It has become a noteworthy phenomenon in and of itself. Every time we run a story critical of Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig, a handful of people defend the DA, not on the merits but by attacking the messenger, in this case the Vanguard.
In recent columns we have one reader deploring the Vanguard‘s obsession: “Please get help for your sick obsession about the district attorney,” they write. Another, “This was a nonstory that highlights the Vanguard’s bitter animosity toward the local DA.”
Still another: “Yes, we heard you the first 500 times.” And course: “If there wasn’t such a clear vendetta against Reisig and anything that comes from the DA’s office David would be harder to dismiss.”
What I find fascinating is that for the most part none of these responses actually defend the DA on the merits. In fact, they ignore the fact that on the case of the Mr. Reisig’s op-ed, the Vanguard is hardly alone. The op-ed generated a response op-ed, not only from Public Defender Tracie Olson, but also from Deputy Public Defender Richard Van Zandt.
The op-ed and the apparent lifting of another’s writing drew two editorial columns of criticism in the Sacramento News and Review, and at least four letters to the editor.
On top of that, the Woodland Daily Democrat itself came out in favor of Proposition 34 – the main topic of discussion of that op-ed – in contraposition to DA Reisig.
We will be honest – we disagree with the policies of DA Jeff Reisig. We believe that far too often he prosecutes cases as felonies that would be charged as misdemeanors in other counties, or not charged at all. In fact, in trial, one of his deputies, Ryan Couzens, admitted as much.
We believe that he stacks charges far too often that result in disproportionate sentences. We have cited a number of cases where we believe there has been prosecutorial misconduct – some cited and some not cited. And we believe that his office has put innocent people in prison and sometimes they have done so in order to secure money from grants – which we have termed cash for convictions.
We make no bones about these criticisms. However, at the same time, we believe we are actually rather judicious about when we apply these charges and to what cases.
At the same time, I find it interesting when defenders somehow see this as ideological. One person wrote earlier this week, “Is it plagiarism or boilerplate? I am under no illusion that this is an issue anywhere but in liberal hubs.”
A number of people that I have met with who are critical of Mr. Reisig are actually right-wing Republicans. Indeed, the death penalty issue itself is not necessarily divided along partisan lines either. One only had to listen to Don Heller at the Vanguard event – he is no liberal. Nor is Ron Briggs.
And yet Mr. Heller is very critical of Mr. Reisig and his practices, and believes that his actions in the Topete case may very well result in re-trial down the line.
Still, we take our reader’s complaints very seriously and decided that the Vanguard‘s obsession with the Yolo County DA needs an investigation.
What we found is that the Vanguard‘s coverage of the DA has hardly been obsessive. Seven months into this year the number of articles that mention DA Jeff Reisig are 34.
That may sound like a lot but it comes from a universe over more than 600 total articles.
To put that number in context, Joe Krovoza is mentioned in the same number of articles as the DA, and since May 22. So clearly, we owe an apology here… to Mayor Joe Krovoza for our obsessive coverage of him.
The breakdown of the Vanguard‘s mentions of DA Jeff Reisig by topic is revealing.
We find eight topics:
- Jeff Reisig’s Op-Ed – 10
- Clinton Parish’s Judicial Race – 9
- The Bank Blockers – 4
- Pepper Spray – 3
- Topete Trial – 3
- Ajay Dev – 2
- Hate Crimes – 2
- Liberty Mutual Case – 1
We would note that in some cases those mentions are actually incidental. I will explain more on this shortly.
19 of the 34 articles are on two topics. We note the latest controversy involving the op-ed has three parts. First, there was the initial coverage on the day prior to the Vanguard‘s event on the death penalty. Second, there was the discovery that Mr. Reisig lifted portions of the op-ed from Sacramento DA Jan Scully. Third, there were a number of responses that the Vanguard covered, including Yolo County Public Defender Tracie Olson, Deputy Public Defender Richard Van Zandt, several letters to the editor, and Sacramento News and Review columnist Cosmo Garvin.
We should note that two of the articles were written by others and posted on the Vanguard. We counted the Daily Democrat‘s endorsement of Prop 34 as one of the articles.
The coverage of the judge’s race is interesting because the first several mentions of Jeff Reisig simply denote his support for his employee.
It was not until May 17 that Jeff Reisig actually became part of the story. In that article, we reported that “Jeff Reisig, is standing behind his deputy. He told the Enterprise that he learned Monday of the flier’s release. ‘I previously gave him my endorsement and I’m not going to change that,’ Mr. Reisig said.”
He was not the main topic of discussion until the following day when he pulled his endorsement, following the Sacramento Bee‘s op-ed that savaged him over sticking with his man.
He became the topic because of the Bee who wrote: “District Attorney Jeff Reisig criticized the mailer but unfortunately stuck by his endorsement of Parish. By continuing to lend his support to Parish, Reisig displays a lack of insight into how such a mailer can politicize the judiciary. Yolo County voters should consider Reisig’s embrace of Parish if Reisig appears on the ballot again.”
The Vanguard did take the opportunity on May 20 in its Sunday Commentary to take a swipe at Mr. Reisig, writing in “Public Gets a Rare Glimpse into Real DA’s office” and arguing that “what we saw was not the exception but rather a window into the operations of his office.”
But people tend to remember those two critical articles (and forget the equally critical op-eds in the Sacramento Bee or the News and Review).
The next mention of Mr. Reisig was in passing in the final article we wrote on the judge’s race on June 6, following the resounding defeat of Clint Parish.
There are four articles on the charges against Thomas Matzat and the bank blockers that mention DA Jeff Reisig. One of those only mentions what the DA is charging protesters with and that UC Davis requested that the DA bring criminal charges against the twelve.
The protesters suggested a connection between the pepper-spray incident, which was not charged, and the bank blocking incident.
In a few of the articles, Jeff Reisig’s name only comes up because of a press release that is cited.
There are only three mentions of Jeff Reisig with regard to pepper spray. One of them is announcing that his office announced insufficient evidence to file charges against those pepper sprayed, and the other two updating on whether criminal charges will be pending against the officers involved.
The Topete trial itself had three articles this year – two in January. One reported that a juror believed that the woman was improperly dismissed, one reported that Judge Richardson denied a motion to set aside the death penalty in that case, and the other was on DA Reisig’s expression of outrage at the release of the Dash Cam Video back in February.
There are two mentions of Jeff Reisig in Ajay Dev articles, both of which, while critical of the DA, are mainly cited as his version of what happened, noting some inaccuracies in that account.
We had two articles on the hate crimes incident that mentions Jeff Reisig. It was actually a positive mention.
Chief Deputy DA Jonathan Raven noted that, under District Attorney Jeff Reisig, their office “takes hate crimes extremely seriously.”
“We’ve prosecuted some very serious hate crimes over the last few years,” he said. “Some of them who have had experience with this statewide have told us that other DA’s offices don’t prosecute these terrible assaults and batteries as hate crimes – we certainly do.”
And finally we have the critical article on the worker’s comp fraud case that we believed was improperly prosecuted as multiple felonies, despite the fact that the worker was clearly injured.
So yes, we have had articles critical of Jeff Reisig this year. But much of the criticism of Mr. Reisig has focused on his role in the judicial election, and the op-ed that he chose to write that was published the day before our event on the same topic, and that we criticized both for being inaccurate and for lifting portions from a previous op-ed from the Sacramento DA.
In short, if the now-35 pieces this year on eight topics represents an obsession with the DA, then we are guilty as charged. On the other hand, we still believe that the Davis mayor has a more legitimate beef and we will address that point shortly.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Presenting the other side of the Reisig issue is now defending Reisig. That’s similar to being racist because you didn’t vote for Obama. I don’t necessarily agree with everything Reisig does. I just think a little balance needs to be provided. Every the Reisig’s name shows up on this site I hear the old time radio show organ that always accompanies the villain.
What I’ve said in the past is worth repeating. This is a clearly slanted site and I accept it as such. With that being said I believe a little more balance would lend to a bit more credibility. How about a story once in a while that portrays the public defenders as inept as some of the prosecutors have been. Or a story about how a public defender allows the ridiculous, “These aren’t my pants” defense? I’m not asking for much, just a little.
I think you raise a fair point that taps into a larger issue. I remember a case where a woman got caught with less than .01 grams of meth in a pipe in her purse going through security at the courthouse. And I think it was Richard Van Zandt was her attorney. They tried to argue that it wasn’t her purse.
It probably was and the woman was convicted. But the problem of course is that (A) the charge was absurd given how little meth was in the pipe, (B) there was no advantage to the defense not taking the case to trial, and (C) the public defender’s job is to represent the client to the best of their ability.
It is not a parallel position to the DA’s office which is supposed to represent the people not just win cases. Whereas the public defender has to represent their client, all clients, no matter how good or bad a case they have.
So I don’t see it as reciprocal. From what I have seen, people in this county whether they are represented by the PD’s office or conflict counsel get good legal representation.
If I were going to criticize the public defender it would not be because they make an absurd argument, it would be because they had ineffectual representation – that happens in a lot of places, but I have not seen it happen here (at least that I can identify sitting in the cheap seats).
I think the other point that should be made – and maybe needs to be made more often. Crime happens in this county. There are people who do bad things. When they do, I think they need to be punished according to the law. In most cases, they reasonably are.
On the other hand, this county has one of the highest incarcerations rates but is in the bottom third in the amount of crime and I think there is an imbalance and that is where my criticism of the DA’s office starts.
My personal experience with the Yolo Co. D.A.’s is that they are a group of arrogant, aggressive. pompous jerks. Maybe if they all acted more professional, and they just did their job, they wouldn’t be scrutinized so often. The person who wrote that David G. needs help with his “sick obsession” has obviously never had to endure a real live experience in court with the D.A.’s. When you or a friend or family member have to deal with them, God forbid, you will understand what I write. Until then, you really have no idea. They are frightening.
So you’re writing another article about Reisig to say you’re not writing too many articles about him? LOL
[quote]It is not a parallel position to the DA’s office which is supposed to represent the people not just win cases. Whereas the public defender has to represent their client, all clients, no matter how good or bad a case they have.
[/quote]
Unless I have a misunderstanding of how charges are brought and how cases are defended there is a greater discrepancy than David has stated between the positions of the DA and the public defender. It is my understanding that :
1) The DA decides who to charge based on information they have from police and other sources
2) The DA decides what charges to make and what information to provide to the defender
3) The public defender then has to defend anyone who is not employing their own attorney
4) The public defender then receives from the DA whatever information the DA chooses to disclose which
is supposed to be governed by laws regarding fair practices and we assume that the DAs office will
always act ethically and do the “right thing”. However, it would seem that there are no functioning
sanctions against prosecutors when they “make mistakes” and do not provide potentially exculpatory
evidence to the defense and other similar errors.
To my admittedly legally unsophisticated eyes, it looks as though the deck is already stacked so favorably to the side of the DA that perhaps a little emphasis on the foibles of this side of the judicial process is not unwarranted.
The irony of that didn’t escape me either.
David: So you feel the messenger is being shot at ? Welcome to the club!
Seriously, you and your interns are the only reason we know anything about how those criminal cases are handled. Keep up the good work.
[quote]How about a story once in a while that portrays the public defenders as inept as some of the prosecutors have been. Or a story about how a public defender allows the ridiculous, “These aren’t my pants” defense? I’m not asking for much, just a little.[/quote]
I really think that I am missing the point here. I really don’t see how criticizing a different department is going to make the Vanguard’s position on the functioning of the DAs office any more or less fair.
The DA is responsible for the actions of his own office regardless of whether or not the public defender is acting in an ethical or reasonable manner and vice versa. I fail to see how pointing out inadequacies in the operations of one office says anything at all about one’s attitude towards the other side.
Unless of course, you think that this is nothing more than a political exercise in ill will. If that is your position, I think that we would just have to agree to disagree. I think there has been plenty of instances of
DA Reisig over playing his hand in order to enhance his “law and order” creds which admittedly, as some have noted, does seem to have a fair amount of popular support.
medwoman: I’m glad you brought those points up, because I had intended to in my response as well. You are absolutely correct – the DA has the discretion on which cases to charge and the PD does not have the discretion on which cases to defend, that’s a huge difference.
Lydia L
[quote]The person who wrote that David G. needs help with his “sick obsession” has obviously never had to endure a real live experience in court with the D.A.’s. When you or a friend or family member have to deal with them, God forbid, you will understand what I write. Until then, you really have no idea. They are frightening.[/quote]
I think you may be right. Those of us who have never had any interaction with the DA’s office have no idea what actually takes place and tend to form our opinions from either our preconceived notions of what occurs, from what we read or hear on the news, and from, as this recent incident illustrates so well, from what the DA chooses to write as an opinion piece ( whether his own or not). I suspect that there are many people who have experiences that do not conform to what these sources would portray.
As someone with no experience, what would be of more value to me in making an assessment would be
a summary of what you actually experienced, omitting of course any names and details that would reveal the identity of any innocents. Would you be willing to share any specifics of what you have experienced ?
Is it such a big surprise that people have a bad experience when being charged with a crime by the DA’s office? I mean really, do you think they are going to ever give them kudos for a job well done?
Rusty49
You obviously don’t understand that people are wrongfully accused of heinous crimes that they did not commit every day in America. You obviously do not understand what it is like to spend over $100,000 din legal fees, even though you are a lawyer yourself, but not a criminal lawyer, trying to clear your good name and your family’s name. You obviously have led a very sheltered life, so I guess you have much to be grateful for.
Medwoman. Thank You. After a few months of therapy I choose not to ruminate; we’re moving out of state. I’ll finish writing my book. It’s too difficult to remain in Davis, where I have suffered trauma, and my entire family has suffered trauma. We are innocent. I will say that there are some caring Judges in Yolo County and eventually we hope to see justice, and we will return to CA to keep fighting the good fight in court. We will never stop fighting until our family gets justice.
Interesting breakdown of numbers David. I don’t think you mention or write about the DA too often. I would expect you to mention, talk about and criticize Jeff Reisig, the DA of Yolo County, since this site is called the Vanguard [b]Court [/b][b]Watch [/b].
The apologists are people who wear blinders and don’t wish to address the very things happening in our own back yard of Yolo County. Keep up the good work David. We appreciate knowing what is really happening in the Yolo County Court system.
Lydia L.
Regardless of the circumstances, I just want to express to you my regret that you and your family have had such a traumatic experience.
It is my belief that our current adversarial system of law has many faults stemming from the “win/lose” mentality it fosters on all sides rather than focusing on prevention of criminal activity and protection of the innocent. Until we are willing to focus, as a society, on the fundamental flaws in this emphasis, we will continue to defend a system which imposes a great deal of injustice in the name of justice.
Unfortunately, since my expertise is not in this area, I cannot offer credible solutions, but am limited to pointing out what I perceive as deficiencies.
I truly wish all the best to you and your family and hope you will all find peace of mind in your new home.
I think covering justice-related issues is relevant and important. However, I know that the way in which it is covered can be perceived as agenda-driven, which can affect a publications reputation. This leads people to conclude that it’s just a guy’s opinion and shrug or criticize. On the other hand, there are those who very much agree with what’s reported (or the way it’s reported) because what is reported supports their experiences, preconceived notions of the DA/justice system, agenda, etc.
I don’t know if the Vanguard believes that is great concern. I think it was suggested by other posters that the Vanguard separate its reporting from its editorializing. That, of course, is not something the Vanguard alone is guilty of, but I think it would help to do so. Not every story is presented that way, but in many cases that is how it reads to me.
Frankly, I would like to see more discussion on policy as it relates to the justice system. The individual local court cases can be interesting and provide insight, but I think the Vanguard may benefit from a shift in focus. Perhaps a focus on what we can do to prevent crime would be helpful too.
I did get a good chuckle out of this article 😉
[quote]It has become a noteworthy phenomenon in and of itself. Every time we run a story critical of Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig, a handful of people defend the DA, not on the merits but by attacking the messenger, in this case the Vanguard.
[/quote]
The point the Vanguard is missing is that every story it runs on the DA is [u][b]critical of the DA[/b][/u]; and many of the stories it runs critical of the DA are not particularly justified, contain lots of innuendo without supporting facts, etc. So many I have talked to in the community tune out any and all articles having to do with Yolo Judicial Watch. That is unfortunate, bc there are times when the Vanguard does make valid points, but they get lost in the Vanguard’s own biased and unending vitriol against the DA…
[quote]We make no bones about these criticisms. However, at the same time, we believe we are actually rather judicious about when we apply these charges and to what cases.[/quote]
yes I’m sure the Vanguard believes it is actually rather judicious (pun intended?) about its criticisms of the DA. I wouldn’t expect the Vanguard to think any other way. Nothing like dismissing Vanguard critics in one fell swoop… 😉
[quote]Still, we take our reader’s complaints very seriously and decided that the Vanguard’s obsession with the Yolo County DA needs an investigation.[/quote]
LOL Yes we can see how seriously you take reader’s complaints! Dismiss them as unjustified!
The question has been raised of whether anyone charged with a crime would give kudos to the accuser.
The answer is yes, if kudos were warranted. Although my experience with the legal system in Yolo County was limited to my son’s appearance in “helmet court” I am able to differentiate between behavior that I would prefer had not occurred, namely citing my son, and whether of not the process was handled appropriately and respectfully.
My son, while upset that he had received a ticket, was clear that the officer had been polite, respectful, and even friendly throughout the ticketing process.
Once in court, my son and I were treated with complete respect and our situation was handled professionally and appropriately.
However, the mother/son pair called up immediately before us, in exactly our same situation as first offense, which for reasons I will never know
But can only suspect involved physical appearance or ability to articulate clearly, were not treated as graciously as we were.
People deserve kudos for what they have done well. They should not be defended unquestioningly for their errors or malfeasance regardless of their position . It is one stated purpose of the Vanguard to report on the judicial activities within Yolo County. I think the Vanguard is doing a good job fulfilling this aspect of its stated mission which necessarily involves taking a critical, or if you prefer, skeptical view of the activities of public officials.
[quote]The breakdown of the Vanguard’s mentions of DA Jeff Reisig by topic is revealing.
We find eight topics:
Jeff Reisig’s Op-Ed – 10
Clinton Parish’s Judicial Race – 9
The Bank Blockers – 4
Pepper Spray – 3
Topete Trial – 3
Ajay Dev – 2
Hate Crimes – 2
Liberty Mutual Case – 1[/quote]
And how many of these articles have anything positive to say about the DA?
[quote]Medwoman: To my admittedly legally unsophisticated eyes, it looks as though the deck is already stacked so favorably to the side of the DA that perhaps a little emphasis on the foibles of this side of the judicial process is not unwarranted. [/quote]
A [i][b][u]little[/u] emphasis[/b][/i] on the foibles of the DA’s side of the judicial process? LOL
“The point the Vanguard is missing is that every story it runs on the DA is [u][b]critical of the DA[/b][/u]; and many of the stories it runs critical of the DA are not particularly justified,”
Two points here. First, not all are critical – many are – but that’s actually the nature of the Vanguard as a whole.
Second, I think justified is a largely subjective term but out of curiosity which of the 8 topics listed do you feel that criticism was not warranted?
Elaine
I agree with your laughter. I smiled as I wrote it.
But I also underplayed just how extremely stacked I believe our system is in favor of the prosecution. Did you not see anything ironic in my downplaying that aspect also ?
“And how many of these articles have anything positive to say about the DA?”
That answer is provided in the article. It’s two. A number of the mentions were neutral – he was just mentioned. And then some were critical. I ask you again, which of those are unwarranted in your estimation?
medwoman,
[i]But I also underplayed just how extremely stacked I believe our system is in favor of the prosecution.[/i]
The burden rests exclusively on the state, not the defense. How do you propose the system should be altered to “level the playing field?” I think discovering all the evidence to the defense seems like a good idea, but other than that how else would balance the system out? For example, who shall charge the defendant?
ERM,
[i]And how many of these articles have anything positive to say about the DA? [/i]
I don’t see this as a measure of quality reporting.
Good point SM, I would argue the only thing that matters is whether the criticism is warranted. Interestingly enough, Elaine was one who argued that the criticism of Reisig’s errors and his plagiarism was unwarranted. So to me, Elaine has a credibility problem herself here.
TheDA should comment and respond to the DV articles. It would be good for the public to get both sides.
However, many of the topics are in litigation, and I think it’s difficult for the DA to comment on cases that are pending.
Maybe the DA can give the DV off the record comments?
The nature of the news is to report things that are “bad” or we are critical of. How often would you really watch or read news that reported a “good” story about someone for every critical story ? The DA, mayor and other elected and political figures should be under a microscope, after all they work for the people. Without David’s blog how would we be able to find out how our elected officials are doing their jobs?
Siegel,
I don’t think the Vanguard must match a criticism with a compliment. However, I think the Vanguard should report on both sides of a case equally every time by including the facts, laws and what the defense and prosecution are contending. Readers can then look at the facts of the case, law and both sides of the argument and decide for themselves. If the Vanguard disagrees with a policy and/or law, then it should do so in a separate editorial piece. I think that is a good practice.
In reading this there are a few issues I find disturbing.
First, who wrote all these articles?; who worked on the pieces: collecting data, reviewing the pieces? was it one contributor? or several? I raise this because the column, and to be honest most postings on this blog, use the collective voice “the vanguard” which gives the impression that this isn’t one person’s opinion but rather the consensus of many. While most dedicated readers I believe will know the answer, the casual reader may not…. full honest disclosure of this is critical to maintaining credibility and integrity.
The second issue I have is that if you look at this it parallels the review process of the pepper spray incident at UCD: External reviewers make criticisms, then an internal review is conducted by people who have conflicts of interest (an author reviewing his own work is a conflict*) and then surprise… the review finds no wrong doing despite the facts. 34 out of 600 is a lot even given the fact that this blog is about the Yolo legal system; 2-“positive” out of 34 does indicate a bias… not necessarily a problem as long as its acknowledged throughout the editorial process. And I have to throw the BS flag on the “A number of the mentions were neutral- he was just mentioned”-Who decided if mentions were positive, negative or neutral? Where they independent of the author or editor or publisher? What was their criteria? Also what was counted as articles about the DA or mentions of the DA? The review as reported here seems to use both, and manipulating the outcome. I know the count of mentions has to be higher than 34, I believe in this article alone there are over 20 mentions (based on a word search only using the DA’s name). If the thesis of the commentary was about reporting bias why was the DA referred to more than 5 times?
