Yesterday I posted a comment in response to the question “what is wrong with jury trials?” The unfortunate thing is that some seem to have missed the boat on this issue. The problem is not jury trials, the problem is what it means when Yolo County, which ranks in the middle in terms of crime rate, leads the state in jury trials.
In an email, one commenter pointed out: “When a jury pool is called of perhaps 50 people, many of whom are professionals and taking time off work at a great loss in total productivity, for a misdemeanor shoplifting case there is something wrong with the justice system in this county.”
But another commenter continued to miss the boat, asking, “Interesting point. Is the right to a jury trial the only one of our rights you want to eliminate based on convenience or is this the first of many?”
The commenter sent another email: “Not the interesting point I had in mind and seemingly an extreme defense of the Magna Carta without regard to the role prosecutorial discretion, or lack thereof, brings to the criminal justice system. It’s not the question of the right to a jury trial but whether a trial is in order at all.
“My interesting point is the lack of prosecutorial discretion in such a case where justice would be better served by a ride over to the STEAC office or the food bank instead of inconveniencing so many people for a petty offense. In the last twelve years how many jurors were called for cases that called into question the judgment and discretion of the DA more than anyone else? That is why I’m voting for Dean.”
From my perspective, the right to a jury trial is not one that anyone wants to eliminate.
However, the frequency of jury trials is an indicator here. As I noted above, the crime rate in Yolo County is right in the middle of the pack in terms of per capita in other counties. So why would 
there be a higher trial rate?
You could argue it’s the defense bar or the prosecution. What’s interesting is that at the Board of Supervisors meeting last week, Tracie Olson presented data showing that the trial rate was about the same for the PD’s office as it was for the conflict panel, and as it was for the private attorneys. So it does not appear to be the defense bar driving the differential.
Instead, what it appears to be is that the DA’s office is overcharging cases and then not giving reasonable offers, forcing the case to trial. What else is interesting is that the acquittal rate for the PD’s office is 41 percent compared to 16 percent statewide – also an indicator that the DA is overcharging.
What I found most fascinating was the person who emailed in had been a longtime supporter of Jeff Reisig.
In the last few days a few people who have told me that they are voting for the challenger have absolutely stunned me, including several longtime Reisig supporters.
Bail Reform Debate
Last week, we noted a letter from Deputy DA Frits Pieter van der Hoek. He said his boss “is an innovative leader in Yolo County.”
The crux of his argument: “Most people agree that California should move away from its cash bail system. There is no quick fix though. because cash bail in included within California’s constitution. To help unstick this clog, Reisig assigned one of his top prosecutors to work with legislators to reform California’s cash bail system, while managing flight risk and keeping dangerous offenders away from the public.”
There has been no evidence of that, and Jeff Reisig’s office has consistently argued for higher bails even in cases where bail didn’t make a lot of sense.
In a letter to the Enterprise, Bennett Reeber writes, “Since Reisig’s election in 2006, his deputies have enforced one of the most draconian bail schedules in California, perhaps surpassed only by the very conservative San Bernardino County.”
He argues: “This results in pre-trial detention for many, which is unconstitutional except in rare circumstances. We are locking people up who are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty! This denial of freedom has drastic consequences: families are torn apart, jobs are lost, and charged persons take plea deals to get out of custody. We also can’t deny that juries perceive defendants who enter courtrooms from custody very differently than those who arrive from home.”
Mr. Reeber points out, “Mr. Reisig’s office was approached in 2012 to scrap it and start over. Their response? “That’s interesting and we’ll get back to you.” No action was taken. This is no surprise because Mr. Reisig has been against every single criminal justice reform measure.”
But Mr. van der Hoek responds: “Bail is set by judges, which is based on a bail schedule, which is created by judges. How is that you have concluded that this is the DA’s fault, especially when Reisig is actively working with legislators to reform bail and is working to help make Yolo’s OR program more robust in the meantime?”
Last year, I watched a case where a man was arrested on possession but also had some violations of probation. Probation recommended against OR, but the defense argued that the man had a job, family and ties to the area, was not a flight risk and never had a history of violence. He had also never missed a court appearance.
But the DA opposed OR and Commissioner Kent O’Mara told the defense he was not going to go against probation’s recommendation, so he put a $55,000 bail on a man with a job, family and no history of violence.
It is easy to claim you are in favor of reform in the abstract, but DAs do have the discretion to ask for OR or supervised OR. They have the ability to agree with the defense in a case where the man is neither a flight risk nor a risk of violence. However, time and time again, the DA’s office under Jeff Reisig doesn’t do that.
That’s certainly their right, but let us not then try to argue that they are on the forefront of reform, when there is no evidence of that – certainly not in practice.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I have to admit you are very “on-trend” in your hostility towards jurys. The right to trial by jury is prohibited by numerous consumer arbitration agreements as oppressors of all political stripes are opposed to jurys.
Perhaps you would be more comfortable with the Chinese system where the Jing Cha can just gaff you up on the street and send you to a labor camp for up to two years?
From the article:
So you don’t want to eliminate it, just reduce availability?
Jim
For me it is not a matter of decreasing availability. It is a matter of using true diversionary processes instead of trial when those are most appropriate. It would mean using the provision of mental health care when that is what is needed. It would mean community service and restoration of value lost in the case of impulse theft ( bag of cheese, candy bar). It would mean hospitalization rather than incarceration for those who are dangerous due to psychoses. I believe that this would actually increase availability in a timely manner for those cases in which a trial is the most appropriate approach.
Tia, I agree with that.
I am not in favor of forcing people into plea bargains.
Jim
Agreed.
But she supports Johansson specifically with the claim that Reisig does not do enough plea bargaining.
The more accurate claim is that he overcharges and doesn’t offer reasonable deal so that defendants end up having little to lose by taking the case to trial. You’re also ignoring that his trial conviction rate is among the lowest in the state, m likely miscalculating.
No that is not more accurate… that is deflection. She says that she agrees with Jim not forcing people into plea bargains. If you are not forcing people into plea bargains then you will have a higher trial rate.
Untrue. Force means to compel. Force does not mean to convince. People will take plea agreements when it is in their best interest to do. That means reasonable charges and reasonable offers. The problem we are seeing is that too many cases are being overcharged but then not given reasonable offers and the result is a lot of trials.
Jeff
No. If you go back and read my posts, you will see that I have never opined specifically about the number of plea bargains offered. What I am saying is that there can be a third way beyond plea deal vs trial. Many cases can be diverted without either being invoked but Jeff Reisig will not consider true diversion even in cases of severe mental illness. I believe that Johansson will see the broader picture and be better able to consider who needs mental health care vs who is a candidate for plea bargain or trial.
Lawson posted this on Facebook and he’s spot on: “ the problem is that he’s overcharging and people have nothing to lose by going to jury trial…” Jury trials are not the problem, they are the symptom or the indicator of the problem.
Why should people expect a discount at the DA store?
“Over-charging” is a completely subjective claim on your part.
“More robust application of the law” would be a more accurate claim.
The former comment is accurate however there is evidence to substantiate the claim – lower than normal plea rate and the higher normal acquittal rate.
Jeff
Your use of the words “near perfection” is also completely subjective as witnessed by the fact that I consider the same performance at best mediocre as backed by the numbers.
Overcharging is a good way to alienate a jury. I sat on a jury in an assault with intent to kill case. The defendant was a 72 year old man, who was probably guilty of public intoxication and maybe misdemeanor assault. The histrionics of the prosecution and subsequent rehearsed testimony by the arresting officers poisoned the jury almost from the opening statement. We acquitted after 15 minutes.
We covered a trial a few weeks ago that the jury considered to be a waste of their time, they acquitted the defendant and told the prosecution they are voting against her boss.
I am chuckling here.
David and his ideological ilk opine for restorative justice and things like neighborhood court where average members of the community get to participate in hearing and deciding justice for people committing crimes. This is the essence of the jury trial process. It is a more democratic and collaborative decisions process… which of course David and his ilk seem to promote in almost everything as clearly their trust in representative governance is weak… or is it?
Actually their trust in representative governance is not weak when the positions of power are held by activists sharing their worldview.
And so these criticisms of Reisig ring hollow as only supporting the social justice crusader activist agenda. Johansson is their man… an activist to carry their anti-law enforcement agenda.
Johansson is sort of like Scott Pruitt being put in charge of the EPA. That is only justified when the agency is out of control and in need of reform (as was the EPA). But the Yolo County DA is not out of control and in need of reform. The Yolo County DA is doing a fine job keep the people of Yolo County safe from murder, rape, drugs, gangs and theft. Johansson as a replacement will absolutely result in increased of all of these things as the criminals will enjoy a softer Yolo County supporting their criminal behavior. Johansson is bad for the Yolo County environment.
” ideological ilk”
” activists sharing their worldview.”
“social justice crusader activist agenda. ”
“Johansson is sort of like Scott Pruitt being put in charge of the EPA. ”
How much longer will the Vanguard indulge these prohibited, off topic and delusional (” Johansson as a replacement will absolutely result in increased of all of these things”) posts from this anonymous troll? A clear example of hometown favoritism, even when the often personally abusive poster will not use his true identity.
John
“How much longer will the Vanguard indulge these prohibited, off topic and delusional (” Johansson as a replacement will absolutely result in increased of all of these things”) posts from this anonymous troll?”
From my point of view as only one member of the editorial board, the answer is as long as he stays within the published guidelines for commenting. The Vanguard does not police the accuracy of statements. We do not police the partisanship of comments. In this particular case the “troll” is anonymous only to those who have not frequented the Vanguard over the past 5+ years. He is well known to many of us. Although he frequently makes personal attacks, he tends to phrase those so that only the Vanguard ( or David) is directly targeted. The rest of us are referred to as “ilk” thus not triggering the moderator for personal attacks.
I happen to believe it ( the behavior) is dishonest, duplicitous, hypocritical and far more importantly, inaccurate. But it is within the boundaries of behavior that we have established as an editorial board.
Besides which, when posters start saying that they know what is in someone else’s head and heart, claiming “perfection” for their own candidate, and saying that they know what will be the outcome of electing a person in the future, it is they who are destroying their own credibility. I say, let him rant.
That should go for John Hobbs too. He is my ranting doppelganger from the upside-down world.
Vote for Johansson if you you want a social justice activist as our DA.
Vote for Reisig if you want Yolo County more safe from criminals, but with a focus on progressive community and restorative participation.
This is a very important vote people. Get it wrong and you risk seeing your family and friends harmed by increased crime.
“That should go for John Hobbs too.”
You’ll have to enjoy your home court advantage. The censor has spoken.
I really like free speech. I know that some people are currently in favor of eliminating it… except for their ideas. But I tend to like hearing from people I disagree with because without disagreement there is generally very little learning and also there is generally less thinking.
But I don’t know what home-court advantage is. You mean a court where thought and opinion isn’t censored into the group-think lane? This is a blog by the way.
I too served on a Yolo County jury on a case that should never have gotten that far. The defendant was a Latina being charged with domestic violence because of slapping her husband. When the officers interviewed her and asked if she spoke English, she said yes, but then began to speak Spanish when she told them about his history of abuse toward her, even having been arrested by the same PD on at least two occasions. Did the officers call for a translator? No, they took her to jail and put her children in custody. The DA’s office must have listened to the tape of her interrogation by the police, because they provided it to the jury. The tape demonstrated the police asking questions in English, the defendant trying to respond in half-English/half Spanish, and the police repeatedly talking over her while she tried to respond. The jury acquitted her, but my major question was why? Why was she arrested and held over for trial? Why was the DA’s office so eager for a conviction that they didn’t listen to their own evidence? Isn’t there some room for reason and discretion in the DA’s office? If not, why not?
Nicki, I had a similar experience with this DAs office. From what I have seen, they tend to be rather calloused and cruel toward domestic violence survivors. As I have tried very hard to understand them, one thing I noticed on cases where they were more supportive of DV survivors – the survivors were out for blood against their former abusers.
In other words – if you are a DV survivor who is committed to putting your ex behind bars and spending another year out of your life fighting him in court and making sure he pays for whatever he did – this DA has your back. (Although this often means putting your kids at serious risk in the meantime). If you just want to move on with your life in peace and safety, and let bygones be gone, this DA harrasses tf out of you – not even excluding a potential to side with batterers in orchestrating a full blown DV by proxy through the bureaucratic nonsense. It’s bizarre.
Here is a challenge for David.
How does it benefit a DA to over-charge (his claim, not mine)?
Reisig has staked his reputation on being tough on crime. He’s never been challenged as a sitting DA. Up until perhaps this year, overcharging has advantaged him.
That would make him unique. Most DAs are concerned about their conviction rate.
My point exactly. David has failed to make his case.
“That would make him unique. Most DAs are concerned about their conviction rate.”
Citizens Academy may provide a little insight into this seeming contradiction. As presented, our current DAs office sees law enforcement and prosecution as a “good guys vs the bad guys” scenario. These are their words ( repeatedly throughout the course) not mine. Certainly one way for the “good guys” to win is a high conviction rate. However, the other way to secure “wins” is long incarcerations which also presents the image if not the reality of “tough on crime”.
Thus prolonged incarcerations for such crimes as cheese & candy bar theft, gang enhancements whether or not the gang was actually benefitted, assault or murder charges when severe mental illness was the operative condition, stings on legally operating cannabis businesses serve to make the “good guys” look “tough on crime” while not, in reality providing greater safety and sometimes actually further endangering our communities.
Nice spin try. But again, you failed to respond to the actual question.
A DA that strong-arms suspects into plea bargains and only goes to court for the cases he thinks he might win would be a DA that is projecting tough on crime, but is really weak on crime.