In a county where many complain about disparate treatment in the Criminal Justice System between people who are white and of privilege and those who are minorities, the 8 month sentence that Brett Pedroia received for performing multiple sex acts with a minor has stuck out for quite some time.
The fact of the matter is that not only is Mr. Pedroia the brother of Red Sox second baseman and former MVP and Rookie of the Year Dustin Pedroia, but his family is a prominent and respected family in the business community of Woodland.
Emerging as a key point of controversy now is a letter penned by Woodland Mayor Skip Davies on City of Woodland Letterhead to Judge Paul Richardson.
Mayor Davies wrote on May 12, 2009:
“I am writing requesting leniency in the judicial proceedings pending with regard to Mr. Brett Pedroia. I have known this individual since he was a child and more recently as a husband, father, friend and local businessman.”
The anger in Woodland stems now from the fact that the letter was printed on official city letterhead and signed using the title of mayor creating the implication that the Mayor inappropriately used his elected office to sway the decision of high profile case in which he had a personal interest.
The full text of the letter was first reported earlier this year by Eric Alfaro and can be viewed here.
The Mayor apologized for his actions telling the Woodland Daily Democrat:
“Many people have come forward to criticized the fact that city letterhead was used. I understand the criticisms, and I accept them as valid. Looking back, I can say that I regret the decision, and should have deal with the matter differently.”
Commentary: Disparate Justice in Yolo County
We can talk about plea agreements and their impact on the outcome, the fact is Pedroia only faced a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison had he been found guilty of two counts of committing lewd acts with a minor and two counts of oral copulation with the minor, according to authorities. Prosecutors had dropped the other three charges in the case.
Based on that, he was able to plea to a one-year sentence.
We can write a book, probably a volume of books on the differentials in sentencing between whites and minorities in this country. The Brett Pedroia situation is only the latest example that stands out and to be fair this is not just about Yolo County Justice, it is a story about the American Justice System.
Numerous studies have shown that minoriy defendants are more likely to be found guilty and spend more time in prison than white counterparts committing the same crime.
Part of what I wanted to show here is that for a similar serial case of child molestation, Ajay Dev was charged with far more crimes to begin with than was Mr. Pedroia. Ajay Dev never would have been able to plea to just a one year sentence where he was released after just 8 months. And he gets an additional punishment perhaps if he truly is innocent for not confessing to a crime he did not commit?
People may get up in arms when a child molester is allowed out of prison after a limited time, but few get up in arms about the differential treatment that a man like Brett Pedroia serves rather than a man like Ajay Dev. We can talk about the differences in the two cases all we want, and certainly there are a number, but the bottom line is that one year was too short for Mr. Pedroia and 378 years for Mr. Dev, assuming he even committed the crime, is far too harsh.
As an additional note, I would also point out the good work by Mr. Alfaro here, who beat the Woodland Daily Democrat to the story. This is just another example of a newspaper in a small town not doing due diligence. We can point to a number of times when the Daily Democrat and the even the Davis Enterprise and Sacramento Bee almost verbatim reprint the District Attorney’s Press Release without any follow up or attempt at balance in reporting a story. People criticize bloggers and alternative media sources for bias, but that is a huge bias right there in the mainstream news.
In the meantime, newspapers rarely pursue or follow up on stories and really dig. They often complain that they lack the staff and resources to do that, but color me unimpressed with that argument having done this site nearly by myself for almost four years, it is a matter of dedication not resources and staff that produces news that does not simply regurgitate the company line.
I have registered a lot of complaints about the criminal justice system in Yolo County, but my top complaint is not even about over-prosecution and over-charging of some people, rather it is about the over-prosecution of some people and the under-prosecution of others, and most of that is not random. The people most least connected and most likely to acquiesce to the system are those most likely to be targeted for prosecution.
I will say one other thing, I think the DA underestimated the resolve of the family of Ajay Dev, they have resources and resolve and I think the DA will come to regret their decisions in that case, because that family will not let things go.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I’m very confused here about this article and what you are trying to say.
* Was the one case pled out and the other was not? So are you against plea bargaining? Shall we try every case? And how can taxpayers afford to do that?
* Was the one case involving someone from a family of prominence as a defendant, and the other defendant was not from as prominent a family? Is it possible family prominence was the reason for the disparate sentences as opposed to race/ethnicity? How do we address such a problem as family prominence being a factor in sentencing? Do we remove the Mayor of Woodland from office for his plea of leniency on city letterhead?
* Was the evidence extremely weak in the Pedroia case, and another reason the case was pled out with a very light sentence? For instance, was the victim unwilling to testify?
* Were there far more sex acts committed in the one case than the other?
There are so many imponderables here beyond those I have mentioned. How can you possibly conclude anything of certainty as to the reasons why the disparate sentencing?
I do agree with your comment about poor reporting. It seems as if the public does not get the news (as in facts) anymore, but very slanted/carefully edited/laundered reporting depending on the bias of the editor/staff/news outlet. Often rumor, theories, gossip are reported as “news”. False conclusions are drawn from questionable data, and faulty logic. Good investigative reporting without any preconceived agenda is extremely rare these days.
Elaine:
With all due respect, I don’t think this is a fair question (actually I might insert another adjective here instead of fair): “Was the one case pled out and the other was not? So are you against plea bargaining? Shall we try every case? And how can taxpayers afford to do that?”
I’m not against plea bargaining, I’m against a child molester getting a year in prison for an act that was committed multiple times.
David: You bring up a major point here about how the Yolo County Judicial System handles sentencing. But the other piece you pointed out that is just as important, is explaining the difference in how Pedroia and Dev were charged (which is the purvue of the DA’s office).
When you compare the two cases, there is some glaring inconsistencies and issues to be discussed.
1. Pedroia admitted to the charges gets one year. Dev claimed
innocence and got 378 years.
2. In Pedoria’s case there was physical evidence, and he got one
year. In Dev’s case there was no physical evidence. There wasn’t
even evidence to show that a crime even happened, and he got 378
years.
3. In Dev’s case there were doctors, social workers, neighbors,
friends, family and teachers who testified that there were no
signs of rape. No one knew about them. Yet this women
alleges she was raped 750 times. I don’t know who Pedroria had in
his defense, but I know the evidence in Dev’s cases was
overwhelming to show his innocence.
Here’s what made the differences in these two cases:
1. Pedroia is white. Ajay is Nepali. Does that matter? I am not sure, but it is something to look into. I would like to see how many charges a white person gets than a person of color for the same crime. What we see in these cases shows an inequality, but does this happen regularly. It would be an interesting thing to check out.
2. The DA got an easy conviction with Pedroia’s plea bargain. In order to get a conviction from the jury in Ajay’s case, the DA’s office had to do some questionable things.
Many people will say that a jury of 12 convicted Ajay. Although that is true, I think that the verdict would have been completely different if the jury knew that DDA Mount lied to them, that Judge Fall didn’t allow them to see pertinent information, and that Detective Hermann did a very shotty investigation. The jury understood that the accuser was not credible. Unfortunately, they believed that the DA’s office would be honest and seek justice more than a conviction. They didn’t realize how many times the defense was closed down. The DA got 16 days while the defense got 6 days.
The big question to me and many others that know Ajay Dev is innocent, is why would this injustice be allowed? What is the motive for the DA’s office and the judidical system?
David, you bring up good points. Is it better to be guilty? Is it better to be white? Doesn’t quite sound right.
FAI: “1. Pedroia admitted to the charges gets one year. Dev claimed
innocence and got 378 years.”
Yes, and that is the problem with the plea bargaining system – admit to the crime, and Dev would have gotten a far lighter sentence. But Dev stubbornly insisted on innocence, put the state to the expense of a trial, and so had the book thrown at him. There is no question that those who are innocent and charged with a crime, and don’t have the money for a good criminal attorney, are at an extreme disadvantage in our criminal justice system. What do they do – admit to a crime they did not commit, or refuse to plead out and take their chances at trial and the possibility of a long, long sentence? To me, this is the larger issue – is our plea bargaining system something that needs to be fixed as unjust? And if yes, what do you put in its place? If I had a good answer I would offer alternatives, but I don’t. I have never liked the plea bargaining system – it is inherently unfair to the innocent.
FAI: “3. In Dev’s case there were doctors, social workers, neighbors,
friends, family and teachers who testified that there were no
signs of rape. No one knew about them. Yet this women
alleges she was raped 750 times. I don’t know who Pedroria had in
his defense, but I know the evidence in Dev’s cases was
overwhelming to show his innocence.”
Remember the recent case of an abducted child held captive for years without parole officers or neighbors even knowing she existed in the back yard? Rape is a crime that often takes place behind closed doors sight unseen.
FAI: “The DA got 16 days while the defense got 6 days.”
I assume that was the defense’s choice. In so far as I am aware, the defense has as long as it needs to put on its case.
FAI: “David, you bring up good points. Is it better to be guilty? Is it better to be white? Doesn’t quite sound right.”
What you have is supposition, but to prove prosecutorial misconduct, you need more evidence than it “doesn’t quite sound right”.
DPD: “I’m not against plea bargaining, I’m against a child molester getting a year in prison for an act that was committed multiple times.”
I’m also against a child molester getting only a year in prison for multiple sex acts. But I am not sure what the reason was for the disparate sentences – I can only speculate it was the prominence of the family, but I just can’t be more certain without knowing more facts of each case and what went into the decision-making process. Trials are very messy, with a great number of factors that ultimately lead to sentencing.
[i]”Emerging as a key point of controversy now is a letter penned by Woodland Mayor Skip Davies on City of Woodland Letterhead to Judge Paul Richardson.”[/i]
I don’t have a problem with Mr. Davies writing a letter on behalf of the defendant. As he says in the letter, he has known him all his life and as a friend and friend of the family has every right to attest to the defendant’s character.
However, writing that letter on City of Woodland stationery and then signing it with his title as Mayor is a huge error in judgment and really is inexcusable. I don’t know what an appropriate punishment is for doing that, but I think, if he stays on the Woodland City Council, he should be replaced as mayor. He terribly abused his privilege in what really is a very important matter, an issue of criminal justice.
We once had a similar abuse in Davis, when Julie Partansky did much the same thing, writing a letter giving her own opinion on a topic and signing city letterhead as mayor of Davis without any consultation of the city council or anyone else in the City of Davis government. She wrote to university officials arguing against their decision to build an apartment complex on campus — The Colleges at LaRue — because she thought the development was harmful to the rodents which resided there.
Obviously, Julie’s mistake was over a much less serious matter and, in theory, it did involve a question which, in theory, the Davis City Council might have believed would have a negative impact on Davis. So there was no sense in asking her to give up the gavel. If I remember correctly, she apologized and everyone moved on. It wasn’t as big a deal as what Marlin Davies did on Woodland letterhead.
A common, yet rotten mistake our city council makes — and maybe Woodland’s does too — is it officially weighs in on issues for which they were not elected. Much like writing unauthorized (or inappropriate) personal opinions on city stationery, it is an abuse of privilege for our council members to use their authority as city officeholders, where voters chose them because they agreed with them on municipal questions, to speak out as a body on wars, abortion, global warming and so on.
Every member of the council has every right to speak on any of these questions as individuals, on their own time (just like Mr. Davies has the right on his own letterhead and without using his title as Mayor of Woodland to advocate for his friend). But they should refrain from ever exercising powers they were not granted. The result of losing sight of what it was the people of your city elected you to do leads to errors in judgment, like the one Davies made recently and the one Partansky made years ago.
“Was the one case involving someone from a family of prominence as a defendant, and the other defendant was not from as prominent a family?”
