By Ann Block
Astoundingly, our current new Enterprise editor, with no facts, figures or basis at all, continues to encourage readers to vote for the incumbent District Attorney. His opinion appears to be driven by his own “ideology” which sounds rather Trumpian in its broad-based fact free attack on Reisig’s opponents, who have been using evidence-based arguments all along.
Evidence that current D.A. practices result in the top five highest incarceration rates in California, the highest number of jury trials, 93% of youth defendants charged as adults being Latinos, circumvention of voters’ approval of Prop. 47 reducing minor offenses such as simple drug possession to misdemeanors, by charging “conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor” and allowing him to again charge felonies for minor offenses.
It is laughable that Onate (Enterprise editor) then claims Reisig is one of the most “progressive” district attorneys in the state with absolutely no evidence.
After advising defense attorneys throughout California for many years, I can state, based on evidence of charges filed, offers made by D.A.s and mitigating factors considered or not, that Reisig is in fact one of the most conservative District Attorneys in California, worse than Orange 
County.
One example is the felony charge filed against an immigrant mother for abducting her own baby after being ordered to leave the U.S. by the federal government when her immigration status expired. The mother complied, taking her baby with her.
When she returned to the U.S. with her 4-year-old, the incumbent D.A. charged her with felony child abduction, and refused to agree to bail, resulting in mother and child not seeing each other again for a year and a half. Yet the mother was ultimately convicted of a misdemeanor.
The well-connected violent father, who picked the mother up by the neck and threw her against a wall (admitted same in court), was never prosecuted himself.
We could point to the conservative brief to the Supreme Court, signed by Reisig, supporting the NRA’s lawsuit against the City of Chicago’s attempts at gun control.
Or the incredible waste of taxpayer money on the prosecution of highly decorated injured firefighter Capt. Paul Fullerton.
Progressive? Hardly.
AB—
To add to your letter, DA Reisig is also supported and endorsed by the Sac Bee, Woodland Daily democrat, Child advocates, public safety associations, DA associations, prominent senators, Yolo county officials …the list goes on and on. In fact the only people that don’t support Reisig are 2.5 Davis councilman (the .5 accounts for the Davis mayor protem who supports both).
The cases you site are far more complex than your brief letter but in case anyone still has to vote and is actually reading this blog, this is what is truly important about this election-
DA Reisig has implemented progressive and quality programs such as neighborhood court, mental health & homeless support, the MDIC, wrongful conviction reviews, veteran assistance etc.
DA Reisig’s opponent has said he will implement the programs that Reisig has already begun… he also never talks about victims… that is important to note, considering his past.
#keepYOLOsafe, Vote for DA Reisig!
My experience is that Reisig never talks about the collateral impact overcharging minor crimes on the families and the defendants themselves.
My experience is that David Greenwald never focuses on the victims of crime and the potential victims of crime and what the police and the DA are charged to prevent.
Give me an example of what you’re talking about so we can discuss
Ha-ha…
Gotta’ agree with David, on this… you’re ‘called’… ‘show your hand’…
So, what is your opinion on theft… especially chronic theft and three strikes?
Well, I think it would be better to curb “overcharging” (and I agree that has occured) than talking about it… probably just me…
Yet I ‘get it’ in some cases… where the major charge is “iffy” as to getting a conviction on it, so you throw in lesser charges to at least get someone out of circulation that has atually committed a crime… going the other way, throwing in greater charges to at least get a conviction on the appropriate charge, feels more like running a bluff in poker, or “negotiating”, neither of which has the slightest sense of ‘justice’… [yet, I enjoy poker, big time! Just not in our judicial system…]
I have a much bigger problem with plea bargaining than I do a DA that consistently charges at the full extent of the law. Bargaining for crime is a corruption of the criminal justice system, IMO.
I know someone that plea bargained on something he was innocent of due to the risk of poor defense representation and an aggressive and politically ambitious DA that wanted to stack up a strong winning record. Plea bargaining is like a gambling racket. I find it quite wrong.
The problem is overcharging – the symptom is too many trials COUPLED with a much lower than average conviction rate. The typical county takes about 97 percent of cases to a plea bargain. There is nothing great about plea bargaining, nothing wrong with trials. But it is an indicator that the DA is presser for more charges – sometimes to the point of absurdity. The typical county has about a 16 percent acquittal rate at trial. In Yolo it’s 42 percent. There is a problem here. You’re not acknowledging it.
Correct me if I am wrong, but there are four choices for someone accused of a crime:
1. The DA drops the charges due to an opinion that there is not enough evidence.
2. The DA drops the charges for other reasons.
3. The DA plea bargains the case.
4. The DA proceeds with prosecution through the standard judicial process.
#2 and #3 suck in my opinion. And it is clear to me that you want to see more of both of them.
#1 is another one that bothers me at times. I have a similar challenge in my business in that we submit loan applications to be approved by the federal government. Sometimes they are close to the line were we suspect that it might be rejected. However, I ask who are we to make that determination? My staff does not like the sting of rejection and so they will try to BE the federal authorities and pre-reject the application. A DA is not a God. The amount of evidence is not a definitive determination in most cases. The judge and jury are the proper authorities to make the call.
I think there are a lot more than four choices. For one thing you haven’t included the possibility of additional charges – that usually comes either during the initial investigation or during the preliminary hearing.
The process itself is long and there is additional evidence that occurs along the way.
The DA files the initial charges at the initial arraignment. They then have to go to preliminary hearing to sustain the charges. If they don’t have probable cause, they cannot proceed. A preliminary hearing will often tell both sides how strong the case is and generally speaking the case resolves itself after preliminary hearing in the vast majority of cases.
Understand that somewhere between 90 and 97 percent of all cases plead out prior to trial – even in a county like Yolo that takes a higher percentage of cases to trial.
Third, if no resolution is reached, the case goes to trial.
Fourth, the jury renders a verdict.
“The judge and jury are the proper authorities to make the call.”
The judge doesn’t make a call. The jury does, and only in a very small percentage of cases (less than 5 percent). Most cases, the call is made in a negotiation between the defense and prosecution.
I wouldn’t know where to begin with the corrections. You have little understanding of how the criminal justice system works. And you left off significant options, including: The DA does not file charges in the first place.
I certainly hope you are supportive of at least quadrupling the budgets for the courts, DAs, PDs, etc. that would result from eliminating your options 1-3.
As Jack Nicholson’s charcter said “you talking to me?!?”
If so, that’s just weird… never said anything about plea bargaining, nor dismissal of charges for ANY reason…
Howard – If you are referring to my comment, then, no. The reply was to Jeff who asked to be corrected if he was wrong. Although, I will correct you on one thing: “You talkin’ to me?” is a quote from Robert De Niro, in Taxi Driver, not Jack Nicholson.
I was simplifying as I don’t have the need to bloviate to fill gaps in my self-worth.
There are more than one set of “victims” when there is a crime.
1. Those who are injured directly by the violence or theft. Unfortunately these are the only victims DA Reisig sees.
2. Those whose lives are disrupted by overcharging, trial delays, utilizing diversionary programs only after there is a conviction or plea instead of as an alternative to trial.
3. Family members of those who are unable to obtain bail ( whether legally ultimately found innocent or guilty), those who received excessively long sentences, and those who are branded unjustly as gang members or as felons when they would have been charged with misdemeanors in other counties. Disruption of work or education has long-lasting effects such as loss of car, home, medical care for completely innocent family members .
Coming from a medical perspective, prevention is always…always, more cost effective than is treatment ( incarceration) after the “disease” or harm has spread. Prevention through education and rehabilitation is the cornerstone of Dean Johansson’s candidacy. Reisig does not even acknowledge this approach. His premise is that criminals should be harshly punished, regardless of the nature of the crime.
How does one prevent pancreatic cancer? Prostate cancer? Any cancer where precursors are only guessed at? Just using your medical analogy…
I understand the medical concept of early detection, early treatment… and sometimes ‘early’ treatment inludes somewhat invasive procedures, if the early detection doesn’t happen… just following your analogy…
You have alluded to ‘early detection’ of what led up to the baby Justice tragedy… sure appears that the medical community didn’t do much to support/advocate for early treatment… yes, know you can’t talk about that, but do suggest you think about that…
“Prevention” is somewhat different (big time) from early diagnosis/early treatment.
Howard
“yes, know you can’t talk about that, but do suggest you think about that…”
What in the world would make you think I haven’t thought about that extensively? I took an extensive look at the in hospital and our patient care. I researched post partum psychoses including the range of possible causes. I plainly stated when I started writing about that case that there were, in my opinion, errors in judgement made throughout the prenatal, intrapartum and postpartum care as well as with social service decisions both prior to and post discharge. I further stated that I did not hold Jeff Reisig responsible for any of that. I hold each individual, including Jeff Reisig only responsible for his own actions. In this case, it was his decision, and his alone, to allow a far more dangerous individual, who should have been held equally responsible for the well being of baby Justice, to go free for months selling meth, in order to “make a deal” for testimony against baby Justice’s mother.
Jeff frankly claims he doesn’t approve of making deals with criminals. Unless of course it is with a known meth dealer in order to secure an appearance of “tough on crime” with a murder charge against a woman who more likely than not was experiencing a psychotic break at the time of her crime, while Frank Rees, guilty of the same crime ( since according to his own testimony he knew the mother was incapable of infant care at the time he left) was off providing sex and meth to yet another woman. So much for community safety.
I hope you meant to put those in ‘rank order’… as to #1, #2, #3… if you do,I am in substantial agreement, except as to #1, I’d add “society in general”… a rape of a woman in your neighborhood doesn’t “affect” you? The murder of a child doesn’t affect the neighborhood, the City, extended relatives, society in general? The break-in of a car on your street doesn’t affect the neighborhood?
But, I do agree on several of your points… disagree on others…
Thanks for posting this because it confirms, like David, you have cognitive dissonance on this topic.
You and David seem to conflate desired remedies for the negative social circumstances that tend to attach to people more likely arrested and charged with crimes with the role of law enforcement and the DA for having to enforce criminal laws. Criminal law is naturally reactive. The only level of prevention is for crimes expected.
The DA is the prosecution and is the legal party responsible for presenting the case against an individual who is suspected of breaking the law, initiating and directing further criminal investigations, guiding and recommending the sentencing of offenders, and are the only attorneys allowed to participate in grand jury proceedings. That is it.
There are no predictive laws as you describe. And if there were you and David would be criticizing law enforcement for the unfairness of targeting people that have not committed crimes. In fact the ACLU is already screaming at law enforcement for using Artificial Intelligence algorithms to help predict and prevent crime.
As an aside, this is the type of irrational connecting of the dots that irritates me and causes me to lose respect for the lack of logic displayed. You, and others with your views, are your own worst enemies with respect to your social justice desires… because your moral/emotional filters that easily inflame over the appearance of unfairness and harm get all messed up with class and tribal alliance… these tendencies cause all reasonable remedies to be rejected.
If you disagree that your opinions for preventative remedies are irrational, please explain what you think a DA is supposed to do differently than DA Reisig.
Take a gold star or ‘use of adjectives’… take a cowpie star for your overall ‘argument’…
Care to explain the cowpie?
https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/will-artificial-intelligence-make-us-less-free
My point here is that the tragic socioeconomic circumstances of people more often caught up in criminal prosecution are not the responsibility of law enforcement. But for some reason some people keep projecting their emotional turmoil over these tragic low socioeconomic circumstances on law enforcement to solve. In my opinion, that is an irrational projection. Not only did law enforcement not cause poor socioeconomic circumstances, but they lack the mandate, the role and the resources to do anything to remedy the situation of low socioeconomic circumstances. In fact, law enforcement are also victims of any increase in people stuck in low socioeconomic circumstances.
If I am wrong here then David, Tia and Johansson should all be able to clearly spell out what tangible steps, changes, differences they would like to see the DA undertake. To date they have nothing other than claiming that Reisig over-charges. The inference is that Johansson would under-charge and somehow this would be their remedy. That is irrational from every perspective. First, Tia also levels charges at Reisig for a mistake of undercharging where subsequently another victim of crime resulted. Second, in terms of their stated interests related to people charged with crime, nothing about under-charging is going to help them. In fact, it is more likely that they would progress in their crimes to end up with bigger problems and also there would be more victims of crime.
If Johansson is the better choice, then we should have a clear list of the problems and the remedies he plans to implement. We don’t. It is clear that Johansson is just an activist plant to support the anti-law enforcement pro-criminal agenda.
Have you ever had a conversation with Dean about any of this?
Jeff –
You seem to be under the impression that DAs play no role in crime prevention. That may be true of some DAs, but not all. Thirty seconds on Google can demonstrate that. Here are just a couple of California examples of DAs who you would characterize as irrational:
https://www.facebook.com/RivCoDA/videos/1233013923426521/
http://blackvoicenews.com/2018/04/18/new-crime-prevention-and-intervention-unit/
Fine Eric. You found a couple. Bravo.
So where is Johansson’s plan for this? There is nothing.
Go read it… https://dean4da.com/
Hah! So, now you’ve modified your position from it’s not the DA’s role and it would be irrational, to “where is Johansson’s plan for this?” Good for you. We’re making progress.
It is irrational to think that, based on his platform, that Johansson is going to make any improvements to remedy the things that Tia and others throw out as problems that the DA should be dealing with.
Also, I am not sure that the examples you provide are positive examples as the DA is a specific role. My guess is that the examples you provided are people exploiting their role as DA for a political career.
Jeff
I have answered this previously, but I can repeat.
1. I believe that the DA could accept that there is an overlay between mental illness & crime. When there is a “dangler” Reisig has always come down on the side of criminality, even when the evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of mental illness.
2. I believe that DA Reisig consistently uses his “discretion” ( and yes that does exist) to punish rather than attempt re education and reform.
3. Better educated individuals commit less blue collar, although not necessarily less white collar crime. Especially in cases involving youth, I believe that DA Reisig should consistently favor outcomes that promote education rather than incarceration, especially in adult settings. There is a wealth of information on juvenile brain development and the effects of education vs incarceration.
4. I believe that demonstrably, families in which a parent is missing leads to increased risk for the children for all kinds of increased problems including incarceration. You clearly believe this too by your frequent comments about the importance of presence of both parents in the home. This in and of itself is an argument for non violent criminals being confined in the home, if confinement is necessary.
Please recall before throwing around that adjective “irrational” that it is you who has refused to discuss any specific cases nor list any support whatsoever for your claim that Jeff Reisig is “perfect”.
You talk but don’t listen.
Read what Phil Coleman wrote. You are in over your head on this and need to listen to people actually in the job so you can understand that they are limited in what they can do. If someone with mental health issues constantly steals, then the DA is the role to deal with the crime. If you are unhappy with support for mental health, please criticize your own profession. Employees of that profession are some of the best paid in the world. Maybe those employees could accept less and use the excess to help fund more mental health services for those that cannot afford it.
So, in addition to being unhappy that Reisig isn’t a psychiatrist offering mental health care, you are also unhappy that he isn’t a teacher. In terms of reform, the DA’s implementation of restorative justice is cutting-edge progressive. He also has put in time and effort on the education front for young people. But maybe you did not know that… (or have failed to listen to it when others told you).
So we need to add that the DA is also suppose to be responsible for social services.
Lastly, you have provided nothing, and neither has the Johansson campaign, that there are any concrete ideas for how he, Johansson, would magically provide the missing health care, education and social service you criticize the current DA for not providing.
I really wonder if you and David actually know what the job of a DA is supposed to be. Maybe Johansson can find a unicorn too.