Stories like this make me realize why there are so many innocent people who are released when their DNA is tested: eyewitness identification is pretty close to worthless, especially across racial lines. If there hadn't been a video for a clear-eyed judge to look at, this woman might still have charges pending against her. Couldn't District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis find a black cop to take a look at the video? The problem might have been solved a lot sooner if she had.
I don't understand why some people can't apologize when they make a harmful mistake. It makes me wonder if the police and District Attorney think that it's okay for them to trample on people like this and then shrug it off. This isn't what we pay them to do. They get high salaries to do a thorough, professional job.
LA MESA, Calif. - A La Mesa woman who was mistakenly arrested for a series of crimes against senior citizens says she wants and apology from the San Diego District Attorney's Office and police.
Deidria Nicholson told Fox 5 News that she didn't know what she was being arrested for Thursday, but she knew it was a serious situation.
"I can tell you that at that moment, I did not fully understand the charges against me," Nicholson said. "But when I got outside and saw the media, I thought, somebody out here made a big mistake."
Earlier this month, police released a video surveillance photo of a woman responsible for a string of burglaries against local elderly people. Investigators received a phone tip last Thursday that led them to Nicholson. Nicholson said her La Mesa apartment was surrounded by 10 to 14 police officers that afternoon. She said the officers gathered evidence, including receipts, post cards, and some of her hair products. She said she was taken away in handcuffs.
Nicholson's son, Ellis Twine II, said his mother's arrest was bewildering to everyone who knows her.
"I was just shocked, and everybody I told about was in shock, thinking if it was an April fool's joke or something," Twine said.
Nicholson spent five days in custody. She was arraigned Monday afternoon and pleaded not guilty. She adamantly maintained that she was a victim of mistaken identity. Just hours after the arraignment, prosecutors dropped all charges and Nicholson was released. Authorities said they had arrested the wrong person...
For the past year I've gotten the chills every time I thought of the years Judith Hayes spent as a criminal judge. If she treated me with so much contempt, and disregarded the law in my case, I reasoned she must have done the same thing to at least some criminal defendants, particularly the ones who didn't have their own lawyers. (Public defenders are so overworked they simply don't have time to give a lot of time to each defendant.) I wonder how many falsely-accused people went to jail because of Judith Hayes.
Click on image to enlarge.
See the injunction on which this ruling is based. According to case law, this injunction is wildly unconstitutional.
I was surprised recently when I read that Judith Hayes was actually ousted from the criminal courts. I was further surprised that her removal was not for behavior such as what I have witnessed. In fact, she was boycotted by Bonnie Dumanis because of her surprising leniency to at least one particular criminal defendant:
...Hayes was boycotted just months after Dumanis took office in 2003. The former state and federal prosecutor now hears civil cases in downtown San Diego.
She was challenged soon after dismissing murder charges in the middle of a trial against Michael Savala, who was accused of fatally shooting two bouncers at a Bonita restaurant after the prosecution had presented its case... --San Diego Union Tribune
Here's the problem with what Judge Hayes' decision, and the reason Bonnie Dumanis was so outraged. The killer went home and got a weapon and came back and committed the murders. That's definitely NOT a classic crime of passion. There is a BIG question here, which requires the taking of evidence and a jury's finding of fact (not a judge's): what was the killer's psychological state? Judge Hayes isn't God. She doesn't know the answer to this question. A more restrained and respectful jurist would have had the jury decide this question. But this leaves me wondering why Judge Hayes did this. What would possess a Republican conservative to suddenly go soft on a criminal?
I have to agree with Bonnie Dumanis that Judge Hayes can not be trusted to appropriately apply the law.
The injunction ruling on which the above contempt finding is based is being appealed.
RELATED STORY: BLOG BLOCKED IN CHINA See posts about Google and China.
It's a mystery why this blogger removed an important story from her blog in China. I'm thinking she probably didn't get a call from Judge Judith Hayes. I'll bet she got a call from someone even scarier.
HONG KONG — A Hong Kong actress-singer has removed a news story about an activist's court case from her mainland Chinese blog, purportedly to placate angered fans, underscoring the difficulty of navigating sensitive subjects in China's tightly controlled cyberspace.
Hong Kong entertainer Gigi Leung on Wednesday posted an excerpt of a news story about the trial of Zhao Lianhai on her blog hosted by mainland Internet company Sina Corp., Leung's agent, Jacky Wong, told The Associated Press in a phone interview Thursday.
Zhao had advocated on behalf of parents whose children were sickened in a tainted milk scandal and pleaded innocent to charges of inciting social disorder on Tuesday.
But Leung removed the posting later the same day, Wong said, sparking speculation that the Hong Kong actress-singer was bending to Chinese censors. "Gigi Leung is muzzled," Hong Kong newspaper Apple Daily wrote in a headline...
I called district attorney spokesman Paul Levikow this morning to see whether the office would hand over a copy of public records without charging us $1,354 after we published this post yesterday. I left a message. No response yet.