While the Dev family lacks the celebrity status of Pedroia’s brother, they are very well-liked and respected, educated professionals. Moreoever, they were not indigent when this nightmare began, but the costs of having to hire a defense attorney (not to mention Ajay’s inability to provide for his family now that he’s incarcerated), etc, have certainly left them suffering serious financial hardship now. Family prominence seems–*in part*–to have been a likely factor in the DA’s amiable leniency WRT Pedroia’s case, but colour certainly appears to have been one as well: Why else would the DA’s office so rabidly pursue a guilty verdict and such an over-the-top, utterly devastating sentence in Dev’s case, especially on the basis of allegations that never were corroborated or substantiated by any material evidence of weight?
“But Dev stubbornly insisted on innocence, put the state to the expense of a trial…”
Dev did not put the state to the expense of a trial, the DA’s office did–and with NO physical evidence of Ajay’s guilt, an accuser demonstrably lacking in any credibility whatsoever, etc–so let’s be clear about this fact.
We the People need to summarily divorce and disabuse ourselves from the illusion that trial by jury in Yolo County resembles anything remotely associated with an ethical, dispassionate, apolitical exercise in the hallowed search for truth.
Consequently, the disproportionate sentencing in Pedroia v. Dev confirms the preferential abuse and misuse of authority sponsored on behalf of the Yolo County D.A.’s unabated assault on justice.
Plea bargains remain the exclusive sanctuary for the guilty and legal opportunists disguised as prosecutors.
We have lobbied the Van Guard’s Yolo Judicial Watch, to investigate Yolo’s concurrent appointment of now Sacramento chief of probation, Don L. Meyer, out from under a fabricated felony foster youth abuse and hate crime allegations, from Calaveras county.
Yolo supervisor’s (Thomson, Seifer, Chamberlain, Yamada, ?) council, now judge, Steve Basha, and presiding judge, Donna M. Petre, knowingly appointed Chief Meyer and then obstructed any investigation into the chief’s fake investigation after Meyer’ multi-county criminal spree to find a friendly colleague to conceal; identical to Calaveras officials. But when Meyer failed to have Tuolumne and then Sac prob. dept. fabricate it, Meyer returned to Calaveras and had DPO lll, Teri Hall, fabricate after Hall stated that council advised her not too; and Hall stated she wouldn’t. Chief Meyer, was desperate to clean the slate in order to gain the Yolo appt.
Then DA Dave Henderson, failed to investigate and Jeff Reisig, followed. The supervisor’s with council Robyn Truitt and the Hon. Steve Basha, subverted accusations filed under G.C. 27641, after the Hon. Petre, stated the grand jury would not investigate as the allegations occurred prior to Chief Meyer’ appointment.
Judge Donna M. Petre, intentionally misrepresented the facts. The Yolo court knowingly made the appointment with prior knowledge of the fabricated investigation; and documentation cited in two qui tam suits that were unlawfully dismantled proves that fact.
We just mailed (a cc) to the Hon. Dave Rosenberg and Steve Basha, a 48-page packet, addressed to Chief Justice George and Sac presiding judge, Steve White. We have Meyer who wrote “We received your citizen complaint today. Since the matter involves complaints about the Chief Probation Officer (Meyer), Assistant Chief Probation Officer, and a Probation Officer, the matter is being referred to another agency to investigate the matter.” It never happened. Our state licensed agency bird dogged Chief Meyer, as he traveled to two county’s and back, investigating himself. Judge Basha & Rosenberg know this is factual.
The Calaveras & Yolo state court have bent over backwards to protect the court’s appointee, Chief Meyer, and the court’s reckless obstruction. The Sacramento court, after writing over 15-judge’s and calling their clerk’s, appear unable to do anything. We also wrote all 7 supreme court justice’s and spoke with their judicial assistants—it’s astounding the level of bliss ignorance as chief George, oversees the stoneless, commission on judicial performance.
Our lofty Sac superior court, has a fresh face with Schwarzenegger judicial appointee, former ‘acting’ U.S. attorney, Lawrence G. Brown. Brown’s clerk advised we not write the former federal prosecutor who we had lobbied for years to investigate. The Hon. L. G. Brown, received the same 48-page packet on Friday. Judge Brown now has a court appointee who violated the U.S. code and Brown won’t doing anything according to his clerk, fyi, the clerk hung up on us even though the conversation was extremely polite and civil; every recommendation the clerk made had already been attempted.
Read the Sac Bee’s Feb. editorial, “Judges Shouldn’t Be Above the Law.”
[i]”Consequently, the disproportionate sentencing in Pedroia v. Dev confirms the preferential abuse and misuse of authority sponsored on behalf of the Yolo County D.A.’s unabated assault on justice.”[/i]
The DA did not institute either sentence or determine guilt in either case. In Pedroia, the DA requested the maximum sentence of 8 years in prison. The judge determined the 8 month sentence in that case.
As to Dev, if he really is innocent, as he and his legion of supporters claim, then he should have (as he did) plead not guilty and go to trial. But because he was found guilty, by his jury, of a huge number of crimes — regardless of the DA’s decision to charge those crimes, the jurors believed beyond a reasonable doubt that each and every one of them was true — and because Dev did not choose to plead to a much lesser offense for which he would have surely received a much more lenient sentence, he knew he put himself at risk for the punishment he is now serving.
If Dev is in fact innocent and his jury was wrong, then the complaints his supporters should have are against that decision by that jury. The sentence may seem quite harsh. But (apparently) it is the statutorily prescribed sentence which the judge believed fit the crimes for which Dev was found guilty.
Rich: “If Dev is in fact innocent and his jury was wrong, then the complaints his supporters should have are against that decision by that jury. The sentence may seem quite harsh. But (apparently) it is the statutorily prescribed sentence which the judge believed fit the crimes for which Dev was found guilty.”
Of course, people are upset with the jury’s decision. The jury chose to not look at the plethora of evidence that was presented to show Dev’s innocent and instead believed a fabricated story spun by the prosecutor even though the jurors themselves said that the accuser was not credible.
The reason people are upset with the DA’s office and Judge Fall is because Ajay was not given a fair trial. No one expects the prosecutor to lie about key elements to the jury. No one expects the Judge to allow this and to withold key pieces of evidence. No one expects that the defense’s key witnesses will be cut off, and that the defense will be limited.
E. Roberts: I assume that was the defense’s choice. In so far as I am aware, the defense has as long as it needs to put on its case.
Unfortunately, you would assume wrong–just like we did. We assumed that the defense would be given adequate time to defend charges–at the very least be given the same time the prosecution was. Unfortunately, that is not what happened here.
Again, we are asking why is this type of thing allowed to happen?
Rich: “If Dev is in fact innocent and his jury was wrong, then the complaints his supporters should have are against that decision by that jury. The sentence may seem quite harsh. But (apparently) it is the statutorily prescribed sentence which the judge believed fit the crimes for which Dev was found guilty.”
[i]”The jury … believed a fabricated story spun by the prosecutor even though the jurors themselves said that the accuser was not credible.”[/i]
If this jury was wrong, it is not the first time (by a long shot) a jury made a mistake in a criminal trial. However, what a prosecutor says — that is, his story — is not evidence. Evidence is the sworn testimony of witnesses and experts and exhibits admitted in a case.
As such, the jury declared, rightly or wrongly, that it believed the evidence proved Mr. Dev’s guilt and based the decision on that. They did not declare that they believed (or disbelieved) the words of the DA.
[i]”The reason people are upset with the DA’s office and Judge Fall is because Ajay was not given a fair trial.”[/i]
If that is proved true, that Judge Fall did not give Mr. Dev a fair trial, then an appeals court will overturn his conviction. (This happens in roughly 5.7% of criminal convictions at the federal level. I don’t know the California number.)
Same thing if the DA violated the law or violated established norms of ethics for a prosecutor. That would be just cause to overturn a conviction and possibly disbar the DA.
It is one thing to claim that the DA or the judge erred, but those charges have to be proven. Until they are, I think it is reasonable to presume the judge and the prosecutor acted in good faith. (I am not saying I know they did. I am saying I think it’s reasonable to give them the benefit of the doubt until it is proved otherwise.)
At least there is one aspect of this case we agree on, and that is the lapse of judgment by the Woodland Mayor in writing a letter of support for a convicted felon on City stationary.
Sentencing judges are quite accustomed to influence peddlers of every stripe, in the court room and out. I very much doubt such efforts have much, if any, effect in the final determination. Many letters such as the Mayor’s are written out a sense of duty, loyalty, returning a favor, or in the case of a politician, to accommodate a constituent. I feel the same way about pre-sentence hearings, but these have the emotional value of victim venting in a public forum, if nothing else.
On the more volatile issue of “equal justice,” there never has been nor ever will be.
“In a county where many complain about disparate treatment in the Criminal Justice System between people who are white and of privilege and those who are minorities….”
The cases that have been brought to the public’s attention seem to involve, in majority, non-Caucasian descent people. Cases of Robert Ferguson; Ernesto and Fermin Galvan; Jeffrey Lockwood; Anthony Gino Roman; Santiago Rodriguez Ochoa; Khalid Berny; Halema Buzayan; David Serena, Ajay Dev (www.advocatesforajay), Ramiro Leon, Omar Atebar, Selaiman Noori and Mostafa Noori. Is there bias in the Yolo County Judicial System? Was there bias in an all but one Caucasian jury as in the case of Mr. Dev’s trial? From my perspective this troubling and questionable trend deserves federal investigation.
The Mayor apologized for his actions telling the Woodland Daily Democrat: “… Looking back, I can say that I regret the decision, and should have deal with the matter differently.”
It appears to me that abuse of power and lack of good judgment runs rampant in Yolo County. The Major uses his position for personal gain, the DA, with clean conscious, runs a corrupt system motivated to win convictions more than pursue justice, and overzealous Deputy DAs and detectives follow suit by supporting the DA’s Office “Cash for Conviction Program”, see https://davisvanguard.org/i…temid=100.
“…newspapers rarely pursue or follow up on stories and really dig…it is a matter of dedication not resources and staff that produces news that does not simply regurgitate the company line.”
Where is the local media’s sense of integrity and responsibility to the public? They chose to deceive and mislead the public by being partial to the Yolo County DA’s office. Thank you David for your honest work – you’ve gain my respect!
“…I think the DA underestimated the resolve of the family of Ajay Dev, they have resources and resolve and I think the DA will come to regret their decisions in that case, because that family will not let things go.”
Mr. Dev’s family and supporters are determined to fight for Mr. Dev because they KNOW he is innocent. I’m compelled to educate your readers with the following facts. 1) Mr. Dev was convicted for 378 years in prison because of a) unethical behavior by the Deputy DA, Police Detective and Judge; b) judicial error; c) prejudicing of the jury by the Judge; d) improper jury instructions; e) impermissible and improper closing statements; and f) vague charges. I’ve heard the accuser’s testimony and it was contaminated with lies and inconsistencies. 2) The Davis Police detective who investigated this case was bias and did an incompetent job. In the past 5 years, a) he never attempted to contact the accuser’s roommate until the day before she gave her testimony in court (roommate accompanied accuser to the police station — information was on the initial police report); b) he never attempted to contact the accuser’s co-workers, neighbors, school counselors, nurses, or doctors; c) he never investigated the accuser’s background or life style; d) he never questioned or further investigated the accuser’s questionable information and actions that pointed to Mr. Dev’s innocence; e) he never read the Nepali Court decision to convict the accuser of perjury and fraud; and f) he was seen chatting with at least two jurors during trial break and when questioned by the Judge his story was different than the jurors’ version. 3) The Jury (including the Judge, DDA and Detective) chose to ignore numerous hard evidences. The accuser claimed she was forcibly raped within weeks of when she arrived in the U.S. However, a) the accuser’s psychosocial evaluation performed by the Department of Social Services for her adoption completed during the first year she was in the U.S. was ignored by the jury; b) the adoption granted by the Yolo Superior Court Judge during the accuser’s first year in the U.S. was ignored by the jury; c) the accuser’s primary physician testimony supported by medical records showed no signs of physical and sexual abuse were ignored by the jury; d) the report from the Pregnancy Consultation Center Counselor who met with the accuser who did not find any indication or reason to make a report of abuse was ignored by the jury; and e) five years of videos and photographs of a happy and healthy father/daughter relationship were ignored by the jury. See https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3302:hundreds-march-in-davis-for-ajay-dev&catid=74:law-enforcement&Itemid=100.
Concerning the People v. Dev…
It’s a credit to Mr. Dev’s courage and moral conscience that he categorically refused to accept responsibility for alleged crimes he knowingly did not commit, as a tactical maneuver intended to potentially mitigate–in advance of a trial by jury his remand into the penal system.
Innocent men require neither leniency, mercy nor bargains from the legal system. However, the proper application and exercise of juris prudentia would suffice.
“Remember the recent case of an abducted child held captive for years without parole officers or neighbors even knowing she existed in the back yard? Rape is a crime that often takes place behind closed doors sight unseen. “
This was not the situation in Mr. Dev’s case. The accuser was not held captive in their home. In fact, Mr. Dev, the accuser and the rest of the family were extremely active within the Nepali community and socialized with a large group of friends. The accuser claimed she was FORCIBLY raped within weeks of when she arrived in the U.S. Yet, the accuser’s psychosocial evaluation performed by a Social Worker from the Department of Social Services for her adoption completed during the first year she was in the U.S. showed no evidence of abuse (by then allegedly raped 120 times); the accuser’s primary physician testimony supported by medical records showed no signs of physical and sexual abuse (by then allegedly raped 625 times); and the report from the Pregnancy Consultation Center Counselor who met with the accuser did not find any indication or reason to make a report of abuse.
Also, I was quit perplexed during the trial when the accuser who was by then married did not change her last name. During the trial, she told the Defense Attorney to address her as Mrs. Dev. Why would she keep the last name of the person who FORCIBLY raped her? Remember, she alleges that the rapes occurred 3 times every week, a total of 750 times. She had the opportunity to change her name on her new State license and marriage license but apparently she doesn’t have the emotional need to detach herself from Mr. Dev.
There are many studies which have been conducted that show people of color are prosecuted and imprisoned in numbers far greater than their occurance in the population would warrant. Mr Dev is a brown skinned man, an immigrant and married to a white woman. Obviously that was a factor in his prosecution and sentencing. The Central Valley, as I know from personal experience, is extremely racist, classist and influence prone. It is not what you have done that counts here when it comes to the criminal justice system, it is who you know and who you are. If you are a brown skinned “nobody” you can’t spit on the sidewalk without facing prosecution and everything you do is subject to examination and criminalization; if you are a white “somebody” you are excused from many crimes because you are a “valuable member” of the community. I wish someone would come in here and clean up this disgusting rat’s nest.
“the 8 month sentence that Brett Pedroia received”
Received or served? I thought he received a yearlong sentence.
“Prosecutors had dropped the other three charges in the case.”
What were the three dropped charges and what was their rationale for dropping them?
[i]”Mr Dev is a brown skinned man, an immigrant and married to a white woman.”[/i]
What hue does his victim* have?
*I think, given that he was convicted and is serving a long prison term for that conviction, that unless and until the conviction is overturned — as surely it would be if the claims of judicial error and prosecutorial malfeasance are as clear as Mr. Dev’s friends claim they are — the accuser deserves to be called, and legally is, his victim.
One can only speculate how Mr. Rifkin arrived at the unsubstantiated, unverified conclusion that the judge in the People v. Dev acted in good faith?
Tarot cards?
Tea leaves?
Ouija board?
Pray tell, Mr. Rifikin have you apprised and assimilated the trial court’s transcript of the case?
Mr. Rifkin,
Can you confirm and/or deny whether judge Fall will be held liable at appeal for either and/or both of the following in the People v. Dev:
1. Judicial Error?
2. Judicial Misconduct?
Consequently, your inability to provide a definitive answer to the aforementioned interrogatories clearly indicates that your comment that judge Fall acted in “good faith” is patently premature, uncorroborated and devoid of any serious merit.
RIF: [i]”I am not saying I know they (acted in good faith). I am saying I think it’s reasonable to give them the benefit of the doubt until it is proved otherwise.”[/i]
LOG: [i]”One can only speculate how [u]Mr. Rifkin arrived at the unsubstantiated, unverified conclusion that the judge in the People v. Dev acted in good faith[/u]?”[/i]
Mr. Log, reading is fundamental. Try to criticize me for things I said, not things you misread.
[img]http://www.magfundraising.com/dumpTemp/SPONSOR_817278_335074_43.gif[/img]
[i]”… your inability to provide a definitive answer to the aforementioned interrogatories clearly indicates that your comment that judge Fall acted in “good faith” is patently premature, uncorroborated and devoid of any serious merit.”[/i]
Your acrimony toward me is misplaced. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that Mr. Dev was a very close friend of yours or a family member and that is the source of your passion and your irrational commentary. Otherwise, I would think you sound like a loon.
