Over two years ago, Marco Topete allegedly shot and killed Yolo County Sheriff’s Deputy Anthony Diaz. The evidence in support of that is strong and compelling. Yet from day one, the case has been fumbled all over the field.
On June 18, 2008, Mr. Topete was to be arraigned on charges that included the first-degree murder of a Yolo County Sheriff’s Deputy. The media and public, including Mr. Topete’s family, were locked out of that hearing. Deputy Diaz had himself been a bailiff in these courts, and evidence suggests that on the arraignment day other courtrooms recessed early, allowing their bailiff-deputies to go and fill up spaces at the arraignment.
Sheriff Ed Prieto said, “Forgot to tell somebody to unlock the doors… I think it was just an honest mistake, but somebody dropped the ball, and we should look into it.”
However, Presiding Judge David Rosenberg said that “The doors are supposed to be unlocked when court is in session. This kind of hearing should have been open to the public. There are no excuses. It shouldn’t have happened.”
The Davis Enterprise, in a rare critical editorial, was compelled by the incident to write, “The issue: Wednesday’s lockout of the press and suspect’s family is just the latest in a string of abuses.”
It asked, “Can Marco Antonio Topete get a fair trial in Yolo County? If there are any more shenanigans like those pulled Wednesday by sheriff’s deputies and a court commissioner in Yolo Superior Court, we’re not so sure.”
At that time, I doubt very much the Davis Enterprise would have considered that two years on, we would still be asking that very question, but we are and we need to.
On Friday, Mr. Topete dismissed his appointed attorney, Haze Gable. Mr. Topete was originally represented by the public defender’s office. However, in August of 2008, Public Defender Barry Melton officially removed himself and his office from the case.
The Daily Democrat at that time reported, “Topete’s wife, Angelique Topete, told the Democrat Thursday she witnessed an argument between [Deputy Public Defender Dean] Johansson and Melton last week at their office in Woodland days after Melton filed his motion.”
Further, “She said Johansson was concerned over the political connections Melton shared between Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto and Rosenberg.”
Mrs. Topete told the Democrat that, “In the process of Dean doing his investigation, he dug up a lot of stuff between Melton, Prieto and Rosenberg and that pissed Melton off.”
What has changed since August of 2008? In court on Friday, Mr. Topete complained to Judge Richardson that he is being refused access to the law library. We have since learned from multiple sources that Mr. Topete was getting frustrated with the fact that his legal team was not sharing information with him, and that he was, in fact, not being allowed access to the law library.
Mr. Topete is being held in Sacramento County, due to the security doubt with him in Yolo County. Also a factor is that at the Monroe Detention Center he would be in the hands of those very administrators and sheriffs whose colleague he allegedly killed.
Now acting pro per, Mr. Topete will retain defense council Thomas Purtell, in an advisory role. Mr. Purtell is apparently trying to get out of that arrangement.
On the surface it seems strange that these things continue to occur. There appears to be little doubt about the guilt or innocence of Mr. Topete. It all boils down to one big question: Will Mr. Topete be sentenced to life in prison or to death?
The bottom line is that the DA’s office and the Sheriff’s Department both want the death penalty in this case – never mind if California is not executing death sentences right now.
Given the close ties between the Yolo County DA and the Yolo County Sheriff, and between their departments, given that the courthouse is a small world where everyone knows everyone else, and given all the visible conflicts of interest around the case, holding the trial in Yolo County makes zero sense in total.
Some people do not seem to understand that the process matters. A fair trial is a right that belongs to everyone, no matter how guilty the individual, no matter how awful the crime. Let me say again that I have little doubt as to who shot the sheriff’s deputy. Even with that, Mr. Topete is entitled to a fair trial, in front of a disinterested judge and jury of his peers. He cannot get that here in Yolo County. There is, understandably, very much emotion prevalent in this county. I sensed that immediately as I went into the courtroom on Friday. The room felt totally different than the other dozen trials and hundreds of trial readiness hearings I have been to.
Even though we know where the guilt lies in this case, life or death remains the crucial question.
On Friday, some people quickly spouted off that he who represents himself has a fool for a client. I would tend to agree under ordinary conditions
However, these conditions are not ordinary. Here is what we know: The trial was scheduled to begin in mid-September. Mr. Topete was becoming extremely angry that his defense team was not communicating with him and he began to fear that he was being railroaded in this process. What could possible give him any reason to think that? Let’s look at how the case started. Let’s look at his treatment, apparently, in the jail in Sacramento. There are a host of reasons for why he might feel that way.
So now the court will have to decide if the case can go forward. If it’s true that he has not even gotten his own case file yet, according to some sources, likely the process will be pushed to the spring.
DA Jeff Reisig was quick to argue that this was a delay tactic by Mr. Topete, and that is probably at least part of what it is. But Mr. Reisig, not on trial for his life, can say that easily.
At this point, I believe that this case just has to get out of Yolo County. As long and arduous as death penalty cases may be, this one in particular has a strong claim of not being a fair one if it stays in Yolo County. For example, Mr. Topete can document numerous news reports to show that. The likelihood is strong that any conviction, and certainly any death sentence, will be thrown out because of bias, based on what has happened already.
Judge Richardson, from all accounts, is a good and decent man. But several people have expressed concerns about how he has handled the case. Being a former Deputy DA in Yolo County and having been on the bench for only two years, the concern is that he is inexperienced and does not know the law as well as more experienced judges do. In this now very complex case, a veteran judge is what’s needed, a judge who has been through a high pressure and very sensitive trial before, and that is not Judge Richardson.
In my view, it is unconscionable that this case is still being dealt with in Yolo County. I cannot conceive of how the man will get a fair trial here.
In July of 2008, Natalie Wormeli, the president of the Yolo County ACLU, argued that, because of the right to a fair and speedy trial by an impartial jury, it is questionable that the this can occur fairly in Yolo County.
Why? Separating our natural emotions from a case, in order to conduct a proper and fair trial, is difficult if not impossible. Two years ago this argument made a lot of sense to me. Now that I have spent months around the courthouse, and gotten to know a lot of the Sheriff’s Deputies and court staff, I realize how small of a setup it really is. Everyone knows everyone else in there.
Ms. Wormeli wrote back in 2008, “Those who attended last Saturday’s funeral for Officer Diaz, including representatives of the YCACLU, were moved by the obvious suffering of Tony Diaz’ family and the heartwarming support from his fellow officers in the face of this heinous crime. It is at these times that the criminal justice system, beginning with the trial court, faces its greatest challenge. When justice is pursued with every attention to fair procedure, even under these exceptional circumstances, then all citizens can be assured that the system is credible, reliable and fair. The sacrifice of Officer Diaz demands that nothing interfere with a speedy and impartial public trial for his accused killer. The ability of the Yolo County Court to provide such proper procedures is in serious question. To remove any taint or threat of a procedural challenge later, the best thing to do is move the trial to another county.”
Some studies question whether the death penalty really gives the victim’s family closure, and we can debate the death penalty at another time. However, one thing that makes a lot of sense is that if this case is not done properly the first time around, if Mr. Topete does not get his fair trial and the verdict or sentence is overturned and we go through this again in five or ten years, what is that going to do to Deputy Diaz’s family?
Deputy Diaz’s life ended in tragedy and there is little doubt about who is responsible. From that point on, however, we must do things fairly to make sure we get it right the first time. Mr. Topete is entitled, through guilt or innocence, to a fair trial. There are stringent protective processes in place before the state can execute individuals. And those must be followed, as well.
In a lot of ways, this case shows what is truly wrong with our court system. Here is a case where there is really little or no doubt that this guy did it. Yet we are still bungling its handling, and that is just appalling.
What we need to do is hand this case over to another county, give Mr. Topete his public defender, and let the facts prevail. That is a simple and commonsense approach that is not being followed here. I just do not understand, without a leap into conspiracies, why that approach would not be followed, in this of all cases.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Wormeli from ACLU: “The sacrifice of Officer Diaz demands that nothing interfere with a speedy and impartial public trial for his accused killer. The ability of the Yolo County Court to provide such proper procedures is in serious question. To remove any taint or threat of a procedural challenge later, the best thing to do is move the trial to another county.”
I normally don’t agree with much of what the ACLU does, but on this one they are spot on. After the arraignment debacle, in which the public was shut out for “unknown reasons”, it became pretty clear no fair trial for the defendant can be had in Yolo County. To ensure the case does not get thrown out on appeal, it would seem to make sense to have the trial outside Yolo County.
“To ensure the case does not get thrown out on appeal, it would seem to make sense to have the trial outside Yolo County. “
I do not see how anyone can argue against that statement – the Sheriff’s office, the DA’s office and the presiding Judges all demonstrated bias against this defendant. The Yolo County Justice System blew it plain and simple!
The DA claims the defendant is trying to waste time and he is probably right. However, the DA is also wasting time by not getting the trial moved. We can not have people running around shooting other people and it is worse when they shoot police officers. So get on with it and let Justice be served!
Alphonso: “The DA claims the defendant is trying to waste time and he is probably right. However, the DA is also wasting time by not getting the trial moved.”
Very acute observation!
While I agree completely with the story, I have to note the tone it conveys, “Let’s give him a fair trial and hang him”.
That was not my intention, I’m against the death penalty in fact.
I am sure that was not your intent. It was my sense of humor raising it’s ugly head. I did not wish to offend. I was using the term “hang him” in a figurative way only.