Motion Will Now Be Heard in Mid-October –
On Monday, Judge Richardson announced that there was a motion to disqualify the court and that motion would take precedence over all other matters. Judge Richardson said in court that he had not received a copy of the motion until now, he acknowledged receipt of it, and announced his intention to file a response to the motion.
Attorney Thomas Purtell had sought to relieve himself as assistant counsel and advisory counsel, but he will now remain in place until the matter of the court’s disqualification can be decided.
Jeff Reisig attempted to argue that the court could simply strike the matter. “The court can decide how to approach it,” the District Attorney said, “But I would urge the court to consider simply striking the matter under [PC] 170.4a as my review of the motion does not raise legal grounds for disqualification. I believe there is precedent for the court to simply strike it and move forward.”
Judge Richardson responded, “At this time, Mr. Reisig, the court is not prepared to do that.”
In Mr. Topete’s handwritten motion to the court, he argued that on September 7, 2010, he “received via a confidential source that the Honorable Judge Paul K. Richardson during a break in defendant’s court proceedings, on September 7, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 6, held [a meeting] without the presence of defendant and the consent of in Pro Per defendant.”
The motion continued, “An off-the-record, in-chambers discussion of defendant’s complex capital case with, and not limited to: J. Toney Conflict Panel Administrator; Public Defender Tracie Olson, District Attorney and/ or an agent of the People.”
He argued, “This gross violation of defendant’s right to equal protection of the laws deprives defendant of any reasonable opportunity to a fair trial in a fair tribunal.”
He went on to describe the private meeting as “extremely suspicious” and argues that it “violates statutory standards and constitutional law… as well [as] certain ethical codes.”
Mr. Topete argued that, from the onset of this case, he has doubted the fairness and ethical standards of the Yolo County Judicial system, beginning with its “initial disregard and collusion in the ‘Court Room Lock-Out’ of defendant’s arraignment on June 18, 2010.”
With the new developments, “defendant has no faith whatsoever, not only in Judge Richardson, as well has absolutely no trust whatsoever in any of Yolo County’s Judiciary community… as defendant believes they are all conspiring against defendant to secure a conviction at all costs, even going so far to trample upon defendants’ US Const. rights.”
Anyone who believes that Mr. Topete is being a bit paranoid ought to look at the history of this case, which frankly has no business being in Yolo County.
To further the point made by Mr. Topete, we need only look as far as District Attorney Jeff Reisig’s September 10 motion to oppose any sort of continuance.
DA Reisig wrote, “On September 9, 2010, Investigator James Lucero of the Yolo County District Attorney’s office uncovered a taped conversation between the Defendant and Angelique Topete that occurred at the Sacramento Main Jail on July 21, 2010, during a face-to-face visit. The conversation was recorded by Sacramento County jail officials in the normal course of business and maintained by them until it was delivered to Investigator Lucero. All family visits are recorded by jail officials and the defendant is aware of this fact.”
His motion continued, “During the July 21st conversation, the defendant informed Angelique that his attorneys had contacted him earlier that day and told him that the jury trial was going to start on September 13, 2010, due to the fact that attorney Hayes Gable’s federal case would be delayed to allow him to go to trial in this mater.”
“Topete continued in the conversation by explaining that his attorneys (Gable and Purtell) said that the trial was set and would start on September 13th “unless something else happens that they can think of.”
From that DA Reisig somehow concluded, “The above statement is the ‘smoking gun’ evidence of the gamesmanship that has driven the defense in the last three weeks.”
He continued, “the defendant’s own statement clearly establishes the fact that the defense team was actively looking for a way to continue the jury trial set for September 13, 2010. It would be naive to believe that the defense’s subsequent continuance motion (August 23, 2010) and the defendant’s bogus Faretta motion (also from August 23, 2010) were not specifically designed to make “something else happen” so that the trial would be delayed.”
That is the kind of reaching logic that we see from this DA, but it also illustrates the predicament that Mr. Topete is in. He is placed in Sacramento Jail in protective custody, the same room Ted Kaczynski was in. He is monitored with recording devices 24/7. He is being denied the right to have any sort of electronic equipment or copy machines, forcing him to handwrite motions. He is being denied the right to go to the law library because Sacramento Sheriff’s Department says he is not one of their prisoners.
Bottom line, I would be a bit paranoid, as well, if I were in Mr. Topete shoes. This case should be removed from Yolo County, Mr. Topete should be given a neutral and impartial attorney, and he should get himself a fair trial. This process more accurately represents a kangaroo court and it is simply a poor reflection on this county. Any verdict that is reached will be tainted, and likely the higher courts will force a new trial, particularly if a death penalty verdict is reached.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
My sense is that Topete is definitely trying to delay his trial by whatever means necessary, to make sure the trial does not occur in Yolo County. In light of what happened at Topete’s arraignment, I do not see how the defendant can get a fair trial in this county. It would be wise to hold the trial elsewhere in another county, to make sure the trial is fair and does not get overturned on appeal. The victim’s family deserves no less so that they can have closure as soon as possible. Our Constitution demands a fair trial for any accused.
It seems to me that defendants accused of murder of a law enforcement officer might generally not expect impartial treatment by the court system in the county of service of the murdered law enforcement officer.
Is it fairly common for such trials to be moved to different counties?
I don’t necessarily think for law enforcement per se. But this is different because Deputy Diaz actually worked in the courts as a bailiff. It’s a small courthouse and so everyone knows everyone pretty well. Under those conditions, the fairest thing to do is move the trial. If he guilty, you don’t think another county’s jury is going to convict and cop-killer and sentence him appropriately? I just don’t get why this thing is so difficult, do the right thing, give the man a fair trial, he’s entitled to one.
We will see how the judge rules on this case. I know when the Gregroy Zielesch case had motioned to move the trial to another county it was denied. Mr. Zielesch never had a chance to a fair trial from the beginning.
dmg: “I don’t necessarily think for law enforcement per se. But this is different because Deputy Diaz actually worked in the courts as a bailiff. It’s a small courthouse and so everyone knows everyone pretty well. Under those conditions, the fairest thing to do is move the trial.”
More importantly, the court was closed to the public for Topete’s arraignment, so the family of the slain officer and fellow officers could sit in the courtroom. This is patently against the law, and clearly makes it appear that no judge in the Yolo courts will give Topete a fair trial, since they were not even willing to give him a legally required public arraignment.