In the end, after a three-day preliminary hearing, Judge David Rosenberg held Clayton Garzon to stand on all charges for his brutal attack on Mikey Partida back in early March. However, the standard of proof to be held over on charges is fairly low – the probable cause standard.
To gain a conviction in a court of law, one needs proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And so while it sounds good when attorney Linda Parisi told the court Mr. Garzon had no way of knowing that Mikey Partida was gay, it was not enough to overcome the facts of the case in which witnesses testified they heard Mr. Garzon yelling “faggot” and other epithets as he beat Mr. Partida.
At the same time, aspects of this case illustrate just how different and likely difficult it will be to try and convict a man like Clayton Garzon, who has vast resources on his side and for whom money appears to be no barrier in his defense.
This year marks the 50th anniversary of Gideon v. Wanwright, the landmark 1963 US Supreme Court decision that guaranteed indigent defendants the right to counsel. On Tuesday night, the city of Davis honored Yolo County Public Defender Tracie Olson with the Thon Hy Huynh award for Public Official of the Year for her work and advocacy on behalf of indigent defendants in Yolo County.
In the fifty years that have passed since Clarence Gideon was awarded counsel in his burglary and theft case, across the nation public defender’s offices have increasingly been stretched thin by budget cuts and lack of sufficient personnel and resources.
These problems, however, do not exist in Yolo County, where the office has ample resources both to defend their clients as well as to investigate cases and bring in experts as needed.
However, there are sufficient resources and then there is what we have already seen in Mr. Garzon’s defense. The Vanguard Court Watch program regularly covers not just trials but preliminary hearings. While the defense usually puts on a strong showing, they rarely call their own witnesses and we have never seen a case where the defense brought in experts to testify during preliminary hearings.
There are good reasons for this. First, the public defender’s office does not have the budget to bring in experts at this point in the proceedings generally. Second, given the low level of the burden of proof at the preliminary hearing level and the fact judges tend to view such evidence in the best possible light for the prosecution, it is not usually worthwhile.
Furthermore, even with private attorneys, the defendants or their families are generally not going to pay the large amounts of money needed to bring in experts and pay for their services.
It is unclear if the show put on by the defense this week was aimed at the court or the public opinion that has been squarely against Clayton Garzon from the start.
Regardless of the motivation, the defense brought in a linguistics expert from Brigham Young University in Utah to testify that anti-gay slurs are not necessarily reflective of bias against homosexuals but rather could be simply used to challenge one’s manhood.
Professor William Eggington testified that language is more nuanced than people think, with a single word having a variety of meanings when used in various social contexts.
He would argue that the term used by Mr. Garzon, “fag” or “faggot” could very easily mean “sissy” or “girlie man” or, in other words, terms that challenge one’s masculinity.
It was a fine line that he drew but he forgot one important point – the reason the term “fag” or “faggot” means “sissy” or “girlie man” is that society, in creating stereotypical images, have connoted homosexuality with those negative stereotypes.
In other words, while Mr. Garzon’s defense is trying to argue that he was using the term as a more colloquial putdown than a sign of hate, they forgot the origins of that colloquial putdown are rooted in the very hate and negative stereotypes that they are attempting to avoid.
That disconnect aside, it becomes clear that Mr. Garzon possesses the resources to challenge the hate crimes charge at its core.
The defense argued on Tuesday that the use of the term “fag” was a more generalized insult than the prosecution alleges. Ms. Parisi also attempted to argue that there was no way that Mr. Garzon, who she claimed had limited contact with Mr. Partida, would know he was gay. “No one wears sexual orientation as some kind of uniform,” she would argue, even as we know there are at least some cases where people in fact do.
Judge Rosenberg’s ruling on Tuesday was relatively straightforward. He was able to acknowledge these arguments and still conclude that Mr. Garzon’s actions were at least in part rooted and motivated by bias.
In fact, he did not need to go that far – all he really had to conclude was there was enough evidence that a jury would be able to reach such a conclusion. That low-level threshold is clearly met here.
The question is, really, whether the defense can put on enough credible expert witnesses to make the jury at least doubt that perhaps Mr. Garzon really was not performing a hate crime but just brutally attacking Mr. Partida.