So then I sent an e-mail to Levikow and other staffers requesting an interview with District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis. I want to know whether she supports the office's fees, which open government advocates call outside the law. No response so far...
In December, I requested all data related to DA cases involving the state's gang enhancement charge in the last decade. The office said providing the data would take "a very substantial expenditure of agency resources for little public benefit," so it proposed a smaller set of data that includes basic case information. That smaller set would still cost $1,354, though.
We are seeking information about when prosecutors accuse people with committing crimes for the benefit of street gangs. Prosecutors have used the charge in controversial cases recently, so we want to examine its use in the last decade.
Since we published our story Tuesday, other San Diego journalists have also contacted me about being stonewalled by the District Attorney's Office in the past.
These comments have been posted online by readers:
Good luck Keegan. This DA's office is impossibly out of control. I have never seen such arrogance from a public office even when they must know they are wrong. Heck ... they even argue against the attorney general. -- Bill Paul
Keep after Princess Dumanis. Take it to the Grand Jury. Expose the autocratic management that despises openness and access. -- David Cohen
Can you post the details of your data request? I'm a computer engineer that works with large SQL databases on a daily basis. Even ignoring 5.5 hours of "programming time," 16 hours of running time on a SQL database is utterly absurd. -- David Martin...
Boycotting of judges nothing new to DA At least three others targeted since 2003 By Greg Moran, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER February 28, 2010 Bonnie Dumanis took office in 2003.
When District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis quietly lifted a months-old challenge of Superior Court Judge John Einhorn late last month, it seemed that an uncommon event — the wholesale boycott of a veteran judge’s courtroom — had come to an end.
But Einhorn was not the first judge to have been singled out for such treatment by Dumanis.
Since 2003, prosecutors have targeted at least three other Superior Court judges for whole or partial boycotts.
Sources in the courthouse, the local defense bar and the District Attorney’s Office said all three were targeted shortly after they made rulings that the District Attorney’s Office apparently disagreed with. Two of those judges, Judith Hayes and William McAdam, no longer work in the criminal courts...
[Judge Judith] Hayes was boycotted just months after Dumanis took office in 2003. The former state and federal prosecutor now hears civil cases in downtown San Diego.
She was challenged soon after dismissing murder charges in the middle of a trial against Michael Savala, who was accused of fatally shooting two bouncers at a Bonita restaurant after the prosecution had presented its case. Hayes said the slayings were not premeditated murder but were committed in the heat of passion — “a classic voluntary manslaughter,” as she said.
Savala eventually pleaded guilty to that lesser charge and received a 13-year sentence...
An ex-con facing life in prison for allegedly swiping two bikes will get a new trial because of a prosecutor's "willful omission" of sharing fingerprint evidence, a judge ruled Wednesday.
San Diego Superior Court Judge Harry Elias' ruling did not address the larger concerns raised by a senior member of San Diego County public defender's office in Vista of allegedly systemic failures by prosecutors to turn over evidence. Attorneys had used the theft case as a platform to air those complaints.
But the judge's 15-page ruling focused solely on the dispute in the criminal case against accused thief Kenneth Ray Bowles. At issue: a fingerprint on a pawn ticket for one of the stolen bicycles.
Elias declined to dismiss Bowles' case, finding the strength of other evidence against Bowles probably would have led a jury to find him guilty of stealing and pawning the bikes.
Late last fall, a North County jury convicted Bowles of theft and burglary. During a post-conviction proceeding, his attorney learned that one of the pawn tickets had a fingerprint that could not be definitively matched to Bowles.
The judge said in his decision there was a "significant and substantial violation" of the evidence rules when the prosecutor failed to tell the defense that the inconclusive finding had been left out of the report by the forensic fingerprint expert.
Elias found that the prosecutor, Vanessa DuVall, had "an affirmative duty" to share that information. Elias ordered a new trial for two of the three charges Bowles faced.
Elias said the "willful omission" of sharing inconclusive fingerprint evidence was not so severe that it would have changed the jury's finding of Bowles' guilt. Elias noted other evidence in the case, including a security camera recording of the theft and Bowles confession to investigators.
Elias also said he considered issuing an order of contempt for the deputy district attorney, but opted against it because a fine would not solve the damage done to Bowles.
Requests for comment by prosecutors were referred to Paul Levikow, spokesman for the San Diego County district attorney's office. Levikow declined comment because the criminal case is still pending. DuVall also declined comment.
Defense attorney Kathleen Cannon, a senior member of the Vista branch of the public defender's office, called the ruling "reasoned and thoughtful."
Late last month, Cannon told Elias in court that there had been "a continuing pattern of failure" to turn over evidence.
She pointed to two recent cases in which she said prosecutors violated the rules. In a gang rape case, the prosecutor did not give the victim's statements to defense attorneys. In another case, the prosecution is alleged to have failed to turn over a bloody knife ---- evidence that actually could have worked in favor of the defense.
