On October 14, 2010, the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office announced that Claudean Medlock had pled no contest to one felony charge of grand theft from an employer. Medlock is the former Executive Director of the Yolo County Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA).
She had embezzled more than $46,000 from the non-profit agency and used the money to gamble at casinos.
According to an October 18 press release from the DA’s Office, Ms. Medlock will be sentenced on December 8, 2010 and faces up to one year in county jail and five years of felony probation.
However, the plea agreement in a county in which relatively minor thefts have been charged with multiple felonies and with individuals facing years in prison, often for stealing less than $500 worth of property, has drawn the ire of many including those in CASA itself.
The fact that an individual stealing more than $46,000 from an organization like CASA, which represents children throughout the foster care system, faces such a lenient penalty has many questioning the DA’s Office and its priorities.
To make matters worse, this is not the first time Ms. Medlock has been accused of embezzlement by her place of employment. She pled no contest in November 2008 to similar charges and received five years of felony probation and 120 days in the Sacramento County jail.
Prosecutors said Medlock embezzled an undisclosed amount of money from the California Musical Theatre Company in Sacramento, where she was employed as director of development, between June 18, 2007, and March 20, 2009.
These charges were filed on August 20, 2009, just a month after Ms. Medlock was hired as executive director for CASA.
The Vanguard spoke with Mila Spengler, who is the President of CASA’s board of directors. She said that Ms. Medlock had outstanding references when they hired her, but she did not list her employment with the California Musical Theatre Company and thus they had not made a call to them prior to hiring her.
Because these charges were filed after she was already hired by CASA, the background check came back clean and no one informed CASA of the Sacramento case as it was pending.
Ms. Spengler told the Vanguard that their main goal was to continue to provide the services to the best of their ability, and they did not want to see an interruption of services to youth in the foster system.
“As soon as we found out what happened, we put her and another employee on administrative leave,” said Ms. Spengler.
She said the organization only has three paid workers. “The rest of the energy and expense goes does directly into training and setting up CASA volunteers for working with the kids.”
While Mila Spengler did not want to get into the issue too deeply, she did indicate that “we were disappointed that the charges were reduced to one felony count.”
However, from other sources the Vanguard has learned that the entire organization is not pleased about the process, not just about the outcome but also by how it was handled by the Yolo County DA’s Office. CASA was never consulted about the plea agreement, and they indicated that they were disappointed that the charges were reduced to a single felony charge.
To make matters worse, this is a county where we have seen an individual stealing a $100 game from someone’s home receive seven years in prison, another individual who bounced two $100 checks receive 8 years, an individual who stole cheese receive seven years, and several individuals who stole less than $200 from Nugget and Wal Mart get convicted of multiple felonies, with prison time a real possibility.
Here we have an individual who stole $46,000 from a non-profit organization, who has done this for the second time and who will get no prison time. She will get one year at tops, while she is on probation for doing almost the same thing before.
Why take that kind of plea agreement in this case? They had her cleanly. It was an open and shut case. They should have at least gotten prison time out of that.
But this illustrates a disconnect of sorts, where white collar crime is not treated nearly as harshly as other forms of crime in this county.
We have covered numerous cases in which the DA’s Office seemed to be unreasonably and unnecessarily tough on the defendant. Yet in this case where the damages are immense, and the ordered restitution seems unlikely to be completed for quite some time, the DA’s Office has allowed this individual to get off with a slap on the wrist.
It is a baffling situation. Justice has not been served. The DA’s Office is actually very lucky that no one from CASA wanted to go on the record and lay out the whole thing.
CASA is embarrassed by the incident. They are unhappy they failed to discover her previous crime. And they feel like their good name has taken a hit in the process.
The truth is they are victims in this and the real victims are the children who may have fewer resources behind them. CASA did what they could to protect themselves and the people they advocate for.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Pretty clear to anyone that has been paying attention. DA Reisig is about headlines and money. There is no grant position for theft, there is no extra money for registered thieves, you can’t get a big story out of white collar crime since you can’t use words like conspiracy, guns, weapons, drugs, violence, besides maybe this woman donated to Mr. Reisig’s campaign, maybe she had friends that donated, no one knows what happens behind the scenes but one thing is for sure. In the Yolo justice system, with Reisig as DA, it pays to know someone one, if you are an active republican party member your odds seem to improve, if you support Reisig you get better deals than those who do not support him. If you have money verses don’t have money your odds improve significantly. If you help him with his gang injunction, by pleading guilty and saying you are a gang member you get much better deals.
Maybe this Medlock agreed to say she was a gang member and that is why she got such a sweetheart deal. No wait, Medlock does not sound like Martinez, Hernandez or Lopez, that might stand out, surely DA Reisig is smarter than that.
When one is convicted of a property crime like this (of such a magnitude and on such a victim) the ability and willingness to pay full restitution is a big consideration in the plea. It should be. Additionally, it appears the CASA director is somewhat sheepish about having hired this woman (although why is unclear since she was deceived) so a public trial would be embarrassing. After a trial restitution would be court ordered and only through the term of probation or parol; unlikely close to $46,000.00 would be recovered. This might have been the best deal possible for the DA and maybe just not handled as well as it could have been with the victims, communication wise.
I’m quite certain the DA would love to milk this case for all it worth since it has a lot of publicity value; justice for those who plunder the public purse and all that.
CASA did not want that. Don’t blame the DA for the sweetheart deal, go after CASA.
The most telling fact in this story is the embarrassment of the CASA Board in hiring an entrusted employee with prior history of embezzlement. The Board is described as not wanting to “go on the record and lay out the whole thing.”
This undoubtedly explains why the DA took the plea. His victim did not want any further exposure to an crime that was caused by an inept hiring process.
Bashing the DA at every opportunity is the standard marching order of this blog. But the DA can take a pass on this one. Instead, attention should be on the CASA Board and how they could possibly hire a recent embezzler who had a significant omission in her job history. What exactly was done to conduct a background investigation of Medlock? Who specifically was responsible for this hire and what degree of accountability has been rendered?
The DA is a public official, he is always willing to drag the poor and unrepresented through the mud. The points made here appear valid and it is nice that people want to love, honor and defend the DA, so why can’t the DA do a press release on this and educate the public to what he is doing and why he is doing it? This blind support and protection of the DA is baffling, he is a big boy, if he can’t take responsibility to explain and defend his actions, I am not going to give him a free pass and the community should not either. It is called accountability, questioning our representatives, they work for us, not the other way around.
I wonder what the CASA Board thought the director was doing while she spent 120 days in jail for the earlier case? Also Ms. Medlock broke her probation so I assume more jail time will result from that – sort of passed the problem back to Sacramento County.
dmg: “To make matters worse, this is a county where we have seen an individual stealing a $100 game from someone’s home receive seven years in prison, another individual who bounced two $100 checks receive 8 years, an individual who stole cheese receive seven years, and several individuals who stole less than $200 from Nugget and Wal Mart get convicted of multiple felonies, with prison time a real possibility.”
But what you don’t know is if these other defendants were willing to take a plea agreement, or did they insist on going to trial? That is the whole essense of plea agreements – if defendants don’t agree they are guilty and accept the plea agreement the DA has offered them, the book will be thrown at the defendant to deter other future defendants from not accepting plea agreements.
dmg: “Here we have an individual who stole $46,000 from a non-profit organization, who has done this for the second time and who will get no prison time. She will get one year at tops, while she is on probation for doing almost the same thing before.
Why take that kind of plea agreement in this case? They had her cleanly. It was an open and shut case. They should have at least gotten prison time out of that.”
The defendant can’t make restitution from jail.
dmg: “CASA is embarrassed by the incident. They are unhappy they failed to discover her previous crime. And they feel like their good name has taken a hit in the process.
The truth is they are victims in this and the real victims are the children who may have fewer resources behind them. CASA did what they could to protect themselves and the people they advocate for.”
CASA obviously wants to recoup as much money as they can from defendant. Nor did they want their name dragged through the mud in a public trial. However, they had a plausible explanation as to why they didn’t know about the defendant’s past history (unless there is more CASA is not telling). CASA should have taken the high road here, and insisted on a vigorous prosecution of this woman, so that she will never be able to do something like this again. She pled no contest before and got away with inveigling her way into CASA. What’s to stop her from doing this once more? My hope is this woman serves some jail time.
The DA also wanted to force someone to serve prison time over the pruno incident at the jail, but “plea bargained” to being drunk in public. This is one more illustration of how the DA uses his discretion to give favors to the people he likes. This woman had a prior embezzlement charge, used nonprofit money to go gambling and gets a slap on the writs, whereas the man who wrote two checks totaling just over $200 to feed his children goes to jail. This is ludicrous!
I am currently a CASA in Woodland. I was one of many volunteers who recently trained and graduated from the CASA program in May 2010. Part of the process to become a CASA is a thorough background investigation that includes reference, background and DOJ fingerprint checks. The CASA organization is very methodical and takes their time in this area because we work directly with children. When a director is hired by CASA they too go through the same background check, in fact, Ms. Medlock worked with the Sacramento CASA organization prior to working in Yolo County, and from what I understand there were no signs or red flags that she would not be the appropriate for the position.
What saddens me the most is how she could do such an appalling crime to those who are the most vulnerable and innocent. She knew exactly what she was doing; in fact, she was assigned her own CASA children in the past when she worked for Sacramento. As I went through the CASA training, and to this day I still can hear her voice over and over again stressing that we’re in a position of great responsibility and how the needs of the children were always to come first. She often emphasized how important it was to do the right thing and that we would be closely watched by not only our supervisor, but also by the court. As a group we were also told that the real training happens once we receive our first CASA child, and if we did anything outside protocol that we would be dismissed immediately. By way of all the intensive training I received from Medlock and other agencies and organizations I knew exactly what was expected of me and where I could go at anytime to get answers.
Medlock is the only person responsible for what happened to the organization, not the CASA Board, staff, volunteers or court. The board did absolutely nothing wrong when they hired Medlock, they followed protocol, but unfortunately timing was not on their side. Medlock knew exactly what she was doing when she applied for the position; she timed everything just right knowing that the fingerprint check would come back clear. At this time my only wish is that our organization will continue to move forward with the incredible grace it has shown to the children and volunteers. I pray that those who have volunteered their time and money to CASA in the past will continue to support us. Please remember, just because you have not heard more does not mean the board is hiding something or trying to cover up a mistake, they’ve been very open and honest to their ability of information they can divulge to us at this time.
Mr. Resign if you are reading this please, please do the right thing and give Ms. Medlock the punishment she so deserves. I would hate to see her walk and do this to another non-profit or company because she feels entitled. I truly believe she has no remorse for her conduct and will do this again if given the opportunity.
I understand people’s points that what he is doing is saving the face of CASA and that if she is willing to pay the restitution this is the best deal for the county. This is how a DA is supposed to work. The problem I find is that if you are an underdog, someone without connections the DA throws the book at them and strong arms people through various means – charging a ridiculous number of counts, elevating misdemeanors to felonies, etc. The man who wrote two bad checks, should have been given a chance to pay the money back too. Roger is correct – this is politics.
People who embezzle, from non-profits,government or the private sector, need to be fully prosecuted, or they will keep doing this as evidenced above.
I’m sure that CASA followed their own procedure, but more often there needs to be extra steps taken to find out the background of an individual. Hindsight is 20/20.
I hope CASA takes more precaution for their next hire, plus more checks and balances from their board on looking at financial and bank statements. Many nonprofit organizational boards don’t have this type of training.
I don’t know the details, but if this was done over a period of more than a month, someone should have caught this sooner. CASA is a great organization; I hope they come out of this OK.
Elaine you said, ” But what you don’t know is if these other defendants were willing to take a plea agreement, or did they insist on going to trial? That is the whole essense of plea agreements – if defendants don’t agree they are guilty and accept the plea agreement the DA has offered them, the book will be thrown at the defendant to deter other future defendants from not accepting plea agreements.”
But what if you are truly innocent. Why should your choices be to admit guilt in a plea bargain or get the book thrown at you by the DA at a trial. If an innocent person chooses to go to trial in Yolo County(as is his/her right), then the DA’s office puts in multiple charges and seems to be only concerned with getting the conviction.
Your argument is sound if the person is guilty, but unfortunately, people have been falsely convicted in this county, and it is these kind of policies that have allowed those false convictions to take place.
We could do better than this.
In the article it says, “As soon as we found out what happened, we put her and another employee on administrative leave,” said Ms. Spengler.
Who is also on administrative leave? Is there another person being criminally investigated?
Phil,
PC “CASA did not want that. Don’t blame the DA for the sweetheart deal, go after CASA.”
This is just not true. After speaking with people who are very much “in the know,” I can assure you that they were willing to go through whatever it took to ensure that Medlock received the harshest punishment permissible under the law for her crimes. I not once got the impression that they wanted to back down.
