Commentary: Troubled By Case of Angelique Topete

The news story that the Vanguard ran on Tuesday regarding the knife-slashing attack on Angelique Topete raised a number of questions.  Unfortunately, the public remains ill-served by a District Attorney’s office that refuses to communicate with a media entity  because that media entity has leveled criticism toward them.

In fact, that very issue is at the core of the questions regarding what would have appeared to have been a relatively routine case in which an individual attacked and slashed the face of Ms. Topete in late July.

In responding to Tuesday’s article, some found a disconnect between the criticism of the DA’s office, a questioning of evidence, and the present case.  But our view is rather simple and was not elucidated in the Tuesday’s purely informational news article.

First, we believe there needs to be a consistency in charging cases.  Last week and this weekend, we criticized the DA’s office for charging very minor crimes quite harshly while failing to protect the public against law enforcement officers who committed possible transgressions while on official duty.

In this case, we question not knowing the rationale as to why charges were not filed in this case when it seems that other similar cases with less evidence have been charged.  We would like to believe that justice is blind, and that the conduct of Marco Topete, reprehensible and horrific as it was, has nothing to do with the decisions of the DA’s office in this matter.

To her credit, Ms. Topete did not attempt to hide from this.

In one of her comments she said, “I know that what my husband did [was] beyond horrible but this should have no relevance on what happened to me.”

Was Marco Topete’s relationship with the victim in this case of any consequence?  It is difficult to know, but from Ms. Topete, it was at least a subject.

She wrote: “The reason why I even bring up my husband is because they were always bringing him up when questioning me. What does this have to do with him? The detective’s first words were ‘Look we obviously know who you are. You’re Marco Topete’s wife.’ “

There would seem to be enough evidence to charge Jeffrey Card with this crime.  The standard for charging an individual with a crime is probable cause, though the burden of proving beyond a reasonable double enters into play as well.

The identification is based on several points of information.  First, eyewitnesses identified the car, the car was tracked to Jeffrey Card and his wife.  Ms. Topete would pull Mr. Card out of a photo lineup and apparently Mr. Card would turn himself in and confess.

Some have suggested that we have put forth that the use of photo lineups are flawed and that eye witness identification is regularly inaccurate.

That conflates a couple of different issues.  First, we believe that eye witness identification can be inaccurate and we have reported on the conditions under which it could be flawed – some of these likely are present late at night during an incident that happens rapidly.

A properly reformed six-pack line up with proper admonishments, administered by a law enforcement officer who does not know who the actual suspect is considered best practice.  We do not have enough information at this point to evaluate the validity of the photo lineup.

Second, one is obviously more concerned about eyewitness identification in cases where that may be the only real evidence linking the suspect to the crime.  That does not appear to be the case here.

Likewise, we would have to evaluate the confession itself.

It is worth pointing out that, at this point, all we have suggested is that there is enough evidence to try Mr. Card.  We have not suggested that he is guilty of this crime.  We believe that he has the right to due process of law and if he is being falsely accused of the crime, that will need to come out in court.

Mr. Card was initially charged with assault and mayhem.  Mayhem is a disfiguring attack on an individual and if the crime were charged as aggravated mayhem, the defendant could be facing a life sentence.  This was a serious injury and, in fact, Ms. Topete is lucky that it was not life threatening.

The Vanguard has often criticized the DA’s office for overcharging minor crimes – but this would certainly not be one.

One of the complicating factors is that Mr. Card is accusing Ms. Topete of starting the fight by attacking his wife.

Ms. Topete writes, “He says that I was the aggressor… and that he was defending his wife.”

Under the law, there is a right to self-defense.  The question that must be weighed carefully, however, is the threat of the initial attack and whether the defense was necessary to prevent injury.  In this case, it is very difficult to understand how a slash to the face would be defensive.

Ms. Topete, of course, denies being the aggressor, but notes it defies a good deal of logic.

The bottom line is that, for the most part, the DA’s office has a fairly consistent hardline stance.  We have criticized the DA for being too hardline in terms of what crimes it charges and how it charges them.

In our view, that history makes this decision all the more questionable.  We would like to believe that it has everything to do with the facts of the case and nothing to do with the last name of the victim, but lacking additional information there are a number of unanswered questions.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

Categories: