I have sat in Judge Fall’s courtroom as he handed down an implausible sentence of 378 years to Ajay Dev. I have sat in Judge Fall’s courtroom as he berated a young public defender, demeaning her not only in front of her colleagues, but in front of a jury.
He makes attorneys nervous. He acts in an arrogant and condescending fashion at times. But privately I have had more than one attorney tell me no judge in Yolo County knows the law better than Judge Fall, and Judge Fall makes them a better attorney.
But I will say one thing, I have gained a measure of respect for the Judge, based on how he handled matters on Friday. There was a moment of contention over the status of former West Sacramento Police Officer James Reeder.
Deputy District Attorney Ryan Couzens clearly attempted to instigate something against the Vanguard, who has criticized his conduct both in the Pruno Case as well as in the Gang Injunction Case. After whatever he told Deputy DA Palumbo on Friday, she launched into almost a tirade, decrying the bloggers who are blogging on so many blogs about this case.
She said the word “blogger” as though she meant vermin. She wanted to close down the court. I think most judges would have obliged.
While I appreciate the fact that Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira immediately defended the public’s right to be in the courtroom, she had a stake in that matter. Judge Fall, on the other hand, did not.
And he did not blink. He carefully weighed the evidence and the need to go into private, and saw clearly that there was no reason to do so. He even lectured the Deputy DA on the need for the public to be able to watch court proceedings and the importance of the Bill of Rights. Ryan Couzens was long gone by that point, but he should have stuck around to hear the lecture.
It is ironic that we are having this discussion about open government, as the national site Wikileaks has been on the forefront of controversy for leaking out perhaps some of the less-than-heavily-classified government secrets. Just enough to embarrass the government.
There are now concerted efforts to shut down their site, either through denial of service or by pressuring web hosts.
Reaction this week has been fierce, with some in Congress calling for WikiLeaks to be labeled as a terrorist organization and some suggesting it is an attack on American foreign policy interests.
Few are asking the real question: whether everything that we are keeping a secret really should be secret. And furthermore, whether you can really keep secrets in this day and age. Perhaps if the Saudi Government does not want to be embarrassed, it should not tell the US to attack Iran.
I side with those who believe that government should keep fewer secrets and be more open.
I am not saying that there are not legitimate secrets – things like weapons designs, nuclear secrets, troop movements, etc.
On the other hand, I think people like Daniel Ellsberg are heroes, not traitors.
But I digress. On Friday, we were not dealing with state secrets, we were dealing with the peculiar reaction that the DA’s Office had when the Public Defender tried to find out on the stand if Mr. Reeder had been fired.
Former Davis Police Chief Phil Coleman made a comment on the Vanguard that I think perfectly captures one perspective.
He stated, “In the instant case, a trial involving a former police employee finds a defense attorney probing the circumstances of his termination in front of a judge and jury.”
He continued, “The questions asked were illegal (note that the questions she asked had nothing to do with current attitude towards his former department; rather, how he left the department). Opposing counsel successfully objected and the questioner had to rephrase questions that were within the law’s boundaries.”
He suggests at that point the damage was done and the defense won that round and only had to suffer a mild admonishment from the judge.
He then asks, “What if the circumstances of the termination had nothing to do with the case or the officer’s credibility?”
But Mr. Coleman misses the key point here. The proper solution is to expose the truth, not to hide it.
We would not have to speculate on the reasons for his termination if he laid his cards on the table. The jury would then have the ability to decide whether it was relative to this case and to his credibility and expertise as a police officer.
What if he were dismissed for using excessive force? Would that perhaps call into question his use of force in this case?
What if he were dismissed for not following proper procedure? Wouldn’t that weigh on his ability to discern, in this case, if proper procedure were followed?
Or perhaps it was nothing related and should have no impact. The jury can listen to all the evidence and decide if it matters. We like to allow the jury to make life and death decisions at times, but we don’t trust them to be able to ferret out relevant information from irrelevant. That makes little sense.
As it is, there was subject Mr. Fermin Galvan, who by Mr. Reeder’s own testimony was 30 feet from the confrontation, he was not advancing on the other officers and he was not talking to his brother. And yet Mr. Reeder deemed him a threat, used force to subdue him and arrested him, causing injury. Should we not be able to question Mr. Reeder’s actions under those conditions?
We have officers who are trained to use deadly force. They have a tremendous amount of public power and public trust. And yet, even in a court of law it takes a full Pitchess Motion and a hearing to get access to the personnel records to determine if they have a history of misconduct or dishonesty. It is a very high burden to reach.
Why are we working so hard to hide the truth from the public, the jury and the law?
We have a man on trial who was beaten within inches of his life. He is permanently deformed and disabled, and has suffered brain damage. There was testimony at the last trial that the medical examiner thought he was dead. And he is being charged with a crime. And we cannot even get the truth out in a court of law about the history of the officers involved in the incident.
I believe that government works best with full transparency, or at least as full as possible. Let the public scrutinize and decide for itself whether they agree or do not agree.
Are there reasons to distrust the people? No doubt. They make mistakes. But so too does the government. So, if I want to err, I want it to be on the side of knowing too much rather than too little.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Although Judge Fall can be a pain in the butt and tends to be harsh, over-bearing and appears just mean at times, he is that way with fairly consistent with most everyone. He does not hide what he thinks and you know where you stand with him. I would rather know the man and dislike or disagree with him rather than be lied to, fooled, mislead and never know the truth.
Those, like DA Jeff Reisig who are always trying to hide the truth and conceal what really happens and mislead the public with misleading press releases and flood the media with bits and pieces of information just to make him look good are the root of the destruction of our democracy.
The Judges of Yolo can hold the DA responsible, but few do? Not sure why that is.
From dmg’s previous article on Galven case:
“DDA Palumbo indicated that her concern was not about Mr. Reeder working for All Phase Security, it was that Ms. Sequiera was attempting to ask whether he had been terminated, which would be in violation of the in limine motions.
Ms. Sequiera stated that she was not trying to ask, “were you terminated,” but rather trying to get at this issue as to whether Mr. Reeder’s views of the West Sacramento Police Department changed from 2005 to the present.
Judge Fall said the real issue is what Mr. Reeder presently thinks about the West Sacramento Police Department.
From Wikipedia: “Motion in limine (Latin: “at the threshold”) is a motion made before the start of a trial requesting that the judge rule that certain evidence may, or may not, be introduced to the jury in a trial. This is done in judge’s chambers, or in open court, but always out of hearing of the jury. If a question is to be decided in limine, it will be for the judge to decide. Usually it is used to shield the jury from possibly inadmissible and unfairly prejudicial evidence.”
Phil Coleman: “”The questions asked were illegal (note that the questions she asked had nothing to do with current attitude towards his former department; rather, how he left the department). Opposing counsel successfully objected and the questioner had to rephrase questions that were within the law’s boundaries.”
dmg: “He [Phil Coleman] suggests at that point the damage was done and the defense won that round and only had to suffer a mild admonishment from the judge. He then asks, “What if the circumstances of the termination had nothing to do with the case or the officer’s credibility?””
The judge had already decided the circumstances of the termination were not relevant to this case in an in limine motion, unless I’m missing something. The defense was trying to illegally get around the in limine motion already ruled on by the judge, and by doing so artificially created suspicion in the minds of everyone – including dmg who repeats it on his blog for all readers to also become suspicious. I believe Phil Colemans’s assessment is exactly on point here. Had the prosecution done something similar and unsavory, I believe the author of this article would be jumping up and down crying foul. Dmg, you cannot have it both ways…
Just as an aside, why does Julian Assange get to be the arbitor of what is classified and what is not? Who elected him to that position? He has more than likely endangered people’s lives who cooperated with the U.S., other countries may not deal with us bc they may feel the US is incapable of keeping state secrets, it is likely many of the leaks were taken out of context. How can anyone decry gov’t wiretapping without a warrant as overly instrusive gov’t meddling, but extol Assange for listening in on gov’t conversations and publishing it to the world? What’s to stop Assange from looking in on any citizen he feels like, and publishing any conversation to the world? Hollywood may be next, business executives (apparently banks are coming), private citizens of prestige/interest, politicians, whoever Assange has decided is an “appropriate” target. Personally I hope they catch and prosecute this arrogant self-anointed arbitor of all things right and relevant…
dmg: “We have a man on trial who was beaten within inches of his life. He is permanently deformed and disabled, and has suffered brain damage. There was testimony at the last trial that the medical examiner thought he was dead. And he is being charged with a crime. And we cannot even get the truth out in a court of law about the history of the officers involved in the incident.”