This plea deal was not what CASA wanted. In fact it’s very much the opposite. I don’t know who told you otherwise. Just your deduction, perhaps: There’s no way the DA’s Office would let Medlock off so easily, given all the great publicity it would garner had they played hardball (my ex: no plea deals w/out guaranteed prison time). Therefore, the plea must have been at the request of the CASA board or their preference anyway (instead of a trial) and NOT the DA’s. Regardless, you’re incorrect.
PC “The most telling fact in this story is the embarrassment of the CASA Board in hiring an entrusted employee with prior history of embezzlement. The Board is described as not wanting to “go on the record and lay out the whole thing.’”
What individual, organization or agency would not be embarrassed even if they really are not at fault and did as they were supposed to? That said, as someone else pointed out, she went through an extensive background check. CASA didn’t neglect to follow protocol, Medlock was cunning and lucky. That’s my opinion and what I think most believe.
The reasons for which CASA may not want to go on the record could be something else entirely, right? Maybe they’re considering some other course of action?
Must their decision to stay off the record mean they are embarrassed? I think CASA has spoken on the record to many other media outlets regarding the hiring of Medlock. Have they not?
PC “This undoubtedly explains why the DA took the plea. His victim did not want any further exposure to an crime that was caused by an inept hiring process.”
Once again, incorrect. This is not what the organization has expressed. The hiring process is obviously not perfect, but I wouldn’t necessarily call it “inept” for an organization such as this one. Wait, do you even know what the hiring process entails?
Phil, maybe you missed this in the article, “CASA was never consulted about the plea agreement…”
ERM: If the DA does as you suggested in your 8:52 AM entry and “throws the book at people… to deter others from not accepting plea agreements”… that is unconstitutional. No doubt the DA is allowed to give a “discount” for early acceptance of responsibility. Does everyone see the difference? The right to have a government prove the charges is a constitutional right that you may not be punished for (as Fight Ag. Injustice said).
As Sam* indicated (and you have to read between the lines) it sounds like this woman might have had a lifetime of good behavior and turned a corner relatively late in life (mid 50’s). We all do not know what the DA does, what the Judge does, what the probation dept. does. Maybe there was a pre-plea report that shows she had a serious gambling problem that just reared its ugly head and would have mitigated any punishment after a costly trial. I don’t know and none of us do.
I am not a Reisig fan but I would say good for him for putting some not so good news out there for him. Can’t win, can he?
Iyah: Just wondering – how is Medlock not an underdog?
Alphonso,
“I wonder what the CASA Board thought the director was doing while she spent 120 days in jail for the earlier case? Also Ms. Medlock broke her probation so I assume more jail time will result from that – sort of passed the problem back to Sacramento County.”
You are assuming that Ms. Medlock actually served time in jail. It would be pretty difficult to explain the need to have so many days off, don’t you think? My guess is that if she was serving time, it was not during business hours.
Your second point is interesting. I wonder how that factored into the Yolo County DA’s decision, if at all.
Kathryn,
“As Sam* indicated (and you have to read between the lines) it sounds like this woman might have had a lifetime of good behavior and turned a corner relatively late in life (mid 50’s).”
Would seem so. It’s unlikely that an individual with a criminal record-much less one containing a major felony-would serve in the capacities Ms. Medlock has. She had no criminal record at the time of hiring, evidenced by here fingerprint scan coming back clean. I would posit that she developed a pretty serious gambling problem at some point later in her life or came into some very serious financial problems, which led to her criminal actions. Neither excuses her actions, though.
“I am not a Reisig fan but I would say good for him for putting some not so good news out there for him. Can’t win, can he?”
Did he have a choice? WPD and probably CASA first publicly released this story. Also, maybe Reisig thought this news wouldn’t make them look so bad?
[quote]I am not a Reisig fan but I would say good for him for putting some not so good news out there for him. Can’t win, can he? [/quote]
To win should not be the issue. Justice for the people, victims and fairness. Winning should not be the goal, which it is and that is why Reisig cannot be trusted or believed.
How hard would it be for Reisig to say this is what I did and this is why I did it. Some would agree and some may not, but at least he would be manning up and taking a stand. His lame cowardly way is to hide under his rock and let people defend him, speculate and never go on the record for anything that way he can blame someone else, he claim he did not know or pass the buck. Reisig lacks honesty and integrity and it shows daily, but there are those loyal party members that continue to support him blindly and do his fighting for him. “Those who have nothing to hide – hide nothing”
Phil: I don’t know where you got the idea that CASA didn’t want the trial – they were not even consulted on the matter and I got the impression that they would have welcomed the trial, that they thought that they had her and let her off easily.
