It should have been a routine preliminary hearing. Three youths, accused of being members of the Norteno criminal street gang in Woodland, were involved in a January incident in which a 40-ounce beer bottle was thrown at an alleged member of the rival Sureno criminal gang, but missed and broke the window of the 7-11 store.
However, with Deputy DA Ryan Couzens on the job, there is no such think as a routine preliminary hearing. The defense attorneys in the case during the break were overheard complaining that this had become a “typical Ryan Couzens three-day prelim.”
The alleged victim in the case had been contacted by a police officer, and while uncooperative with police at that time, said he’d been attacked at the 7-11 and identified the individuals involved. The attackers allegedly shouted gang slurs such as “Bosque this” and “Bosque that.”
However, when he was called to testify and took the stand, he began to recant his story, giving vague answers, and often stated that he failed to remember the circumstances or who the defendants were.
He said that he had been inside the 7-11 when the glass entry door had been smashed. He said he had gone outside and seen only a police officer outside and no one else.
This clearly contradicted what he had told the police at the scene. At this point, defense attorney J. Toney stood and asked to be heard outside of the presence of the witness.
After the witness left the courtroom, Mr. Toney explained that the witness’s testimony had differed enough from his statement to the police to put him in danger or either perjury or of making a false statement to a police officer. Mr. Toney read the police report to indicate the difference between it and the witness’s statements.
Deputy DA Ryan Couzens stood and explained that his office had never charged a witness with perjury. Jeffery Raven, attorney for the second co-defendant, interjected and stated that he’d been attorney of record for a defendant in a preliminary hearing where, in fact, Mr. Couzens had arranged for a witness to be arrested after he testified and had charged him with perjury when he had done so.
Mr. Couzens then argued that that was a completely different situation, nevertheless he was unwilling at any point to grant the witness immunity, which would have been the quickest way to get his account on the record and allow him to be properly cross-examined.
The court took a recess and returned to advise the witness of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and of his right to legal counsel. The witness stated that he did wish to have legal representation. At this point, the court took another recess while an attorney was arranged to represent him.
Defense Attorney Rodney Beede was appointed to represent the witness, and argued that he faced liability and asked for immunity.
Deputy DA Couzens refused to grant any sort of immunity, arguing that it would be inappropriate. He further argued that the defendant does not have a right to assert the Fifth Amendment.
During the second day of the preliminary hearing the witness testified and frequently invoked his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. The defense was interested in asking him about some PVC pipe that he had carried to the scene. However, when they could not ask questions, they requested the witness’ entire testimony be stricken.
Deputy DA Couzens was furious. He stated, first of all, that this arrangement was due entirely to the meddling of Mr. Toney who was now using it to throw out the witness’ testimony. This provoked an angry response from Mr. Toney and a reminder that all Mr. Couzens would have to do was invoke immunity and this was a non-issue.
Mr. Couzens argued that to allow them to do so was a dangerous precedent as it would allow any defense counsel to ask questions that could possibly incriminate, and then have the damaging testimony stricken.
The defense countered that they had the right to cross-examine a witness. Judge David Reed threw out the testimony but allowed Mr. Couzens to submit a motion purporting to show case law and authorities as to why it should stay.
Jeffrey Raven argued that this was all a ploy by Mr. Couzens to use the prior inconsistent exception to hearsay to allow all of the statements by the police officer and to tell the jury what the officer stated as though it were truth.
Deputy DA Couzens argued that the PVC pipe is not a weapon, the facts demonstrate, according to him, that the PVC was carried to the scene, left outside and the victim was not armed at the time of the attack.
Mr. Raven, however, countered that we do not know that, that statement has not been made by either the victim or the police, and that even if the statement were made it would be solely the word of the victim.
Judge Reed stood by his ruling and disallowed the testimony, citing the fact that there were key issues of the PVC pipe, charges that the victim was under the influence, and questions about why he was there to begin with that needed to be examined during cross.
Mr. Raven, questioning the police gang expert, was able to strongly question his client’s gang affiliation. He has no tattoos. There is limited evidence of his gang membership, except for when he was a youth and had been taken into California Youth Authority and he had signed the pre-admission form as a northerner. However, this is a questionable means of identification because they house people mainly on the basis of ethnicity and geography to avoid fights.
In his preadmission form, he basically said he was not a gang member, but did know northerners.
The evidence in this case, particularly without the witness, is exceedingly weak. The questions that the witness did answer were vague and at times contradictory.
In other words, even if he did testify, it would be difficult for a jury to find him credible.
Judge Reed found enough evidence to hold the defendants to answer the charges. The standard in a preliminary hearing is whether there is any evidence that, if proved to be true, would lead a reasonable person to convict.
However, at the same time, Judge Reed made it a point to note that there are significant proof issues beyond simply ordering them being held over for trial.
When asking one of the defense attorneys about a possible settlement, the response was “Not with Ryan Couzens as the prosecutor.”
In fact, Mr. Couzens bears a huge responsibility for the nature of how long this case dragged out. He could have simply granted the witness immunity which could have allowed the preliminary hearing to last the single day that it was originally scheduled to last. He only called two officers and a witness.
However, Mr. Toney was right to be concerned about the witness/victim facing liability and prosecution.
In a previous case, where the defense attorney was also Jeffrey Raven, an individual was accused of stealing an old rusty boat from someone’s property in El Dorado county and towing it to Clarksburg.
Two individuals, including a Mr. Beardslee, were contacted by a detective and stated to him that they were with the main defendant while the boat was towed.
Mr. Beardslee was not charged for his involvement in the case until he showed up in court for the preliminary for the other two defendants.
Mr. Couzens apparently talked with the detective and they decided he would get arrested once he had testified.
According to the report from the Sheriff’s Deputy, “Deputy DA Ryan Couzens was also there and he asked me if the subject I saw next to Rossetta was Beardslee. I told him it was. Couzens told me that he was going to call Beardslee as a witness to get his testimony. I agreed with Couzens that I would arrest Beardslee for this case after he testified.”
How they knew he was going to perjure himself is unclear.
However, the Deputy writes, “While testifying, Beardslee denied ever telling me that he and Rossetta were both with Linch while he was towing the stolen boat to Yolo County from El Dorado County. During this same earlier statement to me, which was recorded, Beardslee also stated that the plan for the boat was to put it inside the shop on Howard Sakai’s property so they could repair it and then use it on the Sacramento River.”
In the transcript to that hearing, Mr. Raven made the remark on the record to the effect of my god, they just arrested Mr. Beardslee.
It seems pretty clear, despite the protest of Mr. Couzens, that this is almost the exact same scenario as what happened in this most recent case, and that Mr. Toney was absolutely correct to call for an attorney to represent the witness/victim.
In fact, the ball was in Mr. Couzens’ court all along, and he took a gamble that he could convince Judge Reed, who is ordinarily the drug court judge, to allow his testimony. I think that Mr. Raven was correct in his strategy to allow the hearsay statement to the officer to become admissible as a prior inconsistent statement. It could then be admitted for the truth and the defense would have a way of cross-examining the witness.
As Judge Reed did not acquiesce to Mr. Couzens’ demands, the case has fallen apart. However, this case will still go forward because Mr. Couzens will not offer a suitable settlement and the DA will eventually lose due to lack of evidence against the defendants.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
dmg: “However, when he was called to testify and took the stand, he began to recant his story, giving vague answers, and often stated that he failed to remember the circumstances or who the defendants were.”
And this is what both prosecutors and defense attorneys have to deal with in court proceedings – imperfect witnesses, imperfect victims, imperfect defendants – that do not do/say what was presupposed… it is the nature of trial work.
dmg: “As Judge Reed did not acquiesce to Mr. Couzens’ demands, the case has fallen apart. However, this case will still go forward because Mr. Couzens will not offer a suitable settlement and the DA will eventually lose due to lack of evidence against the defendants.”
This is supposition, not fact. No one knows what is going to happen or what additional evidence may come to light…
ERM
This is an informational question from someone from a very different field. You state ” this is the nature of trial work.”
To me, the question is very basic. Should it be ? Is the adversarial system we currently use truly the most efficient, cost effective means to arrive at a just conclusion ? Or is it time to question the fundamentals of our system to see if a more collaborative approach might be at least as if not more fair, equitable and just while at the same time more cost effective ?
To medwoman: Interesting question. What would you substitute in its place that is any better? And there’s the conundrum.
What is interesting is that lawmakers over the years have tried to tinker w the trial system to bring greater equity, but it seems to backfire. For instance, the three strikes law was brought on board bc certain judges were seen as far too lenient (and they were). The result was a draconian three strikes law that ended up with horribly unfair results – sometimes w life sentences for minor offenses.
