In late October, the Vanguard reported that 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.
While no one would state it on the record, CASA was angry at the leniency of the sentence and felt that they had not been consulted on the plea agreement.
A series of strange occurrences have now resulted in the DA’s Office seeking to withdraw their plea offer, which appears to have been already agreed to by the parties and signed by the defendant in court.
The CASA webpage has reported now that “On November 16, 2011, the District Attorney’s Office met with the CASA Board of Directors and a dozen CASA volunteers to talk about the case, answer questions, listen to concerns, and explain the system and the process. At the conclusion of the meeting, everyone agreed that the plea agreement was a good outcome for the CASA organization.”
They further report, “After the meeting, Chief Deputy District Attorney Jonathan Raven did some additional investigation and learned that Ms. Medlock’s RAP [Record of Arrest and Prosecution] Sheet issued by the CA Department of Justice was incorrect. He discovered that Ms. Medlock is serving a felony probation charge in Sacramento (as opposed to misdemeanor probation, as indicated on the DOJ RAP Sheet). These charges were filed against Ms. Medlock after she was hired by Yolo CASA and therefore were not picked up by a security screening conducted by the organization prior to her hiring.”
CASA then says that the DA’s Office will now move to set-aside the plea agreement at their next scheduled hearing on December 8, and proceed to trial.
The Judge in this case is Judge Kathleen White.
The Vanguard has also learned that the CASA Board issued a letter to its volunteers in response to the DA’s email replies. They found “A couple of his statements were not only inaccurate, we felt they were damaging to the integrity of our organization…”
The DA’s Office continues to insist that the DDA in the case “worked closely with CASA executive board members and CASA’s attorney in constructing the plea agreement in this case and that it was expressly approved of by those same CASA executive members.”
CASA emphatically denies this, stating that not once did they meet with the DA or his deputy regarding a plea deal. It appears that the November 16 meeting was the only such meeting.
The DA’s Office undermines CASA leadership in this reply to a volunteer, “I am concerned that I have received other emails like yours that appear to demonstrate a lack of communication from the CASA leadership to its volunteers about this case.”
CASA characterized this statement to be “grossly inaccurate.”
Shortly after this email exchange, the DA’s Office met with the CASA Board and volunteers to answer questions. At the end of the meeting CASA agreed that the plea agreement was best for the organization.
This entire incident now is bizarre. From the start, it appeared that the DA’s Office was entirely too lenient on the defendant in this case, particularly in light of their treatment of other defendants in other cases.
We believe that the original plea agreement was inappropriate. However, now that they have agreed to it, we do not believe the DA’s mistake and failure to fully investigate the charge from the beginning, like they subsequently did after the November 16 meeting, is not sufficient cause for the judge to vacate the existing plea agreement.
We have to once again question the DA’s Office’s competence in several regards. First, had they met with CASA from the start and informed them of their intention to sign the plea agreement, they might have learned about the original conviction being a felony rather than a misdemeanor conviction.
CASA has been saying all along that Ms. Medlock had been convicted of a felony and was on felony probation.
In the Victim’s Rights legislation that the DA’s Office is so fond of citing, one of the provisions is that the victims are supposed to be apprised of any plea agreements.
Second, this is once again failure of the DA’s Office to do due diligence. Recall the drunk driving case from this summer where, based on a tip, they decided that a second victim had died and, without confirming that information, went into court to add additional charges, only to learn they were in error.
Perhaps this is a face-saving move, as it was in the Cheese Case where they had additional information at the last minute that enabled them to pull back from attempting to charge it as a Three-Strikes case.
To hear the DA’s version of events, the difference between Ms. Medlock’s prior embezzlement case being a felony rather than a misdemeanor marked some sort of tipping-point in the DA’s tactics. But it is likely too late. It seems unlikely that this is good cause to vacate the plea agreement, and if they could, it would be a very disturbing precedent.
The DA’s Office is welcome to try to save face with this move and then, should that fail, push for the maximum one year in county jail penalty, which would mean she would be out in eight months.