Kathryn: Thank you for addressing the plea bargain issue. This concept of throwing the book at people that choose to take their case to trial instead of opting for a plea bargain has really bothered me for quite some time–especially if you are innocent.
I realize the “innocent piece” may not be the case for the supervisor of CASA, but this is a real problem here in Yolo County. And since Elaine brought up the plea bargaining policies, I would like to discuss it more.
The DA prosecutes 99.4% of complaints. He plea bargains some, but if you are innocent, and choose not to plea bargain, then you do get the book thrown at you. The charges are stacked as high as possible.
Look at the Noori case with 64 charges for a one-night event. Luckily the jury was able to see through this tactic and find them not guilty. Unfortunately, many juries are predisposed to thinking that the person must be guilty–otherwise why would the DA stack up so many charges. They don’t realize that this is a tactic to make the person look guilty. Or at the very least if they throw up a ton of charges maybe something will stick as in the Artz case with the statutory rape charges.
This is not practicing justice. This is a scenario where winning the conviction is more important than doing justice. Whether it is “cash for convictions” or something else that motivates the DA’s office to choose to prosecute cases this way, it is still unjust.
As I said before, we could do better.
I just realized that I gave you examples of where the DA over charged and the jury figured it out. I didn’t give you an example of where the DA used his over charging tactic, and the jury didn’t figure it out.
The best example is the Ajay Dev case. The jurors admitted that they didn’t believe the accuser was credible. They did however believe that there must have been something there because the DA charged over 90 counts. Unfortunately, this tactic of overcharging did prejudice the jury in this case. The jurors ended up believing that the DA’s office must have had something. In fact, one juror commented in a blog that the District Attorney and Judge knew more about the case than they did.
Elaine: Let me ask you this question, if your client claims to be innocent do you have them plead guilty to a lesser offense due to the high exposure?
This is not a simple question. I remember talking to a public defender, her client was facing life, she thought the client was not guilty of this crime, but it would have been a three strikes case, so they plead and she’ll serve another 13 months.
It is certainly a calculation, but that is a dangerous game in my opinion, especially if the DA’s office knows it can get easy convictions by throwing huge charges on people and then offering a relatively lenient plea agreement.
fai: “Your argument is sound if the person is guilty, but unfortunately, people have been falsely convicted in this county, and it is these kind of policies that have allowed those false convictions to take place.”
I absolutely agree w you. The plea bargaining system has inherent conflicts of interest if you will. It forces the innocent to be put in a situation where they are damned if they do, damned if they don’t. If they fight to the bitter end, they take the chance of a long sentence on multiple charges; if they are innocent and accept a plea deal they have a criminal record for some crime they did not commit.
dmg: “Elaine: Let me ask you this question, if your client claims to be innocent do you have them plead guilty to a lesser offense due to the high exposure?”
And you have hit on the huge inherent problem with the plea bargaining system (see above comment to fai). But let me ask you this: would a preferable system be no plea bargaining? I’m playing devil’s advocate here…
No plea bargaining serves several essential functions including court workload management which would be impossible if every case went to trial.
But there are a number of downsides including the tendency to load up charges by the prosecutor hoping to induce a plea and when an individual believes they are innocent they get walloped by the system. There needs to be proportionately of punishment to crime, but also some sort of consistency.
A glaring example was the difference between Ajay Dev and Pedroia in their sentencing for somewhat similar repeated offenses.
This is another example.
So you are basically saying that if you are innocent and the prosecutor decides to charge you….oh well, it’s too bad.
Because, we have to live with a justice system where it is more important to:
1. Get the conviction for either “grant funding” or the bragging rights, or
2. Move cases through quickly because the trials would be too overwhelming and long.
What has happened to the part Katherine told us about–that it is unconstitutional to throw the book at people because they choose to go to trial as is their right.
It seems like there should be some accountability for DA’s that use this overcharging tactic in order in order to get a conviction.
Kathryn, Ms. Medlock was the director of CASA which works closely with the DA’s office – Yolo County Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA). I put her in the “not an underdog” category because I’m guessing that she probably knew Jeff Reisig personally and also probably several people in the DA’s office.
