Two weeks ago Jose Valenzuela was released from custody, pleading to a single count of attempted murder and taking a strike, but getting time served. His release comes more than 20 months after being acquitted of attempted murder of a man on May 18, 2008 and nearly being acquitted of the second man – one only person held out as the jury hung 11-1 for acquittal.
But that did not stop Mr. Valenzuela from waiting in the Yolo County jail, serving more than four years in custody despite the fact that the majority of jurors believed him innocent of the crimes for which he was charged. In addition to the attempted murder charge, he was acquitted of assault for the first victim and the jury hung 7-5 for acquittal of assault for the second victim.
Despite this strong showing in court, the DA refiled charges on the second victim and the case was allowed to move forward.
Mr. Valenzuela’s family was able to hire private defense attorney Don Masuda to defend him in the initial trial. His family, El Salvadoran immigrants, owned a prominent restaurant across the street from the scene of the crime, the now defunct La Finca Club.
However, the costs of the first trial drained their financial resources. They were going to have to be represented by Conflict Counsel – an attorney contracted through the county when the public defender’s office is conflicted off a case.
The family preferred going with Mr. Masuda, who had ably defended Mr. Valenzuela in the December 2010 trial. Mr. Masuda would apply to Judge Mock for county funds, but balked at the county rate. Several months later, he would eventually agree to the county’s compensation rate for his services. By that point, unfortunately, his schedule filled up with other matters and Mr. Valenzuela’s case was repeatedly delayed.
In the end, it was time for Mr. Valenzuela to take an offer of time served, the first such offer he got.
In the end, the plea resembles an Alford Plea, named after Henry Alford who was accused of murder and faced the death penalty. Mr. Alford believed he was innocent but pled guilty to a charge of 2nd degree murder in order to avoid the death penalty.
There will be no justice in this case, not for Mr. Valenzuela who spent four and a half years in custody for a crime that he likely never committed, and not for the victims in this case whose attacker has never been caught or brought to justice.
Antonio Alvarez and Jesus Garcia were stabbed shortly before 2am on May 18, 2008, after the night club in Woodland, La Finca, let out. Mr. Alvarez was severely injured and almost died due to blood loss. According to Deputy District Attorney Robert Trudgen, he had been stabbed seven times, including twice in the back of the head, in his upper thigh, in the armpit area and on his right wrist.
Mr. Garcia had significantly less serious wounds, but nevertheless was stabbed in his back twice.
It was clear from the start that the DA likely had the wrong individual.
During the trial, Mr. Masuda acknowledged that Mr. Valenzuela went to the taco stand outside of La Finca. Prior to that, he and three or four of his friends had been hanging out across the street at the back of the restaurant owned by his family. The defense claimed the group had been drinking beer and smoking marijuana, and that they had gotten the munchies and come to the taco stand to eat.
While they waited for their order of tacos, a few feet away the doors of La Finca burst open and out poured a drunken rowdy crowd. A fight had broken out inside the restaurant and that crowd was ejected because of it.
Mr. Valenzuela, wearing headphones, was punched by an individual from the crowd and fell. Mr. Valenzuela and his friends were then engulfed in the fighting, they struggled, broke free from the crowd and moved away across the street.
According to the defense, there was more than one fight taking place out there and the stabbing must have occurred in an area away from where Valenzuela was. They say that when, in the midst of the fighting, it became apparent that someone had been stabbed, it was the security guard at La Finca who had pointed at and directed the crowd toward the defendant, who was moving across the street. They say that the crowd pursued the defendant and his group, who jumped a fence and hid on the property of Valenzuela’s family’s restaurant until the police came and found them there a few minutes later.
The prosecution had alleged that Mr. Valenzuela made a series of phone calls that were intercepted, recorded and played as evidence in the trial. The individuals on the recordings spoke in both English and Spanish, and translations were provided.
In one call to his brother there was a discussion about the removal and destruction of an object that was hidden inside the restaurant between vegetables. However, as the defense noted, the reference to the hiding and destruction of evidence was about marijuana belonging to Mr. Valenzuela, which had previously been hidden inside the restaurant.