The man on trial that was beaten within inches of his life did not keep his hands out of his pockets, struck a police officer – which escalated the entire incident. Unless you believe the police randomly assault citizens for no reason – just for the pure fun of it. The question really is one of reasonable force. Did the victim and the officer use reasonable force under the circumstances of this particular situation? Since the judge has already ruled the officer’s termination was not relevant to this case, why is there a need to know that information by the public?
Elaine:
“The judge had already decided the circumstances of the termination were not relevant to this case in an in limine motion, unless I’m missing something. The defense was trying to illegally get around the in limine motion already ruled on by the judge, and by doing so artificially created suspicion in the minds of everyone – including dmg who repeats it on his blog for all readers to also become suspicious. I believe Phil Colemans’s assessment is exactly on point here. Had the prosecution done something similar and unsavory, I believe the author of this article would be jumping up and down crying foul. Dmg, you cannot have it both ways… “
That’s precisely the problem here, you cannot hide things that are obvious. You’ve reversed the issue – the question is why hide not why disclose. If Mr. Reeder was terminated and it had nothing to do with the current case or his credibility, why hide it?
“The man on trial that was beaten within inches of his life did not keep his hands out of his pockets, struck a police officer – which escalated the entire incident.”
That’s accepting the police’s version of what happened, which also omits the language barrier and other more innocuous explanations.
“Unless you believe the police randomly assault citizens for no reason – just for the pure fun of it. “
I think you are precluding other explanations such as the police losing their cool or misreading a scenario. I don’t think the officers who beat Rodney King were beating him for the fun of it, and yet it is pretty clear they went too far.
“The question really is one of reasonable force. Did the victim and the officer use reasonable force under the circumstances of this particular situation?”
That is one of the questions. The other being whether it was a legitimate arrest. You’ll notice that there are no underlying charges. He was not charged with public intoxication or possession of weapons. So how do you have a resisting arrest charge with no underlying arrest? Isn’t that suspicious.
“Since the judge has already ruled the officer’s termination was not relevant to this case, why is there a need to know that information by the public? “
The standards for getting Pitchess type information admitted are extremely high. The law and not the judge made the barrier high. For instance, it is plausible that even an excessive force charge would not be admissible even though this is a case of excessive force.
I think that the reason Judge Fall is allowing the public to watch this case is because he does know the law, but more importantly, Judge Fall knows the might of the “pen or the keyboard.” Judge Fall realizes that if he ruled against the “bloggers” being in the courtroom that his ruling would show up in the Vanguard.
Judge Fall is watching out for Judge Fall. And he must have a certain amount of respect for the Vanguard because he knows people are reading it.
DMG, “So how do you have a resisting arrest charge with no underlying arrest? Isn’t that suspicious.”
Not if the officers had cause to detain the individuals. What they say happened is that the officers observed signs of criminal behavior during their investigation and when the one brother didn’t comply with the officer (once he had articulable suspicion) they cna’t resist/fight the officer or even end their contact with the officer on their own terms…thus the officer can respond with force when they resisted and/or hit the officers.
Officer observing criminal behavior…suspect won’t keep his hands out of his pockets..officer is thinking at that point that the guy has a weapon and could use it on him, which is why he grabbed the suspect’s wrist/hand. That’s what I think, anyway.
Just because the “crime,” which the officers subjectively perceived to be the case…a crime may be or was taking place, turned out to not be a crimes that doesn’t mean the Galvan brothers were acting lawfully in resisting and/or assaulting a leo.
FAI,
“Judge Fall is watching out for Judge Fall. And he must have a certain amount of respect for the Vanguard because he knows people are reading it.”
I’m doubtful that Judge Fall’s too concerned with what is said about him here or elsewhere. IOW, I don’t think he’s shaking in his boots regarding the prospect of having “bloggers all over the place…” oooh, LOL at DDA Palumbo.
That said, perhaps he does have a certain level of respect for what the Vanguard is trying to do with the YJW, for all we know…
“But privately I have had more than one attorney tell me no judge in Yolo County knows the law better than Judge Fall, and Judge Fall makes them a better attorney.”
So to some he’s like…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZJEhlIefxA
dmg: “That’s precisely the problem here, you cannot hide things that are obvious. You’ve reversed the issue – the question is why hide not why disclose. If Mr. Reeder was terminated and it had nothing to do with the current case or his credibility, why hide it?”
Bc it would unnecessarily embarrass Mr. Reeder, holding him up to public ridicule, to no good purpose. The judge already decided Mr. Reeder’s termination had nothing at all to do with the case. If the prosection tried to do the same thing, hold a defense witness up to ridicule unnecessarily, you would be all over the prosecution in a heartbeat. You cannot have it both ways. Are you trying to tell me that irrelevant evidence should be admitted for the sake of “transparency” in a trial? You don’t even want to go down that road…
dmg: “That is one of the questions. The other being whether it was a legitimate arrest. You’ll notice that there are no underlying charges. He was not charged with public intoxication or possession of weapons. So how do you have a resisting arrest charge with no underlying arrest? Isn’t that suspicious.”
Not if the defendant did not cooperate when told to keep his hands out of his pockets. The officer has no way of knowing what a defendant is reaching for if he starts to put his hands in his pockets. If the defendant then resists bc he feels he has done nothing wrong, it escalates the entire situation. Citizens have to understand the police have the muscle, weapons, upper hand in a situation like this. To resist is pointless and can get you severely injured or killed – which is what happened here and in the subway killing in Oakland. All bc citizens decided they had the right to violently “resist”. It is a matter of common sense.
Also, from Wikipedia: “Resisting unlawful arrest is a possible justification for breaking the law. Defendants who use this defense are arguing that they should not be held guilty for a crime, since the actions taken were intended to protect them from an unlawful arrest. Many courts will not tolerate any violence whatsoever (committed while resisting an unlawful arrest), and almost certainly not “deadly force,” unless the police began to use violence before the defendant began to do so. In short, a defendant might be justified in running away from police attempting an unlawful arrest; but, almost certainly will not be considered justified in shooting police who attempt to do so (unless the defendant can somehow prove self-defense). Many states such as Illinois have clauses in the law to prevent any legal justification of resisting an unlawful arrest.”
dmg: “The standards for getting Pitchess type information admitted are extremely high. The law and not the judge made the barrier high. For instance, it is plausible that even an excessive force charge would not be admissible even though this is a case of excessive force.”
The judge made the ruling, and everyone needs to abide by it – both prosecution and defense. If either side could decide on their own which rules they are going to follow, and which they are not, mayhem would be the result. You would be upset if the prosecution did not follow the rules, right? Then what is good for the goose is good for the gander…
I have observed more than one case presided over by Judge Fall. From my observations, Judge Fall values punctuality, preparation, and succinct cogent arguments by attorneys. The phrase “does not suffer fools gladly” also springs to mind. Yet as David as noted for example in his July 22, 2010 post, Judge Fall has a great dry wry sense of humor. And sometimes even when he is ‘scolding’ he is almost so over the top that I could see a comedy skit. For example, in the Conaway Ranch proceedings (phase 1) just before he announced his ruling, he issued instructions about maintaining proper decorum such that neither side was “to clap, cheer, fling their arms up over their heads…” whilst demonstrating the non-acceptable arm movement. In the movie version, I would write in “and no one shall dance a victory jig” whilst he demonstrates in judicial robes the non-acceptable behavior with his hind-side to the courtroom. Really, I had to keep my eyes averted to remain appropriately subdued and not burst out laughing.
Those proceedings were of an excellent caliber–both teams of attorneys had many years of experience in litigation. Judge Fall praised both sides for their professionalism during the close.