1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Prosecutorial Misconduct in San Mateo County

Discussion in 'The Other Side Of The Hill' started by Michael Stogner, Nov 30, 2014.

  1. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

    I have been interested in reducing this to ZERO in San Mateo County for about 15 years. I even made it an issue for my Supervisor campaign. None of the editors of 7 papers thought it was worth letting the voters know about it, or that it was a big difference between myself and Supervisor Don Horsley.

    POSITION PAPER: PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
    POSITION PAPER: PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT

    When San Mateo County’s two top law enforcement officials, Sheriff Greg Munks, and Undersheriff Carlos Bolanos, were caught and detained as CUSTOMERS in an FBI Sting called Operation Dollhouse which involved Human Trafficking and underage sex slavery in a house in Nevada back in 2007, our District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe did not denounce this heinous behavior.

    He wouldn’t even hold his tongue. Instead, he praised Munks and Bolanos:

    Steve Wagstaffe e-mail sent 4/25/07 10:20 AM

    Greg and Carlos

    Just a quick word of support from me as you go through a difficult time.
    To those who matter, your decades of outstanding work in law enforcement
    are all that count and your integrity is not the slightest marked by the
    modern media’s efforts to make a story out of a non-story. Hard as it is
    to think it now, remember it will be yesterday’s news and irrelevant by
    tomorrow.

    My positive thoughts are out there for both of you.

    Steve

    4/25/2007 4:49 PM Greg Munks to Steve Wagstaffe

    “thanks Steve..”

    In response, Munks wrote: “Steve, I really appreciate your words of support…. I’ve heard you took some heat for them and I apologize. I won’t forget the fact that you were there early.”

    This is prosecutorial misconduct. I have long advocated a system of checks and balances in San Mateo County to keep officials like Wagstaffe honest. This includes a whistleblower’s hotline and a County ombudsman reporting to a citizen’s oversight board.

    I don’t know about you, but the Wagstaffe e-mail makes me sick to this day. “To those who matter”. One thing I am certain of, he didn’t mean the San Mateo County taxpayer when referring to people who matter.

    Why is this happening in San Mateo County, in the middle of Silicon Valley and all of the wealth and education here? This behavior would be inconceivable in neighboring Santa Clara County, where the D.A. Jeff Rosen at least puts on the appearance of trying to hold law enforcement to the same standards as ordinary citizens.

    This all goes back to corruption in San Mateo County. It’s not the rantings of some fanatics. Our own County museum has an exhibition on it.

    It is a shame no one is running against Wagstaffe. We need to shake up the way this County is run. I intend to do so if I earn a supervisor’s seat. Public employees need to be accountable to you, the voters, not to each other. There needs to be an end to the arrogance that San Mateo County officials can literally do anything they want and get away with it.

    Unfortunately the press here in San Mateo County has been too apathetic. The two top Sheriffs are caught in a human trafficking sex house, and the D.A. praises them for it. And they continue to run unopposed to this day.

    Unbelievable. It needs to change.
     
  2. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

    Comprehensive Compliance Reviews and Audits would help cut down on Prosecutorial Misconduct. As it is now San Mateo County has no checks and balances on the work our District Attorney produces. No record of how many cases are brought to the office for prosecution. Without that simple information there is no way to determine how it is doing. Currently DA Steve Wagstaffe issues a daily e-mail to his favorite reporters of Newsworthy cases. San Mateo County does not have one investigative reporter. I should say even if we did and they went to the Redwood City Police Department to check the daily arrest logs they would not have seen Colin T. Smith's name. He was protected by a Detective his name was Not on the list. Mr. Wagstaffe knew about him because he charged him. Still no mention of him.

    Here are some cases that did not make Steve Wagstaffe's Newsworthy list.

    San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Colin T. Smith arrested.
    San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Colin T. Smith arrested again.
    Hon. Judge Joseph Scott DUI RWCPD arrested
    San Mateo County Probation Chief Stuart Forrest child porn
    Luke Lonergan child porn was arrested in large group sweep.
    San Mateo County employee Cardell Brown Project 90 molesting boys
    San Mateo County IT Alex Kerr child porn

    How are these cases not Newsworthy Mr. Wagstaffe?
     
  3. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

    Prosecutorial Misconduct
    Here is an example of a letter that I personally hand delivered to the District Attorney's Office March 30, 2005, I had them stamp it received.

    Re: Deputy DA Al Giannini willfully and knowingly making false statements, misstating testimony and yesterday misstating law.

    Dear Mr. Fox,

    I am all for getting the bad guy in our county, but I am also in favor of a level playing field.

    Please remind Mr. Al Giannini of his oath, and correct this conduct immediately.

    Sincerely,

    Michael G. Stogner a concerned citizen

    note: not the full letter

    cc: San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
    cc: San Mateo County Manager John Maltbie
    cc: San Mateo County Counsel Thomas Casey
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2014
  4. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

  5. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

    From: