A behind-the-scenes deal was apparently reached between the Public Defender’s Office and the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office. The deal, which can be largely viewed as a victory for the defense, made the pruno charge against Jesus Arias go away and puts Mr.Arias on schedule to receive probation rather than prison time for his August convictions of possessing a stolen weapon and violating probation, each with a gang enhancement.
Deputy DA Ryan Couzens had pushed for a deal which would involve prison time in exchange for dropping the pruno charges. Pruno, as explained previously by the Vanguard, is the alcoholic beverage made in prisons from fruits and other ingredients. Deputy Public Defender Dan Hutchinson filed a motion charging the DA with vindictive prosecution.
Public Defender Tracie Olson, who was not among those filing affidavits, had previously told the Vanguard that she had never before heard of pruno prosecution in this county. “I can’t recall a single case.”
DDA Couzens took the further unusual step of issuing a subpoena for one of the individuals in the Public Defender’s Office who wrote a declaration. Moreover, the DA’s Office decided to prosecute at least one inmate for possession of pruno, apparently so that the defense could never again claim it had never been prosecuted.
Things seemed about ready to erupt.
However, by Friday something had changed and calmer heads prevailed. At the regularly-scheduled hearing, DDA Couzens was not present, perhaps removed from the case, and in his place was longtime prosecutor Steve Mount.
DDA Mount and DPD Hutchinson announced they had reached a deal. They dropped the pruno charge and instead instituted a charge of PC 647(f), public intoxication. Mr. Arias would plead no contest to the new charge and would be sentenced to a fine and time served, for time he was already doing, awaiting his sentencing.
The original case had been moving on quite normally when, suddenly in September, the DA’s Office threw the defense a curveball, charging the defendant with the additional charge of possessing pruno, the form of homemade alcohol common in prisons. According to numerous sworn declarations, pruno has never been charged in Yolo County as a separate crime.
But that did not stop Deputy DA Ryan Couzens from trying to leverage the additional charges into prison time.
At the September 10 sentencing hearing, DDA Couzens for the first time took the position that Mr. Arias should be sentenced to prison, despite the fact that the probation report recommended the court suspend imposition of sentence and place the defendant on probation for three years.
DDA Ryan Couzens stood and stated that the defense motion’s claim that the two cases are connected is “just not true.” However, out of the other side of his mouth he effectively acknowledged that the two cases were connected.
According to court transcripts quoted in the motion, Mr. Couzens stated, “Well, there’s, sort of, some griping about the new case, and then paragraph seven is, sort of, the basis for the motion to continue, which is ‘the new case could impact sentencing in the above action.’ That’s just not true …. We’re just awaiting sentencing on that case.”
“I can tell the court and counsel right now that, the new case, we’re willing to offer to just dismiss it with a Harvey waiver if he is willing to go to prison on the existing case, and it can be for, basically, the lowest calculable term, whatever the low-I’m not sure how, exactly, we would work out-working the time together with his custody credits or whatever. But that’s an offer we’re willing to make. But it’s just not legally correct that the new case affects the sentencing in the previous one.”
This spawned Public Defender Dan Hutchinson to file a motion for vindictive prosecution.
“Although it is not uncommon for jail staff to find inmates in possession of pruno or to have consumed pruno, these incidents are generally handled administratively,” Mr. Hutchinson argues. “Indeed, other inmates who were found to be in the possession and/or under the influence of pruno during the same time period as defendant, and even on the very same day, were not prosecuted.”
He concludes, “There is simply no reasonable explanation, other than a desire to punish defendant for going to trial, as to why the Yolo County District Attorney, having not prosecuted any inmate for possession of pruno in recent memory, would suddenly choose to prosecute defendant, and only defendant, for such a crime.”
PC 647(f) is basically a law that allows police to take people into jail when they are drunk in public and “unable to exercise care for [his or her] own safety or the safety of others.” It is a charge that is usually never actually filed, as they allow people to sleep it off in jail and then they release them. The problem with that charge, in general, is that it tends to be abused by the police to lock people up for a night, given that usually the charges are not filed and there is no paperwork or oversight in its use.
San Jose was cited for a number of police officers using 647(f) to put people in jail temporarily, for whom they had no real cause to do so.
Moreover, Mr. Arias was in possession of pruno in a jail cell, he was not drunk in public nor was he unable to exercise case for his safety or that of others. Nevertheless, they used this law to make the pruno charge go away.
This has to be viewed overall as a big win for the defense, as Mr. Arias is now on schedule to receive his probation rather than prison time.
On the other hand, as it is likely that Mr. Couzens overstepped his boundaries here and there is no real consequence, for the system overall this is probably not a good thing.
That Steve Mount had to step in and save Mr. Couzens from himself shows that the DA’s Office at least recognized in this case that Mr. Couzens had gone too far and overstepped his bounds. But this is far from the first time. Virtually any observer or defense attorney in the system has a Ryan Couzens story. Just yesterday he got into it – again – with the defense attorneys in the Gang Injunction Trial. He is frequently seen and heard mouthing obsenities under his breath when defense objects or Judge White rules against him.
It is time for the DA’s to either rein in Mr. Couzens overall, or make the necessary changes to his duties and responsibilities.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Don’t be fooled, Mr. Couzens does exactly what DA Reisig tells him to and the more he acts in rage, the more he and Reisig bond together.
As for Steve Mount, he was promoted by Reisig, so he takes close marching orders from Reisig. Anyone who works, has worked or has family that works for DA Reisig knows, he has a dictatorship style of running that office and nothing happens without his knowledge and direction.
There are good people in the DA’s office, but they can’t act without fear of retaliation so they must carry Reisig’s flag or suffer his wrath. Independent thinking, good judgment, doing the right thing is all but outlawed and things are done Reisig’s way or the highway.
I am glad to see that the DA’s office has decided not to pursue the jail sentence. I am not sure what made them change their minds….your articles or the Public Defenders protest or a combination of both.
I do agree with Roger Rabbit that this decision probably came from Reisig. Steve Mount is tightly connected to Reisig. Steven Mount has his own issues too.
dmg: “He concludes, “There is simply no reasonable explanation, other than a desire to punish defendant for going to trial, as to why the Yolo County District Attorney, having not prosecuted any inmate for possession of pruno in recent memory, would suddenly choose to prosecute defendant, and only defendant, for such a crime.””
This is what plea bargaining is all about – overcharging offenses to leverage a plea bargain from a defendant. I’m not sure I see the relevancy of how often pruno possession is charged. Either it is a crime or it is not. If it is a crime, then it can be charged. As we know, a prosecutor has a lot of discretion in deciding what charges to bring against a defendant, but also has a responsbility not to abuse that discretion.
dmg: “The deal, which can be largely viewed as a victory for the defense, made the pruno charge against Jesus Arias go away and puts Mr.Arias on schedule to receive probation rather than prison time for his August convictions of possessing a stolen weapon and violating probation, each with a gang enhancement.”
I think this is a very unfortunate statement. This is not an issue of “victory” as in “win” or “lose”. If you view it that way, you are feeding into the system that makes criminal trials more about a win/loss record than about doing justice. My suspicion is that Couzens has lost a bit of perspective, and is too worried about his win/loss record, and needed to be set back on track as to what criminal prosecutions are all about – justice.
But the more that the public frames the issue as a win/loss record, be it for the DA or the defendant, the more we have dust ups like this that are not about justice. I would also note that in the heat of a court battle (or any battle for that matter), the adrenaline is up. It is not all that uncommon for someone to become aggressive and combative in the heat of the moment. However, as lawyers, we have an ethical duty to keep decorum in the courtroom. A prosecutor has an even higher duty to the people to do what is the best interests of justice. But the public should encourage a just result, not encourage the view that the courtroom is a gladiator sport of winners and losers.
Roger Rabbit: “There are good people in the DA’s office, but they can’t act without fear of retaliation so they must carry Reisig’s flag or suffer his wrath. Independent thinking, good judgment, doing the right thing is all but outlawed and things are done Reisig’s way or the highway.”