Rifkin lives in Different world ! the issue is Simply “If you are “White” in Yolo County you are treated with unequal Justice period,We people of “Color” know that the DA and the Yolo County Sheriff and the Judicial system is “Corrupt”,the fact is that all you have to do is look at how much “Federal Money” the DA and the County Judicial system has misspent in justifying the $Millions of Dollatrs in “Prosecution for CasH” in the attept to “Prosecute” innocent persons at a Cost to us the Tax payers the waste of Millions of tax dollatrs for the overzeolous prosecution at any cost And the “Unequal justice” application of the Law as in the case of “Pedroya”
The cases that have been brought to the public’s attention seem to involve, in majority, non-Caucasian descent people. Cases of Robert Ferguson; Ernesto and Fermin Galvan; Jeffrey Lockwood; Anthony Gino Roman; Santiago Rodriguez Ochoa; Khalid Berny; Halema Buzayan; David Serena, Ajay Dev (www.advocatesforajay), Ramiro Leon, Omar Atebar, Selaiman Noori and Mostafa Noori. Is there bias in the Yolo County Judicial System? Was there bias in an all but one Caucasian jury as in the case of Mr. Dev’s trial? From my perspective this troubling and questionable trend deserves federal investigation.
ERM: “I assume that was the defense’s choice. In so far as I am aware, the defense has as long as it needs to put on its case.”
I wish this were true. It is not. I was sitting in the courtroom when the jury was not there, witnessing the behind-the-scenes courtroom drama live and in color. The judge gave the prosecution 16 days and gave the defense six days. This was decided 100 percent by the judge. The defense wanted more time and begged and pleaded for it. They were denied. The judge said that the trial had already gone on for too long and he didn’t want the jury to be forced to sit through another 10 days of testimony. I wish I were exaggerating, I really wish I were. But this is the solemn truth, and I still have nightmares about it to this day. And I’m not even personally close to Ajay Dev!!!
Again, just to be crystal clear. The judge chose to cut the trial short by 10 days when determining the fate of a man’s entire life. Ten days could have made all the difference when defending against so many accusations and counts. I think anyone would agree that ten days of the judge and jury’s time should not have been a determining factor when a man was facing 378 years in prison. If you were accused by someone of doing something, wouldn’t you, at the very LEAST, hope to have as much time to defend yourself as the prosecutors had to convince the jury of your guilt?
It is frightening to come to the realization that our court system, and the legal professionals voted in and paid for by the taxpayers of California, have no interest whatsoever in pursuing justice. They want to win. It really is that simple This was crystal clear to anyone sitting in that courtroom, particularly when the jury wasn’t present and important decisions were made about the duration of the trial, which pieces of evidence would be allowed, etc. I was shocked to discover how totally biased our judicial system is against the accused. Now that these articles are being published, I am even more frightened by the reality of a very broken system.
I have no idea if this is rampant across the country, or if it is limited to Yolo county. What I do know is that we should all be very afraid that someone in our family find themselves accused of an act they did not commit. We all need to hope and pray that we don’t make someone angry enough that they decide to accuse us of something in order to hurt us. Not only does our system bring the families of the accused to financial ruin (whether a person is guilty or not), but we could very well lose our loved one forever due to technicalities and bias. I will never be the same again after witnessing this tragedy, and I will never again trust our judicial system to protect me or the people I love.
Roberts Musser replied to FAI on 4/3 at 8:49am – [quote] Remember the recent case of an abducted child held captive for years without parole officers or neighbors even knowing she existed in the back yard? Rape is a crime that often takes place behind closed doors sight unseen. [/quote]
Let’s not forget however that the accusers own Doctor, who physically examined her, saw no evidence of any forcible rape. And remember the accuser claims to have been raped 3 times every week for 4 years, so that would mean that when her own Doctor physically examined her she would have just be forcible raped. The Doctor testified that there was no physical evidence to support the accusers claim.
Also in regards to E. Roberts Musser comment to FAI regarding the DA got 16 days while the Defense 6 days.
The transcript clearly shows that the Defense requested and needed more time, however the Judge is the one who set the limit of time on the Defense. What I have come to find shocking is the fact that the Judge is able to make decisions in his/her courtroom even if it goes against the law and what is just. Before anyone comments on this, first consider, yes they can be held accountable from going outside the parameters of the law, but in order to do this it takes a lot of money and a lot of time to expose their willful wrong doing. And until it is address by the GA they are allowed to continue to run their courtroom as they see fit. I implore each of you who doubt what I am saying to go and obtain a transcript in regards to the Ajay Dev case as it clearly shows the Judge making rulings and comments outside his rights and the law.
I also agree that these 2 cases are not isolated and that this is nationwide. Closing our eyes to it will not make it go away. Whether we want to admit it or not, we are accountable for our actions, and by doing nothing we are in all actuality taking the side of the wrong
eyes-“Let’s not forget however that the accusers own Doctor, who physically examined her, saw no evidence of any forcible rape. And remember the accuser claims to have been raped 3 times every week for 4 years, so that would mean that when her own Doctor physically examined her she would have just be forcible raped.”
In what capacity did the doctor examine her, as a rape victim? Did the doctor conduct the required rape victim tests? Did the doctor examine her shortly after she was allegedly raped?
Is it not possible, seeing as the raping took occurred multiple times, that the most recent rape wasn’t physically “forcible” and therefore, she had no physical signs of the rape?
Rich-I laughed.
[i]”Rifkin lives in A Different World!”[/i]
I do?
[img]http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0009HBPEO.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg[/img]
[i]”The issue is simply, if you are white in Yolo County you are treated with unequal justice, period. We people of color know that the DA and the Yolo County Sheriff and the Judicial system is corrupt.”[/i]
That sounds like an excellent premise for a sitcom. I have no idea what you should call it, though. Any suggestions?
[quote]The issue is simply, if you are white in Yolo County you are treated with unequal justice, period. We people of color know that the DA and the Yolo County Sheriff and the Judicial system is corrupt.” [/quote]
I think many people feel that way but it’s not 100% accurate. Socioeconomic status also matter.
Did Pedroia get off the hook (disturbingly light prison sentence) because he was white? Maybe.