Perhaps the DA’s Office could save itself a lot of trouble and do its research fully in the first place and communicate with the victims that they claim to respect the rights of.
This whole case gives us great insight into the working of the DA’s Office, and right now that is not a pretty sight.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Oh No, what a surprise, the DA’s Office under the leadership of DA Jeff Reisig lies again. Or do we say they misstated the facts, or mislead the public and victims, or tried to hide the truth or their statements were false and reckless ….. however you want to say it, the DA’s office has NO credibility and has been caught in so many “acts that lacks ethics”, that nothing should be a surprise anymore.
Just another example of what happens when you have an ego maniac like Reisig that is only concerned about his career and future opportunities all at the cost of doing his job appropriately within the limits of the law. Half the stuff that Reisig has been caught in would be a crime if anyone else did it, but since he hides behind his “granted immunity” when doing acts as the DA, he has no reason to change his spots.
Perhaps the person that got the great plea did did not pony up enough campaign money so the deal is off. If there is one thing about Reisig that does not change, you can bet he did not meet with the victims and change his mind to do the right thing, unless there was something in it for him. The only questions is what did Mr. Reisig get out of this?
dmg: “CASA emphatically denies this, stating that not once did they meet with the DA or his deputy regarding a plea deal. It appears that the November 16 meeting was the only such meeting.”
Did CASA meet w the DA or not? On the one hand you say CASA emphatically states not once did they meet with the DA, but then say they did meet with the DA on Nov 16. I’m confused…
dmg: “They further report, “After the meeting, Chief Deputy District Attorney Jonathan Raven did some additional investigation and learned that Ms. Medlock’s RAP [Record of Arrest and Prosecution] Sheet issued by the CA Department of Justice was incorrect. He discovered that Ms. Medlock is serving a felony probation charge in Sacramento (as opposed to misdemeanor probation, as indicated on the DOJ RAP Sheet).””
I’m really confused here too. The DA relied on a DOJ RAP sheet that was incorrect. Wasn’t that the fault of the DOJ rather than the fault of the DA? Why can’t the DA rely on the DOJ RAP sheet? Does the DOJ make mistakes often enough that a DA must somehow verify in a different way the accuracy of the DOJ RAP sheet?
dmg: “We believe that the original plea agreement was inappropriate. However, now that they have agreed to it, we do not believe the DA’s mistake and failure to fully investigate the charge from the beginning, like they subsequently did after the November 16 meeting, is not sufficient cause for the judge to vacate the existing plea agreement.”
Mistake of material fact/fraud is not sufficient grounds to vacate a plea agreement? What is being said here – neither the defendant nor her lawyer knew she was convicted of a felony? Sounds more like the defendant perpetrated a fraud on the DA/court unless I’m missing something here…
I don’t know how fast Sacramento Superior Court posts these things, but here is a link to what they have posted now: https://services.saccourt.com/indexsearchnew/CaseNumberList.aspx?SearchValues=MEDLOCK,CLAUDEAN,SUE,4554860 It is listed as a felony.
“This whole case gives us great insight into the working of the DA’s Office,..”
Really, how so?
DA’s office screws up based on erroneous info from DOJ. DA wants a reset. So instead you want to let injustice prevail. The only insight is into your bias against the DA where you would let someone whose ulyimate victims are foster kids off easy so you could continue to bash the DA. First you hit him for letting the perp off easy compared to other crimes but then hit him again saying the DA is wrong to intervene in the interest of justice and should let the perp off too easy. IF that happens you will bash him again somehow, I am sure.
It looks like your true interest is in bashing the DA. Sadly when you are critical of everything you lose your credibility as a critic. The DA deserves some criticism here but he is fixing it. To continue to attack him for trying to fix a mistake is more a reflection on you than on him.
Toad,
“Really, how so?
DA’s office screws up based on erroneous info from DOJ. DA wants a reset. So instead you want to let injustice prevail.”