If that were true – independent thinking, good judgment, doing the right thing is all but outlawed – then we wouldn’t have had the results that we did. It appears Couzens was removed from the case, bc he was perhaps getting a bit overzealous and lost his sense of perspective and needed to cool his heels a bit, and justice was served. And now you want to beat the DA over the head for doing what is right? Be careful – you may be discouraging the very behavior that is the most desirable – corrective action. No one is immune from making mistakes. Give credit where credit is due…
This thread remins me of an e- mail I received a few weeks back.
Jails and Nursing Homes
Here’s the way it should be:
Let’s put the seniors in jail and the criminals in nursing homes.
This would correct two things in one motion:
Seniors would have access to showers, hobbies and walks.
They would receive unlimited free prescriptions, dental and medical treatment, wheel chairs, etc.
They would receive money instead of having to pay it out.
They would have constant video monitoring, so they would be helped instantly if they fell or needed assistance.
Bedding would be washed twice a week and all clothing would be ironed and returned to them.
A guard would check on them every 20 minutes.
All meals and snacks would be brought to them
They would have family visits in a suite built for that purpose.
They would have access to a library, weight/fitness room, spiritual counseling, a pool and education…and free admission to in-house concerts by nationally recognized entertainment artists.
Simple clothing – i.e., shoes, slippers, pj’s – and legal aid would be free, upon request.
There would be private, secure rooms provided for all with an outdoor exercise yard complete with gardens.
Each senior would have a P.C., T.V., phone and radio in their room at no cost.
They would receive daily phone calls.
There would be a board of directors to hear any complaints and the ACLU would fight for their rights and protection.
The guards would have a code of conduct to be strictly adhered to, with attorneys available, at no charge to protect the seniors and their families from abuse or neglect.
As for the criminals:
They would receive cold food.
They would be left alone and unsupervised.
They would receive showers once a week.
They would live in tiny rooms, for which they would have to pay $5,000 per month.
They would have no hope of ever getting out.
Several people have proposed that the Yolo Judicial Watch is overly biased and in that there is nothing wrong with the Yolo Justice System. This case is a clear example of a case that went astray. We do not know why the DA stepped in and changed direction but we do know the DDA “stepped out of bounds” – even the DA agreed with that conclusion. I agree with ERM’s comment that the DA has substantial discretion but adding to that, a well informed and watchful public helps reign in unreasonable decisions made by the DA.
A prosecutor has an even higher duty to the people to do what is the best interests of justice. But the public should encourage a just result, not encourage the view that the courtroom is a gladiator sport of winners and losers.
I like that comment, but from what I have seen the Yolo DA’s office generally does view the courtroom as a place of gladiator sports. I am all for Justice and wish the DA had the same interest.
[quote]you may be discouraging the very behavior that is the most desirable – corrective action. No one is immune from making mistakes. Give credit where credit is due… [/quote]
I don’t give credit for catching a fox in the hen house and then when he runs away say he was changing his ways. DA Reisig demonstrates his lack of judgment, his pettiness and ego almost daily. His dictatorship style of bullying those he can – is who he is. I do not see him changing this for the right reason. He was getting heat, he tired to spin it, he tired to ignore it and expected the press to pass on his “reckless and false” press releases and when his plan fell through, he decided to cut and run like the coward he is. Do not be fooled to think this was somehow admirable.
Had Mr. Reisig not been caught, not been called out by the Public and the Public Defender, he would have praised Couzens for doing a great job and getting extra prison time.
You say everyone makes mistakes, Mr. Reisig has never admitted a mistake, has never apologized and continues to attack and bully those who can’t fight back. Only when he gets caught and pressure and his actions are put out in public does he crawl back under his rock. He gets no pity and no credit from me, I am on to his slick tricks and I know who and what Reisig really is, and that definition does NOT include honorable, trustworthy, ethical or having integrity.
