Pop culture brings us the classic moment at the end of Star Wars, where the aging protagonist is about to turn over the reins to his protégé. Looking at his former pupil, Obi Wan says, “You can’t win, Darth. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.”
On a daily basis, Olbermann would attack O’Reilly with the ferocity of a gnat attacking a large herd animal, without much effect. But one day, Olbermann landed a punch and O’Reilly made the mistake of responding. At that point, Olbermann immediately became a player with a growing audience. It was a huge tactical mistake on the part of O’Reilly to acknowledge his lesser-known competition, but he made that mistake nonetheless.
The Yolo County District Attorney’s Office is part of the executive branch in the state of California. They are a government body, and as such they are subjected to the kind of scrutiny and criticism that government bodies of this sort receive on a daily basis.
Yolo Judicial Watch was formed as part of an off-shoot of the Davis Vanguard project, specifically as a watchdog organization that would report, on the Davis Vanguard website, about what was occurring in the Yolo County courts.
Take that we have a relatively robust readership, with over one million visitors to the site this year alone. Those numbers have grown by a good amount over the last year.
The DA’s office has taken some blows from us. Their conviction rate would appear to be way down from last year. We are in just about every courtroom. And we have covered dozens of trials.
The DA’s office should probably ignore us, to be quite frank. They refuse to give us comments on stories we have written, to the point where for the most part we have given up trying to get comments from them.
Instead, what they are doing is helping us. Last July, Deputy DA Clinton Parish was criticized by the Vanguard for his conduct in Judge White’s courtroom. As a result, he decided to ask questions of potential jurors as to whether they had read the Davis Vanguard. He probably would have had used a peremptory challenge if they had.
No one had. But rest assured, people probably went home from that questioning to find out what the Davis Vanguard was. One of the people who did was Robin Rowe, whose son Daniel Estep was on trial.
As a result, we covered that trial. The Estep trial was an absurd trial in which the DA attempted to criminalize what was a dispute between two people who had just broken up. Mr. Estep had attempted to retrieve his property from his ex-girlfriend in Davis, and he waited outside of her home at a prescribed time. When she did not show up, he used a key and retrieved his property.
She claimed he burglarized her apartment. The DA’s office charged Daniel Estep with grand theft and first degree burglary, with an enhancement, because the girl’s roommate was in the house at the time of the burglary. Mr. Estep faced five years in prison if he were convicted.
The case made our top ten worst cases last year, and Mr. Estep would be acquitted on all charges. No one would have known about it had Mr. Parish not asked about the Davis Vanguard.
Mr. Parish apparently did not learn his lesson. Last week, at the start of a hit and run trial, Mr. Parish told Judge Fall that he wanted to ask jurors if they read “a certain online publication” which later turned out to be Yolo Judicial Watch.
Now I will say this, Judge Fall has some good and bad moments as a judge, he is certainly a bit difficult to deal with if he is in a bad mood, but he has generally been very consistent on things like open access.
He told Mr. Parish that it was okay to ask the jurors if they read an article from the Judicial Watch, which was apparently about him. “If they read the article and conclude that I am the worst judge since ever or the best judge since Douglas and Marshall combined, that’s fine with me,” he said.
He indicated that Mr. Parish could ask them whatever he wanted, but that he was not going to dismiss them for cause, this despite Mr. Parish’s arguments that the Judicial Watch would prejudice the jurors. Dismissing a juror “for cause” requires the judge’s approval, whereas the defense or prosecution using a “peremptory challenge” does not and no reason need be given, but there are a limited number of those allowed.
Finally, yesterday, I received an anonymous call from what would appear to be a prospective juror in another case, this one tried by Deputy DA Rob Gorman. Apparently, Mr. Gorman had a four-part question on the jury questionnaire about people’s reading habits, specifically about the Davis Vanguard.
So what happened, a prosepctive juror must have looked it up and somehow found my phone number and called me.
Given the week that the DA recently had, where they had 5 defendants acquitted, one hung and one convicted but not on the most serious charge, I would think they would be more focused on other problems than the Davis Vanguard and Yolo Judicial Watch.
The irony, of course, is that a lot of people who read the Yolo Judicial Watch, including many in the DA’s office itself, do not agree with our take on things. It gets into a tricky realm when you start wanting to dismiss jurors for cause, based on their reading habits.
There are all sorts of practical and philosophical problems here. The Davis Enterprise and Daily Democrat often print DA press releases verbatim, so should defense attorneys ask about those reading habits and ask the judge to dismiss for cause anyone who reads those publications?
You have to wonder when these questions cross the line and start infringing on the rights of people. If everyone reads the Vanguard, do they have to move cases out of the county?
If they want to waste their preemptory challenges on this stuff, that’s fine. But the more they include the Davis Vanguard on their jury questionnaires, the more free advertising we get.
At some point this gets absurd, in the meantime, I’m thankful for the free advertising.
You know, if I am getting emails and phone calls from people, there are a lot of others who are looking us up to see what all the fuss is about.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“At some point this gets absurd, in the meantime, I’m thankful for the free advertising.”
As we sat in show biz,”There’s no such thing as “Bad Publicity.”
Should read “say” . Who keeps shrinking my keyboard ?
Or perhaps the Vanguard is tainting the jury pool w a very one-sided view of courtroom proceedings that always favors the defense and is always critical of the DA? Is that really doing the community a service? Does it ensure less fair juries, since the DA will make sure to remove those who have read the Vanguard on peremptory challenges? Will the Vanguard crying wolf so often largely make its judicial watch section irrelevant? Will the Vanguard’s coverage increase the rumor mill at the courthouse, to the detriment of everyone? Be careful what you wish for…
How is that any worse Elaine than sending out one-sided and blatantly at times inaccurate press releases that the media prints without edit or fact checking? Does that not as you put it, “tainting the jury pool”?
The Yolo Judicial Watch is sitting through entire hearings and trials, reporting the totality of what it sees and hears, pulling the files for further clarification and trying to speak to both sides. The public defenders often speak to us, the prosecutors don’t. All we know of the DA’s perspective is what we see and hear in open court, and the content of their press releases to the other publications. This may seem like one-sided reporting, but we can’t force them to speak with us.
I filled out the same questionnaire yesterday, presumably for the same impending trial. I believe the wording of the Vanguard question was something like “have you ever posted a blog on, or responded to, a blog on the Davis Vanguard website”. I never had (until now), so I had to respond in the negative. Had it asked if I ever visited/read the DV site, of course I would have responded in the affirmative. I wondered if there were something particular to this case that prompted the question or if it’s going to be a routine question in the future.
Elaine: The Vanguard is the only media source that has people actually watching the cases in court. As you so often say, “if you don’t like it change it.”
Get the other media sources to go to the court rooms and report what is happening. The DA’s office writes press releases that get printed verbatim–several of these press releases have been shown to be incorrect. You think this is unbiased reporting?
You may not like the take of the Judicial Watch, but they are the ones in the courtroom. You are not there. The Vanguard is not paid by defense attorneys and gets no financial rewards for its reporting. It is doing a service to the community.
“Or perhaps the Vanguard is tainting the jury pool w a very one-sided view of courtroom proceedings that always favors the defense and is always critical of the DA? Is that really doing the community a service?”
Change a few words in that first sentence and you would be describing what the DA has always done. Having two points of view is good and it helps people be more objective as jurors – nothing wrong with that! The DA works [b]For the People[/b] and could provide a balanced view of the work they are doing by reporting both wins and losses, but that never happen.
It is absolutely ridiculous that jurors are asked if they read the Davis Vanguard.
Jurors are supposed to be “thinking capable human beings” that are supposed to be able to make up their own minds about what they read. Otherwise why would you want that person making the serious decisions required by jury duty.
It is obvious, that the DA’s office realizes that they have no control over what gets put in the Vanguard and that scares them–especially because they have control of the other media.
Did you realize that one of the roles of the media is to keep the public aware of what is happening in its government. Their job is to keep the transparency we all say we want.
All I can say is this motivated me go to the website and make a donation.
We need people who are willing to take it upon themselves to get first-hand information and report on it. We should all be thankful that there are those who are motivated by principle and not politics to ensure (to the best of their abilities) that the public is educated as to what goes on in their community. I have no doubt that if the findings were favorable to the DA and the judicial system, it would be reported as such.
People fail to remember that it takes a great amount of courage to speak out against those who hold power, and sometimes is done at great cost. If we didn’t have people willing to act on moral principle to take the lead in such matters, we would still be singing “God Save the King.” The fact that this nation was built on such principles enables us today to practice this very basic and fundamental act of free speech. We cannot be a free people without it.
So, whether you agree or not with the opinions of the messenger is really immaterial. It is a necessary function to prevent the temptation and corruption of power.
Indeed as learned men, the founding fathers of this nation realized that power tempts and can ultimate corrupt the people who hold it, and thereby corrupt the systems put in place to protect the rights of citizens. It is precisely this freedom to speak out against what we perceive as corrupt that operates as a checks and balance to corruption. Corruption may or may not be present, however, the fact that someone is taking the time to watch and educate the public, ultimately should give pause to those who are in the position of power.
I would not want to live in a country where people were retaliated against, incarcerated or persecuted because the powers that be don’t like what is printed or said about them. That is a very dangerous place to be.
All in all, the DA’s off should be ashamed that they do not understand our own constitution, especially given the fact that they are there to protect against the abuses of such rights. Kudos to Judge Fall who apparently is the only one who does understand this issue. Shame to the DA’s office.
“Or perhaps the Vanguard is tainting the jury pool w a very one-sided view of courtroom proceedings that always favors the defense and is always critical of the DA? Is that really doing the community a service? Does it ensure less fair juries, since the DA will make sure to remove those who have read the Vanguard on peremptory challenges? Will the Vanguard crying wolf so often largely make its judicial watch section irrelevant? Will the Vanguard’s coverage increase the rumor mill at the courthouse, to the detriment of everyone? Be careful what you wish for…”
ERM-Give me a break! More jury pools are tainted due to all the crap on TV like CSI and Law and Order. These shows give the impression that both law enforcement and prosecutors don’t make mistakes. With the Judicial Watch at least people get to hear about real cases that effect the community and if they want to see for themselves what goes on they can attend any trial for free.
In an effort to purge the jury pool of what portends as an unsubstantiated, unquantifiable assertion of undue influence sponsored on behalf of Mr. Greenwald’s reporting; perhaps the Yolo County DA will see fit to augment the jury Questionnaire to include interrogatories, in consideration of compelling prospective jurors to submit a comprehensive list of their preferred authors and reading tableaus as well?
The presumption that Mr. Greenwald’s reportorial affiliate [i][b]Judicial Watch[/b][/i] should be treated as a de facto litmus test for potential jury disqualification is an exercise in censorial hubris bordering on criminality.
A quote from George Washington
“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
On reflection, the DA has a legitimate concern, I mean suppose someone has read The Constitution of the United States of America, that could conceivably prejudice them against tainted evidence and coerced testimony !
These are good and well thought out comments. Perhaps the DA might want to add a few more filtering questions to the jury. I have thought of a few for his consideration. 1. Have you ever worn a shirt in public or private that promotes anti-terrorism? 2. Have you ever attended or even witnessed any rally of protest? 3. Do you enjoy paying taxes? Would you like to see your tax dollars wasted?
[quote]How is that any worse Elaine than sending out one-sided and blatantly at times inaccurate press releases that the media prints without edit or fact checking? Does that not as you put it, “tainting the jury pool”?[/quote]
TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT. I completely agree that the Enterprise/Daily Democrat should not put out DA press releases w/o fact checking, or at the very least attribute the press release to the DA. I have said this before, and have now repeated it. But how the heck does that leave the Vanguard off the hook to do its own homework? Way too often the Vanguard clearly shows its bias against the prosecution in favor of just about every defendant, no matter the case/situation; blatant misunderstandings of how the criminal justice system works; rank innuendo not based on anything but courthouse gossip. How is that helping to make our justice system any fairer?
There is plenty to complain about, but don’t be part of the problem…
“Way too often the Vanguard clearly shows its bias against the prosecution in favor of just about every defendant, no matter the case/situation; blatant misunderstandings of how the criminal justice system works; rank innuendo not based on anything but courthouse gossip. How is that helping to make our justice system any fairer? “
ERM: With all due respect, that’s a bunch of crap. First, as a lawyer, I think he does a good job of learning and understand the way the system works and from reading your comments, I wonder how you are a lawyer and then I remember you are not a criminal lawyer. I find myself shaking my head on a daily basis reading your comments that have no basis in understanding because you’ve probably set foot in these courtrooms.
Innuendo based on a courthouse gossip? I assume you’re referring to the 170.6 story from last week, I can tell you, it’s happening. Not that you would know. You probably had no idea what a 170.6 was before Greenwald wrote about it.
Brian–its certainly not a bunch of crap that ‘the Vanguard clearly shows its bias against the prosecution in favor of just about every defendant”, I’ve been following this forum for over 2 years and that has been the case. Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that; I don’t mind hearing someone who has a bias on the side of defendants; but I am glad that ERM chips in and helps to balance out the discussion. I too agree that there is often a lot of innuendo and presuppositions in DMG’s presentations; I’m OK with that too; DMG has the good grace to allow uneditied comments on this forum that challenge his viewpoints. In summary, I appreciate the contributions of both DMG and ERM to civil discussion!
From a technical point of view, David, it makes a lot of sense for the prosecutor to ask this question. We are a very, very small county. When I was in a jury pool a few months ago, I knew about a quarter of the people in the pool, at least by name or face.
It only takes one vote to hang a jury in a criminal case. If asking a question about Vanguard readership is allowed by the judge, why shouldn’t the prosecutor ask it? It could well be one tag for a person likely to be pro-defense. The prosecutor might be more interested in identifying pro-defense jurors than in denying you free advertising.
Sue: No doubt on all points. But you would have to answer the questions in the affirmative, does that make you necessarily pro-defense? Or Elaine?
[quote]First, as a lawyer, I think he does a good job of learning and understand the way the system works[/quote]
As far as I know, dmg is NOT A LAWYER… please correct me if I am wrong dmg…
David’s comment to Sue and Elaine about having to answer the question in the affirmative is interesting. When you follow that idea, you realize that….
1. Even the DA and his staff have read and blogged on the Vanguard. They have written press release refuting stories on the Vanguard–so they do read it.
2. Judge Rosenburg has made written an article in response to a Vanguard story–so he reads the Vanguard. Is he now considered tainted?
3. Sheriff Prieto has done the same.
4. And so has County Supervisor Rexroad (In fact, he has blogged on this site too).
5. Congresswoman Mariko Yamada has written articles for the Vanguard as well as Elaine. Does that mean they cannot be good jurors.
So in the eyes of the District Attorney’s office, are all these people now tainted because of the Vanguard?
With over a million hits last year, it might be tough to find anyone who can serve on the jury?
It might be wise for the Defense to also inquire about Judicial Watch readership. For potential jurors who have never heard of JW, be prepared to spell out the web address – samll business cards displaying the web address might be effective
Brian you err — jimt and ERM have hit the proverbial nail on the head.
To Fighting Against Injustice: You make good points! LOL