California Criminal Lawyer Blog

In a shocking development for the general public, but a not-so-shocking development to seasoned defense attorneys, San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis has dropped murder charges against Cyntha Sommer.

The only evidence used to convict Sommers was contaminated. Even the prosecution's chief expert at the trial suggested that it might be contaminated. But the dismissal of SOmmer's case came only after the defense attorney demanded retesting of the tissue samples. There was no arsenic in them. There never was.

The prosecutor trying the case, Laura Gunn, in an attempt to win a conviction at all costs, claimed Sommer's "motive" for killing her husband was to obtain the proceeds of his insurance policy. They put forth that after she obtained this policy, she puchased breast implants and partied. Murder for breast implants? That, plus contaminated "evidence" was the slim speclation the prosecutor used to convict an innocent woman.

I recently sent a letter to Dumanis outlining that I had learned the Sheriff's crime lab was involved in "switching" blood samples and attributing them to the wrong people, and keeping a lab witness on the public payroll who testifies falsely. Click HERE for article. And after that, San Diego attorney Mike Fremont caught a San Diego Police Department crime lab criminalist lying in the witness stand. A complaint to Dumanis yielded no action. Click HERE for article.

Shame on the San Diego District ttorney's Office.

By Dana Littlefield
STAFF WRITER

April 18, 2008

Cynthia Sommer, accused of fatally poisoning her Miramar Marine husband with arsenic, spent two years and four months behind bars. Yesterday, the 34-year-old mother of four walked out of the Las Colinas jail a free woman, after prosecutors dropped the murder case against her.

Prosecutors said they now have reasonable doubt that Sgt. Todd Sommer was poisoned, based on conclusions reached by a new set of toxicology experts.

San Diego Superior Court Judge John Einhorn granted the prosecutors' motion to dismiss “without prejudice,” meaning they have the option to refile charges later.

Cynthia Sommer's defense lawyer has said he plans to request a dismissal with prejudice.

District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis said at a news conference yesterday that her office acted appropriately, based on available evidence, when it charged Sommer with murder in March 2006 and tried her in January 2007. Sommer was arrested in Palm Beach County, Fla., in November 2005.

Prosecutors sought more forensic testing when defense attorneys raised questions about the evidence during and after the trial. Testing on other tissue samples from Todd Sommer revealed no arsenic.

Cynthia Sommer talked to her family on the phone yesterday after she was released from Las Colinas jail in Santee. Jacky Scott of Welcome Home Ministry was with her.
“Today justice was done,” Dumanis said. “This is how the system is supposed to work.

“As soon as we had the information that pointed to reasonable doubt, we brought this case this afternoon to get the matter dismissed,” she said, adding that prosecutors acted quickly “so that Sommer didn't spend any additional time in custody.”

Defense lawyer Allen Bloom was unconvinced.

“No one should say that this system worked,” he said. “This dismissal wasn't because of the prosecution's efforts; it was done because the defense demanded it.”

Todd Sommer, 23, died Feb. 18, 2002, after collapsing at the couple's home at the Miramar Marine Corps Air Station. Doctors first determined he died of natural causes, but tests later revealed high levels of arsenic in his liver and kidneys.

Witnesses testified during the trial that Cynthia Sommer slept with other men, partied heavily and used some of her husband's life insurance money to buy breast implants shortly after he died.

Prosecutor Laura Gunn argued that Sommer's behavior indicated she was “celebrating” rather than mourning.

On Jan. 30, 2007, a jury convicted her of first-degree murder and allegations of murder by poison and for financial gain. She faced a life sentence.

In December, a judge granted Sommer's request for a new trial, saying her former attorney, Robert Udell, made several mistakes that might have prejudiced jurors. Udell admitted he made some errors.

Bloom said jurors never should have heard about Sommer's partying and sexual behavior. He also said early tests on Todd Sommer's tissues were flawed and likely contaminated.