A mistake on the DOJ RAP sheet is not the DA’s fault. However, it becomes a question of whether or not relying solely on the aforementioned item is the standard practice when proceeding with a plea deal. IOW, are there not other documents and references, which would have illuminated the truth and should’ve been considered when crafting the deal? It would appear that through additional “investigation” the DA’s Office was able to determine this. So, is that something they should have done from the beginning?
What’s more, if the CASA organization had been claiming Medlock had been previously convicted of felony embezzlement all along and the DA’s Office only opted to investigate their claims (which turned out to be true) after the plea deal had been agreed upon by both parties…that may serve as an indicator as to how they approach cases and treat victims, no? Consequently, it may be too late and Ms. Medlock will be sentenced to no longer than 1 year in county jail (of which she will only serve some) unless the judge lets the DA set aside the deal, despite having embezzled all this money from non-profits, twice.
The piece also describes how the DA’s Office responded to CASA’s email inquiries about the case, which were quoted within the article. In one case, it seems the DA’s Office is stating that they or the DDA have been working step by step with the org and its attorney when constructing the plea deal, something the organization vehemently denies.
The second quote by the DA seems to suggest that the CASA leaders are inept and that they aren’t communicating effectively with their volunteers. That gives me a little insight into how that office handles situations such as this. The irony here is, that the DA’s Office is blaming the organization for communication failures, when apparently there was a communication failure of sorts between the DA and his DDA, the DA and CASA and re: DA receiving/looking for appropriate info on Medlock’s record.
The only insight is into your bias against the DA where you would let someone whose ulyimate victims are foster kids off easy so you could continue to bash the DA.”
Letting CASA off easy? Can you elaborate on that?
ERM
“What is being said here – neither the defendant nor her lawyer knew she was convicted of a felony? Sounds more like the defendant perpetrated a fraud on the DA/court unless I’m missing something here…”
Must the defendant and her representative do the DA’s work for them? It’s possible they didn’t know that the DA wasn’t aware of the fact that she was convicted of a felony and not a misdemeanor. I think you may have a point, but that depends, IMO, whether or not the DA’s Office exercised due diligence here as mentioned in the article. Yes, the DOJ RAP contained inaccurate information, but will the judge find that the DA’s Office should have discovered this in spite of that…by way of some other document or reference?
She was on probation in Sac County, would the DA’s Office have contacted he probation officer when constructing a plea deal. Assuming they had the accurate info, they would have provided the Yolo County DA’s Office with the correct criminal record.
SM: “Must the defendant and her representative do the DA’s work for them? It’s possible they didn’t know that the DA wasn’t aware of the fact that she was convicted of a felony and not a misdemeanor. I think you may have a point, but that depends, IMO, whether or not the DA’s Office exercised due diligence here as mentioned in the article. Yes, the DOJ RAP contained inaccurate information, but will the judge find that the DA’s Office should have discovered this in spite of that…by way of some other document or reference?”
I find it hard to believe that the defendant herself and her lawyer would not know whether she was convicted of a misdemeanor or felony. The lawyer has an ethical duty not to lie to the court – and a lie would include omissions of the truth. So from my perspective, I believe the defense had a duty to disclose the nature of the conviction here – felony or misdemeanor.
Now I am wondering if the DA’s office did perform due diligence in relying on DOJ RAP sheet? But if you couple the mistake in the DOJ RAP sheet and that the defense said nothing, it would seem to me the DA is less cupable here than the defense and the DOJ. But this is all supposition from people (including me) who are not intimately familiar with the intricate workings of the criminal justice system.
So I will be very interested to see what the judge does in this case. I would assume if the plea bargain is vacated, and a stiffer sentence is imposed, the fault here did not lie with the DA’s Office. If the judge does not allow the plea bargain to be vacated, then the fault was probably with the DA in not practicing due diligence beyond the DOJ RAP sheet. My gut is telling me the former rather than the latter, but my gut could certainly be wrong…
I think another reason I tend to favor the prosecution’s side is bc this defendant also pulled to wool over CASA’s eyes, by omitting to tell them of her felony conviction in Sacto County for the same type of crime. She managed to get her application approved for Director of Yolo County CASA just before charges showed up on her Sacto County record. It is just too coincidental for my comfort – it would appear we have a very devious defendant who knows exactly what she is doing…
As for communications between CASA and the DA, I’m still not clear from dmg’s coverage if there was or was not a meeting between the two…
Lot’s of questions… but this is not a sympathetic defendant, that’s for sure…
Mr. Toad: “DA’s office screws up based on erroneous info from DOJ. DA wants a reset. So instead you want to let injustice prevail.”