Finally, and most disturbing, this commentary is yet another attack article masked as something else. Criticisms of the DA, which have nothing to do with the main thesis of the story, are once again dredged up to reinforce the bias of the author. The author’s issues with the DA are not material to the discussion and didn’t need to be brought up to chum the waters. Referring to news organizations that also reported on the issues only served to provide a backdoor way to reaffirm the previous attacks. These disguised attacks are becoming all to common an occurrence in today’s discourse: just look at the “Birther” movement (“I believe Obama was born here.. but this kid from his second grade class doesn’t remember him, and there is no record he missed school in the summer of 1969”) or those who make innuendos about their opponent’s “lifestyle” (“My opponent is a moral person, and I am not judging why he spends all this time with this young woman, or that a friend saw them coming out of the Motel 6”). Its mudslinging that most often is used to subliminally reinforce an attack, while allowing the author to keep his/her hands clean and it needs to be called out every time it occurs (sorry Dave).
In the interest of full disclosure: 1) I am not a supporter of the District Attorney; 2) Many times this blog has served to raise my awareness about issues, topics, or cases that I then have researched for more information.
Superflous Man
“The burden rests exclusively on the state, not the defense. How do you propose the system should be altered to “level the playing field?” I think discovering all the evidence to the defense seems like a good idea, but other than that how else would balance the system out? For example, who shall charge the defendant?”
Please understand that I am speaking from a position of relative ignorance on what has been demonstrated to work and what has not, but I would make the following suggestions:
1) Immediate full disclosure to both sides of all evidence as you said
2) Doing away with the adversarial system altogether and replacing it with a system in which finding the truth, protection of the innocent, and
Restitution to the victim to the extent possible are emphasized over punishment and are the goals of all participants as opposed to the current
priority of “winning the case.
3) If replacing the adversarial system altogether seems too extreme, i would favor merging the pool of public attorneys on a rotational basis so that each attorney had times when they were responsible for representing the prosecution, and other times when they were responsible for representing the defense. They could then build their careers based on the logic, thoroughness, fairness, and effectiveness of their work as opposed to a politically or financially motivated “number of wins” which seems to be how many legal and political careers are built today.
4) Equal amounts of time and money should be allotted to the prosecutorial office and to the public defender’s office. I have no idea if this is currently the case or not, but feel strongly that it should be. Also, lawyers on each side should have comparable case loads and should be of comparable experience and capability and should be compensated equally.
5) Egregious problems on either side, such as falling asleep in court, or turning up inebriated should be automatic cause for halting the proceedings and replacing the delinquent lawyer, not waiting and anticipating that it will be dealt with at appeal.
6) As for who should charge the defendant, I would favor a third, independent party who will have nothing to gain financially or politically and who will not be further involved in the case should serve this function with access to all of the evidence at the same time as the identified lawyers for the prosecution and defense. I don’t know whether or not such a position exists anywhere within our legal system, but I believe it should.
[quote]Second, I think justified is a largely subjective term but out of curiosity which of the 8 topics listed do you feel that criticism was not warranted?[/quote]
Topete case, for one… can’t even remember the issue bc it has been so long ago, but I definitely recall my thinking the criticism of the DA was ridiculous in that instance. In fact, I could not for the life of me figure out why the Vanguard didn’t concentrate more on the issue of the public being shut out of the courthouse during Topete’s arraignment, which was a huge violation of the law that seems to have been okayed by the court system (had nothing to do w the prosecution in so far as I am aware)…
[quote]irst, who wrote all these articles?; who worked on the pieces: collecting data, reviewing the pieces? was it one contributor? or several? I raise this because the column, and to be honest most postings on this blog, use the collective voice “the vanguard” which gives the impression that this isn’t one person’s opinion but rather the consensus of many. [/quote]
I use the collective less personal term “Vanguard” so my criticism is a bit softened…
The criticism there – again mentioned in this article was the dismissal of the juror and that was really more on Judge Richardson than on Reisig. I talked to a number of experts who believe that was improper and may cause the sentencing portion of the trial to get thrown out by an appellate court.
“The DA should comment and respond to the DV articles. It would be good for the public to get both sides.”
Wrong, the DA should just ignore the Vanguard because to reply would be giving the Vanguard some credibility. Reisig looks like the bigger man just by staying out of the fray.
“However, I think the Vanguard should report on both sides of a case equally every time by including the facts, laws and what the defense and prosecution are contending.”
It’s impossible to report on both side when one side refuses to talk to the reporter. This has been mentioned in this news blog before. If the DA was accessible to the press and public for interviews we would have heard both sides long ago.
[quote]It’s impossible to report on both side when one side refuses to talk to the reporter. This has been mentioned in this news blog before. If the DA was accessible to the press and public for interviews we would have heard both sides long ago.[/quote]
If the DA talked about a case it was getting set to try or was in the process of trying, the defense would immediately accuse the DA of trying to taint the jury pool/tamper w the jury…
You’re arguing the wrong point Elaine. The question is whether after the trial, when the case has concluded and the DA has sent out their press release, why not talk to the Vanguard and others?
[quote]The criticism there – again mentioned in this article was the dismissal of the juror and that was really more on Judge Richardson than on Reisig. I talked to a number of experts who believe that was improper and may cause the sentencing portion of the trial to get thrown out by an appellate court.[/quote]
Not the issue I was thinking of. In an article in the Vanguard entitled “Topete Unlikely To Ever Be Executed As Support For Capital Punishment Wanes and Court Cases Continue To Stall Executions in California”, you criticized Reisig’s office as follows, for seeking the death penalty in the Topete case:
[quote]The Yolo County District Attorney’s office has just spent three and a half years and unknown quantities of money to get the death penalty in what should have been a slam dunk case…
The amount of time, anguish and energy expended in this trial is particularly questionable, in light of the fact that Mr. Topete was far more likely to die of natural causes than to ever be executed by the state.[/quote]
[quote]You’re arguing the wrong point Elaine. The question is whether after the trial, when the case has concluded and the DA has sent out their press release, why not talk to the Vanguard and others?[/quote]
If the DA knows the bias of the Vanguard, and also knows there is a high likelihood whatever is said will be taken out of context, twisted to mean something not meant, etc., why would the DA say anything to the Vanguard? They would be far wiser not to. I know of many who refuse to be interviewed by reporters because of this problem…
That wasn’t this calendar year, but regardless – is any of that analysis inaccurate? Do you believe that Mr. topete will ever be executed by the state of California?
