On Monday morning, former Los Angeles District Attorney Gil Garcetti, a lifelong supporter of the death penalty, spoke at a press conference to announce an initiative that would eliminate the death penalty and commute all current death sentences to life without parole.
Mr. Garcetti said, “From the moment the district attorney decides to seek the death penalty in a particular case, he or she knows that that decision will cost taxpayers millions of dollars more than if he or she had decided to seek a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.”
The DA knows too, that even if sentenced to death, the grieving family of the murdered victim will “probably never ever see closure with an execution,” he continued. It is more likely that the murderer will die in prison than be executed, nevertheless for years to come the families and close friends of the victim “will be tormented knowing that the murderer grows older but that murderer is seemingly no closer to execution. We should put a stop to that torment.”
Mt. Garcetti not only was a longtime supporter of the death penalty, but a practitioner of it. While he himself may never have tried a death penalty case, his office prosecuted more than any other county in California, even when taking into account the population of Los Angeles county and its crime rate.
What has changed for people like Gil Garcetti or Don Heller, who helped write the 1978 death penalty law that greatly expanded the number of crimes that would fall under the death penalty? Probably a realization that the death penalty is expensive, it takes too long to accurately implement to be an effective deterrent, and therefore, in a state in budget crisis that is seeing police cut and investigation money sliced, the death penalty is a luxury we cannot afford.
Returning to Yolo County, there is a disconnect between the pragmatic wisdom of experience and the actual efforts of Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig, and his supervising DA Garrett Hamilton, who have gone to great lengths to prove that Marco Topete not only killed Deputy Tony Diaz, but did so in a way that deserves the death penalty.
Watching the Topete trial continue to unfold, we see an interesting, if contradictory, stream of efforts.
The DA’s office prides itself on adherence to Marsy’s Law, passed by the voters in November 2008, which provides all victims with a variety of rights and due process.
At the same time, they subject the victim’s family to unspeakable torment, as in the opening stages of the trial they showed the full video of the chase and the ultimate shooting. The final hail of gunfire, with 17 shots by Mr. Topete and four return volleys, resulted in screams and wailing by Deputy Diaz’ traumatized family.
Hey, it traumatized me, and I am not even a family member.
To what end? Mr. Garcetti makes the point that the death penalty provides no real closure. Not only does it drag on 20 to 25 years, but it has the likelihood, even if an individual is executed, to re-open rather than close wounds.
Like anything, there is no monolithic expression or view of death penalty crime victims. Even when the individual is executed, many report feeling empty.
Without seeking the death penalty, the Topete case likely would have long been over. Now, three years later, the family is still now reliving the nightmare that they have suffered the last three years.
And it will not end in the pronouncement of guilt by the jury, it will not end with their issuing a sentence of death. Will there even be a death penalty in California at the time when Mr. Topete’s number gets called, in 20 to 25 years minimum, assuming all of the errors of the last three years do not lead to the trial result getting thrown out?
And yet, the district attorney keeps fighting for the death penalty. It is why they brought in an expert to speculate that Mr. Topete was not drunk as reported by a number of witnesses that night.
The expert had little evidence to work with, only a blood-alcohol reading the next morning that showed no alcohol left in Mr. Topete’s system and a less than scientific review of the likely ability or inability of Mr. Topete to have led Deputy Diaz on the high-speed chase in a state of inebriation.
They did this because a drunk Mr. Topete might lead the jury to question whether this was premeditated, whether he was lying in wait, etc.
Moreover, on Wednesday, the DA resumed trying to prove that Mr. Topete is an active gang member.
They brought in Deputy Kenny Shelton from the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department, who has formal training in relation to gangs and has been in constant contact with Mr. Topete since his classification process began on June 17, 2008.
Mr. Topete’s classification revealed six gang-related tattoos associated with the Norteño Criminal Street Gang.
Mr. Shelton testified that Mr. Topete admitted to being a Northern Structure member and a Norteño as a youngster, as well having gang-related tattoos.
Sacramento Police Officer John Fan testified that Chinese tattoos on Mr. Topete’s body were gang-related.
He testified that he had a “northern warrior” tattoo, and another one that could mean either “trust no one” or “don’t trust anyone.”
However, Mr. Fan, under cross-examination, indicated he was not completely sure what all of the characters meant because they are blurry, and when he looked at Mr. Topete’s head to get a better look, his hair is growing out and it was difficult to read them.
As we wrote a few weeks ago, the DA’s office has put the gang issue forward as a centerpiece of their theory of the crime.
As we mentioned previously, the first words out of the mouth of Deputy DA Garrett Hamilton were, “Norteño Gangs.” He set up the case as a gang murder, a murder about the need for gang members to put in work to get respect. And the ultimate prize in this case being a police office.
Mr. Hamilton went on to talk about Mr. Topete as a leader among the Northern Structure Prison Gang at Pelican Bay, and that he was a big fish going back to Woodland where he would be an influential member returning to the streets.
The problem with the gang theory of this case is that it is not the theory that makes the most sense. The better theory of this case is that Mr. Topete, as Garrett Hamilton himself argued, was a man who on June 15, 2008 was running out of time.
The parole deaprtment told Mr. Topete that he had to find a permanent address and register there, or be taken back into custody. His wife testified that they had saved up money to put the deposit down for an apartment in Woodland.
He also had two strikes, and a third strike would mean 25 to life in prison and Mr. Topete was well aware of that. At the point at which he had been contacted by Deputy Tony Diaz, he had already been in violation of parole by drinking, he was driving drunk with a child in the car, he may have had an illegal firearm in the car – in short, he was a desperate man who was going to go to prison for possibily the rest of his life if he were caught.
He then added to that by fleeing the scene when Deputy Diaz first approached his vehicle, leading the deputy on a chase that stopped at Topete’s friend’s house where he took the fatal shots.
All of these prosecutorial efforts might as well be for show. Yolo County has already likely spent over a million on this case, with the two defense attorneys on contract, numerous expert witnesses on both sides, police officers and law enforcement coming in and getting time-and-a-half pay to testify and participate in the trial. Then there are all of the other costs, such as heightened security and transportation to and from Sacramento County Jail, that would not be incurred had this case settled for life without parole as it may well could have.
If it had gone to trial as a non-death penalty murder case, it would cost far less.
It is a lesson that Gil Garcetti has apparently learned. Don Heller too.
Mr. Heller said at the press conference, “I wrote the death penalty initiative for Senator Briggs in 1977, it was passed in November 1978. It’s a well-drafted document, except, it doesn’t work. It’s flawed because the process has become so incredibly expensive that it cannot be remedied by any legitimate means.”
“I wrote it in 1977. At the time it was written no one considered the impact of capital punishment,” Mr. Heller continued. “No one ever thought about the number of people that would end up being convicted under the initiative.”
But we actually already have learned that lesson. We do not need to learn it anew. For DA Jeff Reisig though, this is the crown jewel on his first five years in office. For the family of Deputy Tony Diaz, this is not the end of their journey, they have a thousand more battles to fight, and in the end, the death penalty in California will have died a painful and expensive death long before Mr. Topete enters that room for his final minutes.
DA Reisig could have prevented this suffering but chose not to. California voters will get the choice next year, and we will see what they choose to do.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]At the same time, they subject the victim’s family to unspeakable torment, as in the opening stages of the trial they showed the full video of the chase and the ultimate shooting. The final hail of gunfire, with 17 shots by Mr. Topete and four return volleys, resulted in screams and wailing by Deputy Diaz’ traumatized family. Hey, it traumatized me, and I am not even a family member.[/quote]
So what are you saying here, that this video footage should not have been allowed in as evidence? The family had the choice not to watch it.
[quote] For DA Jeff Reisig though, this is the crown jewel on his first five years in office. For the family of Deputy Tony Diaz, this is not the end of their journey, they have a thousand more battles to fight, and in the end, the death penalty in California will have died a painful and expensive death long before Mr. Topete enters that room for his final minutes.[/quote]
Have you interviewed the victim’s family? Asked them if they want the death penalty for the defendant? I’ll bet you they would be outraged if the DA’s Office asked for anything less than the death penalty. I suspect law enforcement and a lot of other citizens would feel the same way in this particular case…
[quote]As we mentioned previously, the first words out of the mouth of Deputy DA Garrett Hamilton were, “Norteño Gangs.” He set up the case as a gang murder, a murder about the need for gang members to put in work to get respect. And the ultimate prize in this case being a police office.[/quote]
The DA is putting on the case it believes is its strongest. That is what prosecutors do – put on what they believe is their strongest case, using every piece of evidence they have. The DA is permitted to put forth its own theory of the case, and how they think it happened based on the evidence collected. I’m not seeing how introducing gang evidence is improper, illegal, or even wrong at any level…
I think a reasonable point can be made that the prejudicial effect of the video outweighs its probative value, but it’s a judgment call. The point was not whether or not the video should have been admitted as evidence, but rather whether the family was done more harm than good having seen it.
Whether the family had an informed choice is questionable-their response suggests it is the first time they viewed it. Most did not view future airings of similar evidence.
You have no way of knowing whether the victim’sfamily would be outraged or not. In a lot of cases the vicitm’s family has not wanted the dp, but the prosecutor seeks it anyway. I’ve seen no account either way on that question.
Whether they will still favor the dp in twenty years is the more pertinent question for my purposes. There are three points in which doubt creeps into DP cases. First, some families oppose it from the start for a variety of reasons. Second, families during the interlude may come to oppose it due to the lack of closure. Third, many families feel hollow following the execution, not only does it not bring the person back but usually victims advocacy ceases and the family ends up alone.
“The DA is putting on the case it believes is its strongest. “
I think the DA is stretching to make a case that does not fit the facts in order to get the DP.
Adding a point here, using the wishes of the family is in my mind always problematic. First of all, we have a justice system not a system of revenge. So the family could want to lynch him in townsquare, but that’s not how we operate.
Second and more importantly, the family lacks experience in dealing with these issues, but definition. They don’t know what is in their best interest and have to rely on those who have been through the process to guide them. Studies show that even when the family thinks execution of their loved-one’s murderer is in their best interest, when it comes to pass, it often turns out not to be.
[quote]Have you interviewed the victim’s family? Asked them if they want the death penalty for the defendant? I’ll bet you they would be outraged if the DA’s Office asked for anything less than the death penalty. I suspect law enforcement and a lot of other citizens would feel the same way in this particular case… [/quote]
Do you? Have you interviewed the victim’s family? Have you spoken to law enforcement and citizens?
[quote]The DA is putting on the case it believes is its strongest. That is what prosecutors do – put on what they believe is their strongest case, using every piece of evidence they have. The DA is permitted to put forth its own theory of the case, and how they think it happened based on the evidence collected. I’m not seeing how introducing gang evidence is improper, illegal, or even wrong at any level… [/quote]
Missing the point of the article.
I was at a talk by a state public defender who’s job it is to handle death penalty cases in California. She was speaking against the death penalty and one of the most important points she made was that family members get led around, get attention, have this expectation built up and they get think that somehow an execution will help them to deal with the loss, the void. She explained that once the execution is done, all the attention is gone, they realize that the execution was a diversion from the process they should have begun decades ago. She used examples of some of the worst crimes around the country, involving rape and murder of children, where the mothers, who were longing to see the perpetrator get executed, realized after the execution that it was empty.
Of course the prosecution can make the best case that they can, never mind stopping to think about it. That’s their legal right — and that’s all we need isn’t it?
Since Gil Garcetti is about 70 yrs old and only served two terms as DA (beginning when he was about 51 years old) shouldn’t the Yolo DA be allowed to hold his position for an equal time frame & wait until more than a decade after leaving office too?
Or is ‘that’ different?
Ad: Is what different?
DMG: [quote]Whether the family had an informed choice is questionable-their response suggests it is the first time they viewed it. Most did not view future airings of similar evidence. [/quote]
Yes, what exactly is going on here? Is the DA’s office so stupid/insensitive to put Officer Diaz’s family through that for the first time in public?
Or is it that they might’ve just wanted the jury to see the family’s agony because that’s just “part of the case,” right? Wonder if the family feels used by the DA after that.
Either way, the DA is well within their legal rights though, right E Roberts Musser?
Just saw a documentary on case of Anthony Graves. Talk about real prosecutorial misconduct! Oh my goodness, gracious! Even the new prosecutor slammed the former prosecutor – all took place in the state of Texas. Eventually Graves was exonerated and received $1.4 million for having been wrongly accused and having served 18 years in prison. The prosecutor was as slimy as they come… essentially prevented defense from seeing exculpatory evidence, made up evidence, whatever it took to convict…
ERM
Looked this up on the basis of your post. I am amazed by this case, and by the number of exhonerations ( 138) as listed by name, race, state,
And type of reversal of conviction and whether or not DNA based in the web site of The Innocence Project. This is the classic example of why we should do away with the death penalty, on moral if not financial grounds. In this case it took 18 years for the truth to come out. So much for the benefits of more rapid execution. I wonder how the victims family would feel if they knew that not only their loved one, but another complete innocent had been killed one by the actual murderer, and one by the state charged with protecting the innocent.
To medwoman: I don’t know what bothered me more – the prosecutor’s wrongdoing and the case itself, or the fact that the state bar would not sanction the prosecutor for clear violations of the law…
Here I thought I was going to be reading about Garcetti’s change-of-heart, another significant nail in the coffin of the death penalty in he U.S. This could have been an interesting and enlightening report on why these hardliners are flipping on such a polarizing issue.
Turns out, however, it’s just a few sentences–just enough to provide cover for slipping in yet another chance to criticize Reisig’s “theory of the prosecution case,” how they “subject the victim’s family to unspeakable torment,” the hardly-unusual presentation of a recording that actually documents the killing event itself, the description of the defendant’s gang activities, the unsubstantiated claim that the DA’s failure to plea bargain has resulted victim’s family “still now reliving the nightmare that they have suffered the last three years,” and on and on.
A [u]Vanguard[/u] story on changing attitudes about the death penalty? More like running interference for the Topete defense, I’d say.
Here is the story I figured I should have read here: “Death Penalty Opponents Announce Initiative That Would Convert Death Sentence to Life Without Parole” Wish I would have seen it first. Now that I have read Tuesday’s story, please deduct one of my points of criticism, the skimpy detail about the death penalty flips (well-covered in the earlier story).