There are corrupt DA’s that don’t follow the rules, as in the Duke rape case. There are less than ethical defense attorneys, who will do just about anything to get their client off, even if on a technicality. There are occasionally crooked/agenda driven judges as well. The system is run by human beings, and therefore prone to error and corruption. But it seems to be the best system we have thus far, and I don’t know of any better model to replace it.
There are some models of “restorative justice” which have been tried. But they only seem to work in very limited circumstances. In cases like these, the perpetrator apologizes to his/her victim, then works to repay the victim for their loss. Obviously in the case of murder, or destruction of property as in arson, this isn’t a very satisfactory system. It is more often used in cases of juvenile delinquency, for fairly minor cases of property damage/theft.
To medwoman: I know you are fairly recent to this blog, but I have pointed out before that trials are very messy things. Most people seem to think trials are very much like what they see on television – but that is just not the real situation. More often than not, cases, witnesses, defendants and victims are far less than perfect. That is just the nature of crime…
ERM
First, thanks for the thoughtful and thought provoking response.
These models of restorative justice would seem closer to what I would have in mind.
Could you see a role for expanding them to more cases such as the nonviolent three strikers, minor and nonviolent drug offenders, prostitution and the like while maintaing incarceration only for those who pose an actual societal risk such as murderers, arsonists, bombers and the like ?
What would you see as the problems of such expansion of this model?
Also, what other systems have been looked at for ideas? For example what would seem to be the successes and pitfalls of legal systems of other countries ? Can you direct me to some layperson friendly literature in this area? Speaking only for my own field, medicine, I am aware of what an information over load there is and how easy it is to become totally focused on how we do things here, sometimes forgetting to look at potentially better practices already in place elsewhere? Do you see a similar trend in the area of law?
Typical [b]”Bully” behavior that is promoted, condoned and encouraged by the DA.[/b] This should be an abuse of power and prosecutor misconduct. This is how the justice system in Yolo has been morphed into threats, fear and intimidation to get false plea deals, false witness testimony and has corrupted the system.
This is standard procedure for the DA to threaten perjury charges if you don’t say what he wants to hear. Whatever the DA thinks is true you must say or expect to be arrested for perjury. How many perjury convictions has this DA got? None that I know of, it is simply a fear, threat and bully move to intimidate a witness. [b]If a gang member threatened a witness he would face criminal charges, when the DA does it, he calls it justice.[/b] What a travesty of justice, how long will this be allowed?
Just another reason on why NOT to work with police or get involved with Law Enforcement in Yolo. If you say something and the police write it down wrong, or misinterpret it or write in a report what they think or believe you said, if you say anything else in court, the DA will target you and you will become another victim of this DA.
So the lesson here is do not talk to the police, do not get involved, [u]do not try and help and give statements or you may end up facing this ego maniac DA that will charge you with a felony crime since you do not say what he wants or say it how he wants you to say.[/u]
The flip side is, if you get in trouble and decide to say whatever the DA wants, [b]you will get a sweet plea deal or immunity for helping him,[/b] sounds like the mafia just legal.
[quote]After the witness left the courtroom, Mr. Toney explained that the witness’s testimony had differed enough from his statement to the police to put him in danger or either perjury or of making a false statement to a police officer. Mr. Toney read the police report to indicate the difference between it and the witness’s statements.[/quote] The other thing that could have happened is the cops got it wrong, they wrote it wrong, the heard or interpreted it differently than what the witness thought he was saying, or the witness was excited and trying to help so he said more or what he thought would help the police and then when he got on the stand he was more honest and careful, but NOT in YOLO, [b]if you are honest on the stand and the DA does not like it, you get charged with a felony.[/b]
[b]People need to take a lesson here, do not get involved in the so called justice system in Yolo or you might become a target.[/b]
“And this is what both prosecutors and defense attorneys have to deal with in court proceedings – imperfect witnesses, imperfect victims, imperfect defendants – that do not do/say what was presupposed… it is the nature of trial work. “
Made worse when you have imperfect prosecutors trying to be too cute by half. Made worse when the prosecutor tries to take more than the case will get him. And made all the worse by the fact that we have limit county resources for prosecuting cases.
As one of the attorneys quipped, a three day prelim in a case where one youth may have thrown a bottle at another, and that person was not my client. How much money do you think the county spent on that?