“If the DA knows the bias of the Vanguard, and also knows there is a high likelihood whatever is said will be taken out of context, twisted to mean something not meant, etc., why would the DA say anything to the Vanguard?”
Compare their policy to that of UC Davis. the Vanguard is often critical of UC Davis. However, UC Davis has provided the Vanguard with extensive material and comment and asks only that their view is fairly represented – which it is. The DA’s office is a public office with an elected official, I fail to see why we can’t have the same arrangement.
I got a kick out of “we looked into vanguard reader complaints about our obsession, and we found none.” lmao. that comment is pretty halarious. nothing like a conflict of interest.
second, the vanguard is trying to break the situation down into raw numbers when the criticsm suggesting the vanguard has an obession has to do not simply in numerical terms, but also the tone of the article. and it is very clear from the tone the vanguard simply put has a vendetta against the DA.
third, the vanguard says the readers did not criticize the da on substance. THat is the vanguard’s opinion, but not its readers. but since the vanguard did its own investigation of its own articles the reader is therefore expected to accept the vanguards claim that the readers did not have valid criticisms when it made them (chuckles)
and last, rusty’s comment was accurate and worth repeating. the vanguard decides to convince the reader it doesn’t have an obsession by writing yet another article critical of the DA. it can’t help itself. hehe.
Elaine, the DA might be able to get his point across if he talked to the Vanguard. Most politicians (and I include all elected officials) should know the only way to sway people that are “on the fence” or against you is to talk to the very media the “opposition” read or listen to. If he thinks the Vanguard is so against him, he should make himself available for questioning after cases or stories it reports on. This would be so much better than issuing a press release.
“but also the tone of the article”
Can you please provide a recent example that illustrates your point about the tone?
Medwoman correctly pointed out in her inital post that it’s the DA’s job to decide who to prosecute, based on info from law enforcement.
But according to Davis PD officer Pytel (in a public meeting), our DA prosecutes EVERY case the police give him. Reisig does not use his discretionary power – as he should – to decide which cases actually merit prosecution.
But according to Davis PD officer Pytel (in a public meeting), our DA prosecutes EVERY case the police give him. Reisig does not use his discretionary power – as he should – to decide which cases actually merit prosecution.
Eagle Eye, just think how much this costs taxpayers in dollars, jurors in both time and money lost, and defendants and their families lives ruined.
“Can you please provide a recent example that illustrates your point about the tone?”
a. “Of course, the worst part of this is the blatant hypocrisy of Mr. Reisig. “
b. Mr. Reisig unleashed a vicious attack mailer against his opponent.
c. “only reason that Mr. Reisig abandoned Mr. Parish is that he proved to be a liability to him. The public got a rare window into the inner workings of the DA’s office on a regular basis.”
d. “Mr. Reisig it would appear is trying to send a message that anyone that crosses him will pay a price. “
e. “The problem for District Attorney Jeff Reisig is what we saw was not the exception but rather a window into the operations of his office. You see, Mr. Parish is not the most vicious employee at the District Attorney’s office; he’s simply the most bombastic and transparent.”
not to mention the colorful headlines.
need I go on?
“I use the collective less personal term “Vanguard” so my criticism is a bit softened… “
I’m not sure I understand. As stated in the original posting, using the collective term, actually makes it appear to be an institutional position, not a personal opinion. I think the effect of the reliance on the term may actually decrease personal responsibility and accountability.
[quote]That wasn’t this calendar year, but regardless – is any of that analysis inaccurate? Do you believe that Mr. topete will ever be executed by the state of California?[/quote]
I believe your criticism of Reisig for going after the death penalty in the Topete case is silly… and I’m an opponent of the death penalty!
[quote]Compare their policy to that of UC Davis. the Vanguard is often critical of UC Davis. However, UC Davis has provided the Vanguard with extensive material and comment and asks only that their view is fairly represented – which it is. The DA’s office is a public office with an elected official, I fail to see why we can’t have the same arrangement.[/quote]
The DA has entirely different considerations than UC Davis… if you cannot see the difference, I cannot help you…
[quote]Elaine, the DA might be able to get his point across if he talked to the Vanguard. Most politicians (and I include all elected officials) should know the only way to sway people that are “on the fence” or against you is to talk to the very media the “opposition” read or listen to. If he thinks the Vanguard is so against him, he should make himself available for questioning after cases or stories it reports on. This would be so much better than issuing a press release.[/quote]
A DA should be very careful what is said about a case to anyone, before (could be accused of jury tampering), during (could be construed as attempting to sway the jury) and after trial (cases can be appealed)…
[quote]But according to Davis PD officer Pytel (in a public meeting), our DA prosecutes EVERY case the police give him. Reisig does not use his discretionary power – as he should – to decide which cases actually merit prosecution.[/quote]
I very much doubt that… and I can tell you it is not true from personal experience…
Correction: …not true from personal experience/knowledge…
“I believe your criticism of Reisig for going after the death penalty in the Topete case is silly… and I’m an opponent of the death penalty! “
Why? Topete was never going to be executed, why go through the exercise and xpense. I fall to see how that’s silly.
I am lost on your second comment, I guess you can’t help me.
[quote]I’m not sure I understand. As stated in the original posting, using the collective term, actually makes it appear to be an institutional position, not a personal opinion. I think the effect of the reliance on the term may actually decrease personal responsibility and accountability.[/quote]
Fair point…
What makes you think the D.A. ever even looks at the Vanguard? Would you read something that does nothing but rip you every chance it gets? Why would you engage with this site if you were the D.A.? Go ahead and ask him and he will probably tell you himself that he has never even looked at this site.
The problem with David’s analysis is that it doesn’t go back far enough. The animosity between the DA and David goes back to before the DA was elected in 2006. I know it goes back at least to the Bazayan case, a case whose disposition, I believe, is still pending.
I remember talking Reisig into turning out for a Caesar Chavez day event in Central Park and being shocked when he told me he didn’t realize the Davis Human Relations Commission, then headed by David’s wife, sponsored the event. He stayed long enough to be polite as if it being a HRC event mattered more than it being about Caesar Chavez.
So the animosity goes much deeper than you let on.
Recently, I suggested David and Jeff do a celebrity ultimate fighting match with the proceeds going to a charity they could both get behind supporting. They could raise a ton of money for foster kids or something else they both support. I’d pay to see them mano a mano and lots of others would as well. Maybe if they pounded on each other physically for a while they could reach a catharsis and get over their long running dislike that should have ended with the 2006 election. Then maybe we could move on to something important like how do we get the young people of this county to stop trying to kill each other over who is red or blue.
Elaine,
You said,
[i]If the DA knows the bias of the Vanguard, and also knows there is a high likelihood whatever is said will be taken out of context, twisted to mean something not meant, etc., why would the DA say anything to the Vanguard? They would be far wiser not to. I know of many who refuse to be interviewed by reporters because of this problem…[/i]
The answer: Because he is the DA he should talk to [b][u]all[/u][/b] media regardless of how critical they have been of him. Are you saying that elected officials should only speak with reporters who say nice and fluffy things about them? If he cannot handle the criticism (which has been given by the Vanguard, The Sacramento Bee and the Daily Democrat in a round about way regarding the Op-ed where he plagiarized the letter of the DA from Sacramento) then he should not be in public office.
He would certainly do us a favor if he chose not to run for re-election.
anne: “Because he is the DA he should talk to all media regardless of how critical they have been of him. Are you saying that elected officials should only speak with reporters who say nice and fluffy things about them?”
Anne, what grounds do you make that claim? Reisig has no obligation to do that – to talk to you, the vanguard. Besides, there are things Reisig cannot say, such as details about a particular trial. And besides, who exactly is considered legitimate “media?” the vanguard is hardly my idea of a legitimate news source.
91 Octane, I was hoping that Elaine would answer my question, but since you did then I will respond.
On what grounds do I make “that” claim that the DA should talk to media? Well, let’s see:
1) He is an elected official of all citizens of Yolo County not just those that voted for him; 2) He does have an obligation to communicate to the public through various forms of media; 3) If he cannot speak on an issue due to the fact that there is an ongoing trial then he should simply state so (other DAs with more experience and in much larger communities do this all the time); 4) Who is considered legitimate media? Well, let’s see we have The Vanguard, The Davis Enterprise, The Woodland Daily Democrat, The Aggie and many other online news sources as well; 5) If you do not consider the Vanguard a legitimate news source then why do you log on daily to read what The Vanguard has to say and comment, debate and dialogue on issues? The Vanguard is a news source and a reliable one at that. It is the reason that I and many others log on daily. As a matter of fact I read the Vanguard while sipping on my morning and evening tea.
The Vanguard provides a much needed place for community members to debate, discuss and learn about issues that are important to community members in Davis and Yolo County and gain an in depth view of what is happening in Yolo County Courts.
“The Vanguard is a news source and a reliable one at that. It is the reason that I and many others log on daily. As a matter of fact I read the Vanguard while sipping on my morning and evening tea.”
It’s very debatable that the Vanguard is a reliable news source. To me it’s an opinion based blog, that’s all. I log on almost everyday because I enjoy the verying OPINIONS, but not to get my news. Anne, you might consider the Vanguard a legitimate news source because you happen to agree with many of it’s positions, but you don’t speak for everyone else. To me a legitimate news source would just state the facts, not interject one’s opinions into the story. Should Reisig have to respond to every blog in Yolo County created from someone’s den?
Anne,
I think its important to recognize that this is a commentary blog, not a news organization. The overwhelming majority of postings are done by one author, and there doesn’t appear to be the checks and balances associated with news organizations (independent fact checking, multiple sourcing, and editorial review process)- even the Aggie, Enterprise and Democrat. Now this allows the author more freedom to express his views, even more than a columnist providing commentary in a paper. However, the downside is that he does not have the credentials of being part of a news organization. As a result subjects of stories, or officials, are going to be less likely to respond or cooperate. In fact i will even argue this is the responsible course in order to minimize misinformation. If a reporter misstates facts or improperly contextualizes them the normal course of action is to request a correction, or retraction, from the editor or publisher who typically are the reporter’s “supervisor”. This isn’t possible with stand alone blogs like the Vanguard, if the subject of the story has issues with the content there is no independent party to request correction. Also, keep in mind that even “news organizations” that prove themselves unreliable can have their credentials revoked.
This goes back to the concern I expressed in my earlier comments about the reliance on the term “The Vanguard…” which implies that this is a collective effort, not an individual’s opinions and perspective. Now David is definitely entitled to use this writing style, but we as consumers have keep in mind this is the effort of one individual.
As I have stated before, I use this blog as a way of becoming aware of some issues in our community, but not as the factual source. Its a starting point to find more information if i feel the issue is of significant interest. In that capacity I feel this blog is a valuable resource.