Good observation… why would anyone want to let this defendant get away with two bites at the apple?
ERM,
“I find it hard to believe that the defendant herself and her lawyer would not know whether she was convicted of a misdemeanor or felony. The lawyer has an ethical duty not to lie to the court – and a lie would include omissions of the truth. So from my perspective, I believe the defense had a duty to disclose the nature of the conviction here – felony or misdemeanor.”
I was suggesting that the defendant and her attorney might not have known that the prosecution was basing their plea on her having a misdemeanor charge (as indicated by the DOJ RAP sheet) and not a felony. I wasn’t suggesting that neither were aware of her past felonious behavior.
Also, if the defense was relying solely on the inaccurate RAP sheet in this case, he/she would have been just as oblivious to what Medlock’s true crim history was too, right? There’s no way, assuming she knew, Ms. Medlock was going to correct the record. At that point it’s not her duty to make sure the prosecution has sufficient evidence to nail her.
But this brings up an interesting issue: If the defense was aware of the DOJ RAP sheet mistake, but there were various other means for which Ms. Medlock’s true criminal history could be (or should’ve been) learned by the court/prosecution during the proceedings…is it the defense attorney’s ethical obligation to bring this to the attention of the court/prosecution knowing the result could be damaging for his/her client? I don’t know.
In this hypothetical, can’t the defense just say, “it’s here in x, y and z report/document…I figured the prosecution/court exercised due diligence and was aware of my client’s criminal history.”
ERM,
“Now I am wondering if the DA’s office did perform due diligence in relying on DOJ RAP sheet? But if you couple the mistake in the DOJ RAP sheet and that the defense said nothing, it would seem to me the DA is less cupable here than the defense and the DOJ. But this is all supposition from people (including me) who are not intimately familiar with the intricate workings of the criminal justice system.”
It’s a matter of whether or not relying solely on the DOJ RAP sheet is standard procedure, IMO. I think we can all agree that relying on the DOJ is generally pretty reasonable thing to do. However, no one is infallible and clerical errors are made. As such, when determining the fait of a defendant, is it sufficient to rely on the one source?
Assuming the defense did as much investigating as the prosecution did into Ms. Medlock’s criminal background, I don’t see how they would be any more culpable.
It’s funny, because I remember reading somewhere, by some posters, regarding how CASA failed on some level by relying so much on the DOJ RAP sheet when conducting their own background investigations on Ms. Medlock…apparently the chief law enforcement agency in the County isn’t much more thorough, in this case anyway.
ERM,
“I think another reason I tend to favor the prosecution’s side is bc this defendant also pulled to wool over CASA’s eyes, by omitting to tell them of her felony conviction in Sacto County for the same type of crime. She managed to get her application approved for Director of Yolo County CASA just before charges showed up on her Sacto County record. It is just too coincidental for my comfort – it would appear we have a very devious defendant who knows exactly what she is doing…”
Pulling the wool over the eyes of a small non-profit and the entire Yolo County Criminal Justice System are two entirely different things. If this woman is anything, it is cunning and lucky.
Here’s the thing: you can’t rely on a theiving, lying, stealing sociopath to tell those who seek to punish her…the TRUTH. That’s why due diligence is so important. When you have the victim in this case telling you (DA) that Medlock’s prior was a felony and not a misdemeanor, perhaps that should have been investigated sooner rather than a few weeks before sentencing.
SM: “But this brings up an interesting issue: If the defense was aware of the DOJ RAP sheet mistake, but there were various other means for which Ms. Medlock’s true criminal history could be (or should’ve been) learned by the court/prosecution during the proceedings…is it the defense attorney’s ethical obligation to bring this to the attention of the court/prosecution knowing the result could be damaging for his/her client? I don’t know.”
This is my sticking point. I find it hard to believe the defense would not know their client was convicted of a felony – but I think I was assuming the same defense attorney represented the defendant for both cases (Sacto and Yolo cases since they were in close proximity to each other in time) – which may not be correct.
If the defense knew of the DOJ’s mistake, I believe they do have an ethical duty to bring it to the attention of the court if they knew the erroneus DOJ report was being used for sentencing determination. Otherwise they would be engaging in perpetrating a fraud upon the court by remaining silent.
I do think whether the plea bargain is vacated will largely depend on whether using only the DOJ RAP sheet is reasonable, or if investigation beyond that is what is done in the normal course of business of prosecuting cases. And not having done much criminal law, I just don’t know the answer to that question. Altho if the DA is taking a stab at vacating the plea, it makes me think the grounds may be there…
However, it does bother me that this type of white collar criminal would get away with serious criminal activity twice, both times with lenient sentences, bc of a clerical error. That really offends my sense of justice.
ERM,
“This is my sticking point. I find it hard to believe the defense would not know their client was convicted of a felony – but I think I was assuming the same defense attorney represented the defendant for both cases (Sacto and Yolo cases since they were in close proximity to each other in time) – which may not be correct.”
I haven’t read once whether the attorney is the same. Even if the attorney, whomever it may be, was cognizant of Ms. Medlock’s felonious past that doesn’t prove that (A) defense knew of the DOJ RAP sheet mistake or (B) defense knew that the prosecution erroneously believed Ms. Medlock’s previous conviction was a misdemeanor.
“Altho if the DA is taking a stab at vacating the plea, it makes me think the grounds may be there…”
I’m not going to take this action to be indicative of whether or not the vacating of the plea is feasible. At the very least it’s a matter of saving face.
Think about it, victim has been telling the DA all along that the charge was a felony, DA fails to verify this, a twice embezzler gets lenient plea deal, DA decides to investigate victims’ allegation re: misdemeanor/felony charge, DA discovers error, THEN DOES NOTHING TO TRY TO REVERSE THE DEAL. That would make them look pretty bad.
It would be foolish to not try, despite the chances being miniscule.
“However, it does bother me that this type of white collar criminal would get away with serious criminal activity twice, both times with lenient sentences, bc of a clerical error. That really offends my sense of justice.”
Mine too.
Mr. Toad, On what basis is the DA entitled to withdraw their plea agreement that was already signed off? That’s really the bottom line here. I don’t see any basis. The Judge probably will argue that when they were pushed they looked into the matter further and were able to find the mistake. That suggests to me that they should have done that from the start and chose not to.
While brings me to my question for Elaine, why is it the defendant’s responsibility to correct erroneous information? Moreover, what evidence do you have that the defendant even knew that this information was erroneous and that that information was the basis for the plea agreement? Clearly if this case were in trial, the defense would have no ethical duty to correct faulty information that arises during the trial to help their client, that’s the prosecutor’s job. Why do they have it here?
dmg: “While brings me to my question for Elaine, why is it the defendant’s responsibility to correct erroneous information?”
This is one of those funny little ethical rules all attorneys (including defense attorneys) are bound by. A defense attorney is not permitted to mislead the court. See below:
Rule 5-200 Trial Conduct
In presenting a matter to a tribunal, a member:
(A) Shall employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to the member such means only as are consistent with truth;
(B) Shall not seek to mislead the judge, judicial officer, or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law;
(C) Shall not intentionally misquote to a tribunal the language of a book, statute, or decision;
(D) Shall not, knowing its invalidity, cite as authority a decision that has been overruled or a statute that has been repealed or declared unconstitutional; and
dmg: “Moreover, what evidence do you have that the defendant even knew that this information was erroneous and that that information was the basis for the plea agreement?”