The defense accused Detective Ron Cordova of the Woodland Police Department of botching the investigation. The police did not properly preserve the crime scene or make a record of the clothing of various detainees. They say that no other groups were questioned, other than those of the victim and Mr. Valenzuela.
As we wrote directly after the trial:
The first problem in this case is that no witnesses except the security guard at La Finca, Gabriel Bautista, could identify Mr. Valenzuela as the attacker. Mr. Bautista works as a security guard at the courthouse, and attempted to make contact with Mr. Valenzuela prior to a hearing on [that] Friday.
Luis Ruiz, who had testified that he had argued with the attacker, said that the defendant looked 80% like the attacker. Another member of his group was shown a photo lineup hours after the incident and picked someone other than the defendant.
Mr. Bautista, in his statement to the police right after the incident, said he was positive Valenzuela had done the stabbings on both the victims. However, Mr. Ruiz stated that the second stabbing had been done by a different person wearing a grey top, who was much taller than the first attacker.
The defense asserted that Mr. Bautista and Mr. Valenzuela had a feud, stemming from Mr. Valenzuela dating and impregnating the daughter of Mr. Bautista’s close friend. They argued that Mr. Bautista and Mr. Valenzuela had a hatred for each other, and that was a motive for Mr. Bautista to blame Mr. Valenzuela for the attack. Mr Bautista denied that on the stand.
Mr. Valenzuela himself testified in this case. On the stand, Mr. Valenzuela attempted to explain what was heard out of context on the jail call. He told the jury that he had been on probation at the time of the incident, and that wearing a red belt and possession of marijuana was a violation of his probation conditions. He said that he had instructed his brother to get rid of marijuana hidden in the restaurant when he learned that the police were searching for the weapon used in the attack there.
However, this portion of the jail phone conversation [regarding the marijuana] came right after he mentioned the police searching for a weapon. Mr. Valenzuela is heard on the recording saying that if they find “it” he is screwed, so the defense contends that it just wasn’t clear that he was referring to the marijuana. He also testified that he did not threaten his friends to lie for him.
He said that, in Salvadorian Spanish, what he said meant that if they were not loyal friends to him, he would not be loyal to them. He said that he did hide his red belt, tried to remove the marijuana, and told his friends to help him. He stated that in 2007 he had been arrested and questioned for seven hours for a crime he could not have done because he was working in his family’s restaurant. He said that because of that he had a distrust of the system. For the 2007 case, he was released and not charged, and other individuals were convicted.
The defense countered the reference to destroying something simply by referring to the arrest and booking log. The log stated that Mr. Valenzuela had only one key on his person at the time of his arrest. Mr. Valenzuela testified that this key was to the front door of his house and that he did not have access to the restaurant – and the key could be tested.
The defense argued that this ruled out the possibility that he could have gone in to the restaurant building that night to hide anything in there. David Valenzuela, his older brother, testified that only he had the keys to the restaurant and that the defendant did not. He stated that he had had to open the restaurant up for the police to search through.
The lack of physical evidence in this case is also crucial.
Mr. Valenzuela’s clothes were tested and only two drops of blood were found. The blood belonged to him. The defense asserted the impossibility that Mr. Valenzuela could have been the attacker, based on this.
Some of the wounds on the first victim occur underneath clothing but the wound on his right wrist, where flesh appears to have been removed, would have splattered significant amounts of blood everywhere.
In fact, witnesses say that the wounds on the back of the first victim’s head had blood gushing out of them. People in the vicinity of the attack were covered in blood.
The fact that there was blood found all over the scene, but not on Mr. Valenzuela, was critical to his defense.
The defense said that a live Mexican band had played at La Finca that night. The band members testified that they remember playing there that night because it was an important show for them and they had checked their calendars to that effect. They say that a fight had broken out inside the restaurant after a girl had spilled beer on a guy while dancing. They said they were afraid because it turned violent quickly. The band testified that the crowd had been ejected out onto the street. This testimony discredits and rebuts the prosecution witnesses, who all stated that no trouble happened inside the bar. It also puts into question whether some or all of the stabbing took place outside or inside La Finca.