Neither of those cases went to trial; the defendants took plea deals offered by prosecutors. But the bicycle case did reach a jury, and Bowles was found guilty...
I am happy to note that Dumanis has lifted her boycott of Judge Einhorn, but this story has gotten much bigger since I first posted it. Congratulations to the San Diego Union Tribune for publishing an important story about Judge Judith Hayes, the first judge boycotted by Bonnie Dumanis.
The bigger story here turns out to be that the first judge Bonnie Dumanis boycotted was a staunch conservative, not a liberal concerned with defendant's rights. Clearly Bonnie Dumanis doesn't like liberals (i.e. judges who get perturbed when it turns out that the prosecution has convicted someone on the basis of manufactured evidence). So why did Dumanis lose confidence in a conservative judge?
I know from personal experience in civil court that Judge Hayes is capable of completely ignoring the law when she thinks no one is looking.
The six judges targeted by Bonnie Dumanis: Judge Judith Hayes--2003, moved to civil courts Judge William McAdam--moved to civil courts Judge Gale Kaneshiro--now hears only misdemeanor cases Judge John Einhorn--boycott was rightly ended Judge Harry Elias--D.A. says he was biased because he harshly criticized the prosecutors for failing to follow rules for turning over evidence to defense lawyers. Judge Laura Parsky--possible boycott
When District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis quietly lifted a months-old challenge of Superior Court Judge John Einhorn late last month, it seemed that an uncommon event — the wholesale boycott of a veteran judge’s courtroom — had come to an end...
Since 2003, prosecutors have targeted at least three other Superior Court judges for whole or partial boycotts...
Two of those judges, Judith Hayes and William McAdam, no longer work in the criminal courts.
...Hayes was boycotted just months after Dumanis took office in 2003. The former state and federal prosecutor now hears civil cases in downtown San Diego.
She was challenged soon after dismissing murder charges in the middle of a trial against Michael Savala, who was accused of fatally shooting two bouncers at a Bonita restaurant after the prosecution had presented its case. Hayes said the slayings were not premeditated murder but were committed in the heat of passion — “a classic voluntary manslaughter,” as she said.
Savala eventually pleaded guilty to that lesser charge and received a 13-year sentence...
ORIGINAL POST:
Thank goodness we still have the jury system; that seems to be our only hope as a source of a variety of points of view in our courtrooms. However, even that might not offer a fighting chance to the accused: juries tend to do what the D.A. wants.
The San Diego County District Attorney's Office has threatened to boycott another Superior Court judge over rulings that prosecutors found troubling, according to a personal account from the judge in question.
Laura Parsky, the third judge in four months to be targeted by the district attorney, related details of the possible boycott during a court hearing in a domestic violence case Jan. 15.
Parsky said it was her ethical duty to disclose that a district attorney supervisor had complained to the supervising judge in Chula Vista about some of her rulings, including decisions she made in the still-pending domestic violence case. The supervising judge, who handles ministerial matters such as assigning cases to other judges, then relayed these concerns to Parsky, along with a warning that the District Attorney's Office may seek to disqualify her in future cases.
It is considered unethical for a party in a pending case to have communications with the judge without the other parties present. Although the prosecutor and Parsky had no direct communication in this case, Parsky was so concerned about the implications of the exchange that she consulted a state judicial ethics panel and was advised to formally disclose it.
She did so at the next hearing in the domestic violence case of defendant Michael Barron...;
Her comments are contained in a court transcript of the hearing. Barron's defense attorney, Lynn Ball, subsequently filed a motion to disqualify the District Attorney's Office because of "arrogant misconduct."
"I just don't like that they have this old boys' club down there," Ball said in an interview. "It's bad enough that every damn judge is a former D.A. To feel that they can go talk to the chief judge and say, 'Square your guys away or they're going to be challenged,' that is a violation of the separation of power."...
I was displeased with DA Bonnie Dumanis for indicting only employees, letting all officials off the hook. But I suppose that leaders couldn't do wrong if they didn't have obedient underlings to do their dirty work.
The California Supreme Court today threw out four-and-a-half-year-old charges against five former members of the city of San Diego's retirement board and left open the case against former board member and firefighter union president Ron Saathoff.
The decision means the five retirement board officials did not violate state conflict-of-interest laws when they voted in 2002 to underfund the city's pension system while increasing future benefits. The court found that the five officials -- Cathy Lexin, Mary Vattimo, Teresa Webster, Sharon Wilkinson and John Torres -- received the same benefits as other city employees and therefore didn't receive a personalized financial gain from the decision. Saathoff, the court decided, received a different kind of benefit based on his position with the union and could be tried on conflict charges.
Today's news could signal movement in the other legal cases related to the pension underfunding scandal. The judge in a federal fraud case against Saathoff, Lexin, Webster and two others was waiting for a decision in this case before proceeding. A forthcoming decision in the U.S. Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the so-called "honest services" law under which the former city officials were charged could also play a role.