According to court documents, prosecutors learned in March that several of Todd Sommer's tissue samples had been stored at San Diego Naval Medical Center in Balboa Park. They were tested this month at a lab in Quebec, which found no arsenic.

Dr. Jean-Philippe Weber, the Quebec lab's former director, prepared a report stating that the previous test results were “physiologically improbable” and that contamination was possible.

Yesterday, Bloom reaffirmed his contention that Todd Sommer died of natural causes, as doctors determined initially.

“Young people and healthy people die from sudden cardiac arrest in our country every year,” Bloom said. “Todd Sommer was sadly was one of those people. I know he didn't die because of Cynthia Sommer.

Continue reading "SAN DIEGO PROSECUTOR FORCED TO DISMISS CHARGES AGAINST INNOCENT WOMAN ACCUSED OF POISONING MARINE HUSBAND-SHAME ON THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY" »

Posted by Mary Frances Prevost | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: California Cases , Civil Rights , Dirty Tricks in the Crime Lab , In The News , Judicial Misconduct Cases , Police Misconduct Cases , Prosecutorial Misconduct

Bookmark:

Justices Accept Question of Prosecutors as Lawyers or Managers

By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: April 15, 2008

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court accepted an appeal on Monday that could help define the boundaries of prosecutorial immunity in an era when the officials who head big prosecutors’ offices function as managers as much as they act as hands-on lawyers.

Under longstanding legal doctrine, prosecutors are absolutely immune for their judgments in handling cases, even if a faulty judgment results in a wrongful conviction.

In this instance, a man wrongfully convicted of murder on the basis of false testimony by a jailhouse informant sued the top two officials of the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office on the ground that they had failed to set up a proper management system that could have flagged the problematic nature of the informant’s testimony.

In rejecting the officials’ claim of absolute prosecutorial immunity, the federal appeals court in San Francisco held that the suit was related not to the men’s role as prosecutors, but as office managers.

The officials’ Supreme Court appeal argues that this decision circumvented a rule that has shielded prosecutors from second guessing by the courts and warns that it would “encourage a flood of lawsuits” that would make it difficult for prosecutors to do their work.

The plaintiff, Thomas L. Goldstein, served 24 years in prison before the Federal District Court in Los Angeles granted his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In 2005 he filed a civil rights suit seeking damages from John K. Van de Kamp, who at the time of his trial in 1980 was the Los Angeles district attorney, and Curt Livesay, who was Mr. Van de Kamp’s chief deputy.

The suit said that because of inadequate record keeping, the deputy prosecutors who handled the case were unaware that their star witness, a jailhouse informant, Edward Floyd Fink, not only falsely testified that Mr. Goldstein confessed to him, but also lied when he said on the stand that he was not receiving, and had never received, any benefits for testifying on behalf of the state.

In fact, Mr. Fink had been an informant for the Long Beach for years and had in turn received reductions in his prison sentence for testifying in earlier trials, as well as in Mr. Goldstein’s case.

Prosecutors are required to inform the defense of information that could serve to impeach the credibility of prosecution witnesses, and the prosecutors would have had to turn over the information on Mr. Fink to Mr. Goldstein’s lawyers, had they known about it.

Mr. Goldstein’s suit argues that under a 1972 Supreme Court decision, Giglio v. United States, a prosecutor’s office has an affirmative obligation to maintain a record-keeping system ensuring that all lawyers in the office have access to information about promises to witnesses.

Mr. Van de Kamp and Mr. Livesay argued unsuccessfully in the lower federal courts that the suit should be dismissed on the basis of absolute prosecutorial immunity. In their Supreme Court appeal, Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, No. 07-854, they argue that “the dissemination of exculpatory information to the defense” is a “core prosecutorial function,” distinct from administrative functions like “hiring procedures and compensation schedules.” The lower courts were mistaken in viewing their failure to have a proper record-keeping system as administrative rather than prosecutorial, they maintain.

Mr. Goldstein’s lawyer argues that “entering information into and retrieving information from a data-indexing system” are “transparently administrative activities” and that no “floodgates” will open, because most prosecutors’ offices, including Los Angeles, now have the systems to avoid future mistakes.

Continue reading "U.S. SUPREME COURT WILL HEAR CASE THAT COULD DESTROY PROSECUTORIAL IMMUNITY" »

Posted by Mary Frances Prevost | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Bad Cop - No Donut , Civil Rights , In The News , Prosecutorial Misconduct

Bookmark:

A Burst of Prosecutors on Trial

Prosecutors are normally the predators of the legal world, stalking and taking down the bad guys who break the rules of society.

But in an unusual twist, three Northern California prosecutors are now the prey — of State Bar prosecutors who want them punished for allegedly abusing their authority or violating the very rules of law they were sworn to uphold.

Santa Clara County Deputy District Attorney Benjamin Field, Santa Cruz County Deputy DA George Dunlap Jr., and retired Sacramento County Deputy DA Christopher Cleland face trial in the State Bar Court within the next couple of months. A fourth, former Sonoma County Deputy DA Brooke Halsey Jr., was suspended in January.

Field is accused, in part, of concealing evidence, misleading a judge, and ignoring a judicial order; Dunlap of improperly intervening in a case involving his then-girlfriend and lying to authorities; and Cleland — whose case was the subject of a story in The Recorder last month — of withholding exculpatory evidence in a murder trial.

Halsey, meanwhile, was suspended for four years for intentionally withholding documents that could have helped Petaluma physician Louis Pelfini defend against charges he murdered his wife in 1999. A judge dismissed the case based on the Tiburon attorney’s misconduct.

Some attorneys who defend lawyers facing discipline believe state bars around the country, including California’s, have begun scrutinizing prosecutors more closely following the North Carolina State Bar’s decision last year to disbar Michael Nifong. The Durham County district attorney was behind the disastrous prosecution of three Duke University lacrosse players falsely accused of rape.

“Lots of prosecutors are getting caught in the crosshairs,” Los Angeles attorney Diane Karpman said, because the public senses some “aren’t playing by the rules.”

But State Bar Supervising Deputy Trial Counsel Donald Steedman, who is handling the case against Field, said that while it’s “fairly rare” to have so many cases against prosecutors under way at once, there really is no rhyme or reason.

“It’s luck, karma,” he said. “It’s just that these have come in at about the same time.”

Steedman said the State Bar doesn’t keep figures on the number of prosecutorial misconduct cases that go through the State Bar Court each year. And, he added, few cases of any type make it to trial.

“They happen only when we’re unable to reach a settlement,” he said.

Cleland is up first, with his trial beginning on April 1. Dunlap is next, facing prosecutors for three days on April 22, after an earlier day of trial in December. Field’s trial is set for May 20-23 and June 17-20. (Dates are based on the availability of judges.)

Of the three, Field has gotten the most publicity. His alleged wrongdoings — including reportedly suppressing evidence that could have cleared two accused rapists — were widely covered in the press, particularly as part of a scathing five-part series in the San Jose Mercury News two years ago. State Bar prosecutors accuse Field, a 15-year veteran of the Santa Clara County DA’s office, of abusing his authority in three separate cases.

The most egregious charges stem from the 1998 rape convictions of Damon Auguste and Kamani Hendricks. Six years after Auguste was sentenced to nearly 19 years in prison and Hendricks to more than 37 years, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Emerson overturned their convictions in 2004 based on alleged misconduct by Field.

The judge found Field hadn’t disclosed important DNA laboratory notes or strong evidence that the supposed victim — a 15-year-old girl identified only as Monique —had fabricated the assault for fear her parents would punish her for being out after curfew. The judge also said Field had no authority to serve search warrants on the defendants, their families and witnesses during habeas corpus proceedings.

In an unrelated case, the State Bar accuses Field of concealing evidence that could have been used to repudiate witnesses who fingered a man for the murder of a San Jose drug dealer. And in a third case, Field is accused of ordering a supposed 13-year-old male to undergo a dental exam — over a judge’s objections — to determine if he was really an adult so Field could file tougher charges.

Steedman, who is prosecuting Field’s disciplinary case with State Bar Deputy Trial Counsel Cydney Batchelor, called the charges against Field “pretty significant.”

“It’s important that prosecutors treat defendants fairly,” he said, “and when that doesn’t happen, our system of justice is threatened.”

Nonetheless, he said no decision has been made yet about whether to seek disbarment.

Field’s attorney, Allen Ruby, a partner in San Jose’s Ruby & Schofield, wouldn’t let Field talk to the press. But in 2004, after the rape convictions against Auguste and Hendricks were overturned, Field told reporters the judge’s decision was “an injustice to the victim” and insisted there was “overwhelming physical evidence” the girl had been raped.

After more allegations of wrongdoing were raised in 2006, Field told the Mercury News he had tried to play by the rules at all times. “I know in my heart that I did not intentionally engage in misconduct,” he said. “I take the ethical obligations of the office seriously.”

Ruby said last week his client’s defense strategy will be simple.

“He’s innocent,” Ruby said. “The State Bar has made a variety of allegations that we think are unsound and unproveable.” He said Field “looks forward to his trial and vindication.”

Ruby would not go into detail about his defense plans. But in court papers, Field denied all allegations.

Field, who graduated from Boalt Hall School of Law, has been with the Santa Clara County DA’s office since getting his Bar license in 1993. In May 2006, he was reassigned from homicide and gang cases to the high-technology crime unit.

Trouble for Santa Cruz Deputy DA Dunlap began in 1995 when, according to State Bar records, he crashed his truck into another vehicle while driving drunk. A prosecutor in San Joaquin County at the time, Dunlap allegedly claimed someone named John had been driving.

“This was a total lie,” State Bar Deputy Trial Counsel Tammy Albertsen-Murray wrote in her pretrial statement. “There was no one named ‘John’ involved at all; [Dunlap] was the driver.”

The more serious charge against Dunlap, however, accuses him of intervening in a hit-and-run and insurance fraud case that had been filed against his then-girlfriend Amelita Manes. State Bar prosecutors claim Dunlap entered a San Joaquin County courtroom in 2002 when Manes’ case was on calendar and talked to the judge, despite having been ordered by his bosses to keep hands off.

In court papers, Albertsen-Murray said Dunlap didn’t tell the judge he knew the defendant and that he was forbidden from having any contact with her case.

“In fact,” she wrote, “[Dunlap] — a senior homicide prosecutor at the time — acted as if he had authority to appear in the case and personally stated to the court that the district attorney’s recommended resolution of the Manes case was a six-month continuance for dismissal, which was a total fabrication.”

Albertsen-Murray is seeking Dunlap’s disbarment.

Dunlap, who was fired from the San Joaquin County DA’s office in 2002, didn’t return a telephone call seeking comment. But his attorney, San Francisco solo practitioner Jonathan Arons, said last week that Dunlap did nothing wrong.

“He wasn’t at the prosecutor’s table,” Arons said. “He was watching with all the other attorneys in the courtroom, and he answered a question asked by the judge. He didn’t say he was appearing for the people [or] appearing for Ms. Manes.”

Since joining the Santa Cruz County DA’s office, Arons said, Dunlap has tried 25 cases to verdict and is currently involved in a murder trial. If there were anything to the State Bar’s charges, Arons asked, “why’d another DA hire him on the spot?”

Arons said Dunlap — a prosecutor for the entire 20 years he’s had his Bar license — admits he got a DUI in 1995, but said the State Bar was simply “piling on” by filing charges for that incident.

Steedman said the State Bar considers misbehavior by prosecutors very serious because they are in some ways bound by stronger ethical obligations than other attorneys.

“Their client is the people and their obligation is to seek justice,” he said, “as compared to a defense attorney whose obligation is to that client — within his ethical responsibilities.”

Posted by Mary Frances Prevost | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: In The News , Prosecutorial Misconduct

Bookmark:

Why did the overworked California Supreme Court grant review on this case? it's because they just couldn't ber that the Court of APpeal reversed a convcition for Prosecutorial Misconduct. So, they granted review to protect the prosecutor.

So, here's what happened. The Cort of Appeal reversed the defendant's convcition because of prosecutorial misconduct.

The California Supreme Court granted review and reversed the Court of Appeal, meaning they affirm the conviction. They restate well-settled appellate rules governing prosecutorial misconduct.

But what important issues did this case present that they wanted to resolve? Which important issues did they in fact resolve? None. The Supremes find that the DA didn't improperly urge
the jury to convict through a guilt by association argument (the defendant is a Catholic priest, convicted of child molestation).

The Supremes find that the DA didn't ask the jurors to stand in the shoes of the victims. They do have to admit that the DA said, "I think his client is guilty." This violates the ban against expressions by the prosecutor of belief in the defendant's guilt. But the Supremes assure us that in context this referred to the evidence presented, not some evidence the DA had that
the jury didn't.

Of course, this is still misconduct, isn't it? Yes. But we must send the message to the prosecutors that the ends DO justify the means; that you CAN commit miscondcut if the case warrant it. Right?

Of course, the Supremes say that any error was waived, and the failure to object wasn't
ineffective, since there might have been valid tactical reasons not to do so.

Remind me again, why did they bother with this case? Oh right, they are so overwhelmed with work that they want to dump death cases on the Court of Appeal.

People v. Lopez; 2008 DJ DAR 1393; DJ, 1/29/08; Cal. Supremes

Continue reading "PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, OR NO PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT?" »

Posted by Mary Frances Prevost | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: California Cases , Prosecutorial Misconduct

Bookmark:

People v. Le (2007) , Cal.App.4th
[No. H030808. Sixth Dist. Dec. 27, 2007.]

A jury found appellant guilty of the second-degree murder of his wife's lover and also found true an allegation that he had personally used a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code §§ 187, 12022, subd. (b).)

The trial court sentenced him to a state prison term of 15 years to life. Appellant contended, "The trial court erred in instructing under CALCRIM No. 917 that mere 'words' cannot establish a defense to battery, and in permitting the prosecutor to argue to the jury, over objection, that 'words' cannot legally constitute 'provocation' to reduce a homicide to manslaughter."

Appellant further contended that the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument and that the trial court erred in responding to a jury question.

The Court of Appeal reversed.

Posted by Mary Frances Prevost | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: California Cases , Evidence , Prosecutorial Misconduct

Bookmark:

When I last posted in the Dirty Tricks in the Crime Lab Section, I told you about how San Diego Superior Court Judge Mike Smyth - when he was a chief prosecutor at the San Diego Office of the City Attorney - had written to the San Diego Sheriff's Department in 1995 complaining that San Diego Sheriff's lab analyst Belen Hebreo testified incompetently in DUI cases. Ms. Hebreo even testified in a murder case I handled. No one ever told me about the hidden truths about Ms. Hebreo's historically false testimony.

Nothing was done, the complaint was ignored, and Smyth and his coven of unethical prosecutors continued to use Ms. Hebreo without a single prosecutor ever alerting defense attorneys about her false testimony. I found out about it fully 11 years after Smyth, now a judge, wrote that damning letter.

Now, San Diego DUI Defense Attorney Michael Fremont is making claims that a San Diego Police Department lab criminalist testified falsely in the case of People v. Poitrowski.

In a letter obtained by me from Fremont to San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, dated October 29, 2007, Fremont asks Dumanis to charge San Diego Police Department criminalist Larry Dale with perjury because "he did not tell the truth as to the ASCLAD accreditation for the crime of breath testing."

He goes on to say "The statement made by Dale on direct that 'every part of the lab has been accredited in terms of how they do business, under ASCLAD' was in fact false and constitutes perjury. An investigation should be opened and he should be charged."

Fremont has not yet received a response from Ms. Dumanis.

