cell phone forensics and will spearhead a newly formed District Attorney Internet Crimes Against Children Unit.
This was a great victory for the DA’s office as they get an additional investigator just to investigate and prosecute these types of crimes. This program offers no stipulation to demonstrate increased prosecutions and convictions, however, from our research that is not the norm.
By 2009, there were no fewer than 14 grants received by Yolo County law enforcement, accounting for over $6 million. During a time of budget cuts, grants are a way to enhance funding. However, they also require very specific expenditures. The two most common types of grants were for gang activity and sexual assaults. No fewer than five were related to sexual assaults, with an additional two going to gangs. In addition, last year was unusual in that there was also stimulus money available for prosecution.
For our purposes here, we will focus on two specific grants. First, the gang suppression grant. Second, the Women’s Vertical prosecution grant.
As we began monitoring court cases in Yolo County, one of the complaints we have received is the number of cases with gang enhancements – often for individuals in fact are not gang members. We suspected that the DA’s office was using these prosecutions to justify the gang injunction, but in fact, it may be that the gang injunction is being used to justify receiving grant money, which has been in the millions of dollars over the course of the last decade.
The original grants were based on gang activity primarily in Woodland and relied on documented numbers of validated gang members and also gang related crime. From our standpoint, the reliance on validation processes that are informal at best and subjective is problematic. However, they form the genesis of gang violence suppression efforts going back as far as 2001.
More problematic still however, is current grant requirements as laid out in the “Gang Violence Suppression Multi-Component Program” from the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, Law Enforcement and Victim Services Division.
Here the requirements are a bit chilling.
“As a result of the specialized GVS unit, the agency must be able to increase the number of individuals identified as gang members and the number arrested for violent, gang-related crimes.”
As mentioned previously, gang validation requirements are often informal and not structured by any kind of process requirements. In general, most jurisdictions require two or three criteria in order for an individual to be considered a gang member.
- Admits gang membership or association.
- Is observed to associate on a regular basis with known gang members.
- Has tattoos indicating gang membership.
- Wears gang clothing, symbols, etc., to identify with a specific gang.
- Is in a photograph with known gang members and/or using gang-related hand signs.
- Name is on a gang document, hit list, or gang-related graffiti.
- Is identified as a gang member by a reliable source.
- Arrested in the company of identified gang members or associates.
- Corresponds with known gang members or writes and/or receives correspondence about gang activities.
- Writes about gangs (graffiti) on walls, books, paper, etc.
The agency that receives this grant thus must be able to increase the number of identified gang members but also the number arrested for violent, gang-related crimes. Does this give the DA’s office the incentive to try to attach gang enhancements to crimes?
The program also relies on the number of gang-related cases referred for prosecution, the number of apprehended gang members prosecuted, the number convicted pursuant to PC 186.22, and then the number of gang defendants sentenced to incarceration with gang-related enhancements.
So earlier this year, we ran a story on Davis gangs and talked to parents who were baffled that their children were being hit with gang enhancements. At the time, some suggested that the authorities were simply being proactive in trying to abate gang violence before the problem became serious. But this information castes those decisions in a very different light, where perhaps the prosecutions are being used to justify the receipt of grant money.
Gangs however are not the only area where there is clear incentive for increasing the number of identified and prosecuted individuals in an affected area.
The Women’s Vertical Prosecution Grant sounds like a good program in that it assists in the
“prosecution of crimes against women, including sexual assault, domestic violence, stalking, and dating violence is the primary goal of the VV program. Vertical prosecution means the same prosecutor, who is specifically qualified in violence against women issues, is assigned to these cases from beginning to end, resulting in a higher rate of conviction and better services to the victim.
Vertical Prosecution has shown to improve conviction rates, reduce victim trauma, and provide more consistent, appropriate sentencing. Through program grants supporting “vertical prosecution”, district and city attorneys are able to develop teams that specialize in the investigation and prosecution of crimes involving violence against women. Victims are able to work with the same prosecutor and investigator from the time charges are filed through the sentencing of the offender. Trained counselors/advocates also work with the victim to make the trial process less traumatic and overwhelming.”
At the same time there are strict requirements on outcomes.
“In keeping with the intent of the program, OES expected that your agency increased prosecution and conviction rates of violent crimes against women, including sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking as measured by the total number of defendants anticipated (or projected) to be prosecuted and/or convicted by the project during during the first, second, third, and fourth years of funding. OES anticipates and expects these increases to continue to improve in the fourth year of funding.
Quantitative measure:
• Number of cases referred to VV Unit
• Number of cases in which charges were filed
• Number of cases in which an affirmative decision was made not to file charges”
In other words, grant money is contingent upon increased prosecution and conviction rates and there appears a possible disincentive to the agency to not file charges in a particular case.
Even the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 had incentives where more money came for places with higher prosecution and conviction rates.
There is a link between these monies and complaints about over-prosecution. In fact, the most complaints regarding over-prosecution have related to either sexual assault crimes or gang enhancements. At the same time, in other areas, there have actually been complaints that prosecutors are not vigilant enough.
Worse yet there is the possibility that an overzealous individual may actually fabricate statistics in order to receive more grant money. One possible example is the case of the UC Davis program administrator Jennfier Beeman who was found to have fabricated sexual assault statistics on the UC Davis campus. Ms. Beeman was an officer of CALCASA which is an organization for sexual assault prevention and CALCASA oversees one of the District Attorney’s grants on sexual assault. Is there a link there? Possibly.
A final point worth noting is that the District Attorney’s Office operates on a budget somewhere between $12 and $14 million per year of which around a third is from grants. On the other hand, the public defender’s office’s most recent budget is about $4.65 million, or nearly one-third of that of the DA’s office. They receive no grant money in reference to defending people from the same crimes that the DA prosecutes. Does this fact produce some sort of imbalance in the system? Is not prosecution and defense equally important components of our legal system?
The bad news is that as local money becomes more scarce, the system will become more polarized. Certain crimes will be prosecuted to the max that they can be prosecuted, while other crime will be virtually ignored.
The Woodland Daily Democrat article alludes to this possibility.
“Reisig also told the audience, there are new budget cuts coming, and grants only allow certain aspects of funds to be used a certain way. Reisig says that because staff has already been cut as much as possible, services will suffer with this next round of budget cuts.”
Mr. Reisig then warns:
“it is likely that a number of proposed cuts will affect misdemeanor prosecution, meaning crimes such as vandalism, theft, and simple assault will likely involve arresting and releasing without charges.”
If that is true, and it is difficult to differentiate scare-tactics meant to scare the Board of Supervisors into allocating more money from the truth at this point, it means that gang and sexual assaults will continue to be vehemently prosecuted, while crimes that do not come with funding grants may be virtually ignored.
We know from the relatively low conviction rate in trials, that the DA’s office may be taking weak cases in hopes of convincing the defense to settle and give them that conviction. Along the same lines, it gives the DA’s office the incentive to overcharge cases hoping that the defense will not take a chance on a conviction of all of the alleged charges and instead settle for a plea bargain to one or another of the charges giving the DA’s office their needed conviction.
The bottom line here with many of these grants, because the grants are predicated on more prosecutions, they produce the incentives for local officials to over-prosecute crimes and gain unjust convictions. From our standpoint the purpose of a legal system and the justice system is to dispense justice. That means convict those who perpetrated crimes but do so fairly and equitably and allow for the innocent to go free.
Unfortunately, money talks especially in a time of budget cuts and economic crisis. Therefore the monetary incentives to prosecute matter a great deal and make our system more difficult for those who end up caught in it.
–David M. Greenwald reporting
Excellent work, David..
David: I hope this article will cause people to come forward that have been afraid to tell the stories about injustices that have happened to them. When people start to understand why the DA’s office is so into convictions, then maybe they will start asking questions. Remember it was Reisig that bragged about the number of convictions (20,000) in three years.
I also hope that the tax payers will ask for an accounting. It is terrible to think that tax payers give money to a justice system that cares more about convictions and fulfilling grant requirments to get more money than they do about justice.
I hope the county supervisors, the grand jury, the federal civil rights commission or the attorney general’s office looks into this–especially because Reisig is running unopposed.
[i]”I hope [b]the county supervisors[/b], the grand jury, the federal civil rights commission or the attorney general’s office looks into this–especially because Reisig is running unopposed.”[/i]
There is nothing (I know of) stopping the supervisors from looking into the actions of the DA. However, because DA’s (and all other department heads, such as the sheriff, clerk/recorder, assessor, etc.) are elected independently, the supervisors have no actual authority over them.
Were it up to me, we the people would elect the full-time board of supervisors and the board would be responsible for hiring and supervising all of the department heads, including the DA and the Sheriff.