Additionally, the Union-Tribune reported last week that the Securities and Exchange Commission is considering settling its April 2008 complaint against Webster, Vattimo and three others implicated in the pension scandal.
The state Supreme Court Monday dismissed felony conflict-of-interest charges against five ex-San Diego pension board members, but ruled that the trial of former firefighters union president Ronald Saathoff should proceed.
Former San Diego City Employees’ Retirement System board members Cathy Lexin, Mary Vattimo, Teresa Webster, Sharon Wilkinson, John Torres and Saathoff were charged by the District Attorney’s Office in 2005 with violating government code 1090, the state’s conflict-of-interest law.
The law prohibits public officials from negotiating a contract in which they have a financial interest. “We respect today’s decision by the California Supreme Court,” said District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis. “We will continue to aggressively pursue conflict-of-interest matters within our community, as honest and open government are essential qualities which must be vigilantly maintained.”
The District Attorney’s Office accused the six of authorizing a 2002 agreement that granted increased retirement benefits in exchange for decreased contributions by the city into the retirement system. Because they were city employees, the pension board members stood to gain from the improved retirement benefits, prosecutors alleged.
In its unanimous ruling, the state’s high court found that Lexin, Vattimo, Webster, Wilkinson and Torres were “not burdened by a conflict of the sort section 1090 prohibits.” “Rather, by intentional legislative design, many of the board’s trustees were members of the retirement system and thus had interests in common with the membership as a whole,” and the defendants’ financial interest in the agreement was a “consequence of this fact,” the ruling states. Click here to find out more!
However, the justices found that Saathoff uniquely benefited from the deal because it allowed him to combine his salary as president of the firefighters union with his city pay for the purpose of calculating his retirement benefits. Saathoff “obtained a unique, personalized pension benefit as a result of voting to approve the retirement board’s contract with the city,” the ruling states...
While other public agencies scramble to cut services and jobs, the district attorney's budget is up 65 percent since Bonnie Dumanis took the helm in 2003, from $91 million to $150 million in the fiscal year that ended in June. The number of lawyers is up almost 10 percent during the same period, from 292 to 320.
Dumanis, with her vast political power, has managed to successfully steer the office through a difficult economy by winning federal grants and persuading county supervisors not to cut funding levels.
While there are more lawyers in the office, there appears to be less work to do. Dumanis goes to trial about half as often as her predecessor, according to at least one measure, and trials are what take manpower in a prosecutor's shop.
And, even though crime is at a 25-year low, Dumanis' office is still filing about the same amount of felony cases each year. She's settling at a higher rate than Pfingst, boosting conviction rates but lessening the need for a deluxe squad of prosecutors.
Dumanis lists her 70 percent case-settlement rate -- meaning deals instead of trials -- as one of her biggest accomplishments because it "keeps police officers on the street instead of testifying in court with great savings to the taxpayer and all agencies in the criminal justice system."
"This is not a contest," Dumanis said in an interview.
She and some of her employees have also been criticized privately by law enforcement officials, some current and former deputy district attorneys, plus some defense attorneys and public defenders, for raises -- including a $56,000 increase over three years for Dumanis -- and perks like take-home cars and a new $84,000 office gym.
"Everyone's in freeze mode, even though Bonnie has hired and promoted," said Deputy Public Defender Joe Kownacki, president of the county Public Defenders Association. Both agencies are funded by the county Board of Supervisors, but the District Attorney's Office has other funding sources also. "There's way too much money spent on that side. That place is way overfunded."
...Dumanis has considerably expanded her executive staff, putting together a public relations army that is the talk of the law enforcement and political worlds.
Dumanis' executive staff includes four chief deputies (Pfingst had one), five public affairs officials (Pfingst had two), and a lobbyist and an office historian (Pfingst had neither)...
With the latest raise, she will make $240,739 -- more than the governor of California and significantly higher than the $150,000 salary of predecessor Pfingst. Plus, she earns about $67,000 in benefits annually.
About 173 of Dumanis' employees... have take-home cars. That's about 50 more total cars than under Pfingst, and only two of his executives had cars. The county Public Defenders Office has 10 take-home cars, according to Kownacki, the union president...
Does Bonnie Dumanis jump the gun when one of her pals at local schools asks her to charge an employee, parent, or student? This is reminiscent of many cases, particularly the Josh Stepner case. I wondered about Dumanis and SDCOE lawyers in this post.
Coach’s arraignment is canceled Sex-crime charges are under review By Kristina Davis Dana Littlefield San Diego Union Tribune January 9, 2010
SAN DIEGO COURTS — The arraignment of a 35-year-old soccer coach on sex-crime charges was canceled yesterday while the District Attorney’s Office reviews the case further, authorities said.
Robin Michael Alarcon had been scheduled to appear in San Diego Superior Court after he was accused of sending inappropriate text messages to a female student, but a spokesman with the District Attorney’s Office said prosecutors had not made a final decision as to what charges, if any, would be filed.
The spokesman, Steve Walker, said he expected Alarcon to be released from the County Jail yesterday.
Alarcon, who coached the girls freshman soccer team at Del Norte High School in 4S Ranch, was arrested Wednesday by San Diego police officers on suspicion of luring a minor for a sexual offense and sending harmful material to a minor with intent to seduce.
San Diego sex-crimes unit Lt. Rick O’Hanlon said Alarcon was accused of sending “very inappropriate” messages to the student Tuesday night. The coach was fired from his job after reports of the alleged behavior came to light.
The girl’s mother said she was disappointed that the arraignment was called off and hopes the delay will not affect her daughter’s credibility.
“To know he’s out with nothing holding him is kind of unsettling to her,” she said. “I’m certainly putting my faith in (the district attorney’s) capabilities, and they seem to be on it and anxious to deal with it. It’s a matter of making sure they do as thorough a job as they can, and I understand that.”
It is the policy of The San Diego Union-Tribune not to identify alleged victims of sexual abuse.
Part three of a five-part series. ...Former Deputy District Attorney Dave Stutz, once a friend and supporter of Dumanis, said he quit because she blocked his efforts to investigate and prosecute corruption.
"Her political unit was a joke," he said. "The Castaneda case probably cost a million dollars and never got off the ground. She has done nothing in seven years in office in that area."
Stutz said he became disillusioned soon after Dumanis took office in 2003 and appointed him to do corruption prosecutions. He cited as the last straw a case he tried to build against a county supervisor whom he suspected had illegally received campaign contributions from an Indian tribe.
In a Feb. 3, 2004 grand jury proposal obtained by voiceofsandiego.org, Stutz outlines a case of potential campaign finance violations by the supervisor and asks permission to proceed.
"She stopped that investigation," Stutz said. "Before I called or interviewed anybody I had to let her know ahead of time. I've been doing this for half a century, and I'm not going to do that." Stutz resigned after that, about 14 months after Dumanis took office.
Dumanis denied Stutz's claims, saying this of her old friend: "Dave Stutz is a big critic, but he's been a critic of everyone. He was a big supporter ... I don't know" what happened to sour him, she said... Note to Ms. Dumanis from Maura Larkins: A lot of people were big supporters, Bonnie, when you first campaigned, including me. Then we found out you were very different from what you advertised.
Sleaze Saga By Don Bauder Sept. 4, 2003 San Diego Reader
...In 1966, a Los Angeles- based federal organized-crime strike force began investigating police corruption, particularly cozy relationships with bookmakers. The strike force was interested in whether Alessio's Mexico-based bookmaking operation had connections with Las Vegas. Russell Alessio, one of John's brothers, was convicted of interstate gambling in support of racketeering. The U.S. attorney in San Diego was Ed Miller, and a major investigator was an Internal Revenue Service agent named David Stutz, now a deputy district attorney. Another key investigator was Richard Huffman, now a Fourth District appellate court justice.
The investigation eventually focused on Yellow Cab, a company that shortly before had been part of Smith's empire. After discovering how Yellow Cab was laundering political donations, Stutz concluded that it was the tip of the iceberg: Under Smith's direction, political contributions were being laundered by writing them off as business expenses.
By 1970, the strike force was assembling a case against Smith and several other San Diegans for conspiracy to violate federal tax laws and the Corrupt Practices Act. Republicans, led by Smith, were raising money in $2000 chunks for Nixon. Charlie Pratt, head of Yellow Cab, said he could not personally afford a sum that large. So it went on Yellow Cab's books as an expense. The $2000 donation was changed to a sum of $2068. "Pratt added $68 to represent the year 1968," recalls Stutz. "If it had been 1969, it would have been $69." The expense was supposed to be for a $2068 wage-and-salary study conducted by an advertising agency controlled by Smith.
After Nixon won the 1968 election and assumed office in 1969, Miller was replaced as U.S. attorney by Harry Steward. "Steward was a buddy of C. Arnholt Smith," recalls Miller, and was appointed by Nixon on Smith's recommendation, says Stutz...