“But let me ask you this: would a preferable system be no plea bargaining? I’m playing devil’s advocate here…”
Perhaps that would be a good idea. The current process allows the DA to play poker without having to risk any money – an easy game to play. There is a fixed amount of resources and therefore they can only take a limited number of cases to trial. If there were no plea bargains then many weak cases would be dropped and the game of playing one defendant against another would end. There would be an increased focus of serious crime.
“The best example is the Ajay Dev case. The jurors admitted that they didn’t believe the accuser was credible. They did however believe that there must have been something there because the DA charged over 90 counts.”
“But there are a number of downsides including the tendency to load up charges by the prosecutor hoping to induce a plea and when an individual believes they are innocent they get walloped by the system.”
Unfortunately most jurors don’t realize this is something that happens with frequency here. I do believe FAI has a point that jurors feel that the accused has done something wrong when so many charges are filed against them. This is clearly a tactic that works and needs to be changed.
fai: “What has happened to the part Katherine told us about–that it is unconstitutional to throw the book at people because they choose to go to trial as is their right.”
It is not unconstitutional to charge a defendant with any crime for which there is probable cause, in so far as I am aware.
Alphonso: “Perhaps that would be a good idea. The current process allows the DA to play poker without having to risk any money – an easy game to play. There is a fixed amount of resources and therefore they can only take a limited number of cases to trial. If there were no plea bargains then many weak cases would be dropped and the game of playing one defendant against another would end. There would be an increased focus of serious crime.”
You make a valid point here. I know Reisig threatened to stop prosecuting misdemeanor crimes if his budget was cut too deeply. (I think I am remembering this correctly from the recent county budget hearings.) I have heard some places have cut down on prosecutions of petty crime bc of a lack in resources. The real question is: Would the DA stop overcharging if there were no plea bargaining, or would the DA just stop prosecuting lesser crimes period, such as petty theft? If that were to happen, I suspect you would see a huge uptick in shoplifting and other minor crimes. Suddenly you would see a public more than willing to dig into its collective pocket to pay for arrests and prosecutions. When law and order breaks down, it is not a pretty picture, e.g. the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
dmg: “But there are a number of downsides including the tendency to load up charges by the prosecutor hoping to induce a plea and when an individual believes they are innocent they get walloped by the system. There needs to be proportionately of punishment to crime, but also some sort of consistency.”
We are in agreement here. There does seem to be a need to reform the plea bargaining system and its inherent ripeness for abuse. I have never been fond of plea bargaining, but do understand it as a necessary evil so that the court system is not overwhelmed with cases. But of course every time there is a try at reform, there is also some nasty down side. For instance, look what has happened in the case of mandatory sentencing and the three strikes law. Neither has worked all that well, yet were attempts to “reform” the criminal justice system. I’m not sure what the answer is to “reforming” the plea bargaining system, but the inherent unfairness of it has always troubled me.
It is unethical to leverage plead — that is to add charges to get a plea to what the case is really worth. Ask any ethics professor at any law school.
Alphonso: I would do just what you are suggesting if I were the head of the Public Defender’s Office. I would be very careful (they have a duty to each client, individually, of course) to put as much pressure on the system as possible. The DA would have to buckle at some point. This has been done in Sacramento County.
Alphonso: I would do just what you are suggesting if I were the head of the Public Defender’s Office. I would be very careful (they have a duty to each client, individually, of course) to put as much pressure on the system as possible. The DA would have to buckle at some point. This has been done in Sacramento County.
Alphonso: I would do just what you are suggesting if I were the head of the Public Defender’s Office. I would be very careful (they have a duty to each client, individually, of course) to put as much pressure on the system as possible. The DA would have to buckle at some point. This has been done in Sacramento County.
oops!
From article written by Timothy Lynch in Fall 2003 on plea bargaining at http://www.cato.org: “On appeal, Hayes argued the prosecutor violated the Constitution by threatening to punish him simply for invoking his right to a trial. In response, the gov’t freely admitted that the only reason a new indictment was filed against Hayes was to deter him from exercising that right. Because the indictment was supported by the evidence, the gov’t maintained that the prosecutor had done nothing improper. The case ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court for a resolution. In a landmark 5-4 ruling, Bordenkircher v Hayes,the court approved the prosecutor’s handling of the case and upheld the draconian sentence of life imprisonment. Because the 1978 case is considered to be the watershed precedent for plea bargaining, it deserves careful attention.”
(By the way, this article argues that plea bargaining should be abolished because the author believes it is unconstitutional, the Bordenkircher v Hayes case notwithstanding.)
From http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Plea+Bargaining:
“Some critics of plea bargaining argue that the process is unfair to criminal defendants. These critics claim that prosecutors possess too much discretion in choosing the charges that a criminal defendant may face. When a defendant is arrested, prosecutors have the authority to level any charge if they possess enough facts to support a reasonable belief that the defendant committed the offense. This standard is called Probable Cause, and it is a lower standard than ability to prove a charge Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, the standard that the prosecution must meet at trial. Thus, for leverage, a prosecutor may tack on similar, more serious charges without believing that the charges can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.
Because prosecutors are evaluated in large part on their conviction rates, they are forced to try to win at all costs. According to some critics, prosecutors use overcharging to coerce guilty pleas from defendants and deprive them of the procedural safeguards and the full investigation of the trial process…
The practice of overcharging is impermissible, and courts may dismiss superfluous charges. However, courts are reluctant to prevent the prosecution from presenting a case on a charge that is supported by probable cause. Prosecutors have discretion in plea bargaining, and they may withdraw offers after making them. A defendant is also free to reject a plea bargain. In many cases, where a plea bargain is withdrawn or rejected and the case goes to trial, the defendant, if found guilty, receives punishment more severe than that offered by the prosecution in the plea bargain. This has been called the “trial penalty” and it is another source of criticism of the plea bargain.”
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Plea+Bargaining
drat: here is the full cite: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Plea+Bargaining
Apparently cannot get full cite on this blog. It is thefreedictionary.com under Plea Bargaining.
ERM: What is your authority for the court’s ability to dismiss superfluous charges? 3 branches of government: Executive charges, Judicial branch has limited function (probable cause is very lowest standard, same as cops use to arrest and only way Judge can throw out a charge at a preliminary hearing); Legislature makes the law.
The court does not determine the charges filed and cannot throw out superfluous charges. I am sick but look forward to reading the U.S S Ct case you refer to in the article you cited.
ok, I could not wait. If you read the Supreme Court Opinion you will see the following important distinctions:
1. The District Court (the lowest Federal Court of Appeal) upheld the State Prosecution but the Federal Ct. of Appeals (a higher Fed. Court) found it to be a violation of the Due Process Clause. The U.S Supreme Ct. split 5-4 which is as close as it comes;
2. The defendant was charged with writing a bad check for $88.30 and the DA offered him 5 years (as Justice Powell said, “hardly a generous offer”). Also J. Powell’s dissent pointed out that the DA charged what he did knowing he had problems of proof in the beginning and it was on the table from the very beginning of plea negotiations that the defendant was risking his 3 strikes exposure (habitual offender under that law) if he didn’t take the deal; not that charges were added as retaliation;
3. THE OFFER WAS MADE TO AVOID THE COST OF GOING TO TRIAL (I.E. TO REWARD, NOT TO PUNISH),
4. there was no dispute as to the facts (the prosecutor had probable cause to charge all the charges originally; (s)he just exercised discretion (due to problems of proof) not to do so;
5. the 5-4 majority found the DA’s conduct a “legitimate use of available leverage in plea bargaining process [i.e. not retaliation which all 9 agreed was unconstitutional].
The Court also said, as discussed earlier in this blog, that to punish a person for doing what the law clearly allows him to do is a Due process violation of the most basic sort (citing North Carolina v. Pearce). (You cannot punish someone for exercising his right to a jury trial).
Anyone curious enough to read the real opinion can find it on the internet at 434 U.S. 357 S. Ct. (1978).
Kathryn,
“I would do just what you are suggesting if I were the head of the Public Defender’s Office. I would be very careful (they have a duty to each client, individually, of course) to put as much pressure on the system as possible. The DA would have to buckle at some point. This has been done in Sacramento County.”
What makes you think the Public Defender hasn’t taken such action? If memory serves, she has. Maybe David can help me out with this, but I thought the PD has said that they have been pushing back and taking cases to a jury verdict as a result of the DA’s tactics.
I believe the PD’s Office has put her foot down and applied some pressure on the system (cases litigated by her office have increased exponentially since Reisig was elected). Here’s what was said in the Democrat earlier this year, according to Olson, “18 percent of the cases her department tries result in acquittal and 40 percent of plea deals end with less sever charges than originally offered.”
