I’d like to be able to tell you that, in the end, justice was served, a murderer got what he deserved and we are all better off for it. To wearily quote Bob Dylan, “In the courtroom of honor, the judge pounded his gavel – to show that all’s equal and that the courts are on the level – and that the strings in the books ain’t pulled and persuaded…”
We knew this day was coming for the last three years. We knew it when the prosecution refused to save everyone the heartache and trouble, and failed to accept a guilty plea in exchange for life without parole. We knew it when the court refused to move the trial out of county despite the shenanigans, despite the fact that Deputy Diaz had worked in this very courthouse and the deputies securing the courtroom were all his friends.
We really knew it earlier this week, when the judge dismissed a juror for a language barrier that did not prevent her from rendering a guilty verdict during the guilt phase of the trial.
It took the jurors less than a day and a half to decide that Mr. Topete deserved the death penalty.
And so now it is over, and though he will be formally sentenced in January, we know that Mr. Topete will head to San Quentin and will likely spend the rest of his life on death row at a cost of $80,000 to $90,000 a year.
That is the cruelest irony of it all. Angelique Topete told the Vanguard long ago that Marco Topete would have taken life without parole in exchange for a guilty plea that would have put this issue to rest years ago. But the DA was not interested.
As we argued last week, District Attorney Jeff Reisig’s closing argument was at once brilliant and silly.
He argued that we have a special duty to protect peace officers whom we entrust to protect us, and those who murder a peace officer forfeit their lives. There are cases that are so rare and so horrific that the death penalty is appropriate, and that this is one.
He said that Marco Topete has rejected rules of society, and no one is safe from Marco Topete, even behind prison walls. He said that this evil will continue to thrive in prison for the rest of his life.
To back up that powerful narrative, Mr. Reisig then presented a very one-sided version of Mr. Topete’s prison record to show the danger that he represents.
But the problem, as we argued from the start, was this was all an exercise in symbolism. Everyone knows it, but no one has the lawful power to argue against it.
What nobody was allowed to argue is that first, even if Mr. Topete is sentenced to death, he is going to spend a minimum of 20-25 years on death row before being executed and the chances of his even being executed are slim to none.
In other words, Mr. Reisig argued to the jury they need to impose the death penalty on Mr. Topete because he is a danger to those in prison, but even if they impose the death penalty, he will spend 20 to 25 years in prison, minimum. And even more ironic is that he is going to be 60 to 65 years old, at minimum, if he is ever executed, and at that point he will be a threat to very few.
So, one of the key arguments that Mr. Reisig makes is made irrelevant by the realities of the system. And no one is allowed to argue otherwise.
So we all lose. The family of Tony Diaz had their hearts ripped open and poured onto the courthouse floor as they had to endure the agony of watching the video in the opening statements three months ago. People were weeping in court. People ran outside shrieking and wailing.
I watched the pain on the face of Detective Jimenez, the chief investigator and good friend to Tony Diaz, throughout the trial.
And for what? There will be no closure for the family of Tony Diaz. Deputy Diaz is not coming back because of this.
If the family is lucky, they will not be called out multiple times to watch the execution. The case likely will never get that far, but that would figure to be harrowing.
And so, for years now the Diaz family will wait, wait for that call that will never come.
In the meantime the rest of us have had to pay for this show trial. We will never know just how much it costs, the extra security, the transportation to and from Sacramento, the two attorneys, their plethora of investigators, the hundreds of thousands that went to getting experts on both sides, the loss in work, the turmoil in the court, etc.
Are we safer now with Mr. Topete headed for Death Row at San Quentin rather than the SHU at Pelican Bay? Or would we have been safer using that million dollars plus trying to help prevent real crime in Yolo County and throughout this state?
Is the family of the victim really better off having gone through this ordeal rather than having this case put to rest a year or two ago with a guilty plea?
What does this say for our justice system – here is a guy that is guilty beyond any doubt in this world, he killed a peace officer – a crime some consider to be the ultimate crime – and they still have to bend and break every rule along the way.
What does it say for us as hundreds of people lined up yesterday afternoon trying to get into the courtroom to see a man condemned to death?
What does it say for our legal system that we needed to dismiss the last possible holdout, not sure, perhaps, that we ought to condemn a man to death?
What does it say for a jury willing to sentence a man to death after less than two days of deliberation?
Has anyone won in this case? I don’t think so. Bad people will continue to do bad things and we teach another generation of people that the answer to the question of the sanctity of life is to that you forfeit your own life when you take a life. Do you really believe people learn the lesson that killing is wrong or that might makes right?