It is a tough call, but remarkably the defense has access to resources that most defendants in this position simply lack. There is no question that the system allows people, with the means to purchase expert witnesses and their testimony, a way to do so.
The only question is whether that critical advantage will be sufficient to allow him to beat the hate crimes rap that he and his defense attorney clearly are aiming at.
—-David M. Greenwald reporting
David wrote:
> He would argue that the term used by Mr. Garzon,
> “fag” or “faggot” could very easily mean “sissy”
> or “girlie man” or in other words, terms that
> challenge one’s masculinity.
I think the big question is why anyone even needs a language professor in court since it makes no sense why a guy that punches a gay guy in the face after calling him a “sissy” will spend less time in jail then a guy that punches another gay guy in the face after calling him a “faggot”…
P.S. Any update on the guy Garzon stabbed in Dixon (or are they going to drop the charges since he didn’t use any “hate” language)…
SOD:
The answer to your first point is to look at the impact on the community of this beating versus most other beatings that have occurred. A hate crime is not just an attack on an individual, it’s an attack on a community of people who are in a more vulnerable position than the typical person.
The answer to the second is that he waived his right to a preliminary hearing and will face his assault charge without a hate crime enhancement in that case.
Courts of law are not to be influenced by how a community sees something. We’ll not even go into how it is that the sentiment of an entire community is determined by the vocal reactions of a statistical few.
The tone of the column has already judged Garzon guilty. In fact, he is an innocent man and remains so until judicially judged otherwise. The law of our land specifically says so.
The Garzon family are people of means. That is not a crime. As long as wealthy people conform to the law, they can spend their money any way they want. How can anyone fault a family trying to defend their son against criminal charges?
I honestly don’t understand what this story is trying to say that is not already widely known. Everybody should be aware that people of privilege and wealth have advantages over people that don’t. And this obvious “inequity” applies to every facet of our society including court cases.
It should be noted that no alternative system of justice is proposed to address this inequity. The reason being is that any alternative is either more unjust or economically unsustainable.
“Courts of law are not to be influenced by how a community sees something.”
In theory… In reality, you will have a group of jurors from the community.
“The tone of the column has already judged Garzon guilty. “
They are not to my understanding denying that he hit Partida, but they may dispute why and whether it was justified.
“I honestly don’t understand what this story is trying to say that is not already widely known. Everybody should be aware that people of privilege and wealth have advantages over people that don’t.”
And your point is what?
” And this obvious “inequity” applies to every facet of our society including court cases.”
And that makes it alright?
“
It should be noted that no alternative system of justice is proposed to address this inequity. The reason being is that any alternative is either more unjust or economically unsustainable. “
So, your view is look the other way when no obvious answers present themselves?
I’m sorry for my tone here, but your comments really take me aback.
Phil Coleman
[quote]It should be noted that no alternative system of justice is proposed to address this inequity. The reason being is that any alternative is either more unjust or economically unsustainable. [/quote]
I am at a loss as to why this is the case. There are two alternatives that I can propose that I would like to understand why they would either be “more unjust” or economically unsustainable. However, this is an area in which I am very naive, so perhaps someone could provide a brief explanation of why either would not be feasible.
1) A non adversarial form. For example a changed format in which all available information is presented to a jury by a neutral party without all the drama which can be brought in by either side to attempt to sway a jury by emotion. This would potentially allow all the information to be weighed without manipulation/ exploitation of the jurists feelings. What information would be included could be sorted out by a judge prior to the jury presentation which would still allow for a full representation of the state and the defendants case.
2) A second option. Since our public judicial system already supports both prosecutors and public defenders, why divide them into separate job categories. The way we do things now, lawyers for the prosecution have a vested interest in conviction to build their careers as “tough on crime”. Would it not serve us better if all involved lawyers were to build their careers on just outcomes reached through
evidence, not emotion based decision making ? What I would propose is that a pool of public lawyers exist who are sometimes charged with representing the people and sometimes charged with presenting the defense. To me, this would have the advantage of not having their attitudes and positions solidified by their experiences with previous cases and the even bigger advantage of not developing a single standard,
number of convictions. as a career building tool.
I would be very interested in the thoughts of those, admittedly almost everyone, who is more familiar with the judicial system than I.
Oops, that should have read “jurors” feelings.
I agree with much of what Phil has written, and I believe he is a lawyer- – as am I. As a lawyer, then, the key point I want to re-emphasize is that any defendant is innocent until proven guilty. That’s fundamental.
Second: It seems to me that if we dislike any sort of prejudice, then let’s stop judging the Garzon family because they have means, and can defend themselves. Isn’t this what we want for every defendant- – the ability to defend him/herself against charges, no matter what they are, or how they come down? So if that’s true, let’s step away from this sentiment that seems so disparaging of the young man and of his family. In any other context, wouldn’t we laud a family that wants to support one of its members? How about the opposite? How would we feel if the family exhibited the same attitude? “Oh, he’s guilty, we’re not going to help him?”
This same attitude shows up in language like “Parisi TRIES TO SHOW” this or that. Her job is to defend people accused of crime, and to swim in waters that are infected by the attitude exhibited by comments that indicate “what do we need you for? We already know s/he’s guilty! How can you defend “those” people????!?”
David, as much as I often agree with what you write and the way you write it, I agree with Phil that it seems you believe that Clayton Garzon is guilty of the charges he’s facing, and so what about a jury trial? “He did “it”, and “we” know it” is my take-away from your usually thoughtful and well-reasoned articles. If it’s true that “we already know” then we may as well dispense with jury instructions too, right? I think– correct me if I’m wrong– that this is what Phil was alluding to when he wrote about community sentiment. Emotions are high here and we need to get hold of them as the case works its way through the system. Does this make sense?
One more comment if I may– never underestimate the power of repetition. If you say it often enough, people believe it. That’s why it’s so important at this stage to hold onto our reactions to this case, and allow the system to work– the system that mandates that Mr. Garzon is innocent until the charges are proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
David: Just once, could you please stop assigning responses to persons who never said such a thing at all. I deeply resent you putting words in my mouth that were never said. It’s such a cheap and tawdry tactic and its time you stopped. I appreciate the fact that you need controversy and a need to “prime the pump” to be effective, but do it without manufacturing or altering other people’s comments.
“So, your view is look the other way when no obvious answers present themselves?”
If that were my view, I’d say it. I don’t require any coaching or prompting.
I never said or even faintly implied that is was “alright” for societies to have inequities. Nowhere can my remarks be interpreted as favoring inequities. You can criticize what I said, but nobody has the license to assign thoughts or words to others where no basis exists.
I’ll refute the “alright” contention by saying that since the dawn of man societies have had inequities. While that does not make it alright, it does reflect historical reality.
“I honestly don’t understand what this story is trying to say that is not already widely known. Everybody should be aware that people of privilege and wealth have advantages over people that don’t.”
And your point is what?
I can’t say it any better. To me, the point was made, quite clearly.
[i]A hate crime is not just an attack on an individual, it’s an attack on a community of people who are in a more vulnerable position than the typical person.[/i]
And then we understand the problem with hate crime laws. It is a corruption of our legal system for nefarious means. There is zero social benefit to hate crime sentencing enhancements. It is just a form of group retribution over other groups. It foments group tribalism and creates greater group tension and hostility.
If we are all supposed to be equal and get along, then we should all be striving to eliminate all these stupid impulses of group-ism that lead to increased group stratification.
If this kid beat someone, he should be tried on that and that alone.
“David, as much as I often agree with what you write and the way you write it, I agree with Phil that it seems you believe that Clayton Garzon is guilty of the charges he’s facing, and so what about a jury trial? “He did “it”, and “we” know it” is my take-away from your usually thoughtful and well-reasoned articles. If it’s true that “we already know” then we may as well dispense with jury instructions too, right? I think– correct me if I’m wrong– that this is what Phil was alluding to when he wrote about community sentiment. Emotions are high here and we need to get hold of them as the case works its way through the system. Does this make sense?”
Good points so clearly I need to clarify.
Do I believe that Garzon is guilty as charged? I believe he’s guilty of something and believe he has the right to a trial. The problem I have is that the defense that he meant “faggot” as a putdown rather than a epithet to me ends up being less a question of whether he did it and more a question as to what he meant in the course of doing it.
Second, “Second: It seems to me that if we dislike any sort of prejudice, then let’s stop judging the Garzon family because they have means, and can defend themselves. Isn’t this what we want for every defendant- – the ability to defend him/herself against charges, no matter what they are, or how they come down?”
the reason I wrote this piece is not that I believe that Mr. Garzon is entitled to this defense and that I’m angry he is rich, but that I see poor people every day in the courts without the benefit of similar access to expert witnesses.
David wrote:
> The answer to your first point is to look at
> the impact on the community of this beating
> versus most other beatings that have occurred.
I think this is what they said in the south when a black man beating a white woman had a bigger punishment than a white man beating a black woman. Just like in the 1800’s when white Americans with political power used that power to increase the punishment when people they didn’t like hurt them today we are seeing the same thing with “hate crimes”…
Then medwoman wrote:
> A non adversarial form. For example a changed
> format in which all available information is
> presented to a jury by a neutral party…
Who gets to pick the “neutral” party?
> A second option. Since our public judicial system
> already supports both prosecutors and public defenders,
> why divide them into separate job categories.
This is the best idea I have heard in a long time. A public defender paid by the public would be a very different position if they knew they were going to be prosecuting a case for the public the next week…
You feel that I have misrepresented your views. I feel like you disparaged my work when you said, “I honestly don’t understand what this story is trying to say that is not already widely known.”
So fine, let’s drop this part of it and address the points that I disagree with you on.
You write, “The Garzon family are people of means. That is not a crime. As long as wealthy people conform to the law, they can spend their money any way they want. How can anyone fault a family trying to defend their son against criminal charges? “
You’ve made the assumption that I have found fault with them defending their son rather than the point I was hoping to make which was to show the inequity of the system where the people without means cannot fly in experts for their preliminary hearings. Now whether I expressed the point on my three hours of sleep as well as I should have, we can debate, but that was the point.
Next, you write, “I honestly don’t understand what this story is trying to say that is not already widely known. Everybody should be aware that people of privilege and wealth have advantages over people that don’t. And this obvious “inequity” applies to every facet of our society including court cases. “
I’m still left at my initial observation, which seems to be that you acknowledge inequity and throw your hands in the air. I still feel that you are justifying the inequity here and in the court system with you argument.
In your response you say, “I’ll refute the “alright” contention by saying that since the dawn of man societies have had inequities. While that does not make it alright, it does reflect historical reality. “
Okay, so it’s not alright, but it is there. Are you suggesting that we should not point it out? I’m having trouble identifying why you would state, “I honestly don’t understand what this story is trying to say that is not already widely known. Everybody should be aware that people of privilege and wealth have advantages over people that don’t.”
We because it’s not new or novel, then what? You took offense to my comment about “throwing one’s hands in teh air,” but if you acknowledge the inequities, acknowledge that they are not right, but question why they should be reported, I’m at a loss as to what you think should be done.
“If this kid beat someone, he should be tried on that and that alone.”
Then you also disagree with gang enhancements, gun enhancements, and all other enhancements since the crime is what should be punished, right?
No, because those address behaviors only and do not have any connection with any defined social group. Hate crime laws are just another form of hate, and another catalyst for hate.
David wrote:
> The problem I have is that the defense that
> he meant “faggot” as a putdown rather than a
> epithet to me ends up being less a question
> of whether he did it and more a question as
> to what he meant in the course of doing it.
In the 30+ years since Sean Penn said “those guys are fags” in Fast Times at Ridgemont High (see 31-38 seconds on the YouTube link below) I’ve heard quite a few guys say “fag” or “faggot” and 99% of the time it is a putdown (of someone they think is straight) rather than an epithet (directed at someone they think is gay).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPo2RMHgSKQ
P.S. To David Do you think that writer of Fast Times at Ridgemont High meant Jeff Spicoli (as played by Sean Penn) to use the term as a put down to his straight competitors or as an epithet showing that he hated the gay community?
“No, because those address behaviors only and do not have any connection with any defined social group.”
Really gang membership addresses behavior? I don’t don’t you’re going to win this one.
“To David Do you think that writer of Fast Times at Ridgemont High meant Jeff Spicoli (as played by Sean Penn) to use the term as a put down to his straight competitors or as an epithet showing that he hated the gay community? “
I think the movie writer was writing in a context of 30 years ago where a different set of norms. Just like I don’t think Mark Twain was attempting to degrade black people using the term “N”
But we are not talking about strictly the use of epithets here, we are talking about using the epithets while allegedly beating someone up and that too changes the context.
As an addendum, in school in the 80s, the “f” word was pretty prevalent and yes it was meant as a put down of people by likening them to the idealized gay person who was seen as “effeminate” and “unmanly” and so in that context, the use of the word was very much a put down to gay people even if it was by connecting straight people to unmanly qualities.
“People in a more vulnerable position” — actually there are more protections for gays than for straights. And gays often help each other out when a problem arises, more so than straights.
It’s also noteworthy how quickly the Partida family solicited money, within hours of the event, based on the claim it was a hate crime.
Forget that Partida has good health coverage thru the Co-op and sick leave to use to recover.
And, let’s forget that HE approached Garzon!
“And, let’s forget that HE approached Garzon!”
I’m not sure that’s correct.
Absolutely. Gang membership is a choice. Is gay a choice? Is black, or Asian or Hispanic or Caucasian a choice? Is female or male a choice (well the jury is still out on this)?
Joining a gang is behavioral.
Someone gets accused of using a word while beating someone up, and the word gets all the media attention and inspires extra hate directed at the accused.
Here is the big problem… hyper sensitivity. It is killing this country and making a mess out of our social health. Just see what is happening in the workplace with all this protection of hypersensitive. It is one reason that employers are hiring less, and outsourcing. The meek will inherit the earth, and the strong will look for creative ways to disassociate themselves from the madness that entails.
Hate crime that causes material harm deserves punishment enhancement. It was this profound material harm born of hate that was the genesis for hate crime legislation. Since then is has been coopted by a population of hyper-sensitive people lacking the emotional intelligence to understand the difference between hurt feelings and real material harm.
Words that hurt feelings are ONLY justification for counseling… both parties. It is not justification for extra jail time. The person speaking the hurtful word needs to be explained how it effected the person it was directed at, and the person effected by the word should be helped to understand that IT WAS ONLY A FRIGGIN’ WORD AND HE WILL BE FINE.
“Gang membership is a choice.”
Gang membership is not against the law. There is a freedom of association in this country. And gang membership doesn’t change the core crime. If you want to argue people should be charged for the crime they commit, then you are being inconsistent with adding a gang enhancement.
“Words that hurt feelings are ONLY justification for counseling… both parties”
If we were talking about words that hurt feelings alone, then we wouldn’t be here. The problem was when he acted on those words and used those words as an additional weapon. That said, most professionals will tell you that “words will never hurt” is the biggest lie told to children or at least one of them.
David, we have been down this path before. First, no children were involved. Second, if you have children that are so hurt by words, you would do well to teach them coping skills instead of demanding laws and rules to stop all potential of them hearing hurtful words. Because, you cannot stop it. A weak person will be forever weak unless counseled to understand how to cope and persevere in a cruel world. If they do not learn the tools for coping, they will forever be at the mercy of those strong and prone to bullying. You simply cannot protect people prone to hyper-sensitivity by trying to eliminate all sources of their hyper-sensitivity. What they need is education to help them understand where emotional pain resonates from and to learn how to build self-confidence that allows them to rise above it.
Sticks and stones break bones, but words are just words. If I say a word that hurts you, you caused your pain, not me. It was your mind and your processing of that word that caused you pain. We get into a quagmire of problem trying to assess intent and mindset and all this crap.
Sensitivity is a two-way street. But for some reason we have migrated to this place where the hypersensitive can exact their pound of flesh without every having to admit that they are lacking coping skills.
“Second, if you have children that are so hurt by words, you would do well to teach them coping skills instead of demanding laws and rules to stop all potential of them hearing hurtful words. “
There are no laws and rules that stop the potential for people hearing hurtful words. There are laws and rules that punish people’s actions when they are motivated by hate towards a specific group of people.
[i]There are laws and rules that punish people’s actions when they are motivated by hate towards a specific group of people[/i]
You will never be able to absolutely prove what motivates a person. You can only guess and make judgments. Guessing and making judgments introduces another form of bias which could also be motivated by a basis of hate.