[quote]The answer: Because he is the DA he should talk to all media regardless of how critical they have been of him. Are you saying that elected officials should only speak with reporters who say nice and fluffy things about them? If he cannot handle the criticism (which has been given by the Vanguard, The Sacramento Bee and the Daily Democrat in a round about way regarding the Op-ed where he plagiarized the letter of the DA from Sacramento) then he should not be in public office. [/quote]
As I said above: “A DA should be very careful what is said about a case to anyone, before (could be accused of jury tampering), during (could be construed as attempting to sway the jury) and after trial (cases can be appealed)…”
[quote]It’s very debatable that the Vanguard is a reliable news source. To me it’s an opinion based blog, that’s all. I log on almost everyday because I enjoy the verying OPINIONS, but not to get my news. Anne, you might consider the Vanguard a legitimate news source because you happen to agree with many of it’s positions, but you don’t speak for everyone else. To me a legitimate news source would just state the facts, not interject one’s opinions into the story. Should Reisig have to respond to every blog in Yolo County created from someone’s den?[/quote]
Well said!
Wednesday July 25 Full article on Reisig Op-ed piece
Thursday July 26 Olson’s response to Reisig Op-ed piece
Friday July 27 Full article on Reisig Op-ed piece
Sunday July 29 Article on the rhetoric related to Reisig Op-ed piece
Wednesday Aug 1 Full article on Reisig Op-ed piece
Thursday Aug 2 Full article on Reisig Op-ed piece
Saturday Aug 4 Van Zandt response on Reisig Op-ed piece
Monday Aug 6 Full article on Reisig Op-ed piece
Thursday Aug 9 Full article on Reisig Op-ed piece
Sunday Aug 12 Hilarious article about how “the Vanguard isn’t obsessed” and takes readers’ concerns seriously.
Probably the most important point made so far today is a reminder that the Vanguard is NOT a reliable or objective news source. It’s not a news source of any kind in fact. But no matter how many times that reminder goes around, it doesn’t seem to sink in.
What you seem to be missing Sanity Defense is that while Jeff Reisig’s op-ed is his opinion, the responses are David’s opinions. So you are attacking the Vanguard for doing something it was never intending on doing in this example.
To Sanity Defense: LOL Right on point…
Elaine
“A DA should be very careful what is said about a case to anyone, before (could be accused of jury tampering), during (could be construed as attempting to sway the jury) and after trial (cases can be appealed)…”
Which brings me back to the question posed to me earlier by Superflous man about what changes I would recommend for our judicial system.
I think that cloaking our processes in so much secrecy that the DA can never speak about a case, does a great deal to cast doubt about the fairness and integrity of the functioning of his office especially for those of us who tend to be skeptical.
[quote]I think that cloaking our processes in so much secrecy that the DA can never speak about a case, does a great deal to cast doubt about the fairness and integrity of the functioning of his office especially for those of us who tend to be skeptical.[/quote]
Where do you get the idea that processes are “cloaked in secrecy”? Every part of the trial is public, from arraignment to sentencing. I’m assuming what you might be referring to is the investigatory process? That is mostly handled by law enforcement. Or might you be referring to plea bargaining? That one I would agree w you needs fixing. Nor sure how, but it definitely is a problem that needs to be addressed. Or might you be referring to a prosecutor’s discretion on whether to try a case or not??? Could remove all discretion and try every case, but I doubt you would see that as a very good solution. So how would you like to address that issue, if that is an issue for you?
No system you can name is perfect. No system we devise will ever be perfect. I’m not saying that is no reason to improve, and I think there are definite changes that need to be made. I suspect if prosecutors were more up front about how they apply discretion in whether to try a case, that might help. But I say “might”, bc there are so many variables that go into a case. Much depends on the amount and quality of evidence, which is not something the prosecutor can talk about pragmatically speaking; how that particular jurisdiction feels about crime (hard or soft on crime); the criminal record of the accused, etc.
Of course we know there is a problem in that prosecutors who purposely flout their obligations under the law are not punished – but that is not really the fault of the law, but a reluctance/failure to apply existing law. How do you get those in charge to punish wayward prosecutors? Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn’t, just as some criminals get away w murder and some don’t.
Life just doesn’t fit into nice neat little packages much as we would like it to, but it is instead incredibly messy… just waxing philosophical 😉
Elaine
[quote]Life just doesn’t fit into nice neat little packages much as we would like it to, but it is instead incredibly messy[/quote]
During the 30 or so years I have been in medicine, there has been a tremendous amount of change around this particular point of view. The philosophy had been around for years that “every patient is an individual and so should be treated differently”. This grain of truth, that every individual has a slightly different biology, environmental circumstances, genetic background, social support system…. was used to defend the idea that medicine is best practiced in an individualized, “messy” if you will fashion. What we have found over time is that there truly are “best practices” and ways to make our medical interventions safer and more effective by identifying those who are already having the best outcomes and adopting their practices instead of clinging to our own ways and training if those practices are not as effective, no matter how comfortable they are to us.
This is the viewpoint I would recommend in thinking about what changes might be advantageous in our judicial system. To this end and based on my experience with medical changes over 30 years I would suggest:
1) End secrecy in the investigatory process, make all evidence available to all parties, totally revamp or eliminate plea bargaining as you have suggested.
2) Eliminate career building by number of successful convictions or defenses.
3) End secrecy about rational behind decision making regarding which cases to try. This alone might end
“cash for convictions” if indeed such a thing exists.
4) As I stated in earlier post,I would recommend an independent decision maker regarding which cases to try separate from any consideration of career building. Perhaps we could assign this to judges nearing the end of their career who have no financial or reputation stake in the matter but are only interested in a just out come ? Some other neutral party would also be fine with me. I am sure that with your knowledge of the judicial system you would be more capable of identifying appropriate individuals to fill this role than I.