At the previous hearing in the Marco Topete case, DA Jeff Reisig had requested the court appoint an interpreter for the parents of Tony Diaz. Judge Richardson asked the DA’s Office to submit a motion, even though none of the parties objected to the request on the face of it. However, from the perspective of Judge Richardson this was a fiscal issue for the county, and he denied it on those grounds.
Wrote DA Reisig in his motion, “Carolina Rios De Diaz and Rafael Diaz Chavez are the parents of Tony Diaz. On June 16, 2008, they became victims in this case when their son was murdered.”
He writes, “Because they cannot understand English, they are left without a clear understanding of any and all proceedings which they attend. Only after the proceedings cease, are they able to speak with other family members and District Attorney staff who do their best to translate ‘post-facto’ and summarize what occurred.”
As in his argument for a speedy trial date, the DA cited as his authority the “constitutional rights” granted by Marsy’s Law.
Marsy’s Law, according to the DA, provides victims reciprocal rights to those of criminal defendants. Citing California Constitution Article I §28(a)(2) and (4), he said that “all victims and witnesses of crime must be treated with dignity, respect, courtesy, and sensitivity and that victims and witnesses of crime should be honored and protected by law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and judges in a manner no less vigorous than the protections afforded criminal defendants … and ‘the rights of victims also include broader shared collective rights that are held in common with all of the People of the State of California and that are enforceable through the enactment of laws and through good-faith efforts and actions of California’s elected, appointed, and publicly employed officials.’ “
Furthermore, as Article I §28(b) lists numerous victims’ rights, he said that “Victims have the right to attend all public criminal proceedings and have the right to be heard.”
He then argued that the California Constitution “grants the right to an interpreter to a criminal defendant who is unable to understand English, throughout all proceedings” and thus argued that, by extension, the victim’s family shares that right.
“The victims’ situation in this case ostensibly goes against the purpose and intent behind Marsy’s law, because they are incapable of asserting their rights in court when they do not have present knowledge of what is occurring.”
Finally, arguing that lack of funding is not an excuse, he said that “the right to expect the government to properly fund the criminal justice system, so that the rights of crime victims stated in these findings and declarations and justice itself are not eroded by inadequate resources; and, above all, the right to an expeditious and just punishment of the criminal wrongdoer. Therefore, this Court should not simply dismiss the victims’ request for an interpreter on the grounds of insufficient funding or lack of employee resources.”
I will state at the outset that I have no particular reason to deny the Diaz family an interpreter, and the proper question is whether that interpreter should be paid for out of county funds during a time when the county is facing fiscal crisis. Neither the county nor the courts have sufficient resources at this time to fund such things as interpreters for victims’ families.
The irony is that the best-funded portion of the criminal justice system is probably the DA’s Office. The DA’s Office gets, on an annual basis, a Victim-Witness Assistance Grant which is usually somewhere just under $200,000. From that they pay for at least five positions, including individuals who work with the families of the victims and attend trial with them and provide services.
It is notable that we recently attended another murder trial, the Solis trial. The DA’s Office had their social worker walking around with the family of the victim. This was another case where a large number of people did not speak English, and, in fact, there were two interpreters in that case, one for the defendant and one for some of the witnesses. But the family in that case did not get an interpreter, nor did they request one.
It seems that if the DA’s Office believes that the families of victims of crime are entitled to interpreters they can fund this themselves, either by including that in their next grant request or by using some of the grant money to fund a position on an ad hoc basis.
Again, not to be callous, but watching how some of these families are treated, it appears that they are almost used as props to help the District Attorney’s case. It seemed like the family of the victim in the Solis trial was almost paraded around the court for maximum effect. Nevermind that in that case, they probably got the wrong guy. Nevermind they probably had zero chance of conviction, and that this was actually quite traumatic for the family of the deceased.
DA Reisig has built himself as an advocate of victims, and he grandstanded for them in several of the Topete hearings, demanding their right to a speedy trial. But it seemed almost for show. This gesture is just part of it, as there are non-English speaking families in court all of the time and I have yet to see an interpreter court assigned for the family of the victim.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I think getting an interpreter for victims and/or families of victims is a wonderful idea. I also agree with David that this exactly the kind of program where the Victim Assistance Grant money should be used. If they received $200,000 in grant money, I am surprised that some of this money wasn’t already earmarked for something like this.
Communicating to a victim whether it is telling them their rights or helping them cope with their situation should be the first priority of a Victim Assistance Grant. Where is the money going if not to something along these lines?
I believe the victim’s family is entitled to the interpreter, and I am in agreement that as the DA typically is charged with representing the State and the People (inc. victims) that the DA’s grant $ is the appropriate source of funding, given our current situation.
I’m assuming the judge was not willing to use county monies to fund an interpreter bc of the precedent it would set. If the county does it for one victim’s family, why not for all victims’ families? Such a precedent would have been too costly. Perhaps the DA will consider using funding from the Victim Assistance Grant in the future to hire interpreters for the victims’ families…
Not only does the DA get grant funding, they get all the money from the sale of asset forfeiture (drug cars, computers, anything arguably connected with the commission of a crime and a very, very low standard of proof). They are in a much better position to fund this than the courts.
David makes a very good point that the DA appears to use victim’s for purposes other than pure. In the Artz trial, the alleged victim did not appear to know the deputy DA much if at all. Yet, the grant funding for this special team is based on vertical prosecution which was designed to allow the DDA to bond with the alleged victim. Additionally, she testified that she wanted to remain friends with Michael Artz. Add to that the fact that she did not want to make any statement to probation about him all of which belied the DDA’s dramatic opening statement to the jury that she was a naive and perfect victim to this heinous young man who forced her (acquitted) to submit to a sex act. Hmm.
Anyone who was at the Artz trial and saw the 10-15 DA representatives come to court to watch (note, merely watch) the jury come in a deliver a verdict after days of deliberation knows the DA’s office is not overburdened by a lack of funding. Otherwise, these people would not have time to waste.
“Anyone who was at the Artz trial and saw the 10-15 DA representatives come to court to watch (note, merely watch) the jury come in a deliver a verdict after days of deliberation knows the DA’s office is not overburdened by a lack of funding. Otherwise, these people would not have time to waste.”
Kathryn this was not the first case the DA’s office has been seen in full force for the verdict. I am sure it won’t be the last either.
Just saw the movie Conviction. Great movie and based on true story.