By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Woodland, CA – For months the Vanguard has pointed out that the Yolo County DA’s Office has played an odd game on zero bail—they complain about it every step of the way, they have attempted to inflame the public against it, and yet have failed to exercise their discretion to stop it when they have had the opportunity.
This pattern has continued with a new nuanceùnot only is the DA attacking zero bail by highlighting individual cases that he thinks demonstrates its problematic nature, but he has also championed a lengthy sentence for a non-violent drug offender.
Reisig used the conviction of Jeremy Lee Deaton, 45, to attack zero bail. But in the process, he lost sight that his office sentenced the man to over 23 years in prison for a non-violent drug offense.
According to the release, “Between July 31, 2020, and June 15, 2021, Mr. Deaton was stopped six times by Woodland Police Department officers. On each occasion, Mr. Deaton was searched and found with large quantities of methamphetamine as well as other controlled 
substances.”
They note: “The amounts ranged from ½ an ounce to over 11 ounces of methamphetamine and as much as ¾ ounce of heroin. At the conclusion of every stop, Mr. Deaton was placed under arrest and booked into the Yolo County Jail.”
On each occasion, “Mr. Deaton was released from jail as part of the $0 bail program put in place as the result of the pandemic.”
They then claim that Deaton, upon release, “would almost immediately resume his illegal activities. Between December 31, 2020, and February 16, 2021, Mr. Deaton was arrested four times, having resumed his drug selling behavior in the exact same manner as he had prior to his arrests.”
“The numerous cases involving Mr. Deaton show the problem with the $0 bail program that was put in place. By allowing people like Mr. Deaton to be continually released from custody with no incentive to change their behavior, this one size fits all program contributed to Mr. Deaton’s ongoing criminal behavior,” according to Michael Vroman, the prosecutor assigned to Mr. Deaton’s cases.
Last week a Yolo County jury convicted him on the drug charges (which the DA is calling drug trafficking even though the quantities are not huge).
But while the DA focuses on the problem with zero bail in this case, he apparently ignores the fact that they are now sentencing this man to 23 years in prison for what amounts to a non-violent drug offense.
As we have pointed out in previous installments, the DA’s office had to consent for the county to continue zero bail—and consent they did even as they up until recently issued a monthly press release on the number of people recidivating.
The DA here is arguing the problem is a one-size-fits-all approach. I would argue that the real problem is that we have failed to provide the services, job training and support to allow people who are released from jail or prison to avoid committing other crimes.
Instead, the DA wants to attack zero bail while exacerbating mass incarceration by putting a man in prison for nearly a quarter of a century for a non-violent drug offense.
One of my problems with this DA is that in recent years, while he will focus on programs that his office has instituted—restorative justice, diversion, mental health court and others, the basic gears of mass incarceration have been left in place.
The reforms that California has undertaken in terms of sentencing reforms and other reforms—the DA has either been silent on or has steadfastly opposed.
At the same time, over the last several months, the DA has attempted to play up his reformer side, arguing that his data portal and transparency will enable them to address criminal justice reform.
The Vanguard has repeatedly questioned whether the DA’s priorities for attacking, for instance, racial inequities through racially blind charging policies are the best way to reduce huge inequities in the Yolo County system.
The DA has also continued to attack Prop. 47 which aimed at reducing things like petty theft and non-violence drug offenses from felonies to misdemeanors.
At a townhall in August, he argued, “I’m not surprised that you started to see an uptick in violent crime and property crime since that initiative was enacted.”
The DA has played up his willingness to use diversion, arguing, “Instead of sending people to prison or jail, we’re sending them to these diversion programs. And the data shows that the recidivism rate is much lower and people going to prison at least 37% lower than anybody that goes to the prison.”
Why would you support diversion and oppose reducing non-violent drug offenses—drug possession specifically—from a felony to a misdemeanor? Why would you ignore research on juvenile brain development in opposing Prop. 57?
The DA wants to focus people’s attention on the marginal reforms his office has enacted while, at the same time, he continues to oppose most of the reforms enacted by the state legislature and continues to oppose the underlying need to rethink how we handle cases such as Deaton’s case.
Is there a better way to address someone selling drugs—even moderate amounts of drugs—without throwing them in prison for a quarter of a century?
That’s the core of where justice reform needs to go and, yet, this DA continues to perpetuate that problem.
Is diversion available to someone with this pattern of behavior?
Reisig didn’t give him 23 years a judge did.
Actually he hasn’t been sentenced yet, and I think 23 years is the minimum by law based on the charges filed by the DA.
And he supports these types of sentencing regularly through his office. The question is what brought this guy into police contact each time? Was he engaging in property crimes to engage in criminal behavior? Or was he detected simply because they caught him once and they targeted him because of the initial possession? Or was he being detected because he was doing other things which create havoc in our community? The fact is that if he was supporting himself through drug sales it is a bit different than burglarizing and theft of others property or other harmful acts to the community members. When they release him on zero bail, it’s because he isn’t really a risk to community members and this seems pretty true here if they picked him up this many times with drugs, for sale or otherwise, but no other crimes which are significantly harmful to the community.
Incidentally, when promoting SB1542 as a diversion program, people could be diverted into Substance use treatment programs for the more egregious behaviors of committing property damage or theft to support a drug habit…. But this man wouldn’t have qualified because it is a drug crime itself which is also something that would seem suspect if the program is implemented because people with substance use disorders are most likely going to get picked up for simple possession while committing the other crimes.
Thanks Robin you have hit on the exact problem of relying on diversion rather than reforming the actual underlying laws and charging policies. We are going to spend nearly $2 million (in 2021 money) incarcerating this guy. Whereas if he had stolen something to pay for his habit, he could have received treatment and no prison time.
This is the “progressive” (or “liberal”) argument in a nutshell.
The problem with it is that there’s already a lot of financial aid available, for those with limited income. I believe that anyone meeting the criteria can find plenty of free training (or even attend places like UCD), at no cost.
Seems like people forget that going to school isn’t always that easy, nor is finding a job afterward. And that pretty much applies for everyone – other than those who shine in fields that are in demand. And even they have to work at it.
Want a job? Become a handyman. Plenty of work (to the point where you’ll be turning it down). Same with other related trades. Then again, none of these are “easy”, either – and require both aptitude and dedication.
But again, anyone with limited income can (already) find free training and education. So, that probably isn’t the primary problem.
The reason that even more conservative DAs like Reisig are shifting away from the traditional lock them up mentality is that they have found other methods actually work better. You say that programs are available, but reality is that they don’t have near the funding or the capacity and in part because we are still spending $85K per year on cages for a large percentage of people who don’t need to be there.
Says who?
Who, exactly (among low-income people) is being turned down for financial aid (related to education/training), for example? Who is being turned-away from those programs/education, in all of their forms?
I don’t believe that figure. But even if it’s accurate, I’d suggest a program that incentivizes inmates to help offset their own costs (while also personally benefiting them, and preparing them for eventual release).
Prison is a perfect place to provide such structure. After all, the “outside world” isn’t working for them (or their victims) very well. And ultimately, that includes any additional victims as a result of the spread and tolerance of of the drug trade.
I tried to add that lack of free education and training probably isn’t the primary reason that some go down the wrong path in the first place.
t’s available – ask just about any recent immigrant.
“Reisig used the conviction of Jeremy Lee Deaton, 45, to attack zero bail. But in the process, he lost sight that his office sentenced the man to over 23 years in prison for a non-violent drug offense.”
So he hasn’t even been sentenced and you report that the D.A.’s office sentenced Deaton to 23 years. So not only did you mis-report the sentencing process you also reported a sentence that hasn’t yet been handed down by the JUDGE. Perhaps you meant to say he is facing 23 years but honestly your desire to attack the D.A. seems to cloud your ability to write an accurate story.
I know nothing about this case other than what is reported here and what is reported here is so wildly inaccurate as to be of no value whatsoever in evaluating the actions of the authorities in addressing a person in possession of enough meth to to keep himself awake until the ball drops on New Year’s Eve.
Maybe in your world 11 ounces of meth is not big deal. In my world its a little more than what’s needed for personal use.
Perhaps these are the types of reasons why the local DA won’t grant David an interview. Not to mention the fact that there’d be a series of subsequent articles in much the same light, dissecting every word said in a negative manner.
I think I’d rather have a reporter stand in the way between me and the restroom, compared to this.
Ron Glick: Yeah I should have written it more clearly. From the press release: “Mr. Deaton is currently facing a maximum sentence of over 23 years in prison and is set to be sentenced on November 23, 2021.”