David,
I suspect it may cost considerably more than the replacement cost of the window and maybe some community service time tossed into help impress the need for community responsibility. maybe an excellent place for Elaine’s example to me of cases of “restorative justice”?
What say you Elaine ?
[quote]Typical “Bully” behavior that is promoted, condoned and encouraged by the DA. This should be an abuse of power and prosecutor misconduct.[/quote]
How do you know this is condoned by Reisig. She someone lies in court it is perjury. Barry Bonds is being charged with it. Or is the only time some should be charged with perjury is when truthful testimony will help the defense?
[quote]This is standard procedure for the DA to threaten perjury charges if you don’t say what he wants to hear. Whatever the DA thinks is true you must say or expect to be arrested for perjury. [/quote]
How many times has this happened to make this standard practice? is less than 10 in all the cases that pass through the courts considered standard practice?
[quote]Just another reason on why NOT to work with police or get involved with Law Enforcement in Yolo. If you say something and the police write it down wrong, or misinterpret it or write in a report what they think or believe you said, if you say anything else in court, the DA will target you and you will become another victim of this DA. [/quote]
Completely nonsensical logic. I don’t even think I should use the word logic as it relates to any of your posts. I’m starting to think you are simply an internet troll who gets on here to say outrageous things. I find it hard to believe anyone with the cognitive ability to turn on a computer could think your posts have anything thought process whatsoever.
Seriously, don’t cooperate with the police at all. That is how the justice system works. Victims of child abuse, burglary victims, rape victims, family members of murder victims, NEVER COOPERATE WITH THE POLICE. Listen to the wisdom of Rodger Rabbit. Please.
[quote]The other thing that could have happened is the cops got it wrong, they wrote it wrong, the heard or interpreted it differently than what the witness thought he was saying, or the witness was excited and trying to help so he said more or what he thought would help the police and then when he got on the stand he was more honest and careful, but NOT in YOLO[/quote]
Seriously, this is getting delusional. I will give you that not every cop is a rocket scientist but from this “victim” giving officers the name of the suspect to saying he couldn’t remember anything and being vague it is VERY unlikely the officers interpreted “I can’t remember anything.” to “It was John Smith.”
I have previously asked DG to denounce this type of nonsense but it hasn’t happened. The type of conjecture regularly provided by Rabbit does nothing to assist in the discussion. Whether you support the DA or not this type of unsupported incendiary rhetoric should be addressed by the people in charge. Apparently that type of dialogue is acceptable here.
It’s easier to read the posts by Jake Wallace even when they have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
[b]Oh my, let me address Mr Oblivious[/b]: So the only two options for police is a name who did or I don’t know? Nothing in between, perhaps you should learn how an investigation is done so you won’t look so ignorant. Cops interrogate, questions, suggest and try and provoke memory from witnesses, they some time show photos, they sometime tell one witness what another witness said to try and get corroboration and many other investigative techniques. This can be suggestive and can sometime help get the truth and some time confuse the truth and sometime get a witness to try and help out thinking the police know something that the witness does not know so the witness agrees to some suggestions. Here is a little news flash, if you ever go to court and if you understood the system you would know it is not uncommon for witnesses to be kicked out of the court room so they don’t hear other witnesses testimony as to not influence their testimony.
Of course, it is common practice for the DA to question and suggest or provide information to witnesses, [b]called preparation of a witness to testify, to ensure the witness knows what the questions will be and what answers they want.
[/b]
So although the court may prevent witnesses from hearing other witnesses, cops on the street do not. Cops are not in a sterile environment with rooms, chairs, note pads, tables, nice lawyers wearing suits in a court room, they are on the streets doing in field investigations and mistakes happen. [b]So spare me the “I love DA Reisig and he is perfect” speech.[/b] He is a sleazy unethical lawyer who uses his position and power to intimidate and do his own deeds and does not represent the people, victims or the people that foolishly elected him.
So your call for David to sensor people that point out his unethical and corrupt behavior may work with the Democrat and other local papers, since they want to stay on the good side of Reisig since they know his wrath and his past retaliation type behavior, but since David reports the truth, and digs into a story and tries to get both sides and he is not controlled, threatened or bullied by Reisig, so please don’t try your fancy “Spin” to try and make this about me or David, it is about the broken justice system in Yolo, being run and controlled by your buddy Reisig! [u]Stay on point big boy![/u]
Mr. O,
“I have previously asked DG to denounce this type of nonsense but it hasn’t happened.”
What would this resolve, having DMG censor people with whom you disagree?
ERM,
“What would you substitute in its place that is any better?”
Maybe it’s not the adversarial system, but simply a matter of getting it right, not that I know what that means. Think back to the mid-20th century, a lot has sinced changed in the interest of justice. Maybe it’ll take more time and the right people in the necessary positions to properly address the flaws.
“What is interesting is that lawmakers over the years have tried to tinker w the trial system to bring greater equity, but it seems to backfire…”
Perhaps because the motives behind such alterations were not done with the best intentions by lawmakers…seeing as they care most about their political livelihood (ie appearing tough on crime-3 Strikes) and not concerning themselves with the broader implications of such a “tinker.”
[quote]What would this resolve, having DMG censor people with whom you disagree? [/quote]
Censorship is not the answer. I think DG does a service here; I don’t always agree with his take but it is good to have another side to hear. Of all the participants on this site Rabbit is clearly the most outspoken against Reisig. If half of the claims made were true then Reisig would have been thrown out on his ear. Rabbit offers lots of theory and conjecture but nothing of substance.
In the past he has suggested Reisig is allowed to run roughshod over the system in Yolo County because of collusion with all law enforcement agencies the the public defenders office is scared of him. This is nonsense. If this were true it would be about the biggest conspiracy ever. Even if the public defender was afraid of Reisig there are enough private attorneys that practice in Yolo County that eventually one of them would have come up with something worth talking about. Don’t you think it would be a notch on a defense attorney’s belt to have taken down a dirty DA.
Allowing individuals like Rabbit to spout off unchecked conspiracy rhetoric does not provide legitimacy to this site. I think DG provides a service to the citizens of Yolo County. If I was running a website, whatever the cause, and followers were spouting nonsense I would address it to provide legitimacy or at least ask for something that resembled evidence. So far Rabbit has provided none. This site doesn’t receive hundreds of posts a day where that would be impossible especially since is mainly from one poster.
DG has no issue addressing supporters of Reisig but lets individuals raise unproven charges against Reisig without question.
Mr. Obvious: Between all of the various facets of work that I do, I don’t have a ton of time. When I do respond to people it is generally in response comments or questions they make.
The problem I have in this case, is that in the previous case somehow Couzens knew the person was going to lie on the stand, and waited for them to incriminate themselves. Why was that individual not afforded an attorney? Why was Couzens arguing that this individual did not need an attorney? Why would Couzens not simply give him immunity if he wasn’t interested in prosecuting the witness?
The other thing a lot of people who aren’t in the courtroom do not understand is that you can think whatever you think about Reisig, but Couzens is unethical and he is notorious throughout the courtroom. If you ask any attorney in that building who is the most unethical DA there is, Couzens name is the one of their lips. When he leaves the room, they are talking about him. And it’s not out of respect either. There is no one else on par with him.
As for Roger, I know where Roger is coming from and what he has seen. I’m not going to dismiss what he says, because I was not there.
ERM noted, [quote]The result was a draconian three strikes law that ended up…sometimes w life sentences for minor offenses.[/quote]
I’m sorry, in light of ‘first things first’…can you address the weight of the first [b]two[/b] strikes?
RR, “cops” do [b]not[/b] “interrogate” witnesses. You ought to look up said term of art.
“So spare us the “I hate DA Reisig” and he’s ‘corrupt,’ w/o proof, soap box rant.
Actually police officers do interrogate witnesses and I have a couple of transcripts of such interrogations that are fairly questionable in that regard.
DMG opined, [quote]Couzens knew the person was going to lie on the stand[/quote]
Can you provide evidence that you “know” what another person “knew?”
Yes, this is from the police report:
“Deputy DA Ryan Couzens was also there and he asked me if the subject I saw next to Rossetta was Beardslee. I told him it was. Couzens told me that he was going to call Beardslee as a witness to get his testimony. I agreed with Couzens that I would arrest Beardslee for this case after he testified.”
Obviously Couzens knew that the guy was going to perjure himself because otherwise why would they agree to arrest Beardslee after he testified?
Mr. O,
“Allowing individuals like Rabbit to spout off unchecked conspiracy rhetoric does not provide legitimacy to this site.”
People regularly ask him to either support his comments or explain them so as to make logical sense of them. He either does or he doesn’t, having DMG waste his time following Rabbit around on this site to say “now, now, that’s not a very sound argument…” would be pointless, IMHO. I think most on here are able to decide for themselves whether or not to take what Rabbit says with a grain of salt and a bit of skepticism. There may in fact be some truth in what he says, but he’s virtually ruined his chances of anyone on here taking his comments very seriously by the ways in which he presents his thoughts on these issues.
medwoman: “These models of restorative justice would seem closer to what I would have in mind.
Could you see a role for expanding them to more cases such as the nonviolent three strikers, minor and nonviolent drug offenders, prostitution and the like while maintaing incarceration only for those who pose an actual societal risk such as murderers, arsonists, bombers and the like ?
What would you see as the problems of such expansion of this model?”
Actually, to some extent, we have tried this model on less serious crime – it is called “community service”. It has not worked very well either, bc there are not the funds to really keep track of what is going on, the organizations chosen to provide the opportunities for community service are not always diligent/honest, etc.
medwoman: “Also, what other systems have been looked at for ideas? For example what would seem to be the successes and pitfalls of legal systems of other countries ? Can you direct me to some layperson friendly literature in this area? Speaking only for my own field, medicine, I am aware of what an information over load there is and how easy it is to become totally focused on how we do things here, sometimes forgetting to look at potentially better practices already in place elsewhere? Do you see a similar trend in the area of law?”
Google “justice systems in other countries” and look for wikipedia. It gives a breakdown of what types of justice systems are in each country. I would venture to guess in almost all cases there is some sort of “trial” involved.
medwoman: “I suspect it may cost considerably more than the replacement cost of the window and maybe some community service time tossed into help impress the need for community responsibility. maybe an excellent place for Elaine’s example to me of cases of “restorative justice”? What say you Elaine ?”
Restorative justice sounds wonderful, but like anything else, it has to be administered properly. If you agree w dmg that the above case was handled poorly, what makes you think a restorative justice model would work any better if administered by the same DA? Frankly, I don’t think the model matters as much as who administers the model, and his/her motivations/character.
ERM: “What would you substitute in its place that is any better?”
SM: “Maybe it’s not the adversarial system, but simply a matter of getting it right, not that I know what that means. Think back to the mid-20th century, a lot has sinced changed in the interest of justice. Maybe it’ll take more time and the right people in the necessary positions to properly address the flaws.”
Well, the 3 strikes law was an attempt to “get it right”. How’s that working out for you? Reinstating the death penalty was another attempt at “getting it right”. How’s that working out for you? And the list goes on w attempts at “getting it right”. People are people, and by their very nature imperfect. A system works only as well as the people involved w it.
ERM: “What is interesting is that lawmakers over the years have tried to tinker w the trial system to bring greater equity, but it seems to backfire…”
SM: “Perhaps because the motives behind such alterations were not done with the best intentions by lawmakers…seeing as they care most about their political livelihood (ie appearing tough on crime-3 Strikes) and not concerning themselves with the broader implications of such a “tinker.””
Lawmakers were not responsible for the 3 strikes law – the voters approved it on a ballot initiative. Are you going to accuse the voters of having a political agenda? I know in other states 3 strikes laws have come as a result of voter disgust bc of over-lenient judges. But all too often “tinkering” w the justice system has unintended consequences…
AdRemmer: “I’m sorry, in light of ‘first things first’…can you address the weight of the first two strikes?”
From website http://www.scribd.com/doc/25309409/Still-Striking-Out-Ten-Years-of-California’s-Three-Strikes-Law-Justice-Policy-Institute:
“While other states passed habitual offender laws in the early-to-mid-nineties, California’s“Three Strikes” law was much more punitive—and far-reaching—in a number of respects. While other states’ “Three Strikes” laws only applied to serious or violent offenses,
California’s required sentences to be doubled forany felony, if the offender had one prior serious or violent felony conviction on their record, or a 25-year-to-life sentence for any felony if the offender had two prior serious or violent felony convictions. In addition,
persons convicted under the law were not eligible for parole until they served 80 percent of their sentence, while many other prisoners could be paroled after serving 50 percent of their time.
Since the passage of Three Strikes, tens of thousands of persons have been sentenced under the law in California, while a small fraction of that have been sentenced in other states. As an example, today over 42,000 persons—over one-in-four prisoners—are serving a doubled or 25-years-to-life sentence under the California law. As of June 2002,
5,837 offenders 3 (12.5%)4 were serving prison sentences under Georgia’s law…”
ERM,
“Well, the 3 strikes law was an attempt to “get it right”. How’s that working out for you? Reinstating the death penalty was another attempt at “getting it right”. How’s that working out for you? And the list goes on w attempts at “getting it right”. People are people, and by their very nature imperfect. A system works only as well as the people involved w it.”
I’m not really a fan of either. I don’t know enough about other justice models to say that we have the best. I also understand that our system is not without its flaws.
“Lawmakers were not responsible for the 3 strikes law – the voters approved it on a ballot initiative. Are you going to accuse the voters of having a political agenda? I know in other states 3 strikes laws have come as a result of voter disgust bc of over-lenient judges. But all too often “tinkering” w the justice system has unintended consequences…”
Nowhere? My mistake. Frankly, I think politics gets in the way, at least in terms of elected officials who could effect change, of implementing or proposing more drastic and innovative changes to the criminal justice system. I think that there may be some policies that appear weak on crime, which is never good for an elected official, but could be effective in reducing recidivism rates amongst other things.
I do not purport to know how to “fix” the system, but I think we would do ourselves a huge favor by ensuring that our youth receive a more than adequate education pre-K and onward. I think it would be great if we could find ways to push kids to attend a trade school, JC, 4yr, etc, who would have otherwise felt that those options were not available for them. I also think increased and collaborative services need to be made available to the so-called “at-risk” youth. Perhaps the ways in which minors of probation are dealt with needs to be altered, getting everyone (or as many as possible) in that youth’s life involved in the process.
SM: “I do not purport to know how to “fix” the system, but I think we would do ourselves a huge favor by ensuring that our youth receive a more than adequate education pre-K and onward. I think it would be great if we could find ways to push kids to attend a trade school, JC, 4yr, etc, who would have otherwise felt that those options were not available for them. I also think increased and collaborative services need to be made available to the so-called “at-risk” youth. Perhaps the ways in which minors of probation are dealt with needs to be altered, getting (or as many as possible) in that youth’s life involved in the process.”
Now here, I’m with you 150% 🙂 I really do think this is where we, as a society, can make a very real difference in the criminal justice system. If we can influence youth, while still young and impressionable and not hardened by jail, and give them choices that are appealing enough, they just might choose to do positive rather than criminal activities. If there were after school programs, w computers, fancy software, and instructors available, or really fun sports programs, or whatever could be figured out to appeal to kids, and the only way a student could access the after school program was by attending and doing okay in school (C average), perhaps it could serve as an incentive to keep kids out of trouble. I think we should start trying some innovative things like this to keep kids in school and learning and off the streets. It would be a whole lot cheaper than incarcerating them; more productive; and make society truly safer.
SM and ERM :
Now there is at least one point of true common ground. There us much to love about that proposal from both the liberal and conservative perspective !
Why didn’t the judge refuse to let them read the guy his rights and told the DA lets just get to the bottom of this?
DMG: I suppose it is “possible” that a “witness” could conceivably be taken into custody and therefore interrogated. Ordinarily they are interviewed.
“Interrogation”
For Miranda purposes, “interrogation” means direct questioning intended to produce incriminating statements, or the functional equivalent of direct questioning.
ERM, you make my point: “California’s required sentences to be doubled forany felony, if the offender had one prior serious or violent felony conviction on their record, or a 25-year-to-life sentence for any felony if the offender had two prior serious or violent felony convictions.”
Career criminals MUST have FIRST accumulated not less than 2 “prior serious felonies.”
I guess the I see foundation [of a career criminal’s life sentence sanction] as the 2 priors becuase judges may strike strikes.
AdRemmer: I have seen a lot of cases where witnesses were in fact interrogated and at times to the point broken down and came up with a name.
AdRemmer,
“Career criminals MUST have FIRST accumulated not less than 2 ‘prior serious felonies.’
I guess the I see foundation [of a career criminal’s life sentence sanction] as the 2 priors becuase judges may strike strikes.”
Is it considered a “serious felony” too, instead of a misdemeanor, in instances in which the perpetrator in a petty theft case had been previously convicted of a felony theft-related crime?
Do you think that is an accurate characterization of that person’s “career” as a serious criminal offender when such “strikes” are relatively minor? What about cases in which the prior felony theft charge is decades old?
Can’t a person receive multiple strikes as a result of a single incident? Is it possible for an individual, with one prior felony theft conviction, to receive a second and third strike due to felony petty theft?