I agree with Roger. While it is true that people sometimes makes mistakes. The DA’s office didn’t simply admit they made a mistake and dismiss the charge. They changed the charge to public drunkenness, which does not fit. Either they stand by their position and charge everyone in possession of pruno or dismiss. They only changed their tune, because not one, but several public defenders came out and said this wasn’t right. If that had not happened, I don’t think they would have had any remorse or changed anything. That young man would have been railroaded into our over crowded prisons. Also, Steve Mount is not the good guy here. If he was he would have dropped the charge completely instead of forcing someone to take a plea on public drunkenness.
On another note. How do they know the pruno was this man’s if there were several people in the cell? Did they do a blood alcohol test? Is there a blood alcohol limit that needs to be satisfied for that public drunkenness? The crazy thing is this is not about justice nor do some of you seem to care about the tax dollars being wasted. A few years back there was a big movement to stop frivolous lawsuits, I think we need a new movement to stop frivolous prosecutions.
Alphonso,
“Several people have proposed that the Yolo Judicial Watch is overly biased and in that there is nothing wrong with the Yolo Justice System.”
People have definitely claimed that the YJW is biased, but who has claimed that the Yolo County CJS is without its problems?
“We do not know why the DA stepped in and changed direction but we do know the DDA “stepped out of bounds” – even the DA agreed with that conclusion”
Well, we don’t know that the DA agreed with David’s sentiments regarding Couzens’ decision. For that matter, do we even know that Couzens acted alone and did not get the permission of or encouragement from his superiors or Reisig himself?
Clearly, having Mount step in was not unintentional, though.
Roger,
“DA Reisig demonstrates his lack of judgment, his pettiness and ego almost daily.”
Daily? How can you be so sure?
“He was getting heat, he tired to spin it, he tired to ignore it and expected the press to pass on his ‘reckless and false’ press releases and when his plan fell through, he decided to cut and run like the coward he is.”
When did he try to spin it? When has the “heat” really gotten to him? Did the DA’s office issue a press release in the “pruno” case? I don’t remember reading a press release about it.
“Mr. Reisig has never admitted a mistake, has never apologized and continues to attack and bully those who can’t fight back.”
Seems like this would be difficult to prove, assuming never mean not once ever has he…
Whom should he be apologizing to in this case?
[quote]
Whom should he be apologizing to in this case? [/quote]
He should be apologizing to the tax payers since his office has wasted money going after some petty charge just to get his stats up. He should be apologizing to the courts for wasting their time on a stupid charge. He should be apologizing for his Deputy abusing the charging system and trying to get plea deals and plea admissions by trumping up silly new charges. Of course, that would mean he did not encourage, order or endorse theses acts? I think his silence yells his position very clearly.
Roger Rabbit: ” I think his silence yells his position very clearly.”
Sometimes silence is the wiser course of action. Secondly, we don’t know exactly what happened, only dgm’s version of what happened. Were you in the courtroom to see for yourself what went on? Were you privy to the behind the scenes conversations at the DA’s Office to know why Couzens was removed from the case, if he was even removed at all (we don’t even know that for sure)?
Rabbit,
“He should be apologizing to the tax payers since his office has wasted money going after some petty charge just to get his stats up. He should be apologizing to the courts for wasting their time on a stupid charge. He should be apologizing for his Deputy abusing the charging system and trying to get plea deals and plea admissions by trumping up silly new charges. Of course, that would mean he did not encourage, order or endorse theses acts? I think his silence yells his position very clearly.”
Do we think his reasons were stats alone, no other? Could it be the “overcharge” was to deter the defendant, if the DA’s office were to have gotten their wish: prison time?
I thought it was ridiculous, the pruno charge. I guess they could have apologized for what the did or admit they were wrong, but if they don’t think what they did was wrong then…
Look, as ERM stated, it’s a law, it was broken, and although charging an inmate for possessing pruno is unheard of according to some attorneys, that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily wrong or abusive.
How do we know it was in fact DDA Couzens who “abused” the charging system?
I don’t think silence is always indicative of one’s position on an issue. You see, at this point it’s pretty much the Vanguard’s reporting vs. the DA’s press releases…and a lot of rumors, conjecture and speculation on our part, in terms of what the public knows.
What does the DA’s office gain from publicly rebutting the Vanguard’s pieces and allegations on a weekly basis?