I don’t have any such evidence, only what you tell your readers in your article. I just find it hard to believe the defendant would not know whether she was convicted of a felony or not, especially given her level of intelligence. And considering all the paperwork involved in signing off on a plea agreement, I find it hard to fathom that the basis of the plea agreement would not be stated clearly somewhere in the documents. Plea agreements are similar to contracts, and contracts are pretty explicit as to all the details. This is more a gut feeling on my part that she knew perfectly well what was going on when she got off almost scott free for the second time for a serious crime she knew she had already committed once before.
What I am not sure of is if there was a duty by the DA to dig deeper beyond just the DOJ RAP sheet. I assume it would depend on the standards of practice in the industry; how often the DOJ makes mistakes; and to what extent the defendant should have known that a mistake was made. It will be very interesting to see whether the plea is vacated or not. If it is, I would hazard a guess that the DOJ rap sheet can normally be relied upon to be correct and/or the defendant was attempting to perpetrate a fraud upon the court. If the plea is not vacated, I would assume the DOJ RAP sheet is sometimes wrong, and the standard practice is for the DA to double check, and the DA failed to investigate more thoroughly as would be expected.
Oops, forgot last part of Code of Conduct:
(E) Shall not assert personal knowledge of the facts at issue, except when testifying as a witness.
Just as an aside, if the plea is not vacated, at least there has been enough publicity around this defendant that she is unlikely to get a similar job. And I assume the DOJ RAP sheet will have been corrected…
[quote]It looks like your true interest is in bashing the DA. Sadly when you are critical of everything you lose your credibility as a critic. The DA deserves some criticism here but he is fixing it. To continue to attack him for trying to fix a mistake is more a reflection on you than on him. [/quote]
Once again, you defend the DA, pass blame on others, this time DOJ, it is never the DA’s fault and yet you want to say he is correcting his mistake, Really? Says who? You?
DA Reisig has never made any statement that he did anything wrong, he has Never accepted responsibility for any of his unethical actions, he does not ever attempt to clear up things for the people he is suppose to represent, he just hides behind false and misleading press releases and depends on people like you to carry his flag and fight his fights. Very cowardly actions and very consistent for Mr. Reisig.
Rabbit,
“Once again, you defend the DA, pass blame on others, this time DOJ, it is never the DA’s fault and yet you want to say he is correcting his mistake, Really? Says who? You?”
I think the DA here may very well burden some of the blame depending on what the standard practice is re: plea deal/relying exclusively on DOJ RAP sheet. However, if relying entirely on the DOJ RAP sheet is status quo and considered sufficient, then perhaps they are less culpable here. Nevertheless, the DOJ RAP sheet mistake can’t be blamed on the DA, right?
IMO, if the latter is the case, they apparently still shrugged off the victims’ claims that Medlock had in fact been previously convicted of felony embezzlement. In this case, the DA chose to rely on the one source (RAP sheet) and didn’t take CASA’s claims seriously until after the plea had been agreed upon. It sounds like it would have been fairly simple for the DA’s Office to have looked into CASA’s concerns early on, which I think is a failure on their part. It sounds as though CASA had not been taken seriously.
SM; ERM: The defense attorney has an ethical duty NOT to bring up information which would damage his client. In other words, ERM – you are exactly wrong. That is not to say the defense attorney can or should lie to the court, but here is where there is a difference in the law governing defense attorneys between standing mute and affirmatively stating a false fact. The first is required, the second is disallowed.
Further, a RAP sheet is inherently unreliable. That is why the court rules do not alllow it to impeach a witness or prove prior convictions. The responsible DA would have used the RAP as a hint to follow up on this defendant’s criminal history and contacted SAC probation and CASA and asked the defense attorney about the prior [what looked like] misdo conviction and the problem would have been averted.
This is clearly a DA lack of diligence problem and not a reason for withdrawal of the plea under the law. I would be shocked if Judge White granted the motion.
SM; ERM: The defense attorney has an ethical duty NOT to bring up information which would damage his client. In other words, ERM – you are exactly wrong. That is not to say the defense attorney can or should lie to the court, but here is where there is a difference in the law governing defense attorneys between standing mute and affirmatively stating a false fact. The first is required, the second is disallowed.
