It was a curious strategy from the start but perhaps was aimed to get information about the judges in order to seek a change of venue which seemed from the start the more logical course of action.
Here we are now, over a month after the death of Sheriff’s Deputy Jose Diaz. And really not much has changed.
The case for change of venue seems so clear, so straightforward. The question has to be at this point what are we missing.
We know Diaz worked as a bailiff in Yolo County. We know that his colleagues in the Yolo County Sheriff’s Office conduct the security. Any claims that they might have had that they could do their job in a professional and non-biased way, went by the wayside on June 18, when sheriff’s deputies, under orders from someone that has not been identified in public, locked the doors of a county court building, preventing public access while filling the courtroom with fellow officers through a side door.
We also know that the Sheriff himself dismissed this as a mistake. This was no “mistake” in the sense that the doors were not accidentally locked. It was intentional.
There is also evidence it seems that Yolo County Judges put their court in recess in order to allow the Sheriff’s Deputies to fill the court. What we do not know and has not been proven is that this action rose to the level of collusion as the defense has claimed.
Finally this has been the first major incident since Dave Rosenberg took over as presiding judge. As such, he has been quick to put blame on the Sheriff’s Department and slow to step up with any kind of solution to the problem.
People keep wondering the same thing–why is Topete getting this kind of attention. There are two key points here. First, everyone is entitled to due process under the law.
The sixth amendment, which is not one of the amendments you normally see quoted in spaces like this, is very clear in terms of constitutional requirements in the right to a fair trial.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State…
The second point is that really the constitutional issue of the right to a public trial is trumping the actual crime committed. Topete will get his day in court and in all likelihood will be convicted of his crime and sentenced to the appropriate punishment.
However, the bigger issue at stake extends beyond this somewhat simple case of man shooting officer of the law. It extend to the very foundations of our justice systwm. To the very core of the right to a public trial.
Why did the framer’s specifically require trials to be public?
One of things that separates tyranny from democracy is the notion of transparency. The ideal that people will know the charges against them and not be held in some sort of Kafka-esque state of confusion. By forcing a public trial where the charges have to read against the defendant, the state itself has to answer for and support the deprivation of life, liberty, and property. The due process of law as spelled out both in the constitution and in 200-plus years of common law is what prevents the government from taking arbitrary action against defendants and thus protects us all from the potential for a tyrannical government.
That notion seems abstract and far-fetched today, but when the constitution was written it was a very real danger. Moreover, if you look over the history of this country, you will find shocking abuses through out.
In fact, this is precisely the type of case where you need such protections the most–where a perpetrator is accused of killing a law enforcement officer, someone that the law enforcement establishment is more likely to seek to protect.
Finally, this is big because once again it exposes the dark underbelly of our county government and its justice system. Once again people are forced to question those in charge and why business seems to be conducted in this manner on a consistent basis.
As we learned through this process, this is not the first time that this kind of “mistake” has occurred. And mistakes that repeat themselves are hardly mistakes anymore.
So you will forgive me as we demand that our justice system acts appropriately. You will forgive me if I revisit this issue yet again all the while transferring the attention from the crime allegedly committed by Mr. Topete to the abuse allegedly committed within our justice system.
At the end of the day, we will unfortunately survive the common street crimes of Mr. Topete far better than we could ever survive a justice system that has run amuck with favoritism, cronyism, and the random violation of constitutional rights. I am not saying that these things occurred, only suggesting that those are my top priority to prevent. We have ways to deal with street crime. The latter is far more insidious.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
DPD, It really would only take a few extra minutes to catch huge editing errors like this [“from the start…from the start…”] This detracts from your credibility:
“It was a curious strategy from the start but perhaps was aimed to get information about the judges in order to seek a change of venue which seemed from the start the more logical course of action.”
DPD, It really would only take a few extra minutes to catch huge editing errors like this [“from the start…from the start…”] This detracts from your credibility:
“It was a curious strategy from the start but perhaps was aimed to get information about the judges in order to seek a change of venue which seemed from the start the more logical course of action.”
DPD, It really would only take a few extra minutes to catch huge editing errors like this [“from the start…from the start…”] This detracts from your credibility:
“It was a curious strategy from the start but perhaps was aimed to get information about the judges in order to seek a change of venue which seemed from the start the more logical course of action.”
DPD, It really would only take a few extra minutes to catch huge editing errors like this [“from the start…from the start…”] This detracts from your credibility:
“It was a curious strategy from the start but perhaps was aimed to get information about the judges in order to seek a change of venue which seemed from the start the more logical course of action.”
I don’t know all the details, but sounds like the public defender is grandstanding. Why would he be able disqualify or to get information about all Yolo County judges based on a single motion? I think that would be unprecedented and illegal under the code of civil procedure. Similarly, everyone on here keeps talking about a change of venue, but the only person with standing in the case has not asked for it. Your wishes seem to be getting ahead of the procedure.
I think DPD is also grandstanding at this point. We’re well down the road and now the rhetoric and tone is getting dialed up? Why? The defendant has not been denied a public trial here. There is no Kafka to worry about. It was one arraignment hearing, not a trial. There will be countless additional hearings and ultimately a trial. The participation of the sheriff’s office is irrelevant to the defendant getting a fair triall, unless they are giving false evidence. No-one has claimed that.
I don’t know all the details, but sounds like the public defender is grandstanding. Why would he be able disqualify or to get information about all Yolo County judges based on a single motion? I think that would be unprecedented and illegal under the code of civil procedure. Similarly, everyone on here keeps talking about a change of venue, but the only person with standing in the case has not asked for it. Your wishes seem to be getting ahead of the procedure.
I think DPD is also grandstanding at this point. We’re well down the road and now the rhetoric and tone is getting dialed up? Why? The defendant has not been denied a public trial here. There is no Kafka to worry about. It was one arraignment hearing, not a trial. There will be countless additional hearings and ultimately a trial. The participation of the sheriff’s office is irrelevant to the defendant getting a fair triall, unless they are giving false evidence. No-one has claimed that.
I don’t know all the details, but sounds like the public defender is grandstanding. Why would he be able disqualify or to get information about all Yolo County judges based on a single motion? I think that would be unprecedented and illegal under the code of civil procedure. Similarly, everyone on here keeps talking about a change of venue, but the only person with standing in the case has not asked for it. Your wishes seem to be getting ahead of the procedure.
I think DPD is also grandstanding at this point. We’re well down the road and now the rhetoric and tone is getting dialed up? Why? The defendant has not been denied a public trial here. There is no Kafka to worry about. It was one arraignment hearing, not a trial. There will be countless additional hearings and ultimately a trial. The participation of the sheriff’s office is irrelevant to the defendant getting a fair triall, unless they are giving false evidence. No-one has claimed that.
I don’t know all the details, but sounds like the public defender is grandstanding. Why would he be able disqualify or to get information about all Yolo County judges based on a single motion? I think that would be unprecedented and illegal under the code of civil procedure. Similarly, everyone on here keeps talking about a change of venue, but the only person with standing in the case has not asked for it. Your wishes seem to be getting ahead of the procedure.
I think DPD is also grandstanding at this point. We’re well down the road and now the rhetoric and tone is getting dialed up? Why? The defendant has not been denied a public trial here. There is no Kafka to worry about. It was one arraignment hearing, not a trial. There will be countless additional hearings and ultimately a trial. The participation of the sheriff’s office is irrelevant to the defendant getting a fair triall, unless they are giving false evidence. No-one has claimed that.
Some of the language here is too much. “A simple case of a man shooting an officer of the law”? “the common street crimes of Mr. Topete?”
Wow! He endangered the life of his infant child, and then put a bullet through a police officer (and his protective vest), killing him. But you choose to use hyperbole concerning a locked courthouse door, and understate the real crime? I’m becoming a bit worried about your own underbelly.
Some of the language here is too much. “A simple case of a man shooting an officer of the law”? “the common street crimes of Mr. Topete?”
Wow! He endangered the life of his infant child, and then put a bullet through a police officer (and his protective vest), killing him. But you choose to use hyperbole concerning a locked courthouse door, and understate the real crime? I’m becoming a bit worried about your own underbelly.
Some of the language here is too much. “A simple case of a man shooting an officer of the law”? “the common street crimes of Mr. Topete?”
Wow! He endangered the life of his infant child, and then put a bullet through a police officer (and his protective vest), killing him. But you choose to use hyperbole concerning a locked courthouse door, and understate the real crime? I’m becoming a bit worried about your own underbelly.
Some of the language here is too much. “A simple case of a man shooting an officer of the law”? “the common street crimes of Mr. Topete?”
Wow! He endangered the life of his infant child, and then put a bullet through a police officer (and his protective vest), killing him. But you choose to use hyperbole concerning a locked courthouse door, and understate the real crime? I’m becoming a bit worried about your own underbelly.
My point here is very simple: Mr. Topete will be punished if and when he is found guilty of the crime. That is not a point in question. The larger point at this point is the fairness of the system. Arraignment is the point in time when you learn about the charges against you, having arraignment in public is paramount to preventing that type of abuse. You are advised to re-read the Trial by Kafka where K was never informed of the charges against him and thus had no way to defend himself. Moreover, this was not an isolated incident in Yolo County.
“Why would he be able disqualify or to get information about all Yolo County judges based on a single motion?”
I agree. I never thought that course of action was the correct one. The correct course of action is motion for change of venue. I don’t understand why he would not want one.
“We’re well down the road and now the rhetoric and tone is getting dialed up?”
But there has been no resolution to this point.
My point here is very simple: Mr. Topete will be punished if and when he is found guilty of the crime. That is not a point in question. The larger point at this point is the fairness of the system. Arraignment is the point in time when you learn about the charges against you, having arraignment in public is paramount to preventing that type of abuse. You are advised to re-read the Trial by Kafka where K was never informed of the charges against him and thus had no way to defend himself. Moreover, this was not an isolated incident in Yolo County.
“Why would he be able disqualify or to get information about all Yolo County judges based on a single motion?”
I agree. I never thought that course of action was the correct one. The correct course of action is motion for change of venue. I don’t understand why he would not want one.
“We’re well down the road and now the rhetoric and tone is getting dialed up?”
But there has been no resolution to this point.
My point here is very simple: Mr. Topete will be punished if and when he is found guilty of the crime. That is not a point in question. The larger point at this point is the fairness of the system. Arraignment is the point in time when you learn about the charges against you, having arraignment in public is paramount to preventing that type of abuse. You are advised to re-read the Trial by Kafka where K was never informed of the charges against him and thus had no way to defend himself. Moreover, this was not an isolated incident in Yolo County.
“Why would he be able disqualify or to get information about all Yolo County judges based on a single motion?”
I agree. I never thought that course of action was the correct one. The correct course of action is motion for change of venue. I don’t understand why he would not want one.
“We’re well down the road and now the rhetoric and tone is getting dialed up?”
But there has been no resolution to this point.
My point here is very simple: Mr. Topete will be punished if and when he is found guilty of the crime. That is not a point in question. The larger point at this point is the fairness of the system. Arraignment is the point in time when you learn about the charges against you, having arraignment in public is paramount to preventing that type of abuse. You are advised to re-read the Trial by Kafka where K was never informed of the charges against him and thus had no way to defend himself. Moreover, this was not an isolated incident in Yolo County.
“Why would he be able disqualify or to get information about all Yolo County judges based on a single motion?”
I agree. I never thought that course of action was the correct one. The correct course of action is motion for change of venue. I don’t understand why he would not want one.
“We’re well down the road and now the rhetoric and tone is getting dialed up?”
But there has been no resolution to this point.
I don’t think it’s grandstanding. Moving the trial to another venue was the right thing to do. Yolo will just continue to be the joke of all courts.
I don’t think it’s grandstanding. Moving the trial to another venue was the right thing to do. Yolo will just continue to be the joke of all courts.
I don’t think it’s grandstanding. Moving the trial to another venue was the right thing to do. Yolo will just continue to be the joke of all courts.
I don’t think it’s grandstanding. Moving the trial to another venue was the right thing to do. Yolo will just continue to be the joke of all courts.
The torture memos and describing fundamental Geneva protections as now “quaint” have helped create this political/judicial atmosphere. It appears that, hopefully, we are now witnessing a stepping back from this precipice.
The torture memos and describing fundamental Geneva protections as now “quaint” have helped create this political/judicial atmosphere. It appears that, hopefully, we are now witnessing a stepping back from this precipice.
The torture memos and describing fundamental Geneva protections as now “quaint” have helped create this political/judicial atmosphere. It appears that, hopefully, we are now witnessing a stepping back from this precipice.
The torture memos and describing fundamental Geneva protections as now “quaint” have helped create this political/judicial atmosphere. It appears that, hopefully, we are now witnessing a stepping back from this precipice.
It is a straightforward case and the judge was simply protecting one of his own.
It is a straightforward case and the judge was simply protecting one of his own.
It is a straightforward case and the judge was simply protecting one of his own.
It is a straightforward case and the judge was simply protecting one of his own.
Could it be that Topete could get more of a fair trial in Yolo County now that the public and the media are so carefully watching than in another county where similar, but undiscovered, practices may also be occurring?
Could it be that the Judges, attorneys and the vast majority of law enforcement officers are aghast at the mistake that was made in locking the courthouse door that day?
Could it be that we should just move forward with the trial and not delay this any further?
Could it be that Topete could get more of a fair trial in Yolo County now that the public and the media are so carefully watching than in another county where similar, but undiscovered, practices may also be occurring?
Could it be that the Judges, attorneys and the vast majority of law enforcement officers are aghast at the mistake that was made in locking the courthouse door that day?
Could it be that we should just move forward with the trial and not delay this any further?
Could it be that Topete could get more of a fair trial in Yolo County now that the public and the media are so carefully watching than in another county where similar, but undiscovered, practices may also be occurring?
Could it be that the Judges, attorneys and the vast majority of law enforcement officers are aghast at the mistake that was made in locking the courthouse door that day?
Could it be that we should just move forward with the trial and not delay this any further?
Could it be that Topete could get more of a fair trial in Yolo County now that the public and the media are so carefully watching than in another county where similar, but undiscovered, practices may also be occurring?
Could it be that the Judges, attorneys and the vast majority of law enforcement officers are aghast at the mistake that was made in locking the courthouse door that day?
Could it be that we should just move forward with the trial and not delay this any further?
For those of you who take issue with DPD’s writing style, just think of it this way: He writes like a college freshman. You’ll then be able to dismiss the gross punctuation and proofreading errors and to accept his various forms of exaggeration. (I don’t think he uses understatement.) It’s as simple as that.
For those of you who take issue with DPD’s writing style, just think of it this way: He writes like a college freshman. You’ll then be able to dismiss the gross punctuation and proofreading errors and to accept his various forms of exaggeration. (I don’t think he uses understatement.) It’s as simple as that.
For those of you who take issue with DPD’s writing style, just think of it this way: He writes like a college freshman. You’ll then be able to dismiss the gross punctuation and proofreading errors and to accept his various forms of exaggeration. (I don’t think he uses understatement.) It’s as simple as that.
For those of you who take issue with DPD’s writing style, just think of it this way: He writes like a college freshman. You’ll then be able to dismiss the gross punctuation and proofreading errors and to accept his various forms of exaggeration. (I don’t think he uses understatement.) It’s as simple as that.
anonymous 9:36 – The fact that you hide behind the name of “anonymous” all while bashing the very person who brings Davis more information than its local paper is quite telling.
Why do you read the blog? You bash him, and yet you cannot stay away can you? Is it because you too want to know what is going on in Yolo County and Davis, but know that you cannot count on the local paper to deliver the “real” news?
DPD (David) has often told readers that he will correct errors throughout the day as he sees them. Most bloggers do this. It is the good thing about blogging as opposed to news papers that simply put small line on some obscure page to let their readers know of the error they have made.
I commend DPD for the valuable service he is providing our community. We can log on (or not) at any time and comment if we choose to.
He writes his pieces very early in the morning day after day.
I would dare you to do the same without any error and with the same amount of committment and care that DPD has put into the Vangaurd.
DPD – Take the criticism as a badge of honor. You don’t see this person writing a daily, thought provoking blog for two years. He/she just criticizes because they have nothing of substance to offer.
There is something called envy and I see it from a lot of people that criticize with no substance.
Thank you David for providing us the Vanguard.
You should consider doing as other communities have done and look at turning it into a daily online newspaper. Afterall, Davis could use a real newspaper.
anonymous 9:36 – The fact that you hide behind the name of “anonymous” all while bashing the very person who brings Davis more information than its local paper is quite telling.
Why do you read the blog? You bash him, and yet you cannot stay away can you? Is it because you too want to know what is going on in Yolo County and Davis, but know that you cannot count on the local paper to deliver the “real” news?
DPD (David) has often told readers that he will correct errors throughout the day as he sees them. Most bloggers do this. It is the good thing about blogging as opposed to news papers that simply put small line on some obscure page to let their readers know of the error they have made.
I commend DPD for the valuable service he is providing our community. We can log on (or not) at any time and comment if we choose to.
He writes his pieces very early in the morning day after day.
I would dare you to do the same without any error and with the same amount of committment and care that DPD has put into the Vangaurd.
DPD – Take the criticism as a badge of honor. You don’t see this person writing a daily, thought provoking blog for two years. He/she just criticizes because they have nothing of substance to offer.
There is something called envy and I see it from a lot of people that criticize with no substance.
Thank you David for providing us the Vanguard.
You should consider doing as other communities have done and look at turning it into a daily online newspaper. Afterall, Davis could use a real newspaper.
anonymous 9:36 – The fact that you hide behind the name of “anonymous” all while bashing the very person who brings Davis more information than its local paper is quite telling.
Why do you read the blog? You bash him, and yet you cannot stay away can you? Is it because you too want to know what is going on in Yolo County and Davis, but know that you cannot count on the local paper to deliver the “real” news?
DPD (David) has often told readers that he will correct errors throughout the day as he sees them. Most bloggers do this. It is the good thing about blogging as opposed to news papers that simply put small line on some obscure page to let their readers know of the error they have made.
I commend DPD for the valuable service he is providing our community. We can log on (or not) at any time and comment if we choose to.
He writes his pieces very early in the morning day after day.
I would dare you to do the same without any error and with the same amount of committment and care that DPD has put into the Vangaurd.
DPD – Take the criticism as a badge of honor. You don’t see this person writing a daily, thought provoking blog for two years. He/she just criticizes because they have nothing of substance to offer.
There is something called envy and I see it from a lot of people that criticize with no substance.
Thank you David for providing us the Vanguard.
You should consider doing as other communities have done and look at turning it into a daily online newspaper. Afterall, Davis could use a real newspaper.
anonymous 9:36 – The fact that you hide behind the name of “anonymous” all while bashing the very person who brings Davis more information than its local paper is quite telling.
Why do you read the blog? You bash him, and yet you cannot stay away can you? Is it because you too want to know what is going on in Yolo County and Davis, but know that you cannot count on the local paper to deliver the “real” news?
DPD (David) has often told readers that he will correct errors throughout the day as he sees them. Most bloggers do this. It is the good thing about blogging as opposed to news papers that simply put small line on some obscure page to let their readers know of the error they have made.
I commend DPD for the valuable service he is providing our community. We can log on (or not) at any time and comment if we choose to.
He writes his pieces very early in the morning day after day.
I would dare you to do the same without any error and with the same amount of committment and care that DPD has put into the Vangaurd.
DPD – Take the criticism as a badge of honor. You don’t see this person writing a daily, thought provoking blog for two years. He/she just criticizes because they have nothing of substance to offer.
There is something called envy and I see it from a lot of people that criticize with no substance.
Thank you David for providing us the Vanguard.
You should consider doing as other communities have done and look at turning it into a daily online newspaper. Afterall, Davis could use a real newspaper.
9:36 you argue like a college freshman. Stick to the issue at hand and stop whining.
9:36 you argue like a college freshman. Stick to the issue at hand and stop whining.
9:36 you argue like a college freshman. Stick to the issue at hand and stop whining.
9:36 you argue like a college freshman. Stick to the issue at hand and stop whining.
Yes, I’m very familiar with “The Trial”…it’s one of my favorite books, and communicates an important message. But it’s hyperbole to suggest we have something like that in this case. The cop-killer had his charges read to him, that’s not the issue.
The complaint that nothing has happened,doesn’t make sense here. No-one inside of the court case has requested change of venue. It’s just all the commenters. If the defendant hasn’t asked for it (or DPD’s buddy the public defender), then why would the court order change of venue? On what basis? The court’s own motion? I think that would be very atypical.
Yes, I’m very familiar with “The Trial”…it’s one of my favorite books, and communicates an important message. But it’s hyperbole to suggest we have something like that in this case. The cop-killer had his charges read to him, that’s not the issue.
The complaint that nothing has happened,doesn’t make sense here. No-one inside of the court case has requested change of venue. It’s just all the commenters. If the defendant hasn’t asked for it (or DPD’s buddy the public defender), then why would the court order change of venue? On what basis? The court’s own motion? I think that would be very atypical.
Yes, I’m very familiar with “The Trial”…it’s one of my favorite books, and communicates an important message. But it’s hyperbole to suggest we have something like that in this case. The cop-killer had his charges read to him, that’s not the issue.
The complaint that nothing has happened,doesn’t make sense here. No-one inside of the court case has requested change of venue. It’s just all the commenters. If the defendant hasn’t asked for it (or DPD’s buddy the public defender), then why would the court order change of venue? On what basis? The court’s own motion? I think that would be very atypical.
Yes, I’m very familiar with “The Trial”…it’s one of my favorite books, and communicates an important message. But it’s hyperbole to suggest we have something like that in this case. The cop-killer had his charges read to him, that’s not the issue.
The complaint that nothing has happened,doesn’t make sense here. No-one inside of the court case has requested change of venue. It’s just all the commenters. If the defendant hasn’t asked for it (or DPD’s buddy the public defender), then why would the court order change of venue? On what basis? The court’s own motion? I think that would be very atypical.
Anonymous: you are missing the warning of the Trial. It is not that we have an exact scenario.
The problem isn’t that in this case that this defendant will lack of a public trial, the danger is what happens in cases where the media isn’t there banging on the door every step of the way. What happens to those defendants in a system like this? I have heard all sorts of stories over my two years of doing this. Some of them frankly frighten me.
Anonymous: you are missing the warning of the Trial. It is not that we have an exact scenario.
The problem isn’t that in this case that this defendant will lack of a public trial, the danger is what happens in cases where the media isn’t there banging on the door every step of the way. What happens to those defendants in a system like this? I have heard all sorts of stories over my two years of doing this. Some of them frankly frighten me.
Anonymous: you are missing the warning of the Trial. It is not that we have an exact scenario.
The problem isn’t that in this case that this defendant will lack of a public trial, the danger is what happens in cases where the media isn’t there banging on the door every step of the way. What happens to those defendants in a system like this? I have heard all sorts of stories over my two years of doing this. Some of them frankly frighten me.
Anonymous: you are missing the warning of the Trial. It is not that we have an exact scenario.
The problem isn’t that in this case that this defendant will lack of a public trial, the danger is what happens in cases where the media isn’t there banging on the door every step of the way. What happens to those defendants in a system like this? I have heard all sorts of stories over my two years of doing this. Some of them frankly frighten me.
I stand by my assessment of DPD’s writing prowess. Here’s substance for those of you who imbibe from his Kool-Aid trough.
We also know that the Sheriff himself dismissed this as a mistake. This was no “mistake” in the sense that the doors were not accidentally locked. It was intentional.
It can be intentional and still be a mistake. For confidentiality reasons, you may never know the person(s) who prevented access, but let’s say you do find out who it is. Are you going to try that person in your blog?
There is also evidence it seems that Yolo County Judges put their court in recess in order to allow the Sheriff’s Deputies to fill the court. What we do not know and has not been proven is that this action rose to the level of collusion as the defense has claimed.
Where’s the proof? This sounds a little like Law & Order.
Finally this has been the first major incident since Dave Rosenberg took over as presiding judge. As such, he has been quick to put blame on the Sheriff’s Department and slow to step up with any kind of solution to the problem.
You have shown nothing more than coincidence on Dave Rosenberg’s assumption to presiding judge. If Dave Rosenberg did something wrong–beyond political grandstanding–then offer proof.
Finally, this is big because once again it exposes the dark underbelly of our county government and its justice system.
This is just rhetoric.
Once again people are forced to question those in charge and why business seems to be conducted in this manner on a consistent basis.
Topete notwithstanding, you have not made this case. Provide additional examples.
As we learned through this process, this is not the first time that this kind of “mistake” has occurred. And mistakes that repeat themselves are hardly mistakes anymore.
Provide some evidence if you are going to make this claim.
At the end of the day, we will unfortunately survive the common street crimes of Mr. Topete far better than we could ever survive a justice system that has run amuck with favoritism, cronyism, and the random violation of constitutional rights.
First, allegedly killing a police officer is more than the common street crime of petty theft, vandalism, etc. Second, your comparison is debatable because you fail to establish that the system has run amok beyond this one egregious example. Third, I would question the use of “random” when you want to point your finger at the courts and accuse them of collusion. I would use “specific.”
Also, why “unfortunately survive?” Isn’t it fortunate that we do survive despite errors, mistakes, and (potential but unproven) collusion?
From Anon 9:36 am
I stand by my assessment of DPD’s writing prowess. Here’s substance for those of you who imbibe from his Kool-Aid trough.
We also know that the Sheriff himself dismissed this as a mistake. This was no “mistake” in the sense that the doors were not accidentally locked. It was intentional.
It can be intentional and still be a mistake. For confidentiality reasons, you may never know the person(s) who prevented access, but let’s say you do find out who it is. Are you going to try that person in your blog?
There is also evidence it seems that Yolo County Judges put their court in recess in order to allow the Sheriff’s Deputies to fill the court. What we do not know and has not been proven is that this action rose to the level of collusion as the defense has claimed.
Where’s the proof? This sounds a little like Law & Order.
Finally this has been the first major incident since Dave Rosenberg took over as presiding judge. As such, he has been quick to put blame on the Sheriff’s Department and slow to step up with any kind of solution to the problem.
You have shown nothing more than coincidence on Dave Rosenberg’s assumption to presiding judge. If Dave Rosenberg did something wrong–beyond political grandstanding–then offer proof.
Finally, this is big because once again it exposes the dark underbelly of our county government and its justice system.
This is just rhetoric.
Once again people are forced to question those in charge and why business seems to be conducted in this manner on a consistent basis.
Topete notwithstanding, you have not made this case. Provide additional examples.
As we learned through this process, this is not the first time that this kind of “mistake” has occurred. And mistakes that repeat themselves are hardly mistakes anymore.
Provide some evidence if you are going to make this claim.
At the end of the day, we will unfortunately survive the common street crimes of Mr. Topete far better than we could ever survive a justice system that has run amuck with favoritism, cronyism, and the random violation of constitutional rights.
First, allegedly killing a police officer is more than the common street crime of petty theft, vandalism, etc. Second, your comparison is debatable because you fail to establish that the system has run amok beyond this one egregious example. Third, I would question the use of “random” when you want to point your finger at the courts and accuse them of collusion. I would use “specific.”
Also, why “unfortunately survive?” Isn’t it fortunate that we do survive despite errors, mistakes, and (potential but unproven) collusion?
From Anon 9:36 am
I stand by my assessment of DPD’s writing prowess. Here’s substance for those of you who imbibe from his Kool-Aid trough.
We also know that the Sheriff himself dismissed this as a mistake. This was no “mistake” in the sense that the doors were not accidentally locked. It was intentional.
It can be intentional and still be a mistake. For confidentiality reasons, you may never know the person(s) who prevented access, but let’s say you do find out who it is. Are you going to try that person in your blog?
There is also evidence it seems that Yolo County Judges put their court in recess in order to allow the Sheriff’s Deputies to fill the court. What we do not know and has not been proven is that this action rose to the level of collusion as the defense has claimed.
Where’s the proof? This sounds a little like Law & Order.
Finally this has been the first major incident since Dave Rosenberg took over as presiding judge. As such, he has been quick to put blame on the Sheriff’s Department and slow to step up with any kind of solution to the problem.
You have shown nothing more than coincidence on Dave Rosenberg’s assumption to presiding judge. If Dave Rosenberg did something wrong–beyond political grandstanding–then offer proof.
Finally, this is big because once again it exposes the dark underbelly of our county government and its justice system.
This is just rhetoric.
Once again people are forced to question those in charge and why business seems to be conducted in this manner on a consistent basis.
Topete notwithstanding, you have not made this case. Provide additional examples.
As we learned through this process, this is not the first time that this kind of “mistake” has occurred. And mistakes that repeat themselves are hardly mistakes anymore.
Provide some evidence if you are going to make this claim.
At the end of the day, we will unfortunately survive the common street crimes of Mr. Topete far better than we could ever survive a justice system that has run amuck with favoritism, cronyism, and the random violation of constitutional rights.
First, allegedly killing a police officer is more than the common street crime of petty theft, vandalism, etc. Second, your comparison is debatable because you fail to establish that the system has run amok beyond this one egregious example. Third, I would question the use of “random” when you want to point your finger at the courts and accuse them of collusion. I would use “specific.”
Also, why “unfortunately survive?” Isn’t it fortunate that we do survive despite errors, mistakes, and (potential but unproven) collusion?
From Anon 9:36 am
I stand by my assessment of DPD’s writing prowess. Here’s substance for those of you who imbibe from his Kool-Aid trough.
We also know that the Sheriff himself dismissed this as a mistake. This was no “mistake” in the sense that the doors were not accidentally locked. It was intentional.
It can be intentional and still be a mistake. For confidentiality reasons, you may never know the person(s) who prevented access, but let’s say you do find out who it is. Are you going to try that person in your blog?
There is also evidence it seems that Yolo County Judges put their court in recess in order to allow the Sheriff’s Deputies to fill the court. What we do not know and has not been proven is that this action rose to the level of collusion as the defense has claimed.
Where’s the proof? This sounds a little like Law & Order.
Finally this has been the first major incident since Dave Rosenberg took over as presiding judge. As such, he has been quick to put blame on the Sheriff’s Department and slow to step up with any kind of solution to the problem.
You have shown nothing more than coincidence on Dave Rosenberg’s assumption to presiding judge. If Dave Rosenberg did something wrong–beyond political grandstanding–then offer proof.
Finally, this is big because once again it exposes the dark underbelly of our county government and its justice system.
This is just rhetoric.
Once again people are forced to question those in charge and why business seems to be conducted in this manner on a consistent basis.
Topete notwithstanding, you have not made this case. Provide additional examples.
As we learned through this process, this is not the first time that this kind of “mistake” has occurred. And mistakes that repeat themselves are hardly mistakes anymore.
Provide some evidence if you are going to make this claim.
At the end of the day, we will unfortunately survive the common street crimes of Mr. Topete far better than we could ever survive a justice system that has run amuck with favoritism, cronyism, and the random violation of constitutional rights.
First, allegedly killing a police officer is more than the common street crime of petty theft, vandalism, etc. Second, your comparison is debatable because you fail to establish that the system has run amok beyond this one egregious example. Third, I would question the use of “random” when you want to point your finger at the courts and accuse them of collusion. I would use “specific.”
Also, why “unfortunately survive?” Isn’t it fortunate that we do survive despite errors, mistakes, and (potential but unproven) collusion?
From Anon 9:36 am
“For those of you who take issue with DPD’s writing style, just think of it this way: He writes like a college freshman. You’ll then be able to dismiss the gross punctuation and proofreading errors and to accept his various forms of exaggeration.”
What an insult to college freshmen.
“For those of you who take issue with DPD’s writing style, just think of it this way: He writes like a college freshman. You’ll then be able to dismiss the gross punctuation and proofreading errors and to accept his various forms of exaggeration.”
What an insult to college freshmen.
“For those of you who take issue with DPD’s writing style, just think of it this way: He writes like a college freshman. You’ll then be able to dismiss the gross punctuation and proofreading errors and to accept his various forms of exaggeration.”
What an insult to college freshmen.
“For those of you who take issue with DPD’s writing style, just think of it this way: He writes like a college freshman. You’ll then be able to dismiss the gross punctuation and proofreading errors and to accept his various forms of exaggeration.”
What an insult to college freshmen.
Anon:
You’ve really nitpicked my points here. One huge error you’ve made is failing to remember previous Vanguard, Sac Bee, and Enterprise stories that showed this as a pattern of behavior by the courts rather than an isolated incident.
Here’s my full response:
The implication of the Sheriff’s statement was to pass off the event as an incident mistake–i.e. he accidentally locked the court room. That is clearly not what happened, hence my comment.
“Where’s the proof?” It was acknowledged in court that the deputies were released on recess to attend the trial (this was in the papers). It was not proven from the tapes that there was some sort of collusion.
“If Dave Rosenberg did something wrong–beyond political grandstanding–then offer proof.”
I’m not accusing him of doing something wrong other than not handling this as neatly as preferable.
“This is just rhetoric.” So? It was intended to be a rhetorical statement.
“Topete notwithstanding, you have not made this case. Provide additional examples.” The examples lie in the Sacramento Bee article and the Davis Enterprise op-ed, both of which were covered in previous Vanguard articles.
“Provide some evidence if you are going to make this claim. ” Again this is on the public record, the most glaring example is the dentist case from Woodland.
“First, allegedly killing a police officer is more than the common street crime of petty theft, vandalism, etc.” That’s your judgment call. I’m just trying to distinguish between a crime that took place on the street versus a crime by authorities.
“Second, your comparison is debatable because you fail to establish that the system has run amok beyond this one egregious example.” If you are going to make this argument, you need to have a better grasp of the news from the last six weeks or so. Again, two different publications made this case, I did not need to again.
” Third, I would question the use of “random” when you want to point your finger at the courts and accuse them of collusion. I would use “specific.”” First of all, I am not accusing anyone of collusion, and I specifically discounted that part of the PD’s charges. Second, I call it random, but it’s not the best word I could have used there. What I really meant to say was arbitrary rather than random there.
“Also, why “unfortunately survive?” Isn’t it fortunate that we do survive despite errors, mistakes, and (potential but unproven) collusion?”
Unfortunate in the sense that it is horrific what happened to the Sheriff’s deputy and the event was unfortunate. In retrospect I should have separated unfortunate from survive, but it was intended to be a bit ironic in its word choice.
Anon:
You’ve really nitpicked my points here. One huge error you’ve made is failing to remember previous Vanguard, Sac Bee, and Enterprise stories that showed this as a pattern of behavior by the courts rather than an isolated incident.
Here’s my full response:
The implication of the Sheriff’s statement was to pass off the event as an incident mistake–i.e. he accidentally locked the court room. That is clearly not what happened, hence my comment.
“Where’s the proof?” It was acknowledged in court that the deputies were released on recess to attend the trial (this was in the papers). It was not proven from the tapes that there was some sort of collusion.
“If Dave Rosenberg did something wrong–beyond political grandstanding–then offer proof.”
I’m not accusing him of doing something wrong other than not handling this as neatly as preferable.
“This is just rhetoric.” So? It was intended to be a rhetorical statement.
“Topete notwithstanding, you have not made this case. Provide additional examples.” The examples lie in the Sacramento Bee article and the Davis Enterprise op-ed, both of which were covered in previous Vanguard articles.
“Provide some evidence if you are going to make this claim. ” Again this is on the public record, the most glaring example is the dentist case from Woodland.
“First, allegedly killing a police officer is more than the common street crime of petty theft, vandalism, etc.” That’s your judgment call. I’m just trying to distinguish between a crime that took place on the street versus a crime by authorities.
“Second, your comparison is debatable because you fail to establish that the system has run amok beyond this one egregious example.” If you are going to make this argument, you need to have a better grasp of the news from the last six weeks or so. Again, two different publications made this case, I did not need to again.
” Third, I would question the use of “random” when you want to point your finger at the courts and accuse them of collusion. I would use “specific.”” First of all, I am not accusing anyone of collusion, and I specifically discounted that part of the PD’s charges. Second, I call it random, but it’s not the best word I could have used there. What I really meant to say was arbitrary rather than random there.
“Also, why “unfortunately survive?” Isn’t it fortunate that we do survive despite errors, mistakes, and (potential but unproven) collusion?”
Unfortunate in the sense that it is horrific what happened to the Sheriff’s deputy and the event was unfortunate. In retrospect I should have separated unfortunate from survive, but it was intended to be a bit ironic in its word choice.
Anon:
You’ve really nitpicked my points here. One huge error you’ve made is failing to remember previous Vanguard, Sac Bee, and Enterprise stories that showed this as a pattern of behavior by the courts rather than an isolated incident.
Here’s my full response:
The implication of the Sheriff’s statement was to pass off the event as an incident mistake–i.e. he accidentally locked the court room. That is clearly not what happened, hence my comment.
“Where’s the proof?” It was acknowledged in court that the deputies were released on recess to attend the trial (this was in the papers). It was not proven from the tapes that there was some sort of collusion.
“If Dave Rosenberg did something wrong–beyond political grandstanding–then offer proof.”
I’m not accusing him of doing something wrong other than not handling this as neatly as preferable.
“This is just rhetoric.” So? It was intended to be a rhetorical statement.
“Topete notwithstanding, you have not made this case. Provide additional examples.” The examples lie in the Sacramento Bee article and the Davis Enterprise op-ed, both of which were covered in previous Vanguard articles.
“Provide some evidence if you are going to make this claim. ” Again this is on the public record, the most glaring example is the dentist case from Woodland.
“First, allegedly killing a police officer is more than the common street crime of petty theft, vandalism, etc.” That’s your judgment call. I’m just trying to distinguish between a crime that took place on the street versus a crime by authorities.
“Second, your comparison is debatable because you fail to establish that the system has run amok beyond this one egregious example.” If you are going to make this argument, you need to have a better grasp of the news from the last six weeks or so. Again, two different publications made this case, I did not need to again.
” Third, I would question the use of “random” when you want to point your finger at the courts and accuse them of collusion. I would use “specific.”” First of all, I am not accusing anyone of collusion, and I specifically discounted that part of the PD’s charges. Second, I call it random, but it’s not the best word I could have used there. What I really meant to say was arbitrary rather than random there.
“Also, why “unfortunately survive?” Isn’t it fortunate that we do survive despite errors, mistakes, and (potential but unproven) collusion?”
Unfortunate in the sense that it is horrific what happened to the Sheriff’s deputy and the event was unfortunate. In retrospect I should have separated unfortunate from survive, but it was intended to be a bit ironic in its word choice.
Anon:
You’ve really nitpicked my points here. One huge error you’ve made is failing to remember previous Vanguard, Sac Bee, and Enterprise stories that showed this as a pattern of behavior by the courts rather than an isolated incident.
Here’s my full response:
The implication of the Sheriff’s statement was to pass off the event as an incident mistake–i.e. he accidentally locked the court room. That is clearly not what happened, hence my comment.
“Where’s the proof?” It was acknowledged in court that the deputies were released on recess to attend the trial (this was in the papers). It was not proven from the tapes that there was some sort of collusion.
“If Dave Rosenberg did something wrong–beyond political grandstanding–then offer proof.”
I’m not accusing him of doing something wrong other than not handling this as neatly as preferable.
“This is just rhetoric.” So? It was intended to be a rhetorical statement.
“Topete notwithstanding, you have not made this case. Provide additional examples.” The examples lie in the Sacramento Bee article and the Davis Enterprise op-ed, both of which were covered in previous Vanguard articles.
“Provide some evidence if you are going to make this claim. ” Again this is on the public record, the most glaring example is the dentist case from Woodland.
“First, allegedly killing a police officer is more than the common street crime of petty theft, vandalism, etc.” That’s your judgment call. I’m just trying to distinguish between a crime that took place on the street versus a crime by authorities.
“Second, your comparison is debatable because you fail to establish that the system has run amok beyond this one egregious example.” If you are going to make this argument, you need to have a better grasp of the news from the last six weeks or so. Again, two different publications made this case, I did not need to again.
” Third, I would question the use of “random” when you want to point your finger at the courts and accuse them of collusion. I would use “specific.”” First of all, I am not accusing anyone of collusion, and I specifically discounted that part of the PD’s charges. Second, I call it random, but it’s not the best word I could have used there. What I really meant to say was arbitrary rather than random there.
“Also, why “unfortunately survive?” Isn’t it fortunate that we do survive despite errors, mistakes, and (potential but unproven) collusion?”
Unfortunate in the sense that it is horrific what happened to the Sheriff’s deputy and the event was unfortunate. In retrospect I should have separated unfortunate from survive, but it was intended to be a bit ironic in its word choice.
DPD – Anon 9:36 is just some lackey DA, or Deputy DA or judge for all we know. It is obvious that they haven’t read previous Vanguard articles where you have listed the “mistakes” of Yolo Courts.
As I mentioned earlier, Yolo Courts are the laughing stock of the CA court sytem. Furthermore, it is known by many that Judge Dave Rosenberg is nothing more than a political grandstander.
DPD – Anon 9:36 is just some lackey DA, or Deputy DA or judge for all we know. It is obvious that they haven’t read previous Vanguard articles where you have listed the “mistakes” of Yolo Courts.
As I mentioned earlier, Yolo Courts are the laughing stock of the CA court sytem. Furthermore, it is known by many that Judge Dave Rosenberg is nothing more than a political grandstander.
DPD – Anon 9:36 is just some lackey DA, or Deputy DA or judge for all we know. It is obvious that they haven’t read previous Vanguard articles where you have listed the “mistakes” of Yolo Courts.
As I mentioned earlier, Yolo Courts are the laughing stock of the CA court sytem. Furthermore, it is known by many that Judge Dave Rosenberg is nothing more than a political grandstander.
DPD – Anon 9:36 is just some lackey DA, or Deputy DA or judge for all we know. It is obvious that they haven’t read previous Vanguard articles where you have listed the “mistakes” of Yolo Courts.
As I mentioned earlier, Yolo Courts are the laughing stock of the CA court sytem. Furthermore, it is known by many that Judge Dave Rosenberg is nothing more than a political grandstander.
Sorry, Mark. You’re wrong on your “obvious” observation.
Anon 9:36 am
Sorry, Mark. You’re wrong on your “obvious” observation.
Anon 9:36 am
Sorry, Mark. You’re wrong on your “obvious” observation.
Anon 9:36 am
Sorry, Mark. You’re wrong on your “obvious” observation.
Anon 9:36 am
Or Mark, it could be a disgruntled former employee of DJUSD.
Or Mark, it could be a disgruntled former employee of DJUSD.
Or Mark, it could be a disgruntled former employee of DJUSD.
Or Mark, it could be a disgruntled former employee of DJUSD.
Wrong again.
Wrong again.
Wrong again.
Wrong again.
DPD,
You refuse to acknowledge that there are myriad court rules and procedures that are and will be followed. There is nothing close to “The Trial” even remotely possible in the US, or CA or even Yolo County. I don’t think the deputies are going to take the cop-killer out into the woods and knife him to death without ever revealing the charges.
You and those calling for immediate change of venue are in fact seeking to shortchange and violate due process rules that have been built up to protect people. Thank god, courts in CA follow the rule of law, not the rule of blogs and newspaper opinion. The public defender in this case is not doing his job. He could easily request change of venue and it would most likely be granted. He hasn’t. Any other calls for it are premature.
Mark-Sacramento
I’ve been personally involved with several cases before Judge Rosenberg. He has ruled both in my interest, and against my interest in some of those cases. I don’t know much about his political career prior to joining the bench, but in the courtroom he is a fair, no-nonsense judge, who follows the law. He is actually much more procedurally based and grounded in the law than some of the other longstanding Yolo judges. The idea that he is just a political grandstander is bs.
DPD,
You refuse to acknowledge that there are myriad court rules and procedures that are and will be followed. There is nothing close to “The Trial” even remotely possible in the US, or CA or even Yolo County. I don’t think the deputies are going to take the cop-killer out into the woods and knife him to death without ever revealing the charges.
You and those calling for immediate change of venue are in fact seeking to shortchange and violate due process rules that have been built up to protect people. Thank god, courts in CA follow the rule of law, not the rule of blogs and newspaper opinion. The public defender in this case is not doing his job. He could easily request change of venue and it would most likely be granted. He hasn’t. Any other calls for it are premature.
Mark-Sacramento
I’ve been personally involved with several cases before Judge Rosenberg. He has ruled both in my interest, and against my interest in some of those cases. I don’t know much about his political career prior to joining the bench, but in the courtroom he is a fair, no-nonsense judge, who follows the law. He is actually much more procedurally based and grounded in the law than some of the other longstanding Yolo judges. The idea that he is just a political grandstander is bs.
DPD,
You refuse to acknowledge that there are myriad court rules and procedures that are and will be followed. There is nothing close to “The Trial” even remotely possible in the US, or CA or even Yolo County. I don’t think the deputies are going to take the cop-killer out into the woods and knife him to death without ever revealing the charges.
You and those calling for immediate change of venue are in fact seeking to shortchange and violate due process rules that have been built up to protect people. Thank god, courts in CA follow the rule of law, not the rule of blogs and newspaper opinion. The public defender in this case is not doing his job. He could easily request change of venue and it would most likely be granted. He hasn’t. Any other calls for it are premature.
Mark-Sacramento
I’ve been personally involved with several cases before Judge Rosenberg. He has ruled both in my interest, and against my interest in some of those cases. I don’t know much about his political career prior to joining the bench, but in the courtroom he is a fair, no-nonsense judge, who follows the law. He is actually much more procedurally based and grounded in the law than some of the other longstanding Yolo judges. The idea that he is just a political grandstander is bs.
DPD,
You refuse to acknowledge that there are myriad court rules and procedures that are and will be followed. There is nothing close to “The Trial” even remotely possible in the US, or CA or even Yolo County. I don’t think the deputies are going to take the cop-killer out into the woods and knife him to death without ever revealing the charges.
You and those calling for immediate change of venue are in fact seeking to shortchange and violate due process rules that have been built up to protect people. Thank god, courts in CA follow the rule of law, not the rule of blogs and newspaper opinion. The public defender in this case is not doing his job. He could easily request change of venue and it would most likely be granted. He hasn’t. Any other calls for it are premature.
Mark-Sacramento
I’ve been personally involved with several cases before Judge Rosenberg. He has ruled both in my interest, and against my interest in some of those cases. I don’t know much about his political career prior to joining the bench, but in the courtroom he is a fair, no-nonsense judge, who follows the law. He is actually much more procedurally based and grounded in the law than some of the other longstanding Yolo judges. The idea that he is just a political grandstander is bs.
Whoa, slow down.
DPD – I strongly suggest that you remove all posts that have to do with correcting your grammar and also any that engage in mere name-calling, per your rules. I, for one, do not like the petty attacks going on here.
Whoa, slow down.
DPD – I strongly suggest that you remove all posts that have to do with correcting your grammar and also any that engage in mere name-calling, per your rules. I, for one, do not like the petty attacks going on here.
Whoa, slow down.
DPD – I strongly suggest that you remove all posts that have to do with correcting your grammar and also any that engage in mere name-calling, per your rules. I, for one, do not like the petty attacks going on here.
Whoa, slow down.
DPD – I strongly suggest that you remove all posts that have to do with correcting your grammar and also any that engage in mere name-calling, per your rules. I, for one, do not like the petty attacks going on here.
Anonymous:
I have to question how much you know about this case. You accuse DPD of a number of things, but what is interesting is that you didn’t seem aware of the history of Yolo Courts that was revealed in the local press.
You are still missing the point of analogy with regards to the trial. The trial warns of the dangers of not follow prescribed policies. It is not that suddenly Topete is going to be thrown into the confused world of K or even the world of the Grand Inquisitor, to mix the metaphors here, however, those policies are enacted precisely for the reason of preventing the atrocities. If you don’t think there are cases in this country where a defendant has been led into the woods and killed by the law, then your understanding of history is as limited as your understanding of this case.
Finally I think you also miss the fact that DPD himself criticized the PD for going on this fishing expedition rather than going for a clean change of venue. He doesn’t expect the word of the press to push action, only to suggest this should have been the strategy from day one.
In short, I think you misread DPD and accuse him of things that you yourself are guilty of.
Anonymous:
I have to question how much you know about this case. You accuse DPD of a number of things, but what is interesting is that you didn’t seem aware of the history of Yolo Courts that was revealed in the local press.
You are still missing the point of analogy with regards to the trial. The trial warns of the dangers of not follow prescribed policies. It is not that suddenly Topete is going to be thrown into the confused world of K or even the world of the Grand Inquisitor, to mix the metaphors here, however, those policies are enacted precisely for the reason of preventing the atrocities. If you don’t think there are cases in this country where a defendant has been led into the woods and killed by the law, then your understanding of history is as limited as your understanding of this case.
Finally I think you also miss the fact that DPD himself criticized the PD for going on this fishing expedition rather than going for a clean change of venue. He doesn’t expect the word of the press to push action, only to suggest this should have been the strategy from day one.
In short, I think you misread DPD and accuse him of things that you yourself are guilty of.
Anonymous:
I have to question how much you know about this case. You accuse DPD of a number of things, but what is interesting is that you didn’t seem aware of the history of Yolo Courts that was revealed in the local press.
You are still missing the point of analogy with regards to the trial. The trial warns of the dangers of not follow prescribed policies. It is not that suddenly Topete is going to be thrown into the confused world of K or even the world of the Grand Inquisitor, to mix the metaphors here, however, those policies are enacted precisely for the reason of preventing the atrocities. If you don’t think there are cases in this country where a defendant has been led into the woods and killed by the law, then your understanding of history is as limited as your understanding of this case.
Finally I think you also miss the fact that DPD himself criticized the PD for going on this fishing expedition rather than going for a clean change of venue. He doesn’t expect the word of the press to push action, only to suggest this should have been the strategy from day one.
In short, I think you misread DPD and accuse him of things that you yourself are guilty of.
Anonymous:
I have to question how much you know about this case. You accuse DPD of a number of things, but what is interesting is that you didn’t seem aware of the history of Yolo Courts that was revealed in the local press.
You are still missing the point of analogy with regards to the trial. The trial warns of the dangers of not follow prescribed policies. It is not that suddenly Topete is going to be thrown into the confused world of K or even the world of the Grand Inquisitor, to mix the metaphors here, however, those policies are enacted precisely for the reason of preventing the atrocities. If you don’t think there are cases in this country where a defendant has been led into the woods and killed by the law, then your understanding of history is as limited as your understanding of this case.
Finally I think you also miss the fact that DPD himself criticized the PD for going on this fishing expedition rather than going for a clean change of venue. He doesn’t expect the word of the press to push action, only to suggest this should have been the strategy from day one.
In short, I think you misread DPD and accuse him of things that you yourself are guilty of.
Anon 11:41 you can ask anyone in Yolo County, or those of us in Sacramento who have observed and laughed at Yolo, and they will tell you (if they are paying attention) that Dave Rosenberg (judge or pre-judge) is a grand stander.
DPD and Dean J. from the Public Defender’s Officer were correct. This case should be heard out of Yolo County.
Anon 11:41 you can ask anyone in Yolo County, or those of us in Sacramento who have observed and laughed at Yolo, and they will tell you (if they are paying attention) that Dave Rosenberg (judge or pre-judge) is a grand stander.
DPD and Dean J. from the Public Defender’s Officer were correct. This case should be heard out of Yolo County.
Anon 11:41 you can ask anyone in Yolo County, or those of us in Sacramento who have observed and laughed at Yolo, and they will tell you (if they are paying attention) that Dave Rosenberg (judge or pre-judge) is a grand stander.
DPD and Dean J. from the Public Defender’s Officer were correct. This case should be heard out of Yolo County.
Anon 11:41 you can ask anyone in Yolo County, or those of us in Sacramento who have observed and laughed at Yolo, and they will tell you (if they are paying attention) that Dave Rosenberg (judge or pre-judge) is a grand stander.
DPD and Dean J. from the Public Defender’s Officer were correct. This case should be heard out of Yolo County.
DPD – Many in the Sacramento and Yolo Courts read your blog daily and agree with you on this issue and others. Keep up your good work.
DPD – Many in the Sacramento and Yolo Courts read your blog daily and agree with you on this issue and others. Keep up your good work.
DPD – Many in the Sacramento and Yolo Courts read your blog daily and agree with you on this issue and others. Keep up your good work.
DPD – Many in the Sacramento and Yolo Courts read your blog daily and agree with you on this issue and others. Keep up your good work.
Topete, through his public defenders Barry Melton and J. Johanssen has not yet asked to move the case out of county.
The only motion that I’ve heard is that the defendant has asked that all Yolo County Judges be excluded and a Judge be brought in from out of county to hear the case.
Now that the Appeals Court has decided that there are Judges in Yolo County that can oversee the case just fine, I’m not sure what grounds they will have to argue that Topete can’t be given a fair trial. Just read this blog. There are evidently a number of people living in Yolo County that have a healthy distrust of local law enforcement, the local news media, etc. that may be able to hear the facts of the case and make a decision.
Topete, through his public defenders Barry Melton and J. Johanssen has not yet asked to move the case out of county.
The only motion that I’ve heard is that the defendant has asked that all Yolo County Judges be excluded and a Judge be brought in from out of county to hear the case.
Now that the Appeals Court has decided that there are Judges in Yolo County that can oversee the case just fine, I’m not sure what grounds they will have to argue that Topete can’t be given a fair trial. Just read this blog. There are evidently a number of people living in Yolo County that have a healthy distrust of local law enforcement, the local news media, etc. that may be able to hear the facts of the case and make a decision.
Topete, through his public defenders Barry Melton and J. Johanssen has not yet asked to move the case out of county.
The only motion that I’ve heard is that the defendant has asked that all Yolo County Judges be excluded and a Judge be brought in from out of county to hear the case.
Now that the Appeals Court has decided that there are Judges in Yolo County that can oversee the case just fine, I’m not sure what grounds they will have to argue that Topete can’t be given a fair trial. Just read this blog. There are evidently a number of people living in Yolo County that have a healthy distrust of local law enforcement, the local news media, etc. that may be able to hear the facts of the case and make a decision.
Topete, through his public defenders Barry Melton and J. Johanssen has not yet asked to move the case out of county.
The only motion that I’ve heard is that the defendant has asked that all Yolo County Judges be excluded and a Judge be brought in from out of county to hear the case.
Now that the Appeals Court has decided that there are Judges in Yolo County that can oversee the case just fine, I’m not sure what grounds they will have to argue that Topete can’t be given a fair trial. Just read this blog. There are evidently a number of people living in Yolo County that have a healthy distrust of local law enforcement, the local news media, etc. that may be able to hear the facts of the case and make a decision.
Now I’m really confused.
After looking closer, what I understand is that the CA Supreme Court has ordered that an independent Judge decide whether the Yolo County Judges can hear the case or not. This hearing is supposed to take place on Aug. 8th.
The Appeals Court has merely decided that the Yolo County Judges don’t have to respond to the allegations.
How is that going “back to square one,” DPD?
Now I’m really confused.
After looking closer, what I understand is that the CA Supreme Court has ordered that an independent Judge decide whether the Yolo County Judges can hear the case or not. This hearing is supposed to take place on Aug. 8th.
The Appeals Court has merely decided that the Yolo County Judges don’t have to respond to the allegations.
How is that going “back to square one,” DPD?
Now I’m really confused.
After looking closer, what I understand is that the CA Supreme Court has ordered that an independent Judge decide whether the Yolo County Judges can hear the case or not. This hearing is supposed to take place on Aug. 8th.
The Appeals Court has merely decided that the Yolo County Judges don’t have to respond to the allegations.
How is that going “back to square one,” DPD?
Now I’m really confused.
After looking closer, what I understand is that the CA Supreme Court has ordered that an independent Judge decide whether the Yolo County Judges can hear the case or not. This hearing is supposed to take place on Aug. 8th.
The Appeals Court has merely decided that the Yolo County Judges don’t have to respond to the allegations.
How is that going “back to square one,” DPD?
D. GreenWald,
“A simple case of someone shooting and killing a law officer”.
How crass can you get? Could you please explain the simplicity to his children and loved ones?
I agree with you that Topete should get a fair trial. That does not dismiss the fact,(as someone stated earlier in this blog), that topete is just another worthless mexican gang banger who needs to be euthanized by the State.
Worthless mexican norteno’s and sureno’s should all be incarcerated, or better yet, sent back to mexico where war on each other is a daily occurrence.
How you “simplify” things is not the issue. It is getting a fair trial and then appropriate punishment for this type of useless being.
By the way, do you think Topete is innocent? I also just found out that you use the initials,DPD, which you have taken from the Davis Police Department. Why do you do that? Having been in Davis MORE than 41 years, and having known many of those officers, you appear to be mocking those people.
Reading your comments and having known a lot those officers I can tell you this, you would’nt make a pimple on one of their rear ends.
D. GreenWald,
“A simple case of someone shooting and killing a law officer”.
How crass can you get? Could you please explain the simplicity to his children and loved ones?
I agree with you that Topete should get a fair trial. That does not dismiss the fact,(as someone stated earlier in this blog), that topete is just another worthless mexican gang banger who needs to be euthanized by the State.
Worthless mexican norteno’s and sureno’s should all be incarcerated, or better yet, sent back to mexico where war on each other is a daily occurrence.
How you “simplify” things is not the issue. It is getting a fair trial and then appropriate punishment for this type of useless being.
By the way, do you think Topete is innocent? I also just found out that you use the initials,DPD, which you have taken from the Davis Police Department. Why do you do that? Having been in Davis MORE than 41 years, and having known many of those officers, you appear to be mocking those people.
Reading your comments and having known a lot those officers I can tell you this, you would’nt make a pimple on one of their rear ends.
D. GreenWald,
“A simple case of someone shooting and killing a law officer”.
How crass can you get? Could you please explain the simplicity to his children and loved ones?
I agree with you that Topete should get a fair trial. That does not dismiss the fact,(as someone stated earlier in this blog), that topete is just another worthless mexican gang banger who needs to be euthanized by the State.
Worthless mexican norteno’s and sureno’s should all be incarcerated, or better yet, sent back to mexico where war on each other is a daily occurrence.
How you “simplify” things is not the issue. It is getting a fair trial and then appropriate punishment for this type of useless being.
By the way, do you think Topete is innocent? I also just found out that you use the initials,DPD, which you have taken from the Davis Police Department. Why do you do that? Having been in Davis MORE than 41 years, and having known many of those officers, you appear to be mocking those people.
Reading your comments and having known a lot those officers I can tell you this, you would’nt make a pimple on one of their rear ends.
D. GreenWald,
“A simple case of someone shooting and killing a law officer”.
How crass can you get? Could you please explain the simplicity to his children and loved ones?
I agree with you that Topete should get a fair trial. That does not dismiss the fact,(as someone stated earlier in this blog), that topete is just another worthless mexican gang banger who needs to be euthanized by the State.
Worthless mexican norteno’s and sureno’s should all be incarcerated, or better yet, sent back to mexico where war on each other is a daily occurrence.
How you “simplify” things is not the issue. It is getting a fair trial and then appropriate punishment for this type of useless being.
By the way, do you think Topete is innocent? I also just found out that you use the initials,DPD, which you have taken from the Davis Police Department. Why do you do that? Having been in Davis MORE than 41 years, and having known many of those officers, you appear to be mocking those people.
Reading your comments and having known a lot those officers I can tell you this, you would’nt make a pimple on one of their rear ends.
Easy now.
I think he meant that it was a “simple case” in that it should be easy to prosecute without a lot of surprises or unnecessary delays. I think that his children and loved ones would agree with this.
The Nortenos and Surenos are a product of the United States created out of our prison system. The Nortenos were formed in Folsom Prison near Sacramento.
I’ve lived in Davis for more than 45 years and know many of the officers. I think that our local police officers would take issue with the allegation that they have pimples on their rear ends.
Easy now.
I think he meant that it was a “simple case” in that it should be easy to prosecute without a lot of surprises or unnecessary delays. I think that his children and loved ones would agree with this.
The Nortenos and Surenos are a product of the United States created out of our prison system. The Nortenos were formed in Folsom Prison near Sacramento.
I’ve lived in Davis for more than 45 years and know many of the officers. I think that our local police officers would take issue with the allegation that they have pimples on their rear ends.
Easy now.
I think he meant that it was a “simple case” in that it should be easy to prosecute without a lot of surprises or unnecessary delays. I think that his children and loved ones would agree with this.
The Nortenos and Surenos are a product of the United States created out of our prison system. The Nortenos were formed in Folsom Prison near Sacramento.
I’ve lived in Davis for more than 45 years and know many of the officers. I think that our local police officers would take issue with the allegation that they have pimples on their rear ends.
Easy now.
I think he meant that it was a “simple case” in that it should be easy to prosecute without a lot of surprises or unnecessary delays. I think that his children and loved ones would agree with this.
The Nortenos and Surenos are a product of the United States created out of our prison system. The Nortenos were formed in Folsom Prison near Sacramento.
I’ve lived in Davis for more than 45 years and know many of the officers. I think that our local police officers would take issue with the allegation that they have pimples on their rear ends.
“I agree with you that Topete should get a fair trial.”
That is precisely what this thread is all about. You can try to read more into DPD’s comments, but in the end he is just promoting due process.
This has nothing to do with pimples and rear ends. Please remove you head from between your legs and focus on the important principle being defended here.
“I agree with you that Topete should get a fair trial.”
That is precisely what this thread is all about. You can try to read more into DPD’s comments, but in the end he is just promoting due process.
This has nothing to do with pimples and rear ends. Please remove you head from between your legs and focus on the important principle being defended here.
“I agree with you that Topete should get a fair trial.”
That is precisely what this thread is all about. You can try to read more into DPD’s comments, but in the end he is just promoting due process.
This has nothing to do with pimples and rear ends. Please remove you head from between your legs and focus on the important principle being defended here.
“I agree with you that Topete should get a fair trial.”
That is precisely what this thread is all about. You can try to read more into DPD’s comments, but in the end he is just promoting due process.
This has nothing to do with pimples and rear ends. Please remove you head from between your legs and focus on the important principle being defended here.
If Mr. Greenwald took more care with his writing, there’d be less confusion, in part perhaps because readers would have the patience to get through his articles in their entirety.
If Mr. Greenwald took more care with his writing, there’d be less confusion, in part perhaps because readers would have the patience to get through his articles in their entirety.
If Mr. Greenwald took more care with his writing, there’d be less confusion, in part perhaps because readers would have the patience to get through his articles in their entirety.
If Mr. Greenwald took more care with his writing, there’d be less confusion, in part perhaps because readers would have the patience to get through his articles in their entirety.
Anonymous at 2:58, Why do you keep posting as anonymous? Just call youself Rush Limbaugh. Your view are disgusting and I don’t think you or your bigoted views lend anything to the discussion other than the fact that you reveal your lack of intelligence and ability to discuss a subject.
When you resort to these types of comments you’ve lost.
Anonymous at 2:58, Why do you keep posting as anonymous? Just call youself Rush Limbaugh. Your view are disgusting and I don’t think you or your bigoted views lend anything to the discussion other than the fact that you reveal your lack of intelligence and ability to discuss a subject.
When you resort to these types of comments you’ve lost.
Anonymous at 2:58, Why do you keep posting as anonymous? Just call youself Rush Limbaugh. Your view are disgusting and I don’t think you or your bigoted views lend anything to the discussion other than the fact that you reveal your lack of intelligence and ability to discuss a subject.
When you resort to these types of comments you’ve lost.
Anonymous at 2:58, Why do you keep posting as anonymous? Just call youself Rush Limbaugh. Your view are disgusting and I don’t think you or your bigoted views lend anything to the discussion other than the fact that you reveal your lack of intelligence and ability to discuss a subject.
When you resort to these types of comments you’ve lost.
Isn’t due process occurring?
Topete is entitled to a fair trail, not a comfortable one. I don’t think that he will feel comfortable anywhere the trial is held. I think that he’s pretty freaked out about his future right about now. Unless he has some sort of evidence that proves that he did not shoot the gun that killed the officer, his future is pretty bleak.
Anonymous 3:26 – a little levity can help in calming people down. It seems you wouldn’t detect a bit of humor if it bit you in the “rear end”.
Isn’t due process occurring?
Topete is entitled to a fair trail, not a comfortable one. I don’t think that he will feel comfortable anywhere the trial is held. I think that he’s pretty freaked out about his future right about now. Unless he has some sort of evidence that proves that he did not shoot the gun that killed the officer, his future is pretty bleak.
Anonymous 3:26 – a little levity can help in calming people down. It seems you wouldn’t detect a bit of humor if it bit you in the “rear end”.
Isn’t due process occurring?
Topete is entitled to a fair trail, not a comfortable one. I don’t think that he will feel comfortable anywhere the trial is held. I think that he’s pretty freaked out about his future right about now. Unless he has some sort of evidence that proves that he did not shoot the gun that killed the officer, his future is pretty bleak.
Anonymous 3:26 – a little levity can help in calming people down. It seems you wouldn’t detect a bit of humor if it bit you in the “rear end”.
Isn’t due process occurring?
Topete is entitled to a fair trail, not a comfortable one. I don’t think that he will feel comfortable anywhere the trial is held. I think that he’s pretty freaked out about his future right about now. Unless he has some sort of evidence that proves that he did not shoot the gun that killed the officer, his future is pretty bleak.
Anonymous 3:26 – a little levity can help in calming people down. It seems you wouldn’t detect a bit of humor if it bit you in the “rear end”.
oops – I meant a fair trial, not fair trail.
oops – I meant a fair trial, not fair trail.
oops – I meant a fair trial, not fair trail.
oops – I meant a fair trial, not fair trail.
That’s the whole point. Due process is occurring, but people here want to micro-focus and condemn the Yolo County courts. They also want to circumvent due process and criticize the court for not changing venue, apparently on its own motion, which almost never happens. The court has to act within each case individually. Press accounts and allegations of violations across other cases don’t matter. People need to take a breath and let the process unfold.
That’s the whole point. Due process is occurring, but people here want to micro-focus and condemn the Yolo County courts. They also want to circumvent due process and criticize the court for not changing venue, apparently on its own motion, which almost never happens. The court has to act within each case individually. Press accounts and allegations of violations across other cases don’t matter. People need to take a breath and let the process unfold.
That’s the whole point. Due process is occurring, but people here want to micro-focus and condemn the Yolo County courts. They also want to circumvent due process and criticize the court for not changing venue, apparently on its own motion, which almost never happens. The court has to act within each case individually. Press accounts and allegations of violations across other cases don’t matter. People need to take a breath and let the process unfold.
That’s the whole point. Due process is occurring, but people here want to micro-focus and condemn the Yolo County courts. They also want to circumvent due process and criticize the court for not changing venue, apparently on its own motion, which almost never happens. The court has to act within each case individually. Press accounts and allegations of violations across other cases don’t matter. People need to take a breath and let the process unfold.
No one to my knowledge has criticized the court for not changing the venue. In fact, DPD, specifically criticized on multiple occasions the PD’s office for not asking for the more simple approach. Show me where he said the court should change the venue?
No one to my knowledge has criticized the court for not changing the venue. In fact, DPD, specifically criticized on multiple occasions the PD’s office for not asking for the more simple approach. Show me where he said the court should change the venue?
No one to my knowledge has criticized the court for not changing the venue. In fact, DPD, specifically criticized on multiple occasions the PD’s office for not asking for the more simple approach. Show me where he said the court should change the venue?
No one to my knowledge has criticized the court for not changing the venue. In fact, DPD, specifically criticized on multiple occasions the PD’s office for not asking for the more simple approach. Show me where he said the court should change the venue?
Anon 5:32P
I could care less whether the trial was moved to another county but doesn’t the quote from July 9th in this very blog asking for a change of venue express DPD’s desire?
“The Vanguard continues to believe that the best course of action in this case is to move the trial to another county to insure that Mr. Topete receives a fair trial and that if he is indeed found guilty of this crime and is indeed the perpetrator of this callous and horrific act upon a peace officer, who attempted to rescue a baby, then Mr. Topete should spend the rest of his life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Anon 5:32P
I could care less whether the trial was moved to another county but doesn’t the quote from July 9th in this very blog asking for a change of venue express DPD’s desire?
“The Vanguard continues to believe that the best course of action in this case is to move the trial to another county to insure that Mr. Topete receives a fair trial and that if he is indeed found guilty of this crime and is indeed the perpetrator of this callous and horrific act upon a peace officer, who attempted to rescue a baby, then Mr. Topete should spend the rest of his life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Anon 5:32P
I could care less whether the trial was moved to another county but doesn’t the quote from July 9th in this very blog asking for a change of venue express DPD’s desire?
“The Vanguard continues to believe that the best course of action in this case is to move the trial to another county to insure that Mr. Topete receives a fair trial and that if he is indeed found guilty of this crime and is indeed the perpetrator of this callous and horrific act upon a peace officer, who attempted to rescue a baby, then Mr. Topete should spend the rest of his life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Anon 5:32P
I could care less whether the trial was moved to another county but doesn’t the quote from July 9th in this very blog asking for a change of venue express DPD’s desire?
“The Vanguard continues to believe that the best course of action in this case is to move the trial to another county to insure that Mr. Topete receives a fair trial and that if he is indeed found guilty of this crime and is indeed the perpetrator of this callous and horrific act upon a peace officer, who attempted to rescue a baby, then Mr. Topete should spend the rest of his life in prison without the possibility of parole.
What about the fourth paragraph in today’s blog?
The case for change of venue seems so clear, so straightforward. The question has to be at this point what are we missing.
What about the fourth paragraph in today’s blog?
The case for change of venue seems so clear, so straightforward. The question has to be at this point what are we missing.
What about the fourth paragraph in today’s blog?
The case for change of venue seems so clear, so straightforward. The question has to be at this point what are we missing.
What about the fourth paragraph in today’s blog?
The case for change of venue seems so clear, so straightforward. The question has to be at this point what are we missing.
And that refers to the question as to why the PD did not ask for a change of venue.
And that refers to the question as to why the PD did not ask for a change of venue.
And that refers to the question as to why the PD did not ask for a change of venue.
And that refers to the question as to why the PD did not ask for a change of venue.
To: NO BIGOTS
From: RUSH
And you have no tolerance for another point of view. Please feel free to KMA.
To: NO BIGOTS
From: RUSH
And you have no tolerance for another point of view. Please feel free to KMA.
To: NO BIGOTS
From: RUSH
And you have no tolerance for another point of view. Please feel free to KMA.
To: NO BIGOTS
From: RUSH
And you have no tolerance for another point of view. Please feel free to KMA.
“Please feel free to KMA.”
Just an observation – you seem to have some fixation with male butts.
“Please feel free to KMA.”
Just an observation – you seem to have some fixation with male butts.
“Please feel free to KMA.”
Just an observation – you seem to have some fixation with male butts.
“Please feel free to KMA.”
Just an observation – you seem to have some fixation with male butts.
The crux of the matter is as follows: Topete did not receive a public arraignment, a basic constitutional requirement. Case law requires every part of criminal proceedings (except the grand jury indictment or presentment of information) such as an arraignment be public. This was not done, on purpose, for whatever reason. Why is this a problem? Because far down the road, it leaves a clear issue to be repeatedly raised on appeal.
Now there is only one way for the DA/courts to clean this problem up, and that is to change venue. It may be the defense is not arguing for a change in venue because they know there is a good chance that any conviction will be thrown out on appeal, because of the unusual circumstances involved. To leave things as is may be their best defense. But they have preserved the issue with their accusations of collusion, without actually asking for a change in venue.
Make no mistake – failure to make the arraignment public is a huge error of epic proportions. It may seem as if a mere technicality, but convictions have been thrown out on far less.
Either Rosenberg does not have control of his courts, or was complicit in what happened. Either way he is gravely at fault, and needs to do whatever is necessary to correct the matter – which requires at the very least a change in venue. He of all people should recognize the danger of leaving the case in Yolo County, and how it would jeopardize any conviction.
This was a collosal blunder by the sheriff’s dept, the DA’s Office, and the courts. None of them seem to have a good grasp of the severe implications of what they have done. The public defender does though. Furthermore, this is not an isolated incident, but a pattern of behavior by the courts/law enforcement. This should trouble everyone.
As I said before, I have come in contact with people who have been dragged into court that should not have been, where all felony charges were dropped, but a misdemeanor charge was followed through on – so law enforcement could “save face”. Or suspects were brow-beaten to gain a confession, on no solid evidence.
It is a fact that law enforcement and the courts have wide discretion in carrying out their duties. But with that discretion comes a great deal of responsibility to deal fairly with citizens. And that includes admitting mistakes, and not compounding them by unfair treatment when law enforcement or the courts know they have been wrong.
From a legal standpoint, there is only one sensible thing to do in this case to right a violation of the requirement of a public trial – and that is to change venue, period. As I said before, don’t be surprised if that does not happen, because members of the legal profession protect their own, and often circle the wagons in case of mistakes. Here, however, to do anything less than change venue would be colossally stupid.
The crux of the matter is as follows: Topete did not receive a public arraignment, a basic constitutional requirement. Case law requires every part of criminal proceedings (except the grand jury indictment or presentment of information) such as an arraignment be public. This was not done, on purpose, for whatever reason. Why is this a problem? Because far down the road, it leaves a clear issue to be repeatedly raised on appeal.
Now there is only one way for the DA/courts to clean this problem up, and that is to change venue. It may be the defense is not arguing for a change in venue because they know there is a good chance that any conviction will be thrown out on appeal, because of the unusual circumstances involved. To leave things as is may be their best defense. But they have preserved the issue with their accusations of collusion, without actually asking for a change in venue.
Make no mistake – failure to make the arraignment public is a huge error of epic proportions. It may seem as if a mere technicality, but convictions have been thrown out on far less.
Either Rosenberg does not have control of his courts, or was complicit in what happened. Either way he is gravely at fault, and needs to do whatever is necessary to correct the matter – which requires at the very least a change in venue. He of all people should recognize the danger of leaving the case in Yolo County, and how it would jeopardize any conviction.