There is more hate radiating toward Mr. Garzon that I have ever come close to seeing radiating toward the gay community.
This whole theme that use of a language professor during a preliminary hearing reveals some universal, terrible truths about our justice system is off base. It was an interesting tactic, but little more.
You suggest it never happens because it’s futile. (Of course, it might have proved successful.) Yet, you suggest that public defenders don’t attempt the strategy because they are less well financed than this guilty rich defendant.
So, you must know how much how much this professor’s supposedly wasted appearance cost the defendant–pray share that with us–and judged that it was so expensive as to prove system unfairness because this rich defendant gets to “challenge the hate crimes charge at its core,” as though such a challenge is somehow unfair. Isn’t it possible that the professor has been engaged for the defense at trial and that this dry run appearance added only he cost of a plane ticket? Do you really know whether the “expert” cost anything at all?
Furthermore, you go on to easily demolish the rich-defendant expert’s contention, much as the prosecutor will. Advantage defendant? Really?
There is no doubt that both innocent and guilty defendants are advantaged if they are rich enough to offer up great defense cases. (However, there must be a point of diminishing returns or juries wouldn’t find against any rich folks.).
Gideon assures that taxpayers pay for for an adequate defense, not for one that would allow for things like this preliminary hearing gambit that you such heist was worthless. Rich people can get $70,000 cars. Poorer people get much cheaper cars. Is adequate transportation/defense truly a serious societal shortcoming?
“Garzon’s Defense in Beating Case Illustrates Inequity of Criminal Justice System”? I don’t agree that it illustrates the “inequity of (the) system.” Sometimes, little things don’t prove any large truths–even ones that most everyone already acknowledges to be true.
“There is more hate radiating toward Mr. Garzon that I have ever come close to seeing radiating toward the gay community. “
I don’t see a lot of hate for Mr. Garzon. I feel sorry for the guy personally, he’s a young man who clearly has some issues and likely going to pay for quite some time for actions that probably occurred when he was drunk.
“You will never be able to absolutely prove what motivates a person. You can only guess and make judgments. Guessing and making judgments introduces another form of bias which could also be motivated by a basis of hate.”
I think the word you want is “inferences” which is actually what we do quite a bit. For instance, in gang law, the standard is the action must aid or benefit the gang, but they don’t have to show that the actions actually aid or benefit the gang but rather draw inferences as to what gangs are and their motivations. Frankly, ha ha, I think you’re on much firmer ground with the hate crime at least you have a clear nexus between word and action and belief and action.
“You suggest it never happens because it’s futile.”
Just Saying, just to be clear, I suggest it never happens because it’s too expensive without enough bang for the buck especially in a prelim which suggests to me that this was as much a PR move as a legal move.
“So, you must know how much how much this professor’s supposedly wasted appearance cost the defendant–pray share that with us”
I don’t specifically know. But they would have had to fly him out here, they would have possibly put him up in a hotel with meals, and then whatever appearance fee. So I suspect you are talking $5000 to $10000 at minimum.
“Do you really know whether the “expert” cost anything at all? “
I’m basing it on what I’ve read in other cases, because this is a private defense, the defense is not at any obligation to disclose. Since we do not see experts testify in prelims very often, I surmise that they are generally costly.
“Furthermore, you go on to easily demolish the rich-defendant expert’s contention, much as the prosecutor will. Advantage defendant? Really? “
I think it will be more effective in front of a jury when they put up ten of these experts to reframe the issue. If you read some of the horror stories where defense lacks resources to conduct even basis investigations, you realize how different this is even if ends up a futile gesture and colossal waste of money.
“Gideon assures that taxpayers pay for for an adequate defense, not for one that would allow for things like this preliminary hearing gambit that you such heist was worthless. Rich people can get $70,000 cars. Poorer people get much cheaper cars. Is adequate transportation/defense truly a serious societal shortcoming? “
In theory, that’s what Gideon assures. After reading a few books and numerous articles, it doesn’t appear that Gideon assures much.
Your point is good as far as it goes. But read about defense in New Orleans and a number of other places and I think you’ll see my overall point.