To me this will always be a sad case, because it did not have to happen this way. Had we just had programs in place to support troubled youths, to train them, to help them survive on the outside world. Had Marco Topete just had opportunities upon leaving prison, who knows, maybe just maybe this horrible tragedy could have been avoided.
It is ironic that the amount of expenses that we spend in trials like this could have gone to the very programs that have been so underfunded.
It is with greater irony yet that, as this sad saga finally wraps up, we will be covering a case where a man is accused of selling drugs despite never having any drugs to sell and another man faces life in prison for taking garbage out of a garbage can. Those resources, wasted yet again on the wrong cases and the wrong causes.
“Oh but you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears, bury the rag deep in your face for now’s the time for your tears.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Let me preface what I am about to say by noting I am against the death penalty. But let me ask the obvious question: Do you really fault the DA for going after the death penalty in an extreme case like this? Taking into account a police officer was killed under aggravating circumstances that more than qualify the defendant for the death penalty? Don’t you think the DA would have come under withering criticism if he HAD NOT ASKED FOR THE DEATH PENALTY IN SUCH A CASE? Can you not concede the DA was between a rock and a hard place with this case, since he has billed himself as a “tough on crime” DA?
David Greenwald asks, inter alia:”What does it say for a jury willing to sentence a man to death after less than two days of deliberation?”
[b]One answer:[/b] after hearing the evidence at the guilt and penalty stages, the jury determined, as have many of us who have been following the trial, that Topete is a menace to us and is not worth keeping on the planet. [b]Another answer:[/b] the jury, like the majority of Americans, is fed up with the “defense” of “I had a bad hair day, so I get to do whatever I want, including murdering a cop.”
The pity is this: because of the endless appeals system he will never be executed.
You make a convincing case that we need to rewrite our death penalty laws so that the executions occurs very soon after the verdict, and that our justice system is crazily tilted towards appeals.
JR,
“our justice system is crazily tilted towards appeals.”
What does that mean?
[i]”What nobody was allowed to argue is that first, even if Mr. Topete is sentenced to death, he is going to spend a minimum of 20-25 years on death row before being executed and the chances of his even being executed are slim to none.”[/i]
Therein lies the problem: 20-25 years or more of breath he will be allowed to take after he was convicted of killing a man who by all accounts was a very good man; a loving husband, father, brother and son; a dedicated public servant and a contributing member of society. Not only did Mr. Topete take away that most precious of personal possessions – life – he also destroyed the lives of many people connected with the man he killed. What will life hold for Tony Diaz’s wife without a husband and his children without their father? The damage Mr. Topete caused continues beyond the conclusion of the case against him.
I save all my empathy for the true victims, and scorn for a system that delays and blocks the swift justice Mr. Topete so deserves.
The argument against the cost of sending Mr. Topete to his death is being used by those against the death penalty. Those same people use the fear of wrongful conviction to make a case against the death penalty. Read: “It costs too much and there is a chance people can be wrongly convicted so why put a killer to death?”
How about we just focus on the development of forensic technology and more effective crime-solving that reduces the risk of wrongful conviction while we overhaul the criminal judicial process to reduce the number of years a prisoner sits on dealth row?
Exactly, Noreen. He’ll probably die on death row amidst constant appeals and that is what will cost the taxpayers a horrific amount of money. Knowing that, why would you have a problem with life without possibility of parole? Seems to me our tax dollars could be put to better use.
[i]”Bad people will continue to do bad things and we teach another generation of people that the answer to the question of the sanctity of life is to that you forfeit your own life when you take a life. Do you really believe people learn the lesson that killing is wrong or that might makes right?”[/i]
I don’t think we are seeking a teaching moment; we are simply seeking justice. I think society does win when a killer is put to death in that the killer cannot kill again and the victims no longer are provided the destructive crutch of hate for that person that caused them so much pain and damage. Also, with the execution complete society in general gets to put the tragedy behind them and move on.
Crusaders seeking to eliminate the number of convicted prisoners put to death should instead shift their focus to solving more of the root causes for our society’s production of criminals. For example:
-Advocating for reform of a public education system that currently produces far too many dropouts and illiterates.
-Advocating for political and social leaders that address the high numbers of out of wedlock births and fatherless parenting for blacks and Hispanics.
-Advocating for domestic economic policy that helps to increase employment opportunities.
-Advocating for stopping the flow of illegal immigrants that depress wages and job opportunities for low and medium-skilled workers.
-Advocating replacing welfare with workfare to break the cycle of poverty in families. Also, people have less time for criminal activity when they are forced to work for food and housing. And working for an honest living is an American principle and it is good for developing self-worth.
-Advocate for decriminalizing non-addictive drugs to reduce illegal enterprise that results in so much crime.