As our system now works, no one really oversees most department heads, because the public pays so little attention once an election is over. The DA, at least, gets media attention; and that serves as some kind of oversight.
But how much attention is anyone really paying to how good of a job, for example, Howard Newens is doing? If you passed Howard Newens on the street, would you recognize him*?
We did electe Howard, afterall. I would guess if you asked 10,000 random people who live in Yolo County who our “Auditor-Controller and Treasurer-Tax Collector” is, maybe 3 could blurt out, “Howard Newens.” All three of those people likely live near him in West Davis.
*David Greenwald, would you recognize Howard Newens if you stood in line next to him at the IGA Market?
The ever popular saying: “Follow the money” when you want to get to the heart of the matter continues to be proven true! Money, a powerful motivator, has caused persons to act in ways they never thought they could. This is a very serious and troubling situation and effects each and every one of us whether we want to admit it or not. If there is one person who is in a prision that is innocent of the crime they were convicted, it is one to many! I have heard people try to justify that in the “big picture of things” having a few innocent persons in prision is acceptable, they view them as “causalties of war” in the fight against crime. I would like you to ask yourself, “What if I am that innocent person in prision, would I accept this misguided idea?” Of couse you would not, so why should any of us?
This is how the DA’s, Judges, and police try to justify taking weak cases, even ones where the police have done no investigation, to trial. All for the purpose of helping their budget, keep jobs and allow their families to maintain a certian life style! What about the VICTIMS and the VICTIMS FAMILIES, the victims that the DA’s office creates? Those innocent persons are sitting in prision with no hope, their families have suffered and continue to suffer as they fight this “beast”. Remeber that we, the families of the victims that Yolo County created, are not only fighting for ourselves and our loved ones but we are fighting for YOU as well.
David, I would like to thank you for this excellent article and having the courage to report and expose this very troubling truth. I do hope that other media, nationwide, will pick up your story and will demand the Federal Government to look into this matter.
Rich Rifkin: Even if the county supervisors don’t oversee the DA and the sheriff, what do we need to do to have them look at this closely?
The county supervisors certainly oversee the budget and understand things from that angle. As a county supervisor, I would be worried if I was approving grant money that may be causing injustices to happen to the citizens of my county.
I concur with Davisite2: “Excellent work, David”
A criminal legal system’s budget that is significantly predicated on the amount of prosecutions and convictions attained is dangerous. Seeking truth and justice should be the sole goal of a prosecutor and it should not be tied to how much money they receive to do their job via the amount of prosecutions they make or convictions they attain.
By honestly seeking the truth the district attorney’s office should include both dismissals and prosecutions on an equal weight basis and should be rewarded for doing a good job at both. Too often in our society people think justice is only served by convictions. Instead justice can be served both by prosecutions and dismissals as well as convictions and acquittals.
I have served on two criminal juries in Yolo County. One jury convicted in 1998 and one acquitted in 2008. Justice in my opinion was ultimately served in both cases.
But in the case that ended in acquittal the prosecution troubled the jury to begin with. When we began jury deliberations most everyone on the jury could not understand why the district attorney’s office was prosecuting this case at all. The evidence was not there for a conviction. During the trial it became clear to the jury that the charges against the three defendants were trumped up and that the original two West Sacramento police officers involved had engaged in serious misconduct against law abiding citizens only to then arrest those individuals on false charges. Although we acquitted the defendants of all charges and justice was ultimately served it was troubling to see police officers not telling the truth, physically harming innocent individuals by beating and tasering and then using their power of arrest against them.
Equally troubling was that the district attorney’s office prosecuted this case causing the defendants to fear possible conviction and imprisonment for several years while waiting for trial. Was complete justice really served the day of their acquittal? No it was not. I would say that partial justice was served that day as the defendants had been abused by a legal system that prosecuted them when the charges should have been dismissed long before going to a trial. Innocent people were prosecuted when they should not have been and the district attorney’s office should have seen to a dismissal long before going to trial.
Who am I? [img]http://www.yolocounty.org/Modules/ShowImage.aspx?imageid=359[/img]
Who are you?
Just as said before, follow the money. I hope a federal investigation is made so that our county can be free of all of this corruption and mistrust. David you did a great job! I hope someone runs against this district attorney.
I hope people attend the upcoming protests.
David,
I commend you on your recent exposition concerning Yolo County’s “Cash for Convictions” consortium, which functions as an auxiliary-funding-mechanism predicated on the aggregate number of arrests and convictions obtained.