What do those numbers mean to you Ms. Druliner? Does that mean that 40% of the time, when they go to trial, the defendant’s getting a “better” result than was offered in the original plea? Is getting an acquittal approximately 1/5 of the time, when tried, “good” for those representing the indigent?
As I see it, due to the DA’s approach, one that some may describe as “tough” or playing “hardball,” seems to actually be working out better for the defendants in far too many cases. It actually would appear that this “tough on crime” philosophy associated with this office is having the opposite effect. If nearly half are getting a better deal when taking their to trial (and your prosecutors to task), you may need to reassess your bargaining strategy…or get better trial attorneys.
Super…man: You are right. Those are very good numbers from the Public Defender’s Office. There is an axiom among defense attorneys that if you beat the plea offer in the end you won a victory for your client, so a 40 % better result at jury trial is very, very good and indicative that the DA’s strategy over leverage charging is not scaring the PD’s or working and fooling the jurors overall; but it is costly.
kd: “ERM: What is your authority for the court’s ability to dismiss superfluous charges?”
I never said this, so I am at a loss…
sm: “As I see it, due to the DA’s approach, one that some may describe as “tough” or playing “hardball,” seems to actually be working out better for the defendants in far too many cases. It actually would appear that this “tough on crime” philosophy associated with this office is having the opposite effect. If nearly half are getting a better deal when taking their to trial (and your prosecutors to task), you may need to reassess your bargaining strategy…or get better trial attorneys.”
Ironic if the DA’s practice of charging for every single offense is backfiring…
kd: “Super…man: You are right. Those are very good numbers from the Public Defender’s Office. There is an axiom among defense attorneys that if you beat the plea offer in the end you won a victory for your client, so a 40 % better result at jury trial is very, very good and indicative that the DA’s strategy over leverage charging is not scaring the PD’s or working and fooling the jurors overall; but it is costly.”
Being costly is a very good point, especially bc the DA was complaining about cost at the recent budget hearings, claiming if his budget was cut any more, he would have to stop prosecuting petty crimes.
Kathryn,
“Those are very good numbers from the Public Defender’s Office. There is an axiom among defense attorneys that if you beat the plea offer in the end you won a victory for your client, so a 40 % better result at jury trial is very, very good and indicative that the DA’s strategy over leverage charging is not scaring the PD’s or working and fooling the jurors overall; but it is costly.”
Those numbers are not exactly normal, wouldn’t you agree? Is the public really safer as a result of the DA’s hardball approach to prosecution? Are the alleged criminals receiving appropriate sentences and punishments? Is justice served? I would love to hear his explanation.
I wonder if the DA’s Office has since changed its tactics post-Olson’s comments to the BOS back in April. It doesn’t sound like they have, though.
“Ironic if the DA’s practice of charging for every single offense is backfiring…”
Yes, it would be. Not only are defendants getting off easier as a result, but also the cost of such a policy is expensive. It’s almost as if we are forking out a lot of cash and wasting valuable resources all to the benefit the defendant, the likes of which get a lighter sentence when it’s all said and done. If Olson’s correct, we should all be pretty pissed…that is those who aren’t already.
Reisig told the Democrat that they (DA) are right 90% of the time. I believe that translates to “we get a conviction 90% of the time.” However, much more telling are Olson’s figures, which paint a much different picture than “the DA is awesome and nails the defendant 90% of the time, wow.”
If what Super says is true-
“Reisig told the Democrat that they (DA) are right 90% of the time. I believe that translates to “we get a conviction 90% of the time.”
And
The Public Defender, Olson says, ” “18 percent of the cases her department tries result in acquittal and 40 percent of plea deals end with less sever charges than originally offered.”
And not all the acquittals come from the Public Defender’s Office. Some acquittals come from private attorneys.
Reisig and Olson both cannot be right. So someone is lying to the public.
I have a feeling this is another example of Reisig being dishonest with the public.
To fai: a plea deal would be considered by the DA to be a “win”/”conviction”. In the Michael Artz case, he was found guilty on two charges, so even tho the defendant was acquitted on the most serious charge, the DA will consider this a “win”/”conviction”. The cheese theft case was reduced to what, a misdemeanor or something, but the DA will still count it as a “win”/”conviction” because the defendant plea bargained to some sort of punishment (in other words the defendant was not acquitted). I think you can see where I am going with this in regard to how the DA probably gets his 90% figure for “convictions”…