Commentary: Making an Example of Clinton Parish

Parish-3

Clinton Parish showed appallingly poor judgment last year in authorizing attacks against incumbent Judge Dan Maguire.  Even if those attacks had been accurate, it is questionable for one to play that sort of politics in a judicial race that is supposed to be about experience and neutrality, not politics.

How easily the charges were systematically dismantled under the least amount of inquiry, however, casts the situation in a very different light.  It calls into question Mr. Parish’s ability not only to be a judge, but also to be a prosecuting attorney.  After all, if you cast baseless charges against your political opponent, why would you not cast the same charges against a poor, defenseless defendant?

It is for those reasons, I think, that most people think Clinton Parish deserves whatever punishment befalls him by the State Bar.  And, while disbarment is unlikely, it is not necessarily unwarranted.

There is a public trust that our prosecutors will act in an ethical way and not fabricate charges for the convenience of winning or politics.  And yet, in his own conduct, Mr. Parish so thoroughly violated those principles that he has shown himself to be unfit for that public trust.

During the campaign, he placed the blame on those in his campaign, while admitting that he was perhaps too trusting.

According to the Sacramento Bee, Yolo County Deputy District Attorney Parish admitted that he “did not verify claims in an attack mailer that alleged campaign rival Judge Dan Maguire was involved in corporate fraud and bribery while working at a Colorado law firm in the mid-1990s.”

He said, “The connection was not as close as I was led to believe. I thought it was fully vetted and it was not. It was my responsibility as a candidate.”

Can you imagine – some poor schlepp in Tuolumne County that Mr. Parish is prosecuting, and his investigator comes up with horrific allegations that he never verified?

So if the Bar is making an example of Clinton Parish, it is deserved.  And it is unusual.

According to the Bee last week, just 28 such misconduct cases have been filed by the Bar since 2000.  21 of those cases were closed without an investigation, and Mr. Parish is one of just two to proceed to a hearing.

On the one hand, it shows us how serious the breach is here.  On the other, there is a problem with the State Bar.

A reasonable person might be tempted to believe that the reason that the Bar is coming down on Mr. Parish is not the danger that he may present to defendants in Tuolumne County, but rather that he attacked a sitting judge and that they not only want to discourage people from going outside of the appointment system, but they don’t want judicial races to turn into mudslinging politics, as usual.

After all, the State Bar has rarely lifted a finger in the face of prosecutorial misconduct.

The Veritas Institute Study found more than 800 documented instances of prosecutorial misconduct, including 107 where the prosecutors were found to have committed misconduct more than once – two were cited for misconduct four times, two were cited five times and one prosecutor was cited for misconduct six times.

Of all of these cases, only six prosecutors were disciplined.

John Thompson was convicted of murder and spent 14 years on death row before private investigators learned that prosecutors had failed to turn over evidence that would have cleared him at his robbery trial.  They also destroyed clothing that would have shown that his blood type did not match the blood on the scene.

His convictions overturned, Mr. Thompson was awarded $14 million by a jury for the wrongful imprisonment, but the US Supreme Court overturned it in what some called “one of the most cruel Supreme Court decisions ever,” with Justice Clarence Thomas ruling that the district attorney can’t be responsible for the single act of a lone prosecutor.

The New York Times argued his ruling protects prosecutors, giving them “nearly absolute immunity over civil suits.”

Justice Clarence Thomas justified the ruling, noting that an “attorney who violates his or her ethical obligations is subject to professional discipline, including sanctions, suspension, and disbarment.”

But, notes the Times, “Bar associations hardly ever punish this behavior; judges seldom discipline prosecutors for such violations; and criminal sanctions are rarely imposed against prosecutors.”

A rare case where the prosecutor may be disciplined is the Michael Morton case where Mr. Morton, released in October 2011, spent 25 years in prison for the murder of his wife.

Barry Scheck, co-founder of the Innocence Project notes, “Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson affirmed the finding of state District Judge Sid Harle that there was probable cause to believe former Williamson County prosecutor Ken Anderson had violated the criminal laws of Texas by disobeying a court order to disclose evidence pointing to the innocence of Michael Morton, who in 1987 was wrongly convicted of murdering his wife.”

This year, now-Judge Anderson is now under formal investigation for what is being call “gross injustice” as a prosecutor.

But Judge Anderson is the exception and his crimes, while egregious, are perhaps not much worse from countless other cases of prosecutorial misconduct that has led to numerous innocent people being put into prison for decades.

So, while we applaud the State Bar for going after Clinton Parish, we call on them to go after prosecutors around the state who intentionally misuse their power.

The record of the State Bar is frankly appalling.  So, while the extreme example of Clinton Parish underlies the extreme nature of his transgressions, at the same time we believe that the Bar is quick to set the example here, but slow to act on many other more serious transgressions in the carrying out of the ultimate power that the state has – the power to prosecute and deprive citizens of their freedom and liberties.

There is no one who is more powerful than the prosecutor in our system, and no one whose power has gone less checked.  The State Bar may be one of the few agencies that can make a difference here.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

Author

  • David Greenwald

    Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

    View all posts

Categories:

Court Watch

12 comments

  1. Has anyone accused Parish of prosecutorial misconduct? Certainly you didn’t cite any instances where such claims have been made or sustained. Then it is a leap of faith that his conduct on the campaign trail is indicative of a lack of ethics that will manifest in his courtroom conduct.