-Advocate for increased services for people with mental health issues.
[quote][i]”The argument against the cost of sending Mr. Topete to his death is being used by those against the death penalty. Those same people use the fear of wrongful conviction to make a case against the death penalty.”[/i][/quote]You missed the third “big argument”: “It’s wrong to kill people (who aren’t endangering us or to kill at all, depending).” However, different opponents don’t necessarily have an “all of the above” approach.
“It costs too much”* doesn’t carry much weight with me as long as we’re still at the “there is a chance people can be wrongly convicted” level. How much is “too much” to spend on seeming endless appeals that, without a doubt, are keeping us from killing innocent people.
What do you suggest we do to avoid wrongful executions while we “just focus on the development of forensic technology and more effective crime-solving that reduces the risk of wrongful conviction”? We [u]could[/u] clean out death row and consider any innocent occupants as collateral damage. The question, of course: how many innocent people’s executions are acceptable to you?
Or we could stop executing until we have the improved technology and crime-solving you desire. That leaves us were we are today. The question, of course: how “improved” does the system have to get before you’re ready to start executing quickly again? What percentage certitude would be good enough for you if you were a death penalty qualified juror? If you were an innocent death-row inmate?
___________________________
[i]*I suspect the expense argument is used by opponents as a device, in hopes it will sway people who approve of capital punishment. (You know how those conservatives are.) The question for David and others who make that case, of course: how much of a premium (over LWOPP costs) would be acceptable to you to pay for the appeal process?
Having to answer that kind of question would dissolve the death-row cost issue for people whose core objection is to deadly executions themselves. You could say the point is sort of a phony one. I’d guess, for example, that David falls into a basic anti-death-penalty category, yet he’s constantly using cost as the rationale.[/i]
[i]”You missed the third “big argument”: “It’s wrong to kill people (who aren’t endangering us or to kill at all, depending).”[/i]
Any prisoner convicted of murder who is given a sentence of life without the possibility of parole should be considered an ongoing danger to others: other prisoners and the employees of the the prison system.
But, yes, I agree that I did not include the third big argument of morality. Of course morality is subjective and not all moral opinions are considered good for society. Otherwise we may have continued to outlaw homosexuality.
I have a serious question for those who assert the cost of the death penalty is high/too much:
In light of that particular cost, how much was the life of Deputy Diaz worth, to you all?
[quote]And even more ironic is that he is going to be 60 to 65 years old, at minimum, if he is ever executed, and at that point he will be a threat to very few.[/quote]
IMHO, the above, per se, isn’t really a relevant sentencing consideration for the panel.
[quote]What does it say for us as hundreds of people lined up yesterday afternoon trying to get into the courtroom to see a man condemned to death?[/quote]
It says that in America, as clearly noted in case law, crime is still newsworthy and important to the citizenry.
[quote]Angelique Topete told the Vanguard long ago that Marco Topete would have taken life without parole in exchange for a guilty plea [/quote]
I guess Marco doesn’t get to call all the shots all the time, huh?
[quote]What does it say for a jury willing to sentence a man to death after less than two days of deliberation?[/quote]
Quite possibly that the case was more straight forward than some might have initially speculated?
[quote]Has anyone won in this case? [/quote]
“Won?”
Is justice for victims of crime supposed to be about winning?
[quote]Had we just had programs in place to support troubled youths, to train them, to help them survive on the outside world. Had Marco Topete just had opportunities upon leaving prison, who knows, maybe just maybe this horrible tragedy could have been avoided.[/quote]
Got any proof that Marco never participated in any programming from his youth to CYA to CDCR?
“Do you really fault the DA for going after the death penalty in an extreme case like this? “
Given the cost and the fact that the death penalty will never be imposed in this case, he should have taken the plea agreement.
“You make a convincing case that we need to rewrite our death penalty laws so that the executions occurs very soon after the verdict, and that our justice system is crazily tilted towards appeals.”
Then you end up executing quite a few innocent people like John Thompson who I saw speak last night, three weeks away from execution after 14 years on death row, and completely innocent.
“In light of that particular cost, how much was the life of Deputy Diaz worth, to you all?”
I consider the idea that a life has some monetary value abhorrent. There is no way to rectify the situation, so the idea that we try is ludicrous. LWOP protects society in the best possible way, it takes the individual off the street, it protects us morally, and it protects us from wrongful convictions – which is not a small problem.
“Got any proof that Marco never participated in any programming from his youth to CYA to CDCR? “
Two points on that. First, at CDCR he was in isolation at the SHU and immediately released on parole, every expert as I reported agrees that is a bad idea. The worse problem is the lack of reentry programs upon release.