C. Arnholt Smith
Their Interests Are Interlocked By Joe Deegan, San Diego Reader, July 14, 2005 The Jerry Sanders campaign website currently touts a favorable poll conducted by national pollster Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin and Associates. A link on the site says that the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation "released" the poll as an independent survey. This information did not surprise Dave Stutz. In September 2003, when he was a deputy district attorney, he investigated Sycuan's campaign contributions in the 2002 election cycle. Stutz, who retired from the district attorney's office a year ago, cut his teeth in campaign law enforcement in the late 1960s when, as a federal agent, he investigated the political money scandals of C. Arnholt Smith, John Alessio, and Yellow Cab.Sycuan's activities in the 2002 election were brought to Stutz's attention by a friend in the registrar of voters office. Examining California secretary of state records, the friend noticed that Sycuan had donated $8000 to San Diego County supervisor Bill Horn. "You can only give $500 to a candidate in a county election," says Stutz. "So when my friend called Sycuan and told them their donation was illegal, they said they made a mistake. The next day they filed an amendment, and now the $8000 didn't go to Bill Horn, it went to a pollster named Competitive Edge." "I was the district attorney's investigator for campaign law," Stutz continues. "Bonnie Dumanis got elected and made me the man." Stutz took a look for himself at the secretary of state's records. And there he saw not only the money that went to Horn but $15,000 Sycuan said it donated to Bill Kolender's reelection campaign for sheriff. "So I called Competitive Edge to see the bills," he says. The president of the company referred Stutz to the company's lawyer, who said he would not release the information. " 'You can't tell the district attorney you won't answer questions,' " Stutz says he replied. " 'We'll find a way to make sure you do.' "One day I called Sycuan and asked a tribal vice president, Adam Day, about the $15,000 check to Kolender. 'That would be in excess of what the law allows you to donate,' I told him. 'Oh, it must be a mistake; I'll get back to you,' Day said. That was eleven o'clock in the morning," says Stutz. "Two hours later I got called into Bonnie Dumanis's office and was told to stop the investigation. "At this point Stutz was also looking into a political-campaign complaint that San Marcos councilman Lee Thibadeau had filed with the district attorney's office. Thibadeau alleged that Home Federal Corporation had spent more than the city's $3000 campaign-contribution limit to pay for Competitive Edge polls used by two San Marcos city council candidates and one mayoral candidate. Home Federal supported Mark Rozmus, Pia Harris-Ebert, and Michael Sannella, politicians who favored a higher building density on Home Federal's 1920-acre residential development, San Elijo Hills. "I am not antidevelopment," Thibadeau tells me by phone. "But I did fight the way the one huge developer of San Elijo Hills was throwing its weight around in our community. The day after the 2002 election, so it wouldn't seem only like campaign rhetoric, I complained to the district attorney's office about how the developer's candidates benefited from the so-called independent expenditures that purchased the polls. "What Thibadeau calls "independent-contribution coordination" is a common practice in political campaigns in San Diego County, he says. The coordinator in the San Elijo Hills case, he maintains, was political consultant Tom Shepard. Shepard not only promotes development projects for Home Federal but also managed the Rozmus, Harris-Ebert, and Sannella campaigns. "But my complaint to the district attorney's office didn't get far," Thibadeau says, "because they told us that we didn't have strong enough penalties on the books in San Marcos to make pursuing the case worthwhile. "But Dave Stutz never entirely abandoned the campaign cases. "The problem is," he says, "that going over campaign-contribution limits is only a misdemeanor. But conspiracy to break campaign laws is a felony. Up in San Marcos, Tom Shepard had a client who is Home Federal. Tom Shepard also has three people running for office who are clients. So right now the triangle is Home Federal, Tom Shepard, and the politicians running for office. Their interests are interlocked. "When a candidate runs for office, one of the first things he needs is a poll," Stutz continues. "Can I win, and if so, what are my strengths, what are my opponent's weaknesses? Standard stuff, but expensive -- $10,000, $15,000. If you, the corporation, pay for a poll and give it to the political consultant for your candidates, it's the same thing as making a contribution. Except that you're saying it's independent, and it's not independent. And since the money exceeds campaign-contribution limits, it's a crime. Well, that's what they did."Stutz says that in the spring of 2003, he and several other people in the district attorney's office persuaded Bonnie Dumanis to reconsider the investigation into Sycuan's excessive contributions to the Kolender and Horn campaigns. To look into those cases and the similar one in San Marcos, Stutz then convened a grand jury, which eventually produced a report. But in the meantime, Stutz retired from the district attorney's office. Several months ago he called his old colleagues in the department to ask how the investigation was going. He was told that it had been dropped again."But the grand jury report is still there in the office," says Stutz. Tom Shepard is currently managing the Jerry Sanders campaign for mayor. When I told Stutz about Sycuan's Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin and Associates poll on the Sanders website, Stutz remarked, "Two to one it will show up [in Sycuan's reporting] as an independent expenditure."
Part three of a five-part series. ...A prosecution in 2004 against Thad Jesperson, a popular and respected teacher accused of molesting eight second and third grade girls, conjured memories of the Dale Akiki debacle. Like Akiki, the case against Jefferson was built solely on accusations by children, made after they'd been questioned at length by investigators. There was no other corroborating evidence.
Under then-District Attorney Ed Miller, Akiki was charged in 1991 with 35 felony counts of sexual and physical abuse of children at Faith Chapel in Spring Valley, where he volunteered with his wife in the preschool. A jury took just seven hours to acquit him after a seven-month trial in 1993. He later won a $2 million lawsuit against his accusers.