Once again, we see a poor job by law enforcement at collecting evidence on the scene.
Detective Ron Cordova of the Woodland Police Department was assigned to investigate this case and was, in effect, the operational manager, though Officer Davis was the overall supervisor.
Police arrived quickly on the scene, and Officer Cueva was the first there. He had barely become an officer at that time, and Det. Cordova stated that had he been the first responder he would have done things differently. However, he stated that he would not criticize a fellow officer at all.
Officer Cueva’s primary concern, after the safety of everyone, was to quickly question witnesses and try to apprehend the suspect. The suspects were apprehended minutes later, yet the police did not secure the bar or the area outside where blood would have been.
Det. Cordova, who said he was called out to the scene about an hour after the event happened, said that by the time he got there, no blood was at the scene, apparently washed away already. He stated that he was told by officers that Mr. Valenzuela had been “positively identified.”
However, a few hours later at the hospital, when a photo lineup was shown to a member of the victim’s group, that individual selected a photo other than that of Mr. Valenzuela.
Mr. Valenzuela had been wearing a red belt that night which is how most of the victim’s group identified him, but Det. Cordova could not answer as to how many other people who’d been detained had worn a red belt.
Det. Cordova did not send out any CSI to the scene or ask any photos to be taken, though he stated he had those options available to him. As a counterpoint, the defense highlighted the conduct of supervisory Officer Davis who had gone to the hospital the next day to show another photo lineup to a witness.
Officer Davis had learned that the car transporting the victim was in the hospital parking lot, and then proceeded to take meticulous photos of it and the drops of blood leading in to the ER. Defense highlighted that in collecting evidence, the police should keep possibilities open because they don’t know how a case will unfold. Officer Davis agreed and his methods were in keeping with that.
Det. Cordova denied that he would selectively collect evidence in support of implicating an individual. However, when asked if he spoke to anyone other than the group of the victims and the group of Mr. Valenzuela was with, he said no.
When asked “Did you even try?” He replied, “No, Sir.”
Det. Cordova could not answer questions about which officers had been there or at what time during the minutes after police arrived at the scene. He stated to Defense Counsel Masuda that no pictures were taken of the scene at all. When shown a transcript of the preliminary hearing for the case, where he stated that officers had taken photos, he could not explain the contradiction.
Given the way the first trial went, it never seemed likely that the DA could gain a conviction in this case. Indeed, it seems likely they had the wrong individual from the start. Nevertheless, Mr. Valenzuela spent four and a half years in custody, had to plead to a crime that he likely did not commit, and took a strike while the actual perpetrator walks free.
In our view, justice was not served in this case.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Despite this strong showing in court, the DA refiled charges on the second victim and the case was allowed to move forward.”
“However, the costs of the first trial drained their financial resources. They were going to have to be represented by Conflict Counsel – an attorney contracted through the county when the public defender’s office is conflicted off a case.”
I have seen this time and again here in Yolo County. I have a feeling these two things go hand in hand. It seems this DA’s office financially breaks people, then retries cases knowing defendant’s won’t be able to get the same type of representation.
“In the end, it was time for Mr. Valenzuela to take an offer of time served, the first such offer he got.”
Not if he is innocent.
“In the end, the plea resembles an Alford Plea, named after Henry Alford who was accused of murder and faced the death penalty. Mr. Alford believed he was innocent but pled guilty to a charge of 2nd degree murder in order to avoid the death penalty.”
Did he make an Alford Plea or did he plead guilty? The only thing that “resembles” an Alfrord Plea is an Alford Plea. Are you saying that Mr. Valenzuela somehow was facing the death penalty on an attempted murder charge? Or, that he simply is saying (as many guilty people do), “I’m pleading guilty, but I’m not really.”
You’ve rehashed the original trial, and provided an excellent defense case. Assuming you’re correct in everything you’ve reported, there’s only one reason for Mr. Valenzuela to plead guilty to attempted murder–that being that he knows he’s guilty and that he and his attorney know that the DA could have additional evidence that would be more convincing to a jury than the first time around.
A few more weeks in jail is a small price to pay for an innocent person who “knows” that the next trial will exonerate him. He is entitled to a prompt trial. He and his family made the choices that delayed his trial to this point.
The DA offered a plea that would appeal to a guilty person–shouldn’t we be commending him for saving taxpayers and the criminal and family the high costs of a tail?
Prosecutors make such offers to guilty defendants, not to innocent people. Cases in which there’s little doubt about conviction and cases in which prosecutors are confident of guilt, but are concerned about the balance of prosecution/defense evidence are the types that end in plea deals.
I disagree with several points you make.
First, an Alford Plea does not have to be a death penalty case.
Second, he was offered a plea to the assault charge (not the attempted murder charge) and he took it because he was assured of walking out of jail that day after four and a half years. I talked to both he and his family, he said he did it to end it and get out of there.
I agree that both he and his family made choices that delayed his trial to the point, but you also have to understand that (A) he was facing life and (B) Don Masauda kicked the DA’s rear during the first trial, they were not going to take chances.
To Kill a Mockingbird, novel by Harper Lee, 1960, wherein Atticus Finch states: “The law says ‘reasonable doubt,’ but I think a defendant’s entitled to the shadow of a doubt. There’s always the possibility, no matter how improbable, that he’s innocent.”
[quote]In the end, it was time for Mr. Valenzuela to take an offer of time served, the first such offer he got.
In the end, the plea resembles an Alford Plea, [/quote]
So was it an Alford Plea or wasn’t it? What exactly was it? It is not clear from your words here. Secondly, I agree w JustSaying, this is a rehash of only the defense attorney’s version of the case, so I take it w a grain of salt…
Just Saying:
People accept pleas for many reasons, especially when they have young children and they are being UNselfish. They think that someday, their child will get to see her/his parent again. They think about what is better for their child, and not what is more comfortable for them.
They also are financially broke, dejected, depressed, and pressured into pleas.
“this is a rehash of only the defense attorney’s version of the case, so I take it w a grain of salt… “
He was found not guilty by a jury on one defendant, 11-1 for acquittal on the other defendant. What exactly are you trying to evaluate other than to understand the background of the case.
[quote]Nevertheless, Mr. Valenzuela spent four and a half years in custody, had to plead to a crime that he likely did not commit, and took a strike while the actual perpetrator walks free.[/quote]
After all that time and work the Vanguard can’t say for sure Valenzuela didn’t commit the crime but it’s likely he did not. “Likely” isn’t a very strong word.
“After all that time and work the Vanguard can’t say for sure Valenzuela didn’t commit the crime but it’s likely he did not. “Likely” isn’t a very strong word.”
What would you say is a stronger word other than certainty, which I cannot state much with certainty that I did not directly observe. I don’t believe he committed the crimes he was charged with. How sure? 95% sure. Give me a stronger word short of 100% certainty and I’ll use that instead.
JustSaying
“A few more weeks in jail is a small price to pay for an innocent person who “knows” that the next trial will exonerate him. He is entitled to a prompt trial. He and his family made the choices that delayed his trial to this point.”
Have you ever in your life spent a few weeks in prison?
JS: What about another six months in jail with uncertainty of outcome? I’ve talked to Ajay Dev’s family, they thought for sure the jury would side with them, and they were stunned when the jury didn’t. You act like innocent people are not locked up.
I’m not sure what “points” you’re diagreeing with. My question was “did he make an Alfred Plea or not?” Sorry if I tried to guess why you’d use the expression that his plea “resembles an Alfred Plea.”
If he, in fact, made an Alfred Plea, he would be confirming that he agrees that the DA has adequate evidence to convict him. This is, of course, contrary to the entire thrust of your article. So, my question remains: did he make an Alfred Plea? If not, why would you use “resembling” description?
Did he affirm in front of the judge that he was guilty? It’s fairly typical for guilty people who make a plea bargain (other than an Alfred Plea) to tell people that hey just plead guilty to move on in some way.
With respect to the second point with which you “disagree,” I’m missing any disagreement except between your original story and your subsequent comment.
First: “Two weeks ago Jose Valenzuela was released from custody, pleading to a single count of attempted murder and taking a strike, but getting time served.” And, second: “…he was offered a plea to the assault charge (not the attempted murder charge) and he took it because he was assured of walking out of jail that day after four and a half years.”
With that added information, it seems even more likely that the DA has the right man and that he wisely pleaded guilty to the lesser charge.
It’s not very convincing to me that an innocent person who has gone through everything that Mr. Valenzuela has would give up and walk away just weeks from an opportunity for another acquittal. Maybe you misread the strength of the second case against him?
“…you also have to understand that…Don Masauda kicked the DA’s rear during the first trial, they were not going to take chances.”
And, an innocent person would want to do it once more and be exonerated rather than agree that he’s guilty, even of a reduced felony. I guess I don’t see what you’re getting at here–who wasn’t going to take what chances?
Let’s start here – do you understand that an Alford Plea is not an “official” term. It is defined as any plea where they plea guilty but proclaim innocence. “I’m guilty but I didn’t do it” plea
[quote]They also are financially broke, dejected, depressed, and pressured into pleas.[/quote]
I’m with you here. I am not fond of the entire plea bargaining system, because it is coercive in nature, more coercive to the low income, is fraught with problems like informant’s that get a better deal if they lie/rat someone out, overworked public defenders who encourage their clients to take plea deals, plea deals that are way too lenient/harsh, etc. I just don’t know how to suggest something better, that would not clog up our court systems to the point of complete gridlock. Probably the best way to address the entire problem is to improve investigatory techniques, so that innocent people are not caught up in the criminal justice system in the first place. And of course keep youngsters off the streets and safe, busy doing something productive so they aren’t around trouble. It’s a definite conundrum…
From [url]http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/alford-plea/[/url]
[quote]In an Alford Plea, the criminal defendant does not admit the act, but admits that the prosecution could likely prove the charge. The court will pronounce the defendant guilty. The defendant may plead guilty yet not admit all the facts that comprise the crime. An Alford plea allows defendant to plead guilty even while unable or unwilling to admit guilt. One example is a situation where the defendant has no recollection of the pertinent events due to intoxication or amnesia. A defendant making an Alford plea maintains his innocence of the offense charged. One reason for making such a plea may be to avoid being convicted on a more serious charge. Acceptance of an Alford plea is in the court’s discretion.
However, in many states, a plea which “admits sufficient facts” often results in the case being continued without a decision and later dismissed. A conviction under an Alford plea may be used as a conviction for later sentencing purposes. However, one state supreme court has held that an Alford plea, unlike a criminal trial, does not provide a full and fair hearing on the issues in the case, and therefore does not preclude later litigation of the issues.[/quote]
“Let’s start here – do you understand that an Alford Plea is not an ‘official’ term. It is defined as any plea where they plea guilty but proclaim innocence. ‘I’m guilty but I didn’t do it’ plea.”
I’m not sure that starting here gets us very far on my question, “Did he make an Alfred Plea or not?” What happens in court is different. Did he make an Alfred Plea to the judge? Or, did he plead guilty, agreeing in court that he was guilty when he was in front of the judge?
There’s quite a difference between making an Alford Plea and pleading guilty, then going out and telling everyone that you didn’t do anything wrong. In that sense, “Alfred Plea” is a term that carries legal meaning whether it’s “official” or not.
If I understand the events, 2 gentlemen were stabbed, much blood was spattered. Did the police consider that one of the people at the scene who were covered with blood could be as strong a suspect as Mr. Valenzuela? Is the D.A. doing any kind of further investigation? How sad that 2 people could have died from stab wounds, yet the person arrested had none of the victim’s blood on himself. As I read this article I feel more and more afraid to live in Yolo County. I don’t think the D.A.’s office is doing their job. Frightening consequences. And it even makes me a little afraid to write anything negative about the D.A. They are so powerful.
[quote]And it even makes me a little afraid to write anything negative about the D.A. They are so powerful.[/quote
I should make us all sad that we are among those who think like this.
Just Saying: In my opinion you are focusing on the wrong thing. What difference does it make (and there is a reason why I said it resembled rather than necessarily was an Alford Plea – but who cares that the secondary point).
To me the critical issue is that he was in custody for 4 1/2 years, you had a jury acquit on one charge and all but acquit on the other. There is no evidence that he did it other than a security guard who admitted in court to having an ongoing feud – that was the only evidence that he did it. There was no blood evidence. No one else saw him do it.
The other point is that someone out there stabbed those two guys and have not been caught.
[quote]”I just don’t know how to suggest something better, that would not clog up our court systems to the point of complete gridlock.”[/quote]That, of course, is the problem as well as the power for individuals, Elaine. Plea bargains are a solution much more than a problem.
What would you do with the with the folks who broke the law, know they did and are ready to pay for their transgressions? Require a trial?
Then, how about the ones who did it, but don’t want to pay the full penalty? A perfect match for plea bargaining since they have the right to a trial. Just trade it in for a lesser charge and/or lower penalty. Everybody wins.
What about the normally nice person who gets pissed off at something, overreacts and likely would never do such a thing again (unless he gets sent to prison and learns the crooks’ techniques and attitudes)? Plea bargain time; take anger management, do weekends in jail and keep being a productive person. Everybody wins.
What about the accomplice who isn’t the leader, who got talked into something, who didn’t accelerate an already bad situation by pulling a weapon, etc.? Give up the drug dealer or the shooter or whoever did the worse crime in exchange what one deserves for their part in the crime. Everybody wins. (Well, maybe the dealer/killer/whatever isn’t really a winner. But, he gets what he deserves–justice.)
No matter how broke, how dejected and depressed, we still have our most powerful right to a fair trial. No crooked prosecutor, investigator or defense attorney can take it from us.
It’s a big deal to give away even if you’re guilty. But, the bigger question to me is why anyone would give it up if they’re innocent.
[quote]It’s a big deal to give away even if you’re guilty. But, the bigger question to me is why anyone would give it up if they’re innocent.[/quote]
Because your public defender may be telling you that if you go to trial, you will probably be found guilty and serve a lot more time bc the case has already been stacked against you from the start. Had a client this happened to – there was [b][u]no[/u] evidence[/b], but he lost custody of his child bc it was “manufactured” by nonprofit battered women’s group.
[quote]”Had a client this happened to – there was no evidence, but he lost custody of his child bc it was “manufactured” by nonprofit battered women’s group.”[/quote]This must be a fascinating story. In this case, however, there’s tons of evidence. Was there more evidence than appeared during the first trial? Was it enough for his attorney to decide that they would not be as successful in convincing the next jury of reasonable doubt? Hard to say.
I know that I would not plead guilty to attempted murder (or, as was later corrected, even attempted murder reduced to assault) if I was innocent of any involvement. Regardless of my station in life, I would not give up my right to a trial in order to lie and tell the court I did it because “it’s time to.”
I would plea bargain if I did the deed and didn’t want to suffer the consequences of a more serious charge than I thought was reasonable or if it would get me a lower penalty than would come with a fair trial. But, if I was innocent of all charges? Never.
Now, back to your case. You’re not accurate in saying there was “[u]no[/u] evidence.” It’s just that the “manufactured evidence” apparently was not true, a perfect thing for the judge and jury or an appeals court to toss out. Sounds as though you didn’t take a plea deal and he was found guilty. Are you really, reallty sure that you did something wrong here? Attorneys can’t win every case.
P.S.–When will you do a follow up story on today’s outrageous “meeting” and what will happen to our beloved Senior Center and its supporters?
[quote]P.S.–When will you do a follow up story on today’s outrageous “meeting” and what will happen to our beloved Senior Center and its supporters? [/quote]
Doubt I’ll have the time tomorrow – but there was an article published in the Davis Enterprise about it late today…
[quote]”What about another six months in jail with uncertainty of outcome? He was assured of walking out a free man that day and the only thing he has to worry about now is keeping clean. I can’t blame him for that. Not when he’s facing life and putting his hands in a jury.