Further, a RAP sheet is inherently unreliable. That is why the court rules do not alllow it to impeach a witness or prove prior convictions. The responsible DA would have used the RAP as a hint to follow up on this defendant’s criminal history and contacted SAC probation and CASA and asked the defense attorney about the prior [what looked like] misdo conviction and the problem would have been averted.
This is clearly a DA lack of diligence problem and not a reason for withdrawal of the plea under the law. I would be shocked if Judge White granted the motion.
See on findlaw.com: No 99-2599 United States v Williams Dec 7, 1999, which states:
“2. Mistake of Fact…
After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court’s interpretation of the parties’ understanding upon signing the plea agreement is not clearly erroneous and we accept it as accurate for our analysis…
The legal question then is what is the appropriate remedy for the mutual mistake of fact recited in the Agreement, taking the intent of the parties as the district court has found it. The district court concluded that voiding the contract was appropriate, while Williams argues for reformation. We look to traditional principles of contract law, tempered by concerns of equity and due process arising from the unique context in which this contract arises, to determine the answer to this question. See Ingram, 979 F.2d at 1184; Fields, 766 F.2d at 1168. Both voidance and reformation are appropriate remedies where a contract is infected by a mutual mistake of fact. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 152, 155. Reformation is the appropriate remedy when the mistake “is one as to expression-one that relates to the contents or effect of the writing that is intended to express [an] agreement.” Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 155 cmt. a. Voidance is the proper remedy “[w]here a mistake of both parties at the time a contract was made as to a basic assumption on which the contract was made has a material effect on the agreed exchange of performances.” Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 152(1).”
From People v Santos (1994) 30 Cal. App. 4th 169, 35:
“Further, “[e]vidence of prior felony convictions offered for [impeachment] purpose[s] is restricted to the name or type of crime and the date and place of conviction.” (People v. Allen (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1222, 1270 [232 Cal.Rptr. 849, 729 P.2d 115].) Inquiry into the circumstances and underlying facts of the felony is prohibited when the evidence is offered for impeachment purposes only. (Ibid.; People v. Heckathorne (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d [30 Cal.App.4th 177] 458, 462 [248 Cal.Rptr. 399].)”
Don’t know why part of quote was underlined, so I’ll try again –
From People v Santos (1994) 30 Cal. App. 4th 169, 35:
“Further, “[e]vidence of prior felony convictions offered for [impeachment] purpose[s] is restricted to the name or type of crime and the date and place of conviction.” (People v. Allen (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1222, 1270 [232 Cal.Rptr. 849, 729 P.2d 115].) Inquiry into the circumstances and underlying facts of the felony is prohibited when the evidence is offered for impeachment purposes only. (Ibid.; People v. Heckathorne (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d [30 Cal.App.4th 177] 458, 462 [248 Cal.Rptr. 399].)”
I give up on removing the underlining!
Kathryne,
I was hoping you would way in on this one. It sounds like my hunches were right, for the most part. So, even during the plea bargaining process if the DDA say “blah, blah, blah, given Ms. Medlock’s previous misdemeanor…” the defense can simply stay mute and that’s permitted, right?
My problem is this: even if the prosecution just thought Ms. Medlock had a previous MISDEMEANOR embezzlement conviction…she began embezzling money from CASA several months after being convicted for her previous embezzlement…stealing money from a non-profit, so I don’t see the huge distinction between what they knew then and what they know now.
In my opinion, that deal was still pretty lenient even if they had just thought her prior was a misdemeanor,
Elaine,
I think you may be “striking” through the text as opposed to underlining it. The “S” with a line running through it is the “strike” function, which is right next to the underlining function (“U” w/line underneath it), so you might have mistakenly hit the wrong one.
SM: “So, even during the plea bargaining process if the DDA say “blah, blah, blah, given Ms. Medlock’s previous misdemeanor…” the defense can simply stay mute and that’s permitted, right?”
As an attorney who has not done much criminal law work, I see several competing issues here: duty to client; candor to court; is a knowing omission a lie? Hmmmmmmmmmm…