Also like Akiki, Jesperson spent time behind bars. After three separate trials, Jesperson was finally convicted and sentenced to 15 years to life. He spent four years in prison before being released in January 2008 when an appeals court threw out the convictions and granted a new trial on grounds of juror misconduct and mistakes by his attorney and the trial judge.
Dumanis decided not to take the matter further.
Defense attorneys have said the prosecution is an example of poor judgment by Dumanis , who continued to pursue multiple trials in a case like the bogus one against Akiki which relied on the testimony of children alone. Jesperson's defense was primarily that the students' inconsistent stories were the result of suggestibility, in which interviewers' questions are leading and influence responses...
Sheriff Bill Kolender walked into Thornton Hospital in La Jolla two years ago to visit District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis' dying father. In one of the sheriff's signature moves, he removed his silver-star lapel pin, leaned over Abe Dumanis and attached it to the beaming 82-year-old's hospital gown.
"Don't worry," the sheriff told him. "I'm going to take care of your daughter."
And he has. No matter that years ago Kolender endorsed Dumanis' opponent, incumbent Paul Pfingst, in the 2002 election.
The immensely popular sheriff and the new district attorney went on to create a political and personal liaison like no other -- one that has elevated Dumanis to the highest level of political power in San Diego County and could catapult her into the San Diego Mayor's Office or beyond.
Kolender's recent retirement means the woman who began her legal career as a typist in the office she now runs is arguably the county's most adept and influential politician...
Without explanation, District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis has been steering cases away from Superior Court Judge John Einhorn, it was reported Saturday...
Any time a case is assigned to Einhorn, prosecutors use a legal tactic called a peremptory challenge to block the case from going to the judge. Under the law, each side has one such challenge when assigned a judge. They do not have to state a reason for doing so, the Union-Tribune reported...
It is rare, though not unprecedented, for prosecutors to boycott a judge...
Einhorn has been at the center of two high-profile cases in San Diego over the past year. Sommer was convicted of murdering her husband, Todd, in 2007 by poisoning him with arsenic. She was granted a new trial in November of that year.
Then in April 2008, new evidence was discovered — tissue samples of Todd Sommer that showed no traces of arsenic — and that led to prosecutors dismissing the case.
[Maura Larkins note: This proved that evidence used in the first trial had been tampered with.]
The retrial had been assigned to Einhorn. Allen Bloom, Sommer’s lawyer, pressed for the case to be dismissed in a way that would preclude prosecutors from ever charging Sommer again.
That legal battle went on for more than a year, with prosecutors at one point telling Einhorn he had no authority to even hear the matter. Einhorn disagreed and said state law allowed him to consider the unusual request...
Eventually, Einhorn sided with prosecutors. On Sept. 25, he declined to permanently bar another prosecution of Sommer, but openly said he doubted the case would ever come to trial again.
It was around that time that the challenge apparently went into effect. Bloom said he doubted that the move stemmed from the Sommer case, because he said Einhorn ruled against him on most issues.
Still, Bloom said the move smacks of an effort to bully the judge...
A San Diego prosecutor is under investigation, suspected of withholding evidence in a high-profile rape case. The case resulted in plea bargain last month and the rapists walked free.
Now, the mother of the victim is ... accusing the San Diego District attorney’s office of a cover up.
It was a brutal case of rape by intoxication in San Marcos. Three north county men accused of kidnapping a Palomar College student in May of 2008, getting her drunk and gang raping her.
News 8 has learned [prosecutor Dan] Rodriguez is now the subject of an ongoing disciplinary investigation. He’s accused of withholding evidence in the case. Initially Rodriguez told the mother of the 18-year-old rape victim that all three defendants were facing serious prison time.
“We were told they were looking at -- with kidnapping and rape charges -- they would be looking at 20 years to life,” said Tammie Heintzman. She said Rodriguez assured her the case as solid...
From the beginning, the case was high profile. The victim had met one of her attackers on the MySpace web site... At the last minute, a new prosecutor was assigned to the case and soon thereafter the District Attorney’s office reached a plea bargain with all three defendants.
Two pleaded guilty to rape by intoxication, the third to felony assault. All three walked free after serving just 8 months in jail.
It wasn't until later that Heintzman, the mother of the victim, says she finally found out why the original prosecutor, Dan Rodriguez, was taken off the case. “It was shared that Dan had been suspended and it was related to the case, and it was related to misrepresenting evidence,” Heintzman told News 8. The evidence withheld was favorable to the defense. All three defense attorneys involved in the case confirmed to News 8 that prosecutor Dan Rodriguez failed to turn over in a timely manner what they called highly exculpatory evidence, including a tape recorded police interview with the victim and statements the teenager made during a medical exam... The new prosecutor, Kate Flaherty, quickly offered the defendants a plea deal.
Doesn't Bonnie Dumanis have anything better to do? Aren't there some actual bad guys she should be charging with crimes? Did Helix High and/or Grossmont Union High School District (controlled by extremist Jim Kelly) get legal advice regarding this case?