I’ve talked to Ajay Dev’s family, they thought for sure the jury would side with them, and they were stunned when the jury didn’t. You act like innocent people are not locked up.”[/quote]I don’t “blame” Mr. Valenzuela for for *pleading guilty. It’s his life. He knows what he did in the case for which he was charged with attempted murder. He’s the one who has to live with what he did that night and what he has to live with as a result of proclaiming his guilt to felony assault.
It must be horrible for Mr. Valenzuela and his family to be in such terrible straits. But, now, he and they can move on with their lives, now that he’s “paid his debt to society.”
I don’t “act like innocent people are not locked up.” You’re trying to make the case that Mr. Valenzuela likely is innocent and was being wrongly pursued by the district attorney.
It should not surprise you that everyone doesn’t agree every time you claim the DA has gotten it wrong yet again. In this case, I just question your rationale and suggest that his plea makes it look much less likely that your evaluation of the “weak case” against him is accurate.
=====
*Please see next comment.
=====
*So, here we are days later, and you still won’t explain your “In the end, the plea resembles an Alford Plea….” reporting. [quote]”In my opinion you are focusing on the wrong thing. What difference does it make (and there is a reason why I said it resembled rather than necessarily was an Alford Plea – but who cares that the secondary point).”[/quote]”Resembling” an Alford Plea is like being sort of pregnant, in my opinion–it’s both an odd construction and isn’t accurate or, at least, isn’t the whole story. It jumps out, so I simply asked for clarification.
Instead of being responsive, you kept misdirecting (in a hostile tone) and refusing to provide a clear, direct, easy answer. Now, you say I’m “focusing on the wrong thing” when you could have eliminated the focus with a simple answer to a simple question.
Even now, you note that “there is a reason,” but you still won’t say what it is or whether Mr. Valenzuela made an Alford Plea or not.
Your reluctance to deal with such (likely) small errors of fact doesn’t mean much with respect to this case. You’re right that your story on Mr. Valenzuela’s case has lots of important considerations and issues. But you’ll probably admit that most are your opinions about the facts and the facts presented are selective indeed.
Who cares? In this case, I care whether Mr. Valenzuela really made an Alford Plea because it dramatically changes the complexion of the case closeout. It’s an unusual plea. It means the defendant is asserting something very special as he convinces the judge that his plea is an honest one.
Lots of people plead “guilty” and later contend to friends and family that he really wasn’t, that he was “forced” to do something with which he really doesn’t agree, that he had to lie to the judge for some extenuating reasons. However, there’s a extra respect that’s due to a person who makes an Alford Plea that’s accepted by a judge.
One way or another, you make Mr. Valenzuela sound as though he thinks (as well as you do) he’s innocent. Given your access, you could have a great story about why a man who has spent 4-1/2 years in jail claiming his innocence, wouldn’t stick it out a few more months to face the supposedly weak case against him.
We know your evaluation (“…Masauda kicked the DA’s rear during the first trial….it was time…,” the inherent vagaries of a jury, etc.), but what did [u]he[/u] have to say about his reasoning for the decision. Like I say, a great story.
Finally, how a publication handles the details is important. How important is accuracy? How are misstatements handled? “Who cares (about) the secondary point(s)?” As you know, we both do–because it goes to the credibility of the [i]Vanguard[/i] and helps assure its future success, right?
[quote]Finally, how a publication handles the details is important. How important is accuracy? How are misstatements handled? “Who cares (about) the secondary point(s)?” As you know, we both do–because it goes to the credibility of the Vanguard and helps assure its future success, right? [/quote]
Well said!
[quote]Doubt I’ll have the time tomorrow – but there was an article published in the Davis Enterprise about it late today…[/quote]
I found the time to write a quick article for the Vangaurd about what happened with respect to SCD Board meeting… submitted to dmg a few minutes ago…