This was a collosal blunder by the sheriff’s dept, the DA’s Office, and the courts. None of them seem to have a good grasp of the severe implications of what they have done. The public defender does though. Furthermore, this is not an isolated incident, but a pattern of behavior by the courts/law enforcement. This should trouble everyone.
As I said before, I have come in contact with people who have been dragged into court that should not have been, where all felony charges were dropped, but a misdemeanor charge was followed through on – so law enforcement could “save face”. Or suspects were brow-beaten to gain a confession, on no solid evidence.
It is a fact that law enforcement and the courts have wide discretion in carrying out their duties. But with that discretion comes a great deal of responsibility to deal fairly with citizens. And that includes admitting mistakes, and not compounding them by unfair treatment when law enforcement or the courts know they have been wrong.
From a legal standpoint, there is only one sensible thing to do in this case to right a violation of the requirement of a public trial – and that is to change venue, period. As I said before, don’t be surprised if that does not happen, because members of the legal profession protect their own, and often circle the wagons in case of mistakes. Here, however, to do anything less than change venue would be colossally stupid.
The crux of the matter is as follows: Topete did not receive a public arraignment, a basic constitutional requirement. Case law requires every part of criminal proceedings (except the grand jury indictment or presentment of information) such as an arraignment be public. This was not done, on purpose, for whatever reason. Why is this a problem? Because far down the road, it leaves a clear issue to be repeatedly raised on appeal.
Now there is only one way for the DA/courts to clean this problem up, and that is to change venue. It may be the defense is not arguing for a change in venue because they know there is a good chance that any conviction will be thrown out on appeal, because of the unusual circumstances involved. To leave things as is may be their best defense. But they have preserved the issue with their accusations of collusion, without actually asking for a change in venue.
Make no mistake – failure to make the arraignment public is a huge error of epic proportions. It may seem as if a mere technicality, but convictions have been thrown out on far less.
Either Rosenberg does not have control of his courts, or was complicit in what happened. Either way he is gravely at fault, and needs to do whatever is necessary to correct the matter – which requires at the very least a change in venue. He of all people should recognize the danger of leaving the case in Yolo County, and how it would jeopardize any conviction.
This was a collosal blunder by the sheriff’s dept, the DA’s Office, and the courts. None of them seem to have a good grasp of the severe implications of what they have done. The public defender does though. Furthermore, this is not an isolated incident, but a pattern of behavior by the courts/law enforcement. This should trouble everyone.
As I said before, I have come in contact with people who have been dragged into court that should not have been, where all felony charges were dropped, but a misdemeanor charge was followed through on – so law enforcement could “save face”. Or suspects were brow-beaten to gain a confession, on no solid evidence.
It is a fact that law enforcement and the courts have wide discretion in carrying out their duties. But with that discretion comes a great deal of responsibility to deal fairly with citizens. And that includes admitting mistakes, and not compounding them by unfair treatment when law enforcement or the courts know they have been wrong.
From a legal standpoint, there is only one sensible thing to do in this case to right a violation of the requirement of a public trial – and that is to change venue, period. As I said before, don’t be surprised if that does not happen, because members of the legal profession protect their own, and often circle the wagons in case of mistakes. Here, however, to do anything less than change venue would be colossally stupid.
The crux of the matter is as follows: Topete did not receive a public arraignment, a basic constitutional requirement. Case law requires every part of criminal proceedings (except the grand jury indictment or presentment of information) such as an arraignment be public. This was not done, on purpose, for whatever reason. Why is this a problem? Because far down the road, it leaves a clear issue to be repeatedly raised on appeal.
Now there is only one way for the DA/courts to clean this problem up, and that is to change venue. It may be the defense is not arguing for a change in venue because they know there is a good chance that any conviction will be thrown out on appeal, because of the unusual circumstances involved. To leave things as is may be their best defense. But they have preserved the issue with their accusations of collusion, without actually asking for a change in venue.
Make no mistake – failure to make the arraignment public is a huge error of epic proportions. It may seem as if a mere technicality, but convictions have been thrown out on far less.
Either Rosenberg does not have control of his courts, or was complicit in what happened. Either way he is gravely at fault, and needs to do whatever is necessary to correct the matter – which requires at the very least a change in venue. He of all people should recognize the danger of leaving the case in Yolo County, and how it would jeopardize any conviction.
This was a collosal blunder by the sheriff’s dept, the DA’s Office, and the courts. None of them seem to have a good grasp of the severe implications of what they have done. The public defender does though. Furthermore, this is not an isolated incident, but a pattern of behavior by the courts/law enforcement. This should trouble everyone.
As I said before, I have come in contact with people who have been dragged into court that should not have been, where all felony charges were dropped, but a misdemeanor charge was followed through on – so law enforcement could “save face”. Or suspects were brow-beaten to gain a confession, on no solid evidence.
It is a fact that law enforcement and the courts have wide discretion in carrying out their duties. But with that discretion comes a great deal of responsibility to deal fairly with citizens. And that includes admitting mistakes, and not compounding them by unfair treatment when law enforcement or the courts know they have been wrong.
From a legal standpoint, there is only one sensible thing to do in this case to right a violation of the requirement of a public trial – and that is to change venue, period. As I said before, don’t be surprised if that does not happen, because members of the legal profession protect their own, and often circle the wagons in case of mistakes. Here, however, to do anything less than change venue would be colossally stupid.
As for the attacks on DPD, etc. – when you don’t have a good argument, attack the messenger??? A tactic to be sure, but not a very intellectually honest one.
As for the attacks on DPD, etc. – when you don’t have a good argument, attack the messenger??? A tactic to be sure, but not a very intellectually honest one.
As for the attacks on DPD, etc. – when you don’t have a good argument, attack the messenger??? A tactic to be sure, but not a very intellectually honest one.
As for the attacks on DPD, etc. – when you don’t have a good argument, attack the messenger??? A tactic to be sure, but not a very intellectually honest one.
“Either Rosenberg does not have control of his courts, or was complicit in what happened….”
The position of presiding judge is a rotating one and usually chosen by a “popularity contest” vote of the very judges who the presiding judge oversees. The culture of the bench that they “rule” their own courtrooms is jealously guarded by these judges. What was needed was a presiding judge of extraordinary strong judicial character and willingness to RISK political fallout.
“Either Rosenberg does not have control of his courts, or was complicit in what happened….”
The position of presiding judge is a rotating one and usually chosen by a “popularity contest” vote of the very judges who the presiding judge oversees. The culture of the bench that they “rule” their own courtrooms is jealously guarded by these judges. What was needed was a presiding judge of extraordinary strong judicial character and willingness to RISK political fallout.
“Either Rosenberg does not have control of his courts, or was complicit in what happened….”
The position of presiding judge is a rotating one and usually chosen by a “popularity contest” vote of the very judges who the presiding judge oversees. The culture of the bench that they “rule” their own courtrooms is jealously guarded by these judges. What was needed was a presiding judge of extraordinary strong judicial character and willingness to RISK political fallout.
“Either Rosenberg does not have control of his courts, or was complicit in what happened….”
The position of presiding judge is a rotating one and usually chosen by a “popularity contest” vote of the very judges who the presiding judge oversees. The culture of the bench that they “rule” their own courtrooms is jealously guarded by these judges. What was needed was a presiding judge of extraordinary strong judicial character and willingness to RISK political fallout.
To All Commenting here,
The criminal crap,topete,should get a fair trial period. The majority of those commenting here have nothing else to do. The pig scum and loser topete should get the maximum penalty, immediately, without benefit of 20 plus years of appeals and expense to my children and yours.
To All Commenting here,
The criminal crap,topete,should get a fair trial period. The majority of those commenting here have nothing else to do. The pig scum and loser topete should get the maximum penalty, immediately, without benefit of 20 plus years of appeals and expense to my children and yours.
To All Commenting here,
The criminal crap,topete,should get a fair trial period. The majority of those commenting here have nothing else to do. The pig scum and loser topete should get the maximum penalty, immediately, without benefit of 20 plus years of appeals and expense to my children and yours.
To All Commenting here,
The criminal crap,topete,should get a fair trial period. The majority of those commenting here have nothing else to do. The pig scum and loser topete should get the maximum penalty, immediately, without benefit of 20 plus years of appeals and expense to my children and yours.
“The criminal crap,topete,should get a fair trial period. The majority of those commenting here have nothing else to do. The pig scum and loser topete should get the maximum penalty, immediately, without benefit of 20 plus years of appeals and expense to my children and yours.”
The whole point of this discussion is that because of Rosenberg not controlling his courthouse, the defense now has a huge issue on appeal. This issue, of not giving Topete a fair trail, could result in the conviction getting thrown out years down the road. You should be infuriated with not only Topete, but Roseberg, who can’t do a simple thing like guaranteeing a public arraignment, something that is constitutionally guaranteed. Think about it. If you were charged with a crime, would you want the courtroom closed so no one could hear what was going on at your arraignment?
“The criminal crap,topete,should get a fair trial period. The majority of those commenting here have nothing else to do. The pig scum and loser topete should get the maximum penalty, immediately, without benefit of 20 plus years of appeals and expense to my children and yours.”
The whole point of this discussion is that because of Rosenberg not controlling his courthouse, the defense now has a huge issue on appeal. This issue, of not giving Topete a fair trail, could result in the conviction getting thrown out years down the road. You should be infuriated with not only Topete, but Roseberg, who can’t do a simple thing like guaranteeing a public arraignment, something that is constitutionally guaranteed. Think about it. If you were charged with a crime, would you want the courtroom closed so no one could hear what was going on at your arraignment?
“The criminal crap,topete,should get a fair trial period. The majority of those commenting here have nothing else to do. The pig scum and loser topete should get the maximum penalty, immediately, without benefit of 20 plus years of appeals and expense to my children and yours.”
The whole point of this discussion is that because of Rosenberg not controlling his courthouse, the defense now has a huge issue on appeal. This issue, of not giving Topete a fair trail, could result in the conviction getting thrown out years down the road. You should be infuriated with not only Topete, but Roseberg, who can’t do a simple thing like guaranteeing a public arraignment, something that is constitutionally guaranteed. Think about it. If you were charged with a crime, would you want the courtroom closed so no one could hear what was going on at your arraignment?
“The criminal crap,topete,should get a fair trial period. The majority of those commenting here have nothing else to do. The pig scum and loser topete should get the maximum penalty, immediately, without benefit of 20 plus years of appeals and expense to my children and yours.”
The whole point of this discussion is that because of Rosenberg not controlling his courthouse, the defense now has a huge issue on appeal. This issue, of not giving Topete a fair trail, could result in the conviction getting thrown out years down the road. You should be infuriated with not only Topete, but Roseberg, who can’t do a simple thing like guaranteeing a public arraignment, something that is constitutionally guaranteed. Think about it. If you were charged with a crime, would you want the courtroom closed so no one could hear what was going on at your arraignment?