    That the State Bar is more concerned that judicial elections not descend to the base level found in the rest of society than about prosecutorial misconduct might be a sad comment on the state of both our elections and our courts but suggesting that Parish being the poster boy for what is wrong with one institution does not make him equally representative of what is wrong with the other.

  2. “Has anyone accused Parish of prosecutorial misconduct?”

    You’re missing the point of the column if that is a question you are posing. The point of the column is what you said in your said paragraph, that the State Bar has taken more interest in the conduct of candidates in elections and less in preventing prosecutorial misconduct.

    That having been said, I have been in the courtroom with Parish enough to know that it is no leap to suggest ” that his conduct on the campaign trail is indicative of a lack of ethics that will manifest in his courtroom conduct.”

    I don’t think anyone who has seen him in action was particularly surprised by what happened and I’ve in other spaces documented such cases.

  3. I think it is good that that Bar is looking at Parish. In the flip side of the coin, how many times has the Bar gone after defense attorneys for clear ethical violations? I know defense attorneys aren’t held to the same ethical standard as prosecutors but there has to be a limit.

  4. “I don’t think anyone who has seen him in action was particularly surprised by what happened…”

    Those who’ve met clinton parish, who’ve spent any time with him, and who know him aren’t surprised either, including some of the folks who supported him. David has had clinton parish on his radar for some time, and for good reason. Were it not for clinton parish’s public demonstration of his remorselessly extreme and unethical behaviors, David’s observations of this individual’s questionable activities could easily have been dismissed as nothing more than the Vanguard’s’s usual anti-prosecutorial rantings. I guess we should all be thankful that this bozo gave us a nice public showing of who he really is.

  5. “Can you imagine – some poor schlepp in Tuolumne County that Mr. Parish is prosecuting, and his investigator comes up with horrific allegations that he never verified?”

    What about the poor schlepps from Yolo County that have been prosecuted by him and found guilty because he never verified horrific allegations. How many other prosecutors do you think have the same problem of not verifying allegations brought to them by witnesses, detectives, etc.

  6. [quote]David has had clinton parish on his radar for some time, and for good reason. Were it not for clinton parish’s public demonstration of his remorselessly extreme and unethical behaviors, David’s observations of this individual’s questionable activities could easily have been dismissed as nothing more than the Vanguard’s’s usual anti-prosecutorial rantings.[/quote]

    Or maybe there are just more like him still in the office?

  7. Nemisis[quote]What about the poor schlepps from Yolo County that have been prosecuted by him and found guilty because he never verified horrific allegations. [/quote]

    You leave un no choice but to believe you have no idea how the courts work? Clinton Parish could not convict anyone. The jury, with the judges approval, does that.

  8. Mr. Obvious,

    “Clinton Parish could not convict anyone.” That’s because he was an incompetent litigator. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist!) But the fact of the matter is that he did obtain convictions by virtue of his (former) job as a DDA. It’s part of the job description.

    We hold prosecutors and judges to a higher standard. They wield immense discretion in how to carry out their jobs with the expectation that they will do so responsibly and ethically. Your buddy clinton parish was the poster child for how not to conduct oneself in court (or in a judicial campaign for that matter).

    I think the point Nemesis was trying to raise was this: if clinton parish was so cavalier in making public false allegations of crimes (bribery? really?), misconduct, and cronyism against a sitting judge, then what restraint would this bufoon excercise when it’s some unknown and faceless “criminal” that he’s trying to use to add another notch in his coup stick?

  9. Like I said earlier I’m glad the bar is going after Parish. Prosecutors should be and are held to a higher standard. We expect judges and prosecutors to be honest and to be examples of integrity. I think what Parish did was outlandish and he is going to beb spanked for it.

    As for you knowing what Nemesis thinks, thank you. Please feel free to let us know what Nemesis is thinking in the future.

    I’d still like to know the breakdown, prosecutor vs. defense, of the 28 misconduct cases filed by the bar. I guess all of the misconduct case could be against prosecutors and judges because, “We hold prosecutors and judges to a higher standard.”

  10. “You leave un no choice but to believe you have no idea how the courts work? Clinton Parish could not convict anyone. The jury, with the judges approval, does that. “

    I wonder if you know how the courts work, what do you do? I have been a defense attorney for 30 years. First, Nemesis never said he convicted anyone. But second, prosecutors make the case to convict and if they deceive, then they have the opportunity to wrongfully convict.

  11. While there is no doubt that the Parish campaign was wrongful and even vicious calling for his head (suspension or disbarment) is premature and wrong. He was referred to the bar. they filed a formal complaint. he’s probably filed an answer which might be interesting to see. he’s entitled to due process and a fair trial or to admit fault and ask for leniency. just like everyone else. As to what he did, he’s been publicly humiliated, buried in an election by a well qualified sitting judge that no one in their right mind would have run against, and basically exiled from the county where he and his wife lived and where his children went to school. In my 32 yrs defending the troubled of society i often wonder when one of my clients is really in trouble, how much of a beat down is enough. apparently many think Clinton hasn’t suffered enough. So be it. It will work itself out as such cases do, in state bar court. No one should be flippant or gleeful in the threat to his career and his livelihood. Say what you will, in my experience with him, which i assure you David trumps yours, i never doubted his commitment to victims of crime or protecting the community. that this came out horribly in the campaign doesn’t change that.

Leave a Comment