First, I agree with David about his point that the criminal justice system is not fair. As a public defender I remember my clients laughing about “Justice” which they perceived as “Just Us” as in: people with money get a good defense; it’s “just us” that get the dump truck public defender. . or no attorney at all. . . and the list goes on. . . and that’s called “Justice”.
That said, it’s true, isn’t it, that society is full of inequity. It’s not fair that some are rich and others live in poverty: which means that some can get good health care (Angelina Jolie) and others (we don’t know their names) get dumped on the street because they have a mental illness, and again the list goes on. Until we fix THAT we’ll continue to have systems that reflect the inequities of the unfair system we’ve got. The legal system can’t come in at the eleventh hour, though, and purport to “right” the wrongs that result in crimes. We need a system that kicks in and works way before the courts get the folks that end up there.
When it comes to designating what makes a “hate crime”– I’d hate to have someone purport to get inside my head and tell the world what I “meant” when I said something. It’s like thought police. I don’t like it at all. And by none of this do I mean to appear to condone anything so far reported that went on that night. THAT said, David’s right about the lasting damage of words. The pen really is mightier than the sword. Any parent can attest to that. In this blog, we already disagree about the power of words. So hiring a language expert for the Garzon case, where words are an issue, seems like a wise move to me.
Eagle Eye, I don’t know where you think you get the information that Partida approached Garzon and I believe that is incorrect.
In the end I think the burden of proof for the meaning or intention indicated by the gay slurs will be difficult. I have my own opinion of this but reasonable doubt is an issue. Isn’t the beating the main issue and after due process I do not see how he can be found not guilty of that?
Whoever thinks that health insurance covers all Partida’s cost is not well informed, copays add up quickly with all the care and medication he needs. And he should not have to use up all his sick time for an imposed incapacitation.
[quote]”In theory, that’s what Gideon assures. After reading a few books and numerous articles, it doesn’t appear that Gideon assures much. Your point is good as far as it goes. But read about defense in New Orleans and a number of other places and I think you’ll see my overall point.”[/quote]I agree that Gideon is a limited solution to the problems that poor people face and that it’s applied unevenly and poorly some places.
My point really deals with whether your characterization of the Garzon defense use of an expert during the preliminary hearing adds anything to evidence of inequities in the criminal justice system, let alone “illustrates” it.
Your own reporting suggests it was a worthless gesture that somehow offends justice because it cost more than poor people can afford (even that is based only on [u]suspicions[/u] that it must have cost a lot).[quote]”There is more hate radiating toward Mr. Garzon that I have ever come close to seeing radiating toward the gay community.”[/quote]There’s certainly a generous supply, Frankly. But, the hate directed at gays is about something for which they have no control, as opposed to the violence that people choose to direct against gays. Make good choices, right?
Some of the hate against Mr. Garzon seems to be anger about his family’s richness and an (excess?) ability to defend him against the charges. That’s why I’m concerned about the tone of today’s column.
Lot of good it did him spending thousands to bring in the linguistics chair of BYU. He was ordered to stand trial on all charges. Of course the BYU connection is interesting. Was the expert paid or did he do it for free?
BYU makes me wonder if there is a religious association between the expert and the family?
You’re right, Mr.Toad. I see that Bob Dunning today joined David in ridiculing the defense’s efforts. But, this might be expanded during the trial and result in real questions about whether an outburst during a beating fits into the hate crime category as it does in cases of obvious premeditation, stalking, etc.
All of this discussion about theory doesn’t change the seriousness of the underlying charges. It’s interesting to see the community come together (and to view the [i]Vanguard[/i] taking a hardline view against an alleged perp and in apparent support for the lengthy charges filed by the district attorney).
Hate crime as defined on the FBI website: “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.
For the sake of arguement let’s assume that Garzon is guilty of beating up Partida. Did he beat him up because he was gay? That clearly fits the definition of a hate crime. Does using the “f” word while beating him make it hate crime even if he is beating him up for a totally different reason?
(My clinical dissection of the motive does not reflect my personal feelings about this horrible event.)
SOD
[quote]Who gets to pick the “neutral” party?
[/quote]
My recommendation would be random assignment from a pool of a new job category of people specifically hired and trained to perform unemotional presentation of the evidence designated relevant by a judge.
One could designate them “presenters” or “presenters of fact”.