“Is justice for victims of crime supposed to be about winning? “
In this case, to win means we are better off having gone through a particular process. I think everyone here is worse off for the way this played out.
[quote]I consider the idea that a life has some monetary value abhorrent. [/quote]So, as I read this, there should be no “wrongful death” monetary payments when an individual/corporation callously is responsible for the death of a person?
David, the callousness you seem to attribute to those supporting the death penalty should be assigned to those with empathy for the murderer. We are talking about [b]crime and punishment[/b]. While my business brain can certainly calculate the costs and desire a more efficient process; my personal level of emotional intelligence allows me to also calculate the cost of the severe pain and damage caused to the victims of Mr. Topete. Based on this, what punishment is the correct level of justice?
IMO, Mr. Topete’s death is justified and frankly we are doing him a favor helping him give back in closure to the big effing mess of suffering he has caused the Diaz family. I can put myself in their shoes and make a moral argument that Mr. Topete needs to be forced to forfeit his life for their benefit and the benefit of society.
My anger at this point is that Mr. Topete would selfishly continue to fight to survive… costing the Diaz family even more pain and suffering and also costing millions of taxpayer dollars. It is too bad our culture does not have an equivalent to hara-kiri.
[quote]It is too bad our culture does not have an equivalent to hara-kiri.[/quote]
Actually, we do. A defendant can opt to forgo appeals, and that has happened in rare instances.
Jeff: What justice will Topete’s death bring anyone? I think you are mistaking justice and vengeance.
David – From Wikipedia: “Justice” is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, or equity, along with the punishment of the breach of said ethics.
You could take your question and apply it to any punishment and say that it does not bring any justice. If someone steals money and spends all the money before he is captured, then what justice will his incarceration bring anyone? The victim will not recover his stolen money, but justice still must be served, right?
Death is a justified punishment for capital murder… especially with circumstances like Topete’s case. Justice is served when just punishment is delivered.
By the way, I’m sure you are aware of the cop killing in Vallejo yesterday. I am not vengeful about this thinking that the killer deserves death if convicted because the crime and punishment are comparable.
I continue to support the death penalty.
[quote]”VALLEJO, CA – Vallejo police say the man they have arrested in the slaying of Officer Jim Capoot is 37-year-old Henry Albert Smith of Fairfield.
Capoot was shot and killed following a police pursuit of an SUV witnessed at the site of a Bank of America robbery on Springs Road.
Capoot, 45, lived in Vacaville. He had been with the Vallejo Police Department 19 years and previously was with California Highway Patrol. He was a basketball coach for several girls’ teams and served four years with the U.S. Marines. He leaves a wife and three daughters.”[/quote]
Does anyone want to argue that this is not the best possible outcome considering the circumstances?…
[quote]SAN FRANCISCO (AP) – A California Death Row inmate who senselessly killed a 9-year-old boy in an Oceanside park restroom has committed suicide.
Prison officials announced that 33-year-old Brandon Wilson was found hanging in his single cell Thursday morning. He was pronounced dead shortly before 7 a.m.
Wilson was convicted of killing Matthew Cecchi of Oroville in a 1998 murder so infamous that it made national headlines.
Since 1978 when California reinstated capital punishment, 54 condemned inmates have died from natural causes, 19 committed suicide, 13 were executed in California, one was executed in Missouri and six died from other causes, including murder.
There are 719 inmates on California’s death row, the nation’s largest.
The Associated Press”[/quote]
“Death is a justified punishment for capital murder… especially with circumstances like Topete’s case. Justice is served when just punishment is delivered. “
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I disagree with it.
DG wrote: [quote]at CDCR he was in isolation at the SHU and immediately released on parole[/quote]
You really aren’t trying to ask us to believe that Topete entered SHU on the very first day he was committed to CDCR, are you?
David again:
“Got any proof that Marco [b][i][u]never[/u][/i][/b] participated in [b][i][u]any[/u][/i][/b] programming from his youth to CYA to CDCR?”
Please provide a plenary answer to the actual question.
[hint I’m asking about his entire life NOT ‘only’ while he was incarcerated all those years]
[quote]What nobody was allowed to argue is that first, even if Mr. Topete is sentenced to death, he is going to spend a minimum of 20-25 years on death row before being executed and the chances of his even being executed are slim to none.[/quote]
Would you favor a change to the system so that they could argue this?
[quote]What does it say for our legal system that we needed to dismiss the last possible holdout, not sure, perhaps, that we ought to condemn a man to death?[/quote]
What makes you think she was a holdout?
[quote]What does it say for a jury willing to sentence a man to death after less than two days of deliberation?[/quote]
It says that the evidence and arguments were compelling…