Sometimes I wonder if education attorneys intentionally create problems so that there will be a lawsuit against the school and the attorneys will be paid $100,000s to defend the school. My advice to Helix High: settle this case right now, before it really gets expensive.
Channel 6's Jeff Powers served the public well by getting this story:
EL CAJON - Former Helix High assistant principal Josh Stepner was supposed to appear in court on Thursday to face a charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor for giving a female student a ride to a bus station, but his arraignment was postponed.
Dakota Garza is the student who was given that ride, and she is shocked that Stepner was even charged in the first place. She says at the time of the ride, she was no longer a student at Helix High.
"I'm a lot more comfortable now," Garza told San Diego 6 in an exclusive interview from her hometown in Medford, Oregon. "I'm in my familiar town where I was born and raised and I'm very happy to be back."
Garza says she is doing well. "Stay in all my honors classes and I'm back in soccer and enjoying school."
Garza began the school year as a student at Helix High. She had been living with relative Karen Flores and 9 others in a two bedroom home.
On August 24th, the 16-year-old took action. A court order shows Garza dissolved any legal custody to Flores. She was trying to get back to Medford and says she told Assistant Vice Principal Kevin Osborn.
Garza said, "After I had purchased the ticket I went into his office and just was letting him know that I was going to be unenrolling from the school."
Garza purchased a bus ticket on the morning of September 17th from the school computer. She says she went through the procedures Helix requires for unenrollment and says she alerted Osborn to those details. It was very clear to her that she was no longer a student.
Officials at Helix would not confirm the timing of Garza's withdrawal from school. It was later that night that Josh Stepner gave her a ride to the bus station.
Garza said she is surprised Stepner is facing a misdemeanor because, "He was really just trying to help me. He did absolutely nothing wrong. I think he was the only one who really tried to reach out to me and help me with what I was going through."
Stepner says the past couple months have been tough on him and his family. "It's been a nightmare. It's hard to watch yourself being talked about when you know you're a good person -- you know that you're a righteous person."
Garza says now it's about putting this behind her and exposing the truth. "I really think that in this whole thing he's just been more of a scapegoat. He's just been someone that people felt that they could just dump things on and you know accuse him and point the finger at him."
Stepner and his attorney are due back in court December 14th. Stepner's attorney is challenging the legitimacy of the misdemeanor complaint.
We asked to interview Helix Assistant Principal Kevin Osborn but our offer was declined.
Here is the declaration of the girl in this case. All she wanted was to live with her grandmother, and that is what she is now doing. Her cousin, who instituted the complaints against former Helix High Charter School vice principal Josh Stepner, apparently has control issues. It's a disgrace that a good man is being run through Bonnie Dumanis' wringer after having been punished by his employer. Josh Stepner never would have had any problems at all if four teachers at Helix High hadn't behaved so badly. He is being punished for his own good deed and for the bad deeds of others.
I'm wondering if trustee Jim Kelly of Grossmont High School District asked Bonnie Dumanis to prosecute a good man at Helix High simply because Kelly wants to bring down the charter school.
For the first time, we're hearing from a Helix High School assistant principal accused of helping a 16-year-old student run away. Through his attorney, the principal says he was only trying to help a child abandoned by her mother.
"This is really a classic example of no good deed goes unpunished," Josh Stepner's attorney Mark-Robert Bluemel said.
Bluemel is getting ready to go to court to defend Stepner against a misdemeanor charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Stepner is accused of helping a 16-year-old student run away to Oregon.
"This man is innocent and he has the right to prove that. Unfortunately, what has happened prior - and that's why I'm talking to you - is he was painted out as being guilty," Bluemel said.
Stepner is not accused of having a sexual relationship with the student, as was initially reported by News 8 and other media outlets. Those reports were based on inaccurate information given to the media on October 5th, and were corrected by News 8 twelve hours later.
As it turns out, Stepner is accused of helping the girl purchase a bus ticket to Oregon and driving her to the bus station.
"My client brought her to safety, so to speak. She's now back in Oregon with a family and going to school," Bluemel said.
Court records show the girl had recently taken out a restraining order against her mother, and the judge revoked the mother's custodial rights. Bluemel says the girl in effect had no guardian and no home to run away from.
"He was assisting a student in need without a guardian and helping her get home, and I think he's been made a scapegoat," Bluemel said.
Since 2006, four teachers have been convicted of sex crimes involving Helix High students.
Bluemel says his client, a married father of three, simply got caught up in that firestorm.
"The evidence will show that there was no inappropriate conduct. He was acting in furtherance of the child's best interests in getting her to a safe harbor, back home to Oregon," Bluemel said.
The girl's father is dead and her grandmother lives in Oregon.
Stepner is facing one misdemeanor count. His attorney will enter a plea in El Cajon court by Nov. 5