Raising the specter of impropriety and embedded bias associated with this spurious crime suppression methodology is a public service of the highest order.
The most egregious threat and potential compromise to public safety remains at the disposal of those elected and appointed authorities vested with the plenary power to enforce the rule of law.
Whatever is FUNDED is forever FOUND.
[i]”Who are you?”[/i]
An elected official in Yolo County who is not supervised by the “supervisors.”
You can run a DA’s office like a business if it’s yours thru the electoral process. But ultimately the People’s business of meting out justice impartially is not going to be served when a primary motivation of any DA’s office is keep their place at the $ trough by an over-dependence on grants with specialized terms constituting quotas.
This was an excellent article David. We have the same situation in Sacramento. Instead of serving the cause of justice and public protection, the DA’s office is courting the federal dollar. Most of those dollars seem to come from Homeland Security, which is more than a little alarming. More pigs than ever feeding at the public trough.
Hello David,
Do you know if some percentage of the grant money is allocated specifically for investigation, as contrasted with prosecution? Of course many crimes are not well-investigated due to lack of funding; it makes sense that if there is more $ for investigation, a higher % of crimes could be solved, and more convictions.
I agree that if the limiting factor in gathering evidence and getting convictions for the actual perps is the $ available for investigations, then it does seem to be a tricky thing to increase funding only for prosecution, but not investigation.
But if there are many well-investigated crimes on the docket, but insufficient funds to thoroughly prosecute all of them, then it does make sense to increase funding for prosecution activities alone.
Can anyone clarify the status of investigation funding as contrasted with prosecution funding for Yolo?
Bill Ritter,
Very interesting case you juried in West Sac. Sounds like blatant police misconduct. I would be interested to learn who the Yolo Co. District Attorney was who made the decision to prosecute these individuals. Do you know? The great value of this blog is it’s ability to expose these issues to the voters. One or two cases of alleged prosecutorial misconduct can be attributed to bias on the part of a blogger. But each one is another nail in the coffin of the abuse of power. I have a few nails of my own to drive when the subject comes around! I wonder how many more nails it takes to get somebody voted out of office. r.b.
The plot grows thicker. It just gets more and more complicated. How can this be explained/presented to the “average” citizens in this county?
Mr. Bockrath,
I do not know who made the decision to prosecute the case. Jeff Reisig was the Yolo County District Attorney when the trial was conducted. I got the impression during the trial that the deputy district attorney who was the actual trial prosecutor did not make the decision.
The prosecuting deputy district attorney actually did a good job at trial. He was professional and earnest in his presentations. But, he was handicapped by the fact that the evidence was not in the prosecution’s favor. His whole summation essentially became a plea that the police must be believed, period. But the defense attorneys had done a very good job of demonstrating from the evidence and from the testimony of all the other witnesses including the defendants and finally through their cross-examinations of the police officers themselves of the lawless conduct of the original two WS police officers who in the final analysis no one on the jury doubted instigated the entire conflict thereby proving the innocence of the defendants.
David Greenwald’s research and writings about the “cash for convictions” grants as an incentive and reason for the district attorney to prosecute weak or suspect cases reminded me of this case by providing a possible reason for the district attorney’s office to have proceeded with a prosecution when the evidence was not in their favor. Again, during our jury deliberations we discussed and wondered about the question: why was this case being prosecuted at all?
Most importantly, I must say, is: what’s the deal with Reisig’s military buzz cut?
He looks like a cartoon version of an aged Ben Stiller playing an attorney.
If you want to see how inconsistent Reisig is, check out the article on the Daily Democrat today. The DA offered 10 years to someone with a past criminal record who admitted to killing a young 17 year old boy.
Remember that Ajay Dev got 378 years for a rape that hundreds believe he never did. In Ajay’s case the accuser was shown to be lying, the DA never even shown that a rape took place and did no investigation. Even the juror’s admitted that the accuser’s testimony was not credible.
The DA went out of his way to get the conviction. He didn’t care about justice. He knew the accuser was lying and had a criminal record of perjury. The DA chose instead to create his own story not based on facts…unfortunately, the jury believed that our DA wouldn’t lie to them.
These two cases illustrate clearly that the DA’s office doesn’t care about justice. They only want the conviction and will do whatever it takes to get it.
The state bar needs to be notified about possible misconduct by Reisig and Fall.