I just think it is a singularly bad idea to have individuals from either the prosecution or the defense building their careers on the basis of number of “wins”.
Nothing I’ve read about in this forum or elsewhere dissuades me from my contention that “hate” crimes are not a legitimate category of crime; and are more harmful than beneficial, are a dangerous step in the direction of politicization of crime, as well as separation of society into different groups as Frankly has elucidated, helping give rise to divisive and harmful identity politics (balkanize the population to distract while the rich grow richer and the poor even poorer).
If I were the language expert, I would include the argument that perps in violent assaults often employ words, as well as fists and weapons, that are designed to insult and hurt the dignity and feelings of the recipient of the violence–the words chosen are calculated to be the ones that are most hurtful to the victim; and most often have little to do with the motivation for the attack.
Also I support JustSayings postings above, and general views on the incident.
[quote] Since our public judicial system already supports both prosecutors and public defenders, why divide them into separate job categories. [/quote]
I’ve often wondered why it’s done this way, they all work for the same entity, why can’t they serve in both capacities.
“Partida approached Garzon” —-
It’s been reported that Partida claimed he forgot his house keys and decided to go back to get them. That’s the reason he gave for walking up to Garzon. He was aware that Garzon was drunk and angry and calling him names, but nonetheless he walked up to him “to get his house keys”. He’s also been quoted as saying that he thought his friend or cousin should stay safely behind, on the street corner, because Garzon was so upset with Partida. It would seem very foolish to approach someone you know is very angry with you – why ask for trouble, and aggravate an already upset person? It appears Partida expected trouble, purposely provoked it, and then got more than he expected.
As usual, Medwoman has a great idea.
Defense and prosecution go to extremes to “win”, more for themselves than for society.
[quote] He’s also been quoted as saying that he thought his friend or cousin should stay safely behind, on the street corner, because Garzon was so upset with Partida.[/quote]
it is my understanding that he asked his cousin to stay back because Garzon had been harassing her.
[quote]It would seem very foolish to approach someone you know is very angry with you – why ask for trouble, and aggravate an already upset person? It appears Partida expected trouble, purposely provoked it, and then got more than he expected.[/quote]
The assault has left them with a fractured skull, bleeding in the brain, an eye swollen shut and a two-inch piece of fence post lodged near their eye socket.
Got more then he expected? Really?
“It appears Partida expected trouble, purposely provoked it, and then got more than he expected.”
Although Partida did return for the purpose of retrieving his keys and had to walk back in the general direction, I do not believe he approached Garzon, from the information I have, Garzon approached him and beat him. But since neither of us knows for sure, I suggest you stop saying this.
I too think to look at the facts rather than have 2 sides would be a better system It is a real game the way it is now. One team whose job it is to get all the facts and judge accordingly toward justice would be more fair.
Regarding hate, it is not hate I feel for Garzon, although I do feel some disgust. But mainly the point is to protect society from someone who (from what I can see) is dangerous. Also, to figure out what his anger problem is so perhaps it can be resolved would be very positive.
I hate what he did, I hate whatever is inside him that drove him to beat someone up so brutally, I hate what the Partida’s are going through. I hate that a 20 year old kid is capable of such violence. Garzon going to jail for a long time won’t make me feel better about what he did, but him not being held accountable for his horrible actions would make me feel a lot worse.
I don’t understand why the DA didn’t ask to revoke bail. Isn’t this guy already charged for stabbing someone else? So he is released and then nearly kills another man? How many people will he have to attack before he is kept in custody?
I also agree that Medwoman has an excellent suggestion about public servants- – prosecutors and defenders. But I don’t at all agree that criminal defense attorneys, as a rule, are in it for political gain, or even in it for themselves, for ego, at all, as compared with the other side. Defense attorneys get a very bad rap for putting on “shows” or tricking, but most of them really are selfless and compassionate beyond belief, and willing to take a lot of heat for doing what the law, and our conception of ourselves as a “Just” society, demands. Hiring a language expert is not a trick or a show. It’s an attempt to start educating all of us about an issue in the case.
And why is it important how much or if at all the expert was paid? That argument- – that all expert witnesses are whores- – has been around forever and it doesn’t prove much, does it?