I had my first and only conversation with Chief Deputy DA Jonathan Raven in January of 2010. We had just launched Yolo Judicial Watch and I was interested in having some sort of dialogue with the District Attorney’s office. It was a strange and meandering conversation.
The upshot is this – the Vanguard covers public agencies all over Yolo County, but the only agency and agency head that will not speak with us are the Yolo County’s District Attorney’s office and DA Jeff Reisig.
In fact, as we have noted previously, the Vanguard is a frequent critic of UC Davis, has called for the resignation of Chancellor Katehi, and yet UC Davis has often gone out of its way to provide the Vanguard with information. Staff in the News Office joke that entities like the Vanguard are their employment insurance.
When I launched Yolo Judicial Watch in the winter of 2010, I honestly did not know what I was getting myself into. I knew enough to know that there was something wrong with the judicial system in Yolo County.
In fact, as we know, there is something wrong with the judicial system, period. But I listen and talk to many attorneys who tell me how different things are on this side of the causeway as opposed to Sacramento.
Occasionally, members of the DA’s office have slipped up and acknowledged such differences and even bragged about them.
We covered a case that originated with a multijurisdictional raid of what the prosecution called a compound in West Sacramento – which turned out to be merely a group of smaller homes that a multigenerational Asian family lived in.
After executing the joint raid on what was said to be a large-time Asian gang drug operation, the DA’s office embarrassingly turned up just 1.4 grams of meth in addition to a bunch of pills that turned out to be caffeine pills, and powder that turned out to be Ibuprofen.
Rather than concede their error, they proceeded to charge the entire family with drug and gang charges – but they largely failed.
During his closing arguments, Deputy District Attorney Ryan Couzens launched into what could only be described as a manifesto, mocking the arguments of defense attorneys.
He called this a gang, selling drugs. He said that it is irrelevant that Sacramento or Stockton would charge this crime as a misdemeanor. He said that it is on them, and their problem. He said this is Yolo County and “we do things differently here.”
He admitted that he is very aggressive about gangs and crimes. He said the same for his office.
He admitted that they did not find evidence of a huge drug operation. That they only found 1.4 grams of meth.
But he said that if he allowed “specks of methamphetamine” to go unchecked, “if we allow a fledgling gang to go unchecked, just because it is a fledgling operation, that’s throwing in the towel.”
The power of the prosecution is unparalleled in this nation of laws and democracy. The prosecution in this country has tremendous power and the discretion to charge people with crimes. Their charging power is entirely discretionary with very low barriers.
Rarely, a judge may dismiss charges after a preliminary hearing due to lack of evidence – but that is rare. The threshold is low. Often the mere articulation of the crime by a witness is sufficient to hold the individual for trial.
Police officers, while holding the power to arrest, can actually be sued for a variety of misconduct, including a wrongful arrest. Prosecutors however, are protected by prosecutorial immunity.
As Reason‘s Senior Editor, Radley Balko, wrote in 2009, “A prosecutor manufactures evidence in order to win a conviction. After the convicted serves 25 years in prison, exculpatory evidence pointing to another perpetrator surfaces. The convicted is released. Should he be able to sue the prosecutor who concocted the false evidence used to convict him?”
“Believe it or not, it’s still an open question,” he said.
“We often discussed the lack of deterrent for prosecutorial misconduct in the United States. When cases are overturned due to destruction or withholding of evidence or other violations, few reporters track down the original prosecutors to hold them accountable. Prosecutors are rarely punished for such acts,” wrote Jonathan Turley, a Law Professor at George Washington University a few weeks ago.
By now my regular readers are probably familiar with the lack of action taken against prosecutors who engage in misconduct.
In the report, “Preventable Error,” commissioned by the Northern California Innocence Project, Maurice Possley and Cookie Ridolfi found: “The State Bar publicly disciplined only one percent of the prosecutors in the 600 cases in which the courts found prosecutorial misconduct and NCIP researchers identified the prosecutor.”
Then there was the case of John Thompson, wrongfully imprisoned for years and put on death row for a crime that he was not only innocent of, but for whom the prosecution engaged in rogue activity, both hiding evidence from the defense and also destroying it. The lower courts had held the prosecutor’s office liable for those activities only to see the Supreme Court in a narrow 5-4 decision overturn it.
The decision was based on the fact that attorneys for Mr. Thompson could not prove that this was a pattern of misconduct by District Attorney Harry Connick’s office (Mr. Connick being the father of the singer).
Justice Thompson ruled: “The District Court should have granted Connick judgment as a matter of law on the failure-to-train claim because Thompson did not prove a pattern of similar violations that would ‘establish that the “policy of inaction” [was] the functional equivalent of a decision by the city itself to violate the Constitution.’ “
He added: “The only issue before us is whether Connick, as the policymaker for the district attorney’s office, was deliberately indifferent to the need to train the attorneys under his authority.”
Justice Ginsburg disagreed, arguing: “The Court tells us, because Thompson has shown only an aberrant Brady violation, not a routine practice of giving short shrift to Brady‘s requirements. The evidence presented to the jury that awarded compensation to Thompson, however, points distinctly away from the Court’s assessment. As the trial record in the §1983 action reveals, the conceded, long-concealed prosecutorial transgressions were neither isolated nor atypical.”
The truth of the power of prosecutors is frightening. Ask any one of the people wrongfully caught up in the system how they felt. Almost all describe something close to the plight of one Joseph K who must fight against an invisible law and untouchable court, against a crime that he did not only not commit, but that he cannot even begin to understand.
Given the tremendous power and responsibility of the prosecutors in this nation, we need organizations that can monitor their activities – watch cases, report on trials that are often hidden to the eyes of the general public.
All of this is great, but when the prosecutor himself attempts to hold out, to hide behind the veil of secrecy, it becomes part of the problem.
Jonathan Raven told me that they would be monitoring the reporting of the Vanguard and that if they found it agreeable, they might be willing to speak to the Vanguard on the record.
Since then, we have often clashed, much as the Vanguard clashes with most public agencies. The difference is that at least with them, we get to hear things through their perspective.
All we ever get from the DA’s office is a press release. Those agencies that dutifully report those press releases as facts and their own news stories get different treatment than those who question the basis of those reports.
What I find most remarkable is the complacence of the mainstream media who will simply reprint the DA’s account as though it were objective news. And we who question it are labeled as biased. Wouldn’t it just be easier to explain and move on?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I could rip this story apart from top to bottom, but it’s like dealing with a spoiled child. You don’t argue with a spoiled child who above all else, cannot understand or comprehend why he/she is spoiled. The concept that they are spoiled never occurs to them, because they want when they want it.
the vanguard would be a great cast for veruca salt in the next Charlie and the Chocolate factory remake.
“The power of the prosecution is unparalleled in this nation of laws and democracy.”
As opposed to other nations in the world? As opposed to the legal rights of each individual in this country?
If I were Reisig I would ignore the Vanguard too because by responding it just serves to legitimize you.
[i]I could rip this story apart from top to bottom , but it’s like dealing with a spoiled child. [/i]
Actually I think you are a lot closer to a spoiled child, always whining on here and belittling others. Perhaps you ought to look yourself in the mirror before posting this stuff. It seems to me that you aren’t happy with your lot in life. But of course that’s not David’s problem or the problem of the rest of the community.
“If I were Reisig I would ignore the Vanguard too because by responding it just serves to legitimize you. “
And you think that the number of readers on here, doesn’t? As David points out, everyone else in the county responds and comments, so isn’t he already legitimate and therefore is the bag not out of the cat already?
“Since then, we have often clashed much as the Vanguard clashes with most public agencies.”
“Much as?” Not even close. This is an example of inaccurate reporting being used to support an opinion that clashes with realities that are apparent to the casual observer, not an unlikely occurrence in the Vanguard.
BTW, Octane, I don’t think you’re bright enough to rip anyone apart. Your comments are mean and spiteful, but they also simplistic and banal.
“This is an example of inaccurate reporting being used to support an opinion that clashes with realities that are apparent to the casual observer, not an unlikely occurrence in the Vanguard. “
I’m not understanding this sentence apparently?
“The majority of California prosecutors successfully discharge the obligations requisite in their two roles: acting both as advocates in seeking convictions and as ministers of justice, charged with using only fair methods to prosecute those they believe are guilty….
The Misconduct Study’s findings as to the results in these 707 cases were as follows: In the vast majority—548 of the 707 cases—courts found misconduct but nevertheless upheld the convictions, ruling that the misconduct was harmless—that the defendants received fair trials notwithstanding the prosecutor’s conduct. Only in 159 of the 707 cases—about 20 percent— did the courts find that the misconduct was harmful; in these cases they either set aside the conviction or sentence, declared a mistrial or barred evidence.”
–from “Preventable Error”
Hey Siegel, it’s a beautiful Sunday morning with birds chirping and all so calm down and have a cup of java and try not to get all worked up. I thought you stated didn’t like the attacks on here and I also remember you saying that you don’t read Octane’s posts. So here you both responding to his posts and going on the attack. So which is it?
Something the DA should realize is, he is an elected official. If he doesn’t talk to you to answer questions or explain his side, it shows the people in this county who are interested in what goes on in the courts that he doesn’t care about their concerns and shouldn’t be re-elected. The people of Yolo County deserve to have a DA that is more concerned with getting things right than with trying to shut down anyone who questions him.
So should the DA have to respond to every blogger who starts a website from his/her house?
91 Octane, rust49 and JustSaying, I agree that your comments are very childish. They do not put forward any real discussion other than basic name calling. I often feel you work for the DA’s office, but then again none of you seem to know much about the law, so either I am wrong or this county is in real trouble if people like you do work there.
Sorry, Siegel. What I was trying to say is that David is claiming that he “clashes” with the DA “much as” he does with “most public agencies.” This is not close to a true statement–his manner of reporting about the DA’s office is notable and unique. No other agency gets the journalistic approach he uses in reporting the DA’s activities, let alone “most public agencies.”
Furthermore, such use of these kind of inaccuracies to “prove” his cases is not unusual around here. Just my opinion as a longtime reader and supporter of the Vanguard.
Although I agree that every public agency should try to be responsive to and cooperative with reporters–and I personally have interceded on his behalf with that office–David has made his own bed with them. He’ll have to be satisfied with the DA meeting the requirements of the laws on requests for information.
Au Contraire Nemesis, Octane, JustSaying and I have just stated our opinions about this article, it’s you and Siegel who are doing the attacking and name calling.
How many of the cases of procutorial misconduct in “Preventable Error” are from Yolo County?
The fact that even harmless prosecution error–that does not weigh on the guilty finding or affect whether the defendent got a fair trial–is regretable and something to combat doesn’t support arguments that our local prosecutors are negligent.
The fact the there are examples of egregious misconduct from around the country doesn’t support constant contentions that Yolo’s justice system is corrupt or even that the naion’s is.
And, “The Trial” is fiction.
Dave Henderson, Jeff Reisig’s predecessor and mentor never spoke to the press. It is the culture of the DA’s office over generations.
“…they proceeded to charge the entire family with drug and gang charges – but they largely failed.”
–The Vanguard, Sept. 2, 2012.
“…the judge dismissed charges against Det Kalah, and Saengphet Onsri was convicted on charges that will likely result in 7 to 12 years in prison….(Mr. Onsri conceded the possession of meth, but claimed he was personally selling it to make ends meet.) Dom and Anthony Kalah would take plea agreements….the jury hung basically right down the middle (6-6) on all charges against both Dom and Anthony Kalah, while they convicted Saengphet Onsri of all charges….”
–The Vanguard, 2011.
“Largely failed” in their charges? Only in the world of the Vanguard….
JustSaying….can’t get nothing by you.
This article is just another example of the Vanguard’s animus toward DA’s in general, and the Yolo County DA in particular, and undermines its own credibility. I agree with JustSaying’s point, that too often the Vanguard uses cases that are inapposite to make its case that the Yolo County DA is unfair/corrupt/overzealous. Unfortunately such extreme bias on the Vanguard’s part tends to make people ignore the Vanguard as an investigative source – so that when the Vanguard uncovers something actually questionable/makes a valid point, it is ignored because it is buried amongst a mound of biased drivel. It is much like the “boy who cried wolf” too many times, so that when the wolf actually did arrive, no one was listening…
[quote]Au Contraire Nemesis, Octane, JustSaying and I have just stated our opinions about this article, it’s you and Siegel who are doing the attacking and name calling.[/quote]
Spot on!
ERM, watch it when you post your apposing opinions on here because you might be accused of working for the DA, being childish, a whiner, a bilittler, or maybe even “you aren’t happy with your lot in life”.
To everybody: no attacks on other blog participants, please.
“Sunday Commentary: The Arrogance of Power”
Because the DA’s office doesn’t go out of it’s way to provide the Vanguard with information beyond what’s required?
It would be great if the DA’s office would sit down with David for 30 minutes after a trial about which the Vanguard has expressed justice concerns.
Maybe some of the charges of sloppy investigation and unfair prosecution and incorrect judges’ decisions and bad jury verdicts would be tempered if the Vanguard was given explanations of the law and of the case.
But, for some reason, the DA’s office probably questions whether devoting such time and effort would help enlighten the public or whether it even would be given fair consideration or, instead, be falling on deaf ears.
“But, for some reason, the DA’s office probably questions whether devoting such time and effort would help enlighten the public or whether it even would be given fair consideration or, instead, be falling on deaf ears.”
In my opinion it would be like MSNBC’s Al Sharpton giving Mitt Romney and interview.
If the DA’s office had more transparency, then the need for the Yolo Judicial Watch might not be needed.
Unfortunately, the DA’s press releases that have gone to the more traditional news sources have been shown to be less than accurate.
So people are going to question why, and they have that right. As an elected official, the DA is accountable to the citizens–just as the mayor, the county supervisors, the town councils, etc.
Explaining why certain policies exist or why things are done the way they are can alleviate issues. When the DA chooses not to talk about the tough issues, then some people are going to make their own assumptions like:
1. Is he trying to hide something that he doesn’t want us to know about.
2. Does he think that he is more important or smarter than the people and doesn’t have to explain what he does.
3. Doesn’t he care about the people’s opinion.
Would the Vanguard’s questions to the DA be tough? No doubt about it. But don’t the people in this community have the right to know what is happening in his office?
A few months ago I was in court with a friend on an extremely serious matter. Judge Mock asked the D.A.’s a question. They were all sitting there,3 attorneys, their heads turned away from the judge, looking at each other, smiling and chatting. The judge had to ask them the same question 2 or 3 times before one of the attorneys answered him. I was dumbfounded. My friend told me this happens all the time. I imagined that a private attorney would not get away with such behavior. I actually considered writing a letter of complaint to Kamala Harris, but thought it might be detrimental for my friend. I felt so irritated.
siegel: Actually I think you are a lot closer to a spoiled child, always whining on here and belittling others. Perhaps you ought to look yourself in the mirror before posting this stuff. It seems to me that you aren’t happy with your lot in life. But of course that’s not David’s problem or the problem of the rest of the community.
Siegel, who is repeatedly whining about and belittling the DA, pike, Katehi, the WAC, Chamberpac, bob dunning, or whatever the latest target is? ummm……..
in this story, the DA once again is a target because he will not sit down and speak with his royal highness when he comes calling. The DA is not the only target, so is Dennis Deimer.
like I said, spoiled child. he wants what he wants when he wants it.
[i]”In my opinion it would be like MSNBC’s Al Sharpton giving Mitt Romney an interview.”
[/i]
I would watch that! It would be good for Romney, too. One venue where I think he could more than hold his own.
I think part of the problem is that many officials don’t think of bloggers as valid media. Not all bloggers are the same. But the Vanguard has established itself as a valid news/commentary source with a large local readership. Of course there is a point of view reflected in David’s choice of stories and the way he covers them. But I don’t think it serves the DA’s office well to close off communication so thoroughly.
also note the variation in tone. in the last article, the vanguard had a very sofened mild mannered tone. in the next breath in this article, he’s on the attack, singling out the DA and ripping on him, calling him arrogant in the title.
In other words, use the Mr civility act on one hand, and use venom on the other.
btw: it isn’t lost on me that Mr. Siegel is probably one of the vanguards hitmen, called in to field all the negative flak the vanguard is getting on most of its stories.
so isn’t he already legitimate and therefore is the bag not out of the cat already?
lol, in your dreams.
[quote]Don Shor: But I don’t think it serves the DA’s office well to close off communication so thoroughly.[/quote]
My response is that of JustSaying:
[quote]But, for some reason, the DA’s office probably questions whether devoting such time and effort would help enlighten the public or whether it even would be given fair consideration or, instead, be falling on deaf ears. [/quote]
Don Shor:
“I would watch that! It would be good for Romney, too. One venue where I think he could more than hold his own.”
I would watch it too, but think it would be a poor move on Romney’s part. Romney has no chance of getting a fair shake on that venue. Did you watch any of MSNBC’s coverage of the GOP convention? They were practically jumping all over each other bashing almost everyone involved.
Octane:
“btw: it isn’t lost on me that Mr. Siegel is probably one of the vanguards hitmen, called in to field all the negative flak the vanguard is getting on most of its stories.”
I’ve thought the same thing or that he’s possibly an alter ego…wink…wink
Elaine
“It is much like the “boy who cried wolf” too many times, so that when the wolf actually did arrive, no one was listening…
It has always interested me how the blame in that fable always seems to be attached only to the boy. It has always seemed to me that the villagers should have accepted the majority of the blame. Why ?
1) The boy had already proven himself unreliable, so they should have instituted either a backup or replacement system as soon as they were aware of his lack of maturity.
2) Just because the boy was unreliable didn’t mean that their level of vigilance over their herd should go down. This is what is apparently being argued here. If David overstates his case, that does not make the DA any more or less ethical, effective or just. We, as a community need to be aware of the appropriateness,( or lack there of ) of our public officials regardless of the bias of any given reporter.
Octane
” who is repeatedly whining about and belittling the DA, pike, Katehi, the WAC, Chamberpac, bob dunning, or whatever the latest target is?”
So it would seem from this list, that you actually do see David’s writings as being targeted at public entities in general as opposed to just the DA.
This is hardly a surprise since the Vanguard’s stated purpose is as a “watch dog”. You would hardly expect to see a series of promotional articles from an author whose stated purpose is to expose weaknesses or wrongdoing or errors of those in authority.
“If the DA’s office had more transparency, then the need for the Yolo Judicial Watch might not be needed.”
I couldn’t disagree more. We need the Vanguard and its ilk always and now more than ever before. In David’s typical characterization of people itch whom he disagrees: You’e focusing on the wrong thing.
The DA’s level of transparency is a lot less problematic than the lack of anyone (other than David) keeping an eye on our government and everything that it does. Who else is engaged in this critical democratic duty in Yolo County on a continuing watchdog basis? It’s pretty much been left to the special interests to watchdog things and holler when they don’t see things going their ways.
Certainly, our local traditional media have forsaken these responsibilities. I’m embarrassed for my community when I find my flimsy Enterprise blowing down the driveway like a empty Safeway plastic bag. Who is covering much of anything of critical importance these days? (Well, there’s Rich, but the last time he wrote a political exposé, someone tracked him down and ran him over with a car.)
One has to wonder how many reporters still are getting paid in these hard times. One the few days the Enterprise does get printed, it’s overwhelmingly filled with courtesy articles submitted by outside interests, agencies, non-profits, aspiring authors. Except for the excellent sports reporting by a prolific reporter (who probably is forced to work so hard because he’s sleeping with the editor), not very much reporting can get done by the skeleton staff left at our hard-pressed local paper.
So, is it adequate to trust traditional media–which no longer can afford even to cover our basic governmental activities, let alone investigate when situations demand even more?
We’ll always need the Vanguard or something that will fulfill its vital functions. Government transparency is important, but not adequate to democracy’s needs.
Elaine
[quote]But, for some reason, the DA’s office probably questions whether devoting such time and effort would help enlighten the public or whether it even would be given fair consideration or, instead, be falling on deaf ears.[/quote]
And if that is the case, as I suspect might be one component of the rationale for not speaking to the Vanguard, why base one’s decision solely on assumption? If as JustSaying said on another thread with regard to wanting someone with a different perspective to point out an error we are making or have made so as to limit damage:
“Wouldn’t we all wish for this ?”
I would hope so. And if that is the case, then I would think that the DA’s office might want to set aside the assumption that the Vanguard is an evil entity with which it should not engage, but might see it instead as a means of furthering a conversation with the community about its intent and its means of operation.
In the interest of transparency, I really cannot see what harm it would do to make the DA’s side of the story public in something other than a canned press release. Unless of case, the DA does not see transparency as a positive. Unfortunately, it would seem that some of us would prefer to not question or be questioned, perhaps because we are so certain of our own rightness that we feel no need to continue examining our own views.
“Wouldn’t we all wish for this ?”
“I would hope so. And if that is the case, then I would think that the DA’s office might want to set aside the assumption that the Vanguard is an evil entity with which it should not engage, but might see it instead as a means of furthering a conversation with the community about its intent and its means of operation.
In the interest of transparency, I really cannot see what harm it would do to make the DA’s side of the story public in something other than a canned press release. Unless of case, the DA does not see transparency as a positive. Unfortunately, it would seem that some of us would prefer to not question or be questioned, perhaps because we are so certain of our own rightness that we feel no need to continue examining our own views.”
Yeah, but… Why do you suggest that the DA’s office thinks that the Vanguard is “an evil entity”? It’s more likely likely they view it not as “evil,” but judge it as unfair, biased, unreasonable, harmless, deaf.
By David’s own account here, Mr. Raven did meet with him in January of 2010 in a discussion that he portrays as “strange and meandering.” Not a good start, but, still, something more has been happening since that’s led to their decision not to engage David.
I think we all know what it might be. Use of excessive descriptions–like “the arrogance of power” for something like inadequate courtesy to the Vanguard–are not new to this blog. And, it’s not just the red meat that David’s accounts provide readers, it’s our predictable responses.
I also think that office is beyond considering that engaging with the Vanguard will somehow “make the DA’s side of the story public.” Some of us have observed that the DA’s “side of the story” has been been disregarded and subjected to derision as long as I have been a reader. And, I don’t take any of this stuff personally.
It’s too late to figure that “it can’t do any harm….” That could be true, maybe, but I suspect both parties are happy to see things stay as they are. Think of the benefits to both.
[quote]It’s too late to figure that “it can’t do any harm….” That could be true, maybe, but I suspect both parties are happy to see things stay as they are. Think of the benefits to both.[/quote]
What do you see as the benefits ?
JustSaying
[quote]Why do you suggest that the DA’s office thinks that the Vanguard is “an evil entity”? It’s more likely likely they view it not as “evil,” but judge it as unfair, biased, unreasonable, harmless, deaf. [/quote]
My fault for rolling all of those adjectives into the word “evil”. Those are actually what I was encompassing. However, I also feel that it is never too late to reach out and attempt to establish better relations. It is only if we buy into the preconceived notion that those who are not with us are against us that we will shut down communications and not even attempt to be collaborative. I would apply this to both sides. If David were to have an interview with the DA and distorted the conversation, I would not see this as appropriate. Likewise, if the DA chooses not to communicate with a news source ( or blog with wide readership depending on your viewpoint) I think that this could be interpreted as promoting and
maintaining a lack of transparency. And yes, I would think that either of these actions could warrant the article title of “arrogance”.
rust49 “Au Contraire Nemesis, Octane, JustSaying and I have just stated our opinions about this article, it’s you and Siegel who are doing the attacking and name calling.”
Unfortunately you have one opinion about one subject. We all know by now that you don’t think David has a right to question the DA’s office about anything. I ask again do you have something else to say or is that all you can think of?
What is the problem with expecting the DA to talk to the press? Those that say this in not a legitimate news sight don’t seem to understand the future of news. Like I said before, it would only help the DA’s office if they actually answered questions from people with legitimate concerns. Is this too much to ask for or does the DA have something to hide?
“Unfortunately you have one opinion about one subject. We all know by now that you don’t think David has a right to question the DA’s office about anything. I ask again do you have something else to say or is that all you can think of?”
Unfortunately you have one opinion about one subjsct too. We all know by now that you think David has a right to question the DA’s office about anything. I ask again do you have something else to say or is that all you can think of?”
[quote]What is the problem with expecting the DA to talk to the press?[/quote]
The DA’s office does talk to the press and speaks to the public multiple times every year where Davis is allowed to be. It there a requirement that Reisig has to talk to any person who claims to be a member of the press/media?
If the DA’s office is so problematic why does’t David call for an outside investigation by an actually investigative entity?
[quote]It’s too late to figure that “it can’t do any harm….” That could be true, maybe, but I suspect both parties are happy to see things stay as they are. Think of the benefits to both.
“What do you see as the benefits ?”[/quote]The “benefits” accrue only to the two of them and are a disservice to the DA’s constituents and to David’s readers. The DA gets to ignore completely any difficult questions from the [i]Vanguard[/i] and David gets to constant and unrelenting attacks on the Yolo justice system based on inadequate information.
If either side cared “to reach out and attempt to establish better relations,” things would be different. One big difficulty is that the status quo serves both well and harms neither side. Too bad for the rest of us of half-informed folks, though.
Consider just this article if you happened to be sitting in your Woodland offices. Consider the “arrogance” label. Calling a private meeting “strange and meandering,” and claiming that it concluded with a threat that if the Vanguard’s reporting was “agreeable,” the office “might be willing to speak to the [i]Vanguard[/i] on the record.”
Consider the way this single “failure” of case is characterized and the successful prosecutor ridiculed for suggesting Yolo County takes drug-selling and gangs more seriously than the defense claimed Sacramento and Stockton do.
Consider that the [i]Vanguard[/i] justifies its constant attacks on the local justice system with proof only that bad things happen elsewhere (like today) combined with arguable assertions that lines of “likely innocent” people are found guilty in our courts.
Consider that the office apparently has refused to respond with more than basic communications like news releases and, possibly, responding to freedom of information requests (for which David does excellent, tenacious work).
I’ve seen no evidence of either side offering up anything that suggests this lack of communication won’t continue.
The idea the the [i]Vanguard[/i] is the future of news is disturbing–unless one considers Fox News and MS-NBC on the journalistic forefront. Until the [i]Vanguard[/i] achieves its declared high standards, we can’t expect it to be given much consideration.
Still, it would be better for all if David and the DA could be more professional and put in more effort to be “collaborative” (but, not “promotional”).
91 Octane . . .
[i]”Siegel, [let me ask you a question] ‘who is [the person who is] repeatedly whining about and belittling the DA, pike, Katehi, the WAC, Chamberpac, bob dunning, or whatever the latest target is? ummm……..”[/i]
Octane, I had a hard time with your sentence above, but I found a grammar policeman who added the words in brackets. Let me know if that was good policing or bad policing of what you were trying to say.
With that said, lets slice and dice your list a bit. I’m a member of the WAC and I have never felt belittled by anything that David has said about the WAC. Quite to the contrary, he has gone out of his way to ensure that there has been robust coverage of the WAC meetings, even though he could not attend those meetings himself due to a prior commitment to cover another reporting gig on Thursday nights. Further, the one time that David was critical of the WAC was during its formation. He did not accurately forecast the balanced nature of the appointees. Of course that was a forecast on his part, and even weathermen get a few forecasts wrong. When it became clear that his WAC forecast was wacky, he very openly and publicly fell on his sword, admitting he was wrong. He has promoted voter engagement with the issues by posing scenario questions for debate by Vanguard readers in the Comments. Bottom-line, I’ve found his engagement with the WAC to be the antithesis of whining and belittling.
Regarding Pike and Katehi, can you with a straight face actually say you think either of them have been unfairly handled here in the Vanguard? From my perspective as a person who lived through the Occupations at Cornell in 1969, the handling of the UCD situation of which Pike and Katehi have been central figures has been incredibly balanced. Please point to a single example of where the Vanguard has whined about or belittled either Pike or Katehi. I do not believe you, or anyone else can.
Regarding the Chamber Pac, you may have more of a leg to stand on regarding whining, but to this day I haven’t heard David belittle the Chamber Pac at all. Actually, David’s whining regarding the Pac was not really about the Pac itself, but more about their message. He believes (and I disagree with him) that the City of Davis doesn’t “get” the magnitude of the Budget crisis, and that any time spent not talking about cost cuts is a distraction. Therefore efforts to grow revenues (regardless of the time horizon of that growth) are pure and simple distractions. I heartily disagree, but respect David’s right to believe that Davis still doesn’t get it.
Dunning? Well Dunning is Dunning and he goes where he wants to go when he wants to go there and on whatever means of conveyance available . . . no matter how flimsy. I’ve called out Bob on an occasion or two, and I’ve heartily agreed with him on an occasion or two. Can you really with a straight face say that David whines about Dunning? When was the last time that happened? I’m curious.
So, your list really is a list of one name . . . and there are just as many fingerprints that match Mr. Reisig’s as there are that match David’s. They are a modern day Odd Couple.
JustSaying
[quote]”The power of the prosecution is unparalleled in this nation of laws and democracy.”
As opposed to other nations in the world? As opposed to the legal rights of each individual in this country?[/quote]
I realize that this response is rather late, but I feel your comment deserves a response.
I do not believe that the unparalleled refers to either of your contrasts. I do think it is an appropriate contrast to the power of the defense, which should be equal in a system truly seeking justice, but clearly is not equal in a number of ways. We seem to have agreed previously that all evidence should be provided simultaneously to the prosecution and the defense. I also feel that the quality of the defense should never depend upon the ability of the defendant to pay but should be guaranteed to be of equal competency to that of the prosecution. Do you really believe that we have that now ?
And David, I do not mean to speak for you, so if I am incorrect, please say so.
[quote]I’m embarrassed for my community when I find my flimsy Enterprise blowing down the driveway like a empty Safeway plastic bag. Who is covering much of anything of critical importance these days? (Well, there’s Rich, but the last time he wrote a political exposé, someone tracked him down and ran him over with a car.) [/quote]
Actually, I think the Enterprise is getting better, e.g. the DACHA issue just reported today, the SCD issue, the WAC coverage.
[quote]Likewise, if the DA chooses not to communicate with a news source ( or blog with wide readership depending on your viewpoint) I think that this could be interpreted as promoting and maintaining a lack of transparency. And yes, I would think that either of these actions could warrant the article title of “arrogance”.[/quote]
The DA has to be very, very careful what s/he says, and is not able to speak as freely as you would like…
[quote]I’m a member of the WAC and I have never felt belittled by anything that David has said about the WAC. [/quote]
With all due respect, I completely disagree with this assessment of David’s coverage of the WAC… 😉
E Roberts Musser said . . .
[i]”Actually, I think the Enterprise is getting better, e.g. the DACHA issue just reported today, the SCD issue, the WAC coverage.”[/i]
Tom Sakash is indeed good . . . more than good. The concern I have is how long he will stay at the Enterprise. Jonathan Edwards was more than good in his reporting of the Yolo County beat for the Enterprise, but in the end, the Enterprise wasn’t able to keep him here.
E Roberts Musser said . . .
[i]”With all due respect, I completely disagree with this assessment of David’s coverage of the WAC… ;-)”[/i]
I knew you wouldn’t, and with equally due respect, other than the original comments about the WAC right after it was appointed, what specifically has David said that either belittled or whined about the WAC?
With respect to the WAC, I see David starting our day of just as Allen Ludden did from 1959-1962,[b] “Welcome contestants, and here’s your toss-up question.” [/b]
[quote]”I do not believe that the unparalleled refers to either of your contrasts. I do think it is an appropriate contrast to the power of the defense, which should be equal in a system truly seeking justice, but clearly is not equal in a number of ways.”[/quote]My questions were truly questions; I sure wonder what point he was making.
You may be correct that he’s referring to the power difference between prosecution and defense. But, that always has been true by any measure there is (money, attorneys, investigators and such resources).
That’s why this “this nation of laws and democracy” has established the defendant’s right to a speedy and fair trial, the assumption of innocence, the requirement that the prosecutor convince not 11 out of 12 but every juror, judges whose work is checked and sometimes overruled in an appeals process and on and on.
It’s difficult to make judgements about the quality of the defense versus the prosecution in terms of the generalities you propose. I don’t think prosecutors’ offices have any special command of the system’s great attorneys. Some defendants have lots of confidence in defense counselors, enough to pay them and make them rich.
Since far more guilty people get off than innocent people get convicted, something must be right with both the system and with the quality of the defense militia. Convicting someone is not easy and it shouldn’t be.
I also speculated David might have been thinking that the balance of power might be changing in favor of the prosecution. I don’t agree, although science and changes in the system tend to make the guilty more likely to be convicted but also make it so the innocent are less likely to get caught up in the system.
[quote]”Actually, I think the Enterprise is getting better….”
“Tom Sakash is indeed good . . . more than good.”[/quote]There are good reporters working at the [i]Enterprise[/i]; it’s just that there’s only half as many still there that are needed to cover the news in a community like ours. Given the economics of the newspaper business, the prognosis is not good. That’s one reason we need operations like the [i]Vanguard[/i] to take up the slack.
JS
[quote]that always has been true by any measure there is (money, attorneys, investigators and such resources).
[/quote]
Asserting that something has always been true makes it neither just nor desirable.
I agree, medwoman, and didn’t suggest that it was just or desireable–only that it’s a condition that true, but that is offset be the Constitutional and other rights of the accused and the high bar that prosecutors must meet in order to convict an individual. We intend it to be difficult, and to accept that some guilty people will get off to reduce chances that the innocent are convicted.
[quote]I knew you wouldn’t, and with equally due respect, other than the original comments about the WAC right after it was appointed, what specifically has David said that either belittled or whined about the WAC? [/quote]
I have no intention of rehashing this issue ad nauseum – my views are well known on the subject. Let’s just say we can agree to disagree on this point… 😉
JustSaying:
My point about prosecutors is that they really control a lot of the rules of the game – they determine what to charge and when to charge it. In most jurisdictions, even this one, they have more resources at their disposal, more so when you add in the resources of law enforcement in general.
I do think that the balance of power is changing in favor of the prosecution. The laws are more draconian, mandatory sentencing makes it difficult to treat each situation according to the specifics of the crime and the individual involved.
I’m not sure that gets at what you want, but those are my thoughts.
“the DA’s office probably questions whether devoting such time and effort would help enlighten the public or whether it even would be given fair consideration or, instead, be falling on deaf ears. “
I would just suggest that since they’ve never tried to see how it would work – they ought. It can’t be much worse than how things are now and they may be surprised.
“The DA has to be very, very careful what s/he says, and is not able to speak as freely as you would like… “
Most DA’s speak more freely than this one does, so I think this is a non-starter argument.
“
I have no intention of rehashing this issue ad nauseum – my views are well known on the subject. Let’s just say we can agree to disagree on this point… ;-)”
Then perhaps it would be better if you simply did not bring things up that you are not prepared to discuss.
David, in fairness to Elaine, she did not bring the subject up, Octane did.
It is clear to me that Elaine is simply too young to remember Allen Ludden and College Bowl. I personally was riveted to the TV whenever it was on, so it is very easy to see the “toss up” questions that you throw out there for all your readers to discuss from many different sides and perspectives. Elaine has spent so many hours and years as a legal advocate that I sense that she finds it hard to read anything anyone says without looking for the advocacy position in what is being said. Different strokes for different folks.
With that said, I don’t see any of your comments about the DA as simple “toss up” questions. You and he each have your respective axes out, and are both more than willing to grind them.
[quote]I do think that the balance of power is changing in favor of the prosecution. The laws are more draconian, mandatory sentencing makes it difficult to treat each situation according to the specifics of the crime and the individual involved. [/quote]
In CA perhaps, which seems to be tilting towards more “law and order”/”tough on crime” stance. However, it should be noted that mandatory sentencing was the result of some atrocious rulings in the name of “restorative justice” by judges who just gave child molesters and rapists a slap on the wrist. So the pendulum has swung the other way in response…
[quote]Matt Williams:
“very easy to see the “toss up” questions that you throw out there”
“each have your respective axes out, and are both more than willing to grind them”[/quote]
Which is it, “toss up questions” or “axes to grind”? You can’t have it both ways… 😉
[quote]Elaine has spent so many hours and years as a legal advocate that I sense that she finds it hard to read anything anyone says without looking for the advocacy position in what is being said.[/quote]
I strongly believe in objectivity as much as possible…
I believe you are misusing the term, “restorative justice” here at least as I understand it. The complaints at the time were that judges had too much discretion and were too lenient in sentencing which caused people who clearly never should have been released from prison to be released.
“I don’t see any of your comments about the DA as simple “toss up” questions. You and he each have your respective axes out, and are both more than willing to grind them. “
I have a very different philosophy when it comes to how the legal system ought to operate.
Elaine, given the very political nature of the topics David illuminates here in the Vanguard, how often is meaningful dialogue going to be objective?
The above is why I particularly like David’s “toss up” question style when he uses it. It prompts the many subjective viewpoints to dialogue and in the process (hopefully) identify the points where they can reasonably meet in the middle and agree on objective components of the complex, multi-faceted issue they are discussing.
For davisite and No Growth and many others the statement “Davis needs no additional housing” is both objective and correct. For others that statement is neither objective nor correct. What is your definition of “objective” in such situations?
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”I have a very different philosophy when it comes to how the legal system ought to operate.”[/i]
Axe, meet grindstone.
E Roberts Musser said . . .
[i]”very easy to see the “toss up” questions that you throw out there”
“each have your respective axes out, and are both more than willing to grind them”
Which is it, “toss up questions” or “axes to grind”? You can’t have it both ways… ;-)[/i]
Elaine, for every rule there is an exception. The realities of life are that we always have it both ways.
With that said, I noted in my comment that both David’s relationship toward Reisig and Reisig’s relationship toward David are disfunctional, and as such David is never asking questions about the DA, but rather grinding his axe side by side with the DA grinding his axe.
[quote]I believe you are misusing the term, “restorative justice” here at least as I understand it. The complaints at the time were that judges had too much discretion and were too lenient in sentencing which caused people who clearly never should have been released from prison to be released.[/quote]
Nope. See [url]http://www.knoxpages.com/forum/pop_printer_friendly.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=6000[/url]
From the website:
[quote]Vermont Judge Edward Cashman is coming under fire for handing out a light sentence to a child rapist.
The judge says did it because he no longer believes in punishment and he wants to speed the rapist’s entry into a rehabilitation program.
Judge Cashman’s short sentence for an admitted child molester triggered immediate public and political reaction with some lawmakers saying he should leave the bench….
Now the judge’s ruling apparently sparked some political fires at the statehouse. Republican lawmakers have scheduled a press conference for tomorrow to call for mandatory minimum sentences. That’s a direct response to Judge Cashman’s ruling.[/quote]
I remember Vermont was one of the states that embraced “restorative justice” at the time. The judge was interviewed, and extolled its virtues…
[quote]erm: Which is it, “toss up questions” or “axes to grind”? You can’t have it both ways… 😉
Matt Williams: Elaine, for every rule there is an exception. [/quote]
I rest my case 😉
That’s not restorative justice as I understand it. I will try to run the story explaining what it is this week.
[quote]”With that said, I noted in my comment that both David’s relationship toward Reisig and Reisig’s relationship toward David are disfunctional, and as such David is never asking questions about the DA, but rather grinding his axe side by side with the DA grinding his axe.”[/quote]I’ve never read or heard a negative comment about David from Reisig. David’s attacks on our local law enforcement and justice systems are constant and unrelenting, most times with little foundation other than his predictable bias.
Since all criticisms are expressed at the same level of outrage, it’s difficult to sort out the possible real shortcomings from the misguided, under documented charges.
The DA, on the other hand, simply ignores the [i]Vanguard[/i] and those of us who follow it. There’s no equivalency here at all, but you’re sure right it’s dysfunctional. Neither party serves us well.
I think the DAs office is wise not to interview with the VanGuard; it seems clear to me that the DAs office would immediately be put on the defensive (talk about relentless prosecution!!)
It would be interesting to see some kind of balanced (i.e. not heavily biased) reporting inquiry concerning the activities of the DAs office; however the VanGuard has made it’s position clear. For such a highly political office, it may be very difficult to find an investigative reporter who is not biased or employed by those with a particular bias (or axe to grind) with regard to the DAs office.
That said, I still respect what David is doing with the VanGuard (it is what it is); I think many of the contributors do bring some balance to the VanGuard, and this is a good forum. Good to see the voices of the people expressed!
[quote]That’s not restorative justice as I understand it. I will try to run the story explaining what it is this week.[/quote]
See [url]http://www.restorativejustice.org/university-classroom/01introduction/[/url]
From restorative justice site: [quote]Reintegration: Seek to restore victims and offenders to whole, contributing members of society[/quote]
From the Cashman article: [quote]The judge says did it because he no longer believes in punishment and he wants to speed the rapist’s entry into a rehabilitation program. [/quote]
[quote]I’ve never read or heard a negative comment about David from Reisig. David’s attacks on our local law enforcement and justice systems are constant and unrelenting, most times with little foundation other than his predictable bias.
Since all criticisms are expressed at the same level of outrage, it’s difficult to sort out the possible real shortcomings from the misguided, under documented charges.
The DA, on the other hand, simply ignores the Vanguard and those of us who follow it. There’s no equivalency here at all, but you’re sure right it’s dysfunctional. Neither party serves us well.[/quote]
Spot on!