Disappointed in accuracy of report
September 18, 2014
The Willits News
By Linda Williams
The Mendocino County District Attorney
David Eyster responded to Mendocino County Grand Jury Report on animal control
services by expressing disappointment with the accuracy of the findings and
recommendations.
"This report – on its face –
manifests a wholly inadequate and incomplete investigation, yet still seeks to
make recommendations regarding the District Attorney's scope of oversight, duty
to review crime reports, and responsibility where appropriate to initiate the
prosecution of a certain category of defendant," said Eyster in his
response. "From the District Attorney's perspective, this is a cursory and
incomplete work in progress. How could it be possible that the Grand Jury
failed to seek input from the District Attorney or his staff prior to making
"findings" and "recommendations" that directly comment on and
relate to the business of the District Attorney?
"Moreover, the Grand Jury did not
attempt to investigate whether one or more witnesses it may have heard from had
personal agendas and/or may have provided inaccurate or incomplete information,
which in the final analysis seems to be the case. The accuracy of information
received by the Grand Jury, or lack thereof, could have easily been
fact-checked based on available electronic records maintained in the District
Attorney's two record management systems, in public records maintained by the
courts, or in the Sheriff's data management system. The District Attorney has
had a professional and cordial business relationship with the Grand Jury since
taking office in January 2011 and hopes that relationship continues.
However, that relationship
notwithstanding, this report is lacking."
For a number of the findings,
especially those dealing with internal Animal Control Services procedures and
policies, Eyster advised these issues were the responsibility of the Mendocino
County Sheriff's Office.
Eyster had plenty to say on several of
the findings and recommendations.
•"Finding 22. Veterinarians and
Animal Control Officers are concerned about the District Attorney's lack of
prosecution of animal abuse or neglect cases," in the Grand Jury report.
Eyster's response: "The District
Attorney disagrees with this finding because there is no information provided
to agree with."
In the response Eyster expressed
surprise the Grand Jury failed to ask his office to provide details on his
office's handling of animal abuse cases. He stated he has never received
communication from any state licensed veterinarian involved in an abuse
investigation. He also stated neither the sheriff nor any animal control
officer has come to the DA with any concerns about the review of, or lack of
prosecution of any animal abuse case. Eyster then provided the following
statistics:
"In calendar year 2011, Animal
Control submitted only one (1) report for charging consideration by the DA.
That single report was declined for prosecution by the Deputy District Attorney
who reviewed it, noting that the rejection was in the interests of justice.
Animal Control personnel did not seek further review of this declination by the
District Attorney or his management-level attorneys, as is allowed.
"In calendar year 2012, Animal
Control submitted no reports for charging consideration by the DA.
"In calendar year 2013, Animal
Control submitted four (4) reports for charging consideration by the DA. Two
reports were declined for prosecution based on the insufficiency of the
evidence developed by Animal Control in the course of its investigation. The
third report was combined with a separate Sheriff's Office report and approved
for combined charging in a single accusatory pleading. The charged defendant
was ultimately convicted of misdemeanor animal neglect and is currently on
court probation. The fourth report was approved for filing and the District
Attorney has already obtained a felony conviction against that defendant for
his misconduct.
"During the first six months of
2014, Animal Control has submitted one report. That report was approved for
charging.
"In summary, Animal Control has
submitted only six (6) reports in the last 42 months to the DA. Three reports
were accepted for prosecution. Three reports were declined for prosecution –
two of those three were returned for lack of evidence having been developed
during Animal Control's investigation so that any crime could be proven beyond
a reasonable doubt to a jury with admissible evidence."
•F23. The District Attorney's
reluctance to prosecute animal abuse cases, for whatever reason, has led to
abusive owners keeping the abused animals longer.
"Had the Grand Jury exercised due
diligence and actually reviewed available public and in-house records, it would
have discovered that the District Attorney has indeed been diligent in the
prosecution of animal abuse or neglect cases, and has been winning convictions
on these cases since taking office in January 2011. The Grand Jury would have
also learned that Animal Control is not the only law enforcement
"game" in town. Other law enforcement agencies – perhaps more
experienced in investigations, evidence collection, and report writing – have
had their animal abuse or neglect cases reviewed, approved, and prosecuted.
"Examples of actual animal cases
that the Grand Jury should have reviewed to determine whether the District
Attorney's Office has actually been prosecuting animal abuse or neglect cases
with no hint of reluctance are the following:
"Defendant Culpepper (14-76063)
was sentenced to two years probation July 28, 2014, having pled no contest to
misdemeanor animal abuse on June 2, 2014. The defendant was ordered to serve
180 days in the county jail as a condition of a two year term of probation (Submitted
to the DA by Animal Control)
"Defendant Gitchel (13-74286) was
prosecuted and he is participating in rehabilitative Drug Court, as authorized
by law, having pled no contest to felony animal abuse on November 5, 2013.
(Submitted to the DA by Fish and Wildlife)
"Defendant Phillips (13-75117) was
convicted of misdemeanor maintaining a public nuisance relating to animals. She
is now on 36 months probation, as of June 17, 2014, with court-ordered
limitations on the number of animals she may possess and other terms and
conditions. (Submitted to the DA by the Sheriff's Office and Animal Control)
"Defendant Lane (13-72623) was
prosecuted and sentenced to state prison for felony animal abuse, having been
convicted of that charge by jury. (Submitted to the DA by the Fort Bragg Police
Department).
"Defendant O'Brien (12-70506) was
prosecuted and he is currently on supervised probation for felony animal abuse.
(Submitted to the DA by the Sheriff's Office).
"Defendant Keiley (12-23121) was
taken before a jury on misdemeanor animal abuse charges. He was found not
guilty by that jury of his peers. (Submitted to the DA by the Fort Bragg Police
Department).
"Defendant Aceves (12-22933) was
prosecuted and he is currently on supervised probation for misdemeanor animal
abuse. (Submitted to the DA by the Willits Police Department).
"Defendant Clemons (12-22404) was
prosecuted but the magistrate refused to hold him to answer on the felony
animal abuse charge. The court dismissed the case. (Submitted to the DA by the
Fort Bragg Police Department).
"Defendant Shamhart (12-2144) was
prosecuted and convicted of misdemeanor animal neglect. (Submitted to the DA by
Animal Control).
"Defendant Lawrence (10-12531) was
convicted by the prior administration of felony animal abuse and placed on
supervised probation. The current District Attorney caused that supervised
probation to be permanently revoked in 2011 and successfully argued for
Lawrence to be sent to state prison in 2011 for violating probation. (Submitted
to the DA by the Sheriff's Office)"
•Finding 24. Lack of prosecution leads
to Animal Control putting more emphasis on working with abusive owners longer
in an attempt to alter owner behavior before proceedings with removal of the
animals.
"The District Attorney does not
agree with the overall premise that the District Attorney is somehow forcing
Animal Control to do things it does not otherwise want to do. While the
District Attorney has his own in-house investigators, Animal Control has never
sought assistance from these more experienced investigators."
•Recommendation 10. The District
Attorney and the County Sheriff meet to establish guidelines setting forth the
standards necessary to refer a case to the District Attorney's Office for
prosecution. (F22, F23, F24)
"The District Attorney does not
agree with this recommendation because guidelines and standards already exist
and no additional or special guidelines and standards need be established for
Animal Control."
The full text of the District
Attorney's response can be found at www.co.mendocino.ca.us/da/pdf/Animal_Control_Services.pdf; the
Grand Jury Reports are available at www.co.mendocino.ca.us/grandjury/13-14/index.htm.
No comments:
Post a Comment