When District Attorney Jeff Reisig submitted his op-ed in support of the Death Penalty, he probably had no idea the response it would trigger. Oh sure, the Vanguard‘s response was a given. But unlike his string of unanswered press releases, many of which have distorted the facts of the case and even the jury’s verdicts and were reprinted verbatim without response, the op-ed generated considerable response.
First, Yolo County’s Public Defender, then two letters to the editor from citizens, then a brief commentary by Cosmo Garvin in the Sacramento News and Review. This weekend we saw and pointed out commentary from Deputy Public Defender Richard Van Zandt and an editorial from the Woodland Daily Democrat, which does not mention the Reisig piece, but comes out decidedly against the death penalty.
So far, no one has stepped forward to defend the Yolo County District Attorney. More importantly, surprising voices, perhaps, have come out against him. To us, the silence speaks volumes, but the voices speak even louder.
The early endorsement of Proposition 34 by a moderate paper like the Daily Democrat is an interesting indication of where Prop 34 is going.
This is not a moral argument by the paper, rather they argue: “Never mind moral arguments; the death penalty simply doesn’t work. Since it was reinstated in 1978, California has spent $4 billion on just 13 executions. We are no safer.”
Instead they argue: “Passing Proposition 34 will leave $180 million more per year in the general fund, where it can be spent on preventing crime rather than retribution: Improving schools, for example; it’s not straight-A students who pack jails. Of that amount, $30 million would go to law enforcement to help solve more homicide and rape cases. That’s surefire crime prevention, locking up the bad guys.”
“Death penalty supporters argue that the lengthy appeals that run up public costs should be cut short or ended,” they write. “That works in barbaric nations that immediately execute prisoners. But it doesn’t deal with a major reason other states have abolished the death penalty: increasing evidence that innocent people have been executed. More than 100 inmates have been freed from death row nationwide in the past 35 years. California has had none so far, but with more than 700 prisoners on death row and improving forensic techniques, the likelihood of finding errors is ever more likely. Why not just lock people away for life?”
Moreover, they argue that it is unequally applied in California – to support that argument, they look at a county-by-county analysis.
“Guilt or innocence aside, it’s clear that the death penalty is unfairly applied in California,” they write. “A county-by-county study of death sentences from 2000 to 2007 found residents of Alameda County nearly eight times more likely to be sentenced to death than residents of Santa Clara County. Blacks in California are sentenced to death at a rate five times higher than their proportion of the population.”
“The tide is turning on support for the death penalty. California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, nominated by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, said in 2011 that the death penalty is ‘no longer effective’ here,” the Daily Democrat continues.
They add: “Donald Heller, the man who wrote the 1978 proposition that brought back capital punishment, now favors abolishing it. So does Jeanne Woodford, a former warden of San Quentin Prison.”
In summary: “Executions are barbaric, yet do not prevent crime any more effectively than life in prison. Because the high costs of death row pull money away from education and from police departments struggling to take active criminals off the street, it is making Californians less safe, not more. Voters need to end it Nov. 6.”
As we note, the Daily Democrat, as a small paper in a relatively small community, is not an influential voice, particularly statewide. However, the fact that you see a paper like the Daily Democrat coming out early and strongly for Prop 34 is meaningful.
At the same time, that Deputy Public Defender Richard Van Zandt would take a strong position both on the issue of DA Reisig’s op-ed and the death penalty is meaningful, as well.
I have seen Mr. Van Zandt in trial a few times. Last year, we covered a string of victories for the deputy public defender, including a few cases where the odds were stacked against him. But for the most part, he is not one who has wanted to rock the boat much.
It is interesting that in his piece he ties Mr. Reisig’s op-ed back to the failed judicial candidacy of Clinton Parish.
“Until recently, I was willing to consider the Parish campaign an aberration, not representative of Mr. Reisig’s leadership. But with Reisig’s recent opinion against Proposition 34, which would abolish the death penalty in California, I’ve had a change of heart,” he writes. “Mr. Reisig’s opinion piece shows that like the Parish campaign, he is willing to use dishonesty to demonize his opponents.”
Longtime critics will argue there is nothing new there, but I think the extent to which Mr. Reisig was willing to use misleading or completely inaccurate arguments and attack the ACLU and others rises to a new level.
As Mr. Van Zandt notes, “But Reisig goes one step further by extensively plagiarizing Sacramento District Attorney Jan Scully. These acts are unfortunate, because as the County’s top law enforcement officer, he is supposed to set an example of integrity.”
Many have argued that this is not plagiarism. Whether it is or is not, the fact I think remains that he used arguments that were not his, he failed to check the accuracy of those arguments, and in his own name, he set out to attack rather viciously the opponents of the death penalty.
Writes Mr. Van Zandt: “Setting aside the plagiarism, Mr. Reisig’s demonization of death penalty opponents is offensive and dishonest, and where not dishonest, misleading. Reisig writes opponents’ efforts have been ‘shameful and costly.’ “
Unlike many, Mr. Van Zandt is not willing to concede these points and asks: “Why, Mr. Reisig, is opposing the death penalty shameful and costly?”
He continues: “Could it be because opponents have secured exonerations, during and after the appellate process? That’s right, some exonerations occur after the appeal, through writs of habeas corpus. The writs may allege key evidence was not introduced at trial by either police not turning it over to the prosecutor, or the prosecutor not turning it over to the defense, or the defense not doing an adequate investigation, or key witnesses changing their story, or the police securing false confessions.”
He goes on to write: “Yes, this process may be costly upon the taxpayer. I would say it’s money well spent. But the only shame resulting from these reversals is incurred upon the government, not the defense bar or ACLU.”
Just this weekend, the New York Times published a story that a federal investigation revealed that five people who have been in prison for 15 years for the killing of a New York cab driver were likely innocent.
Wrote the Times this weekend: “Six people were tried; five were ultimately convicted. An article in New York magazine that focused on the investigation carried the headline, ‘How to Solve a Murder.’ “
They continue: “But now, 15 years after the criminal trials, federal authorities have concluded that all five of those now imprisoned for the murder were innocent of the crime.
“The United States attorney’s office in Manhattan, which conducted an exhaustive review of the case, reported its findings in June to the Bronx district attorney’s office, which had prosecuted the defendants over the course of two trials and defended their convictions on appeal.
“The new findings suggest that there was a colossal breakdown in the criminal justice system. Robert T. Johnson, the Bronx district attorney since 1989, said through a spokesman on Thursday that his office had been notified of the new evidence discovered by federal prosecutors but had not yet been able ‘to resolve all of the questions that have been raised by this evidence.’ “
“Paul Casteleiro, a lawyer for one defendant, Cathy Watkins, would not discuss the new findings but, like other lawyers in the case, said he would soon file papers asking that his client’s conviction be vacated based on newly discovered evidence and her actual innocence.”
“It’s a mind-boggling case,” Mr. Casteleiro said. “She’s stone cold innocent.”
Stories like these have come in across the country. And yet Mr. Reisig has argued that it is somehow shameful that groups like the ACLU and others like the Innocence Project have filed writs to exonerate the innocent?
As Mr. Van Zandt notes: “Mr. Reisig also writes that Governor Jerry Brown stated he ‘has not seen any evidence’ of any innocent inmate on Death Row, implying we don’t have to worry about innocent persons being executed.”
He argues: “But is Governor Brown aware of any inmate in the Department of Corrections? Apparently, Governor Brown was not aware of Obie Anthony, Maurice Caldwell, and Frankie Carrillo, all of whom were wrongfully convicted, and were released within the past year after serving 17, 20, and 19 years, respectively, for murders they did not commit. It was not the ‘due process’ of the appeals process that freed these innocent men; it was a group of dedicated individuals led by the Northern California Innocence Project.”
Mr. Van Zandt adds: “When Mr. Reisig bemoans the delays and costs of the death penalty, what exactly does he propose getting rid of? Qualified appellate attorneys? What appeals does he favor removing? The writ process? When he complains about ‘misinformation,’ should he not look inward and try to correct the misinformation prosecutors and police put forth in many of these exonerees’s trials because the prosecutor and/or police failed to turn over key information to the defense or used knowingly corrupt police informants?”
He then goes on to cite corruption in Mr. Reisig’s own office. When the Innocence Project conducted their study of prosecutorial misconduct in California, a number of the cases in Yolo County occurred either by Mr. Reisig when he himself failed to turn over material evidence resulting in a reversal, or by him in another case where his burying of material evidence should have resulted in a reversal, or under his watch as District Attonry.
As Mr. Van Zandt writes: “When courts rarely sanction prosecutors, it’s no surprise that prosecutorial misconduct is one of the leading causes of wrongful convictions.”
He also notes that Mr. Reisig has actually promoted to superviser some who have engaged in misconduct and he has left Clinton Parish in place as a Deputy DA.
Mr. Van Zandt concludes: “If there’s one constant in Reisig’s opinion piece, besides dishonesty, it’s that the ACLU is bad. I don’t share that belief. The ACLU has mostly been on the right side of history, challenging government power in issues such as free speech, the right to assemble, freedom of the press, police misconduct, racial discrimination, religious freedom, voting rights, gay rights, gun rights, opposing the PATRIOT Act, and yes, the death penalty.”
He concludes, “The defense bar, the Innocence Project, and the ACLU, strive to make sure that even in those cases, the government’s case is perfect and righteous. Because one killing of an innocent person, or one killing of somebody who doesn’t deserve the death penalty is an injustice that taints the entire system.”
–David M. Greenwald reporting
this is hardly a fair battle:
1. Reisig has a job that consumes a lot of his time, so while its nice that the vanguard appears to have all the time in the world to snipe at reisig, Reisig does not have that luxury.
2. Because of the nature of his job, Reisig has to be careful about what he says, so he cannot necessarily refute ad nauseam every charge the vanguard or someone else makes against him in the manner that he would like to.
And the public defender and deputy public defender don’t? Besides, what do you know about my time? Why don’t you try to have a full time job, take care of three kids, plan a major event, and move all at the same time and come talk to me about time.
“Reisig has to be careful about what he says”
And the point is, he wasn’t careful and didn’t check hs facts
“This is hardly a fair battle”
You make this sound like a sporting competition in which opponents should be issued all the same gear, and are impartially judged. Hardly the case.
Reisig has a job that pays him a good salary with benefits. He heads an office with a great deal of power over people’s lives. David has neither, and yet, this is David’s job.
I think you make a valid point that Reisig’s job entails being careful about what he says. That is part of what makes it so appalling to me that he has been so cavalier in his support of Parish, up until others had publicly called out Parish for his ethical lapse in campaigning, and in patently false statements about the intent of the ACLU. It is not his disagreement with their position I object to. It is his incredible contention that the are
Sonehow against public safety because they insist on not incarcerating or executing those who are, innocent.
This is an important endorsement for Prop 34! Honestly, I was quite worried about what kind of persuasion Reisig’s….err, I mean…Scully’s OP ED had on the Woodland readers! Not everyone reads the Vanguard but they should!
The self righteous “don’t bother me with the facts” attitude of so many DA’s in California is frightening. How do so many close minded people like this get elected and re-elected? When DA’s have this attitude, anyone can be prosecuted for anything, regardless of guilt or innocence or how the actual law reads. Innocent people have been and continue to be financially ruined and even wrongly imprisoned and/or sentenced to death. Obviously the voting public doesn’t do their homework or pay attention to those who have been exonerated after years in prison. People should pay attention: this could happen to ANYONE.
And I might add:
Especially if the DA has an ax to grind with you or yours. “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely”
[quote]Besides, what do you know about my time? Why don’t you try to have a full time job, take care of three kids, plan a major event, and move all at the same time and come talk to me about time.[/quote]
With all due respect, you don’t have a lock on hard work – many of us are just as busy/busier than you are…
Secondly, I don’t buy the saving money argument anymore in regard to the death penalty. There is enough data/evidence/logical argument to dispute that reasoning.
However, while it is true there have been no cases in CA of “wrongful convictions”, that doesn’t mean they do not exist. I’m still bothered that an innocent person could be convicted and executed.
Prosecutors are not always as moral and upright as they should be. See the following, which is not a death penalty case, but it shows even federal gov’t prosecutors going after inside traders are not above being dishonest and withholding exculpatory information:[url]http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/PubArticleNY.jsp?id=1202565864152&Circuit_Reverses_Six_Convictions_Over_Preventable_Brady_Errors&slreturn=20120706045408[/url]
[quote]this is hardly a fair battle:
1. Reisig has a job that consumes a lot of his time, so while its nice that the vanguard appears to have all the time in the world to snipe at reisig, Reisig does not have that luxury.
2. Because of the nature of his job, Reisig has to be careful about what he says, so he cannot necessarily refute ad nauseam every charge the vanguard or someone else makes against him in the manner that he would like to. [/quote]
You make two good points.
1) The Vanguard has choices in what it chooses to cover, how it covers it, who covers it, how many stories it produces in a day, etc. As a nonprofit, it pretty much has complete autonomy to run things how it sees fit. Reisig on the other hand is very restricted in what he can do, and must deal with cases as they arise – he can’t pick and choose what to do in any given day.
2) Reisig is wise not to engage the Vanguard or the press. About all the DA’s Office can reasonably do is issue press releases/make political statements. They cannot ethically discusses cases that are coming before the court. That puts a severe restraint on what the DA’s Office can or cannot say. I had no problem with the political statement about opposition to Prop 34 – to me it was just typical political boilerplate language/talking points. I don’t happen to agree w it, but I certainly don’t fault the DA for coming out with a statement against Prop 34.
[quote]I think you make a valid point that Reisig’s job entails being careful about what he says. That is part of what makes it so appalling to me that he has been so cavalier in his support of Parish, up until others had publicly called out Parish for his ethical lapse in campaigning, and in patently false statements about the intent of the ACLU.[/quote]
Whoa, back the truck up. Did not the DA withdraw support for Parish? It seems to me it was within 2 days of the truth coming out. What, you have never been ultimately disappointed/dissatisfied in a candidate you supported and voted for? They have never turned out to be not quite who you thought they were?
“And the public defender and deputy public defender don’t? Besides, what do you know about my time? Why don’t you try to have a full time job, take care of three kids, plan a major event, and move all at the same time and come talk to me about time.”
Someone sounds a little testy. Your job is this blog and Reisig’s job is DA, not fending off the snipers. Reisig looks so much more the adult by just ignoring all the tripe on here.
[quote] It seems to me it was within 2 days of the truth coming out.[/quote]
3 days, ERM.
medwoman: “out Parish for his ethical lapse in campaigning, and in patently false statements about the intent of the ACLU.”
The ACLU may have at one point, been a noble organization but it has become clear the organization, has become largely a political animal, masquerading its support for political causes as support for “human rights.” I think what really did it for me is its public endorsement of marijuana for recreational use. If the ACLU is telling me that wasnt a political move then it feels marijuana is a “civil right.” Nuff Said.
“Why don’t you try to have a full time job,” – and that full time job as you put it, appears to be coming up with ways to snipe at reisig. Reisig’s full time job does not give him the luxury of fielding every onslaught of charges leveled against him. THe vanguard can do it in its commentary or follow up commentary all day long.
“Reisig has to be careful about what he says
And the point is, he wasn’t careful and didn’t check hs facts”
that pot and kettle scenario just keeps on resurfacing.
I also think in the repeated swipes at reisig, there is an undercurrent of “how dare you write an article in support of the death penalty you shouldn’t have done that.”
[quote]The ACLU may have at one point, been a noble organization but it has become clear the organization, has become largely a political animal, masquerading its support for political causes as support for “human rights.” I think what really did it for me is its public endorsement of marijuana for recreational use. If the ACLU is telling me that wasnt a political move then it feels marijuana is a “civil right.” Nuff Said.
On the other hand, they supported Chick-Fil-A’s free speech rights, to be consistent. They’re usually against government control.
How come I cannot get an open comment box on today’s other storty,
David Thompson
David, you think the Daily Democrat is a moderate newspaper? I don’t think so.
Even the left coast voters of California have supported the death penalty. It is only an activist minority impeading the death penalty that has turned it into a perversion of justice.
The ends do not justify the means.
Elaine
[quote]Whoa, back the truck up. Did not the DA withdraw support for Parish? It seems to me it was within 2 days of the truth coming out. What, you have never been ultimately disappointed/dissatisfied in a candidate you supported and voted for? They have never turned out to be not quite who you thought they were?[/quote]
The truck remains in forward for me. We seem to have had a version of this conversation before.
I still maintain that the time for DA Reisig to withdraw his support was the day he became aware of Parish’s duplicity, not two days later after first stating his ongoing support, and then withdrawing it only after the political tide appeared to be turning. Yes, I have been disappointed in candidates that I have supported. The huge difference here is that this is not just any candidate, but a very close associate.
What I have never done was to continue to support one of my associates or subordinates once such a breach of ethical behavior was known. I believe the facts were, or should have been known by the DA at the time of his statement of continued support for Parish despite his disapproval of the ad.
91 Octane
[quote]The ACLU may have at one point, been a noble organization but it has become clear the organization, has become largely a political animal, masquerading its support for political causes as support for “human rights.” [/quote]
I continue to maintain that each action, each idea espoused by a group must be judged on its own merits
not on whether or not I agree with all of the groups actions. One example, I find few groups more detestable and odious than the Westboro Baptist Church with their message of hate. However, on the question of whether or not they have the right to voice their loathsome message, in this, I believe they are correct.
If Reisig were to point out that he disagrees with the views and methods of the ACLU, I have no quarrel with this statement. My quarrel is with the false accusation that they are against public safety. Again, my point is that for every innocent incarcerated, there is someone who is guilty who should be in their place.
Conviction and incarceration of the innocent protects no one. Sound police work and prosecutorial honesty with an emphasis on truth and justice instead of conviction as a “win” just might.
[quote]David, you think the Daily Democrat is a moderate newspaper? I don’t think so. [/quote]
My view:
The Daily Democrat’s editorial page is moderate
More liberal would be the LA Times or New York Times
The Nation would be an example of very liberal
The Wall Street Journal would be center right
Fox News would be conservative
some of the right wing blogs would be far right
Hope that helps.
[quote]One example, I find few groups more detestable and odious than the Westboro Baptist Church with their message of hate. However, on the question of whether or not they have the right to voice their loathsome message, in this, I believe they are correct. [/quote]
Do they have the right to spew their message at a funeral, which is their usual MO?