Did he get a light sentence because he had money? It’s possible
Did he get a light sentence because of his political connections? Bingo
In reference to Mr. Greenwald’s comment regarding the Dev family and supporters not giving up, there is more to it than what has been expressed above. First of all, we do not simply “BELIEVE” Ajay is innocent–we “KNOW” he is innocent. Not out of blind loyalty, but because we have experienced the accuser’s lies firsthand regarding the very facts of the case….core facts. For instance, the accuser stated she was raped at my house. The fact is that she only stayed at my house on one occasion, which would have been impossible for her to have been raped as she stated. The circumstances (that two other people were up with her all night – never out of her sight) would have rendered the situation impossible. In fact, on this occasion, there were several people available to testify to that fact. However, after statements were made and given over to the DA, suspiciously, this incident was never brought up at trial by the DA. Her story continually changed as new facts were brought out that contradicted her story.
But, the point is that we KNEW she was lying…from the get go. We WERE present at incidents where she gave detail, which by the way, weren’t many. This is only one instance in many. I was also present in another sceanrio where she lied uncategorically under oath in court. Not a subtle lie, or a lie of ommission because of poor memory–an unequiviocal, flat out bald-faced lie. It was proved that she lied through my testimony and substantied by outside experts during trial. She had a motive to lie about this incident, but it was overlooked, like so many things in this trial.
We won’t give up on Ajay, not because we are stubborn, or fanatical, as the DA tried to make us out to be. The truth of the matter is, we are ordinary people, holding down jobs and have families like anyone else out there. We are ALL law abiding citizens and have never had ANY experience with the law prior to Ajay’s trial. We believed in the system, rather naively, in that the truth would be victorious and that the guardians of justice were fair and unbiased. To not fight for the life of an innocent man who has been victimized by the very system that should have protected him is a moral affront to us, as it should be for anyone with the knowledge we possess. Although many issues have been discussed on this and previous blogs, many other startling revelations will not be heard until the appeal has been reviewed. We will continue to fight for Ajay because he IS innocent, and not to do so would would go against everything that we were taught about our justice system–the belief that truth DOES matter. The belief that our judicial system was engineered and designed to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. And, that this type of thing should not happen. We have witnessed a terrible tragedy, and no one can know what it is like on the “other” side of the judicial system until you are embroiled in it. I sincerely hope that no one else will ever suffer again the injustices of a corrupt judicial process as we have. But, in order to accomplish that, someone has to fight….
luzenelmer32: “The judge gave the prosecution 16 days and gave the defense six days. This was decided 100 percent by the judge. The defense wanted more time and begged and pleaded for it. They were denied. The judge said that the trial had already gone on for too long and he didn’t want the jury to be forced to sit through another 10 days of testimony.”
What you don’t know is why the judge made the ruling s/he did. If the evidence presented by either side is cumulative, inadmissable, its benefits are far outweighed by its prejudicial effect, and so on, the judge has the right to disallow it. The judge can then set the parameters of the trial based on the evidence remaining to be presented. If judges didn’t do this, and allowed both sides unlimited time to present every single piece of evidence desired, trials would go on ad in finitum. The system cannot work this way – it is an impossible level of perfection that cannot be achieved. Not only that, the jury would be totally confused with so much evidence thrown at them, especially if much of it is irrelevant, highly prejudicial, cumulative, and so on. If the judge did something improper (which does happen), then the case should be overturned on appeal.
The prosecution’s case would normally take longer than the defendant’s case, because the prosecution “sets the stage”/tells the story/has to “introduce the players”. It is the defendant’s job to poke holes in that story.
Venitas-“However, after statements were made and given over to the DA, suspiciously, this incident was never brought up at trial by the DA. Her story continually changed as new facts were brought out that contradicted her story.”
Did you share that information with the defense as well?
[i]”First of all, we do not simply “BELIEVE” Ajay is innocent–we “KNOW” he is innocent. Not out of blind loyalty, but because we have experienced the accuser’s lies firsthand … We won’t give up on Ajay, not because we are stubborn, or fanatical, as the DA tried to make us out to be.”[/i]
You do know that you and the other Dev supporters come across as irrational fanatics? I have no dog in this fight. I have no opinion of the case. But reading your comments and those of other supporters of Dev, it strikes me that there is something strange about the loyalty being shown to Dev and the vitriol shown toward his alleged victim.
I concede that if I were in your position and I believed that someone I loved had been convicted of a crime which I was sure was untrue, I might also come across as a lunatic. But that does not change the fact that as a group, the Dev supporters seem like very strange birds, almost like members of a cult, more than a distraught family.
(Now they will attack me for saying the obvious.)
Rich Rifkin: “I concede that if I were in your position and I believed that someone I loved had been convicted of a crime which I was sure was untrue, I might also come across as a lunatic. But that does not change the fact that as a group, the Dev supporters seem like very strange birds, almost like members of a cult, more than a distraught family.”
I don’t see the Dev supporters as strange at all. The legal system is horribly complex, and many aspects are confusing, and quite unjust. When I went through a very messy 4 year divorce, the legal system was almost like finding myself in a foreign land where I don’t speak the language, and the customs are completely baffling. Only after I attended law school at age 37, passed the bar, and began practicing law did some of the confusion sort itself out. And even then I find much of the law contradictory, hard to understand at times, and not always fair. Part of our basic education should include some legal education in the public schools.
correction – “…didn’t speak the language…
correction – “…customs were completely baffling…”
Dear Rich: Thank you for your comment to my earlier post. I typically don’t blog, nor do I typically read the articles on the case for several reasons, one of which you expressed above…that it is possible we are not understood. But, let me ask you, please…
How would you fight for an injustice of this magnitude when all odds are against you? We have not done or participated in anything illegal, but have used the only forum available to us. As I’ve said, we are average citizens who vote, pay taxes, are involved in our children’s education, know our neighbors and conduct responsible, integrated lives who are in the unfortunate position of trying to bring to light serious issues with the judicial process as we have experienced.
Insofar as what you believe to be a vitriol response to the alleged victim, is it such severe criticism of her actions if in fact you know unequivocally that she has fabricated a story, gone so far with it that she has destroyed a life and adversely affected so many people in so many ways that they are too numerous to name here? True, she could not have done it alone. But, she does deserve harsh criticism for her actions, and so do the individuals who helped her (knowlingly) go forward with false allegations. The detective should have investigated the allegations more thoroughly, and the DA should have stopped and questioned the exculpatory evidence that he came across. Rather, the detective and the DA went forward with a weak case that did’nt add up and had many holes in it. I’m not going to go into a litany of things that went wrong. The point is, what would you do? We have neither a platform to use, nor do we have the financial backing. We have been financially devestated because of this case. To me, it is a very scary thing that in today’s society you can’t call a liar a liar without being labeled. If you factually knew that your daughter, son, brother or uncle was completely innocent of charges brought forth by false allegations, and the judicial system failed miserably on so many levels, wouldn’t you have a visceral/vocal response to the injustices suffered? I appreciate that you said that if you experienced the same thing, you might come across as a lunatic, but really, how would you fight this fight?
Before the trial, we were advised to not discuss the trial. We respectively observed what we were asked to do. Come to find out, it really didn’t help Ajay’s case. Instead, the DA was allowed to take certain things out of context, use partial documents, (rather than letting the jury see the entire document, which would have given context to an incident and have dismantled the DA’s theory of that particular incident). It is extremely difficult to bring these kind of things to light post-verdict…the bias has already set in. People make comments like, “a jury of 12 people convicted him…” And, in view of the limited perspective that people have of how the judicial system actually operates, how do you fight for a cause without seeming to be fanatical?
I have to say that I just about laughed out loud when I read your comment that we seem almost like members of a cult. If you knew Ajay, and I understand that you don’t, you would laugh too. The thought that he could hold persuassion over a group of people really is funny. The simple fact is we are intelligent, introspective and moral people who are outraged that an innocent man has been convicted to 378 years.
For me, as a family member, I appreciate your honesty in bringing up the issue of the family members as being fanatical. It has given me the opportunity to expound on my earlier comment, and I hope to bring out additional information for rumination. Thank you.
I hope these stories are being sent out to other media outlets (ie. Oprah, NPR, Newsweek, etc). Sometimes being under national scrutiny adjusts the perception of small county courthouses.
Superfluous Man wrote:
[quote]In what capacity did the doctor examine her, as a rape victim? Did the doctor conduct the required rape victim tests? Did the doctor examine her shortly after she was allegedly raped?
Is it not possible, seeing as the raping took occurred multiple times, that the most recent rape wasn’t physically “forcible” and therefore, she had no physical signs of the rape?
[/quote]
Are you suggesting that Dev and his wife (knowing they had nothing to hide) failed to take a minor child to a physician in order to refute the ‘forcible’ rape allegation? So they failed to provide adequate medical care as mandated?
Is that what a reasonable person may get from this case?
BTW, re: your 2nd ‘forcible’ point – as Whoopi might say it’s still ‘rape rape’ isn’t it?
Primoris-
No that’s not what I am suggesting. I was asking, basically, what type of examination did the doctor perform? Depending on the examination, or the reasons for which she was taken to the doctor, the exam may not be such that those signs would be observed and(or) examined by the doctor.
Yeah, there could be no signs of rape, but that doesn’t preclude it from the possibility thereof, which was my point.
SM
That point can be made however, despite the suggestor.
In other words why didn’t the guardians/parents take the minor to be examined? Or did anyone, at or near the point in time (of the allegations) have her examined (SART) by medical professionals? Maybe they did, but it hasn’t been posted here. I am not privy to the trial transcripte etc..
“In other words why didn’t the guardians/parents take the minor to be examined?”
Is that what you’re asking? That question would be better directed at Venitas.
“Or did anyone, at or near the point in time (of the allegations) have her examined (SART) by medical professionals? Maybe they did, but it hasn’t been posted here. I am not privy to the trial transcripte etc..”
Which was what I was asking, in so many words; What was this examination the Venitas referred to when making his or her point. How does her doctor not observing signs of forcible rape strengthen the argument? Obviously, you can’t answer that and Venitas didn’t explain.
SM:
Actually my point is more about the issue of whether or not the parents/guardians failed to exercise due diligence as parents/guardians.
Primoris,
In answer to your question, Ajay and his wife took the alleged victim to her regular physician (to which the doctor testified) approximately 9 times over a 4 year period. You must appreciate the the alleged victim testified that she was raped three times a week (first reported to the police as 5 times a week, but she and the detective “settled” on three times a week on the video taped interview). That means that each time she saw her physician she was raped the day before, the day of or the day after the incident. It is also noteworthy that her physician examined her within a day or two of the first alleged incident. The doctor is a professional who is mandated to report any sign of abuse/suspicious behavior, signs, etc… The doctor testified that at no time did she ever see any signs of abuse (physical or emotional) or trauma. Neither did the social worker who interviewed her independent of the Devs. In fact, the social worker wrote in his report that the alleged victim wanted to be adopted by the Devs and appeared to be very happy about her circumstances. Keep in mind that the doctor and the social worker would have had to have seen her over a period of time when she claims to have been raped approximately 1 time to 700 times. Anyone enduring 750 rapes would have shown signs of trauma, or emotional stress, or changes in her personality consistent with trauma, but no one saw anything. It would be impossible for anyone to have sustained sexual abuse to the magnitude that she claims without it going unnoticed by someone. Additionally, she reported on medical forms filled out in her own writing, as a legal adult, that she had never been the victim of abuse and the first age of sexual activity was 18–a far cry from the allegations she made during the trial.