Note: When it was revealed that former San Diego Sheriff's department criminalist Ray Cole had falsified his resume to include that he had earned a degree in pre-medicine, neither DA Dumanis nor San Diego City Attorney Mike Aguirre took action, even though Cole had testified in hundreds - if not thousands - of DUI, DUI w/injury and DUI homicide cases over more than 15 years. Can we expect anything more from this new allegation? Don't hold your breath. Prosecutors in San Diego stand by the old addage "the ends justify the means." In other words, "whatever it takes to win"

Posted by Mary Frances Prevost | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Bad Cop - No Donut , DUI Defense , Dirty Tricks in the Crime Lab , Prosecutorial Misconduct

Bookmark:

The following synopsis from the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice on making prosecutors responsible for misconduct (because they never are) is great in theory, but will judges really ever follow it? I don't think so. But we can always hope. Read on...

October 19, 2007

FROM: CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ISSUES
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY OF PROSECUTORS AND CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS.

The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice,
created by the California State Senate to examine the causes of
wrongful convictions and make recommendations and proposals to
further insure that the administration of criminal justice in
California is just, fair and accurate, released its sixth report and
recommendation today, addressing the problems of professional
responsibility and accountability of prosecutors and criminal defense
lawyers. The Commission concluded there was a serious problem of
underreporting of misconduct and incompetence of prosecutor and
criminal defense lawyers to the California State Bar, and recommended
a new Rule of Court and an amendment of the Canons of Judicial Ethics
to address the problem. The recommended amendment would identify
examples of egregious misconduct that should be reported to the State
Bar by judges, regardless of whether the misconduct resulted in a
modification or reversal of a judgment.

The Commission recommendations gained the full support of twenty
members of the Commission, with two members, District Attorney Jim
Fox of San Mateo County and District Attorney Greg Totten of Ventura
County, dissenting in part. The Commission is chaired by former
California Attorney General John Van de Kamp, and includes a broad
spectrum of prosecution, defense, police and victim representatives.

The Commission's recommendations were based upon reports and research
done for the Commission by Law Professors Laurie Levenson of Loyola
Law School, Larry Benner of California Western Law School, and Cookie
Ridolfi of Santa Clara University School of Law. A public hearing was
convened in Los Angeles on July 11, 2007 to hear the testimony of
experts and representatives of police, prosecutor and criminal
defense agencies.

The Commission will continue its deliberations, examining issues
related to the funding of defense services in California, policies
governing compliance with constitutional requirements for the
availability of exculpatory evidence, and remedies for wrongful
convictions and access to post-conviction testing. The Commission
will also examine the administration of the death penalty in
California, convening hearings next year in Sacramento on January 10,
Los Angeles on February 13, and Santa Clara on March 28. The
Commission is scheduled to issue its final report in June, 2008.

CONTACT: Gerald F. Uelmen, Executive Director

Tel. 408-554-5002
Fax 408-554-5026
Email guelmen@scu.edu

Posted by Mary Frances Prevost | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Bad Cop - No Donut , Bad Cop - No Donut , Civil Rights , In The News , Prosecutorial Misconduct

Bookmark:

Well, IT'S ABOUT TIME!

Mike Nifong, the disgraced district attorney who tried his hardest to bring bogus rape charges against three innocent Duke lacrosse players, reported for his itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny 24-hour jail sentence today.

For goodness sakes....Paris Hilton got more time.

Nifong, who hid behind his wife while reporting to jail, was sentenced to the mini jail term for contempt of court because he lied about DNA evidence during preliminary hearings in the Duke lacrosse case. It is absolutely amazing that a man who knowingly presented false testimony and withheld exculpatory DNA evidence - who tried his hardest to put three innocent people in prison for decades - gets one day behind bars.

But that's just typical of how our judicial system works.

What is even more incredible is that there were Nifong supporters cheering good wishes to the their fallen hero as he turned himself in to swap his dockers for jail stripes.

One sign read, "We believe in your integrity and goodness." Was he stoned, or recently lobotomized? This prosecutor tried to ruin the lives of three innocent young men to gain notoriety and name recognition for his re-election campaign. Why? because he needed the pension!

Well, as I always say, "Darwin was wrong."

On the flip side of this sad story, it is heartening to know that the three college students who were railroaded by this unethical prosecutor are now seeking reforms of the criminal justice system as part of settlement agreements with Durham.

Of course, nothing of substance will ever happen. Protect people accused of crime. Oh, it's very unpopular.

But at least Mr. Nifong got a taste - if only a tiny taste - of what he did to those college students. I wonder, how many Nifong victims are out there that we don't know about?

Posted by Mary Frances Prevost | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Bad Cop - No Donut , In The News , Prosecutorial Misconduct

Bookmark:

Ineffective legal work, juror misconduct cited

By Greg Moran
and Mark Sauer
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITERS

September 13, 2007

A state appeals court reversed yesterday the 2004 child molestation convictions of a popular Toler Elementary School teacher who is serving a prison sentence of 15 years to life after three separate trials.

Thad Jesperson

The 2-1 decision by a panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal in San Diego was the latest turn in the emotionally charged case of Thad Jesperson, or “Mr. J” as he was known to many at the Clairemont school, which is in the San Diego Unified School District.

Jesperson was put on trial three times by San Diego prosecutors on charges relating to the alleged molestation of eight second-and third-grade students in the 2001-02 and 2002-03 school years.

His convictions involved four of those girls. Charges relating to the other four children were either dropped by prosecutors or ended in acquittals or jury deadlocks.

In an 80-page ruling, Justice Richard Huffman wrote that the verdict had to be thrown out because of a combination of misconduct by jurors and ineffective legal work by Jesperson's lawyer. The defense lawyer did not prevent jurors from hearing videotaped interviews of the children that Huffman said were filled with prejudicial and irrelevant comments.

In the face of the allegations, Jesperson always insisted he was innocent. Yesterday his wife of 20 years was elated.

“I have just been inundated with phone calls from so many wonderful people calling in support,” Sydney Jesperson said from her home in Murrieta. “Our family was so excited by this news.”

“We completely believe in his innocence, as we always have,” she said. “We are finally feeling justice is starting to be served and we continue to be hopeful.”

Continue reading "SEXUAL ABUSE CONVICTIONS REVERSED FOR JUROR MISCONDUCT" »

Posted by Mary Frances Prevost | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: In The News , Judicial Misconduct Cases , Prosecutorial Misconduct

Bookmark:

So what's new. Yet another exonneration of a sociopathic law enforcment officer by the prosecutors sworn to protect the public. In lockstep with her unethical predecessor Paul Pfingst, San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis again declines to prosecute a violent and uncontrollable cop. All I can say is "Buyer Beware" in the next election. When those running for office run on a "Law Enforcement's Choice" ticket, we're in for trouble.

Oh, and before you all claim I'm just a naysayer, I gave Bonnie Dumanis the maximum allowable contribution when she was running for San Diego District Attorney. That's right.

By Jose Luis Jiménez
STAFF WRITER

July 13, 2007

During three years of patrolling San Diego County's streets, sheriff's Deputy Mark Ritchie has been involved in two fatal shootings, has been accused in three lawsuits of excessive force and testified once that he kicked a handcuffed murder suspect.

Benny Ramirez held a photo of his son Jorge, who was shot to death by sheriff's Deputy Mark Ritchie in 2005. Ramirez said he would like to see law enforcement use less force in the course of duty.

Yesterday, the state Attorney General's Office announced that the district attorney was right not to prosecute Ritchie for the killing of Jorge Ramirez, a robbery suspect who was shot six times as he lay on the ground, wounded by a previous gunshot.

The attorney general's report questions the district attorney's analysis of the case, but in the end concluded it would be difficult to convince a jury that Ritchie committed a crime.

Ramirez was one of five Latino men shot to death by sheriff's deputies in Vista in 2005. District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis cleared the deputies of wrongdoing in all five cases.

In February, Latino activists and the American Civil Liberties Union called on the attorney general to review Dumanis' conclusions. The Attorney General's Office found in each case that the district attorney acted correctly, but it took five months to reach a decision in the Ramirez shooting. The others were decided in May.

For a graphic description of the many shootings by Ritchie, click on below....

Continue reading "DIRTY SAN DIEGO SHERIFF'S DEPUTY WITH HISTORY OF ABUSE SAVED BY STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL" »

Posted by Mary Frances Prevost | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Bad Cop - No Donut , Civil Rights , In The News , Police Misconduct Cases , Prosecutorial Misconduct

Bookmark:

After much toil and trouble, I was finally able to get my hands on the sustained complaints from the San Diego Sheriff's Department on one of their crime lab people who has been testifying falsely in San Diego DUI cases for 12 years..

Sheriff's Legal Advisor, Sanford Toyen, attempted for months to block me from obtaining these records. After a threat of litigation, he finally came up with three very damning letters from prosecutors complaining about the ineptitude of San Diego Crime Lab Analyst Belen Hebreo.

The first letter, dated November 16, 1995, is authoried by Thomas Zeleny. Zeleny was then a deputy city attorney in the criminal trial division. What he says is damning. Apparently on November 8, 1995, Zeleny called Ms. Hebreo as an "expert" witness in a San Diego DUI case. The trial was before Judge Howard Shore. After the trial, Zeleny reports that Judge Shore told him Ms. Hebreo had "no business being on the witness stand." The judge questioned Ms. Hebreo's claim that she had been qualified as an expert witness 25 times before because she was, in his estimation, the "worst" lab witness he'd ever seen."

Zeleny goes on to talk about how Ms. Hebreo just made things up on the witness stand; i.e. she claimed that Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus is masked by tolerance. Then she switched up and reversed herself, saying it wasn't. Then she testified that if someone were physically impaired, it doesn't mean they are mentally impaired. After lots of prodding, Zeleny said she "gave the correct response."

Zeleny then began to give Hebreo a hypothetical, and she couldn't wait for him to finish before she began testifying that the defendant was under the influence. She kept cutting off the prosecutor before he was finished causing so much hysteria in the courtroom that, "I also noticed the jury could barely contain their laughter as juror's faces turned red trying not to make any noise and faces became tense trying not to smile."

Alright, on to the next complaint......

Continue reading "SAN DIEGO PROSECUTORS ALLOWED INCOMPETENT LAB ANALYST TO TESTIFY FALSELY IN DUI CASES FOR YEARS" »

Posted by Mary Frances Prevost | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI Defense , Dirty Tricks in the Crime Lab , Prosecutorial Misconduct

Bookmark:

Dover man charged with taping his DWI arrestMay 7, 2007

ROCHESTER, N.H. --A 48-year-old Dover man has been charged with tape-recording his own drunken driving arrest early Monday.

Police say they saw Christopher Power sitting behind the wheel of a vehicle with its motor running just before 3 a.m.

After speaking with Power, police charged him with drunken driving, and discovered a running audio recorder on the driver's seat. In addition to drunken driving, Power was charged with wiretapping.

COMMENTARY: Here, in San Diego, police began using video recording devices some years ago. They stopped when defense attorneys started figuring out that what the arresting cops put in their reports wasn't matching was really happened according to the videotape. The cop would write that the suspect failed all of the field coordination tests. The video didn't show that. The cop would write that the person seemed impaired. The video didn't show that. So, what was the outcome? They canned using the videotapes. It wasn't good for police business. This New Hampshire man should get a medal for taping his stop. Cops should be prosecuted if they destroyed the evidence.

Posted by Mary Frances Prevost | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Bad Cop - No Donut , Civil Rights , DUI Defense , In The News , Police Misconduct Cases , Prosecutorial Misconduct

Bookmark: