The Riverside County grand jury has thrown down the gauntlet at the feet of the county Board of Supervisors concerning the district attorney's office. The supervisors need to accept the challenge.
In a May 20 report, the grand jury said that District Attorney Rod Pacheco's “authoritarian ways” have led to “a pervasive climate of fear and intimidation within the D.A.'s office.” It also said Pacheco's disdain for settling cases has contributed to a backlog in the courts.
The report reached the supervisors' dais Tuesday. The only comment came from Supervisor Bob Buster, who wanted to know if the report would impact the budget.
The board instructed its executive office to draft a written response to the grand jury report. That is a reasonable course of action and one that will require some tough questions to be asked — and answered — truthfully. What the response says will chart a critical course on the direction of criminal prosecution in the county.
We have been — and continue to be — a fan of Pacheco. His no-nonsense approach to criminal justice and public safety issues has resonated throughout the Coachella Valley. He was a driving force behind two recent gang injunction efforts in Cathedral City and Desert Hot Springs. Nonetheless, he needs to answer criticisms from the grand jury.
Pacheco's approach is clear: Plea bargains should be a last resort. Representing the victim supercedes judicial expediency.
The grand jury report says the district attorney has a written policy that encourages settlement where appropriate. But more often than not, the prosecution is intent on taking the case to a jury.
This adds to congestion in the courts, the report said, piling up civil cases because criminal cases take precedence. The Judicial Council of California found in 2007 the county's criminal case backlog was the highest in the state.
In a written response to the grand jury report, Chief Assistant District Attorney Sue Steding said the grand jury failed to note the California Penal Code governs the ability to settle certain cases.
The U.S. Supreme Court in 1971 recognized plea bargaining as an essential and desirable part of the criminal justice system. There are surely times when the prosecution must recognize a settlement is the best deal it will get.
However, many counties — notably Ventura — follow Pacheco's model of leaving settlement decisions in the jurisdiction of senior prosecutors. Steding says the strategy works and points to the county having the second-highest conviction rate in the state and a historically low violent crime rate.
There is a public perception that plea bargaining gives in to criminals. And there is the grand jury's opinion that the D.A.'s obstinacy is glue in the judicial machine.
Where the supervisors land in this debate will be interesting indeed.
http://www.mydesert.com/article/20090604/OPINION01/906040312/1026/news12
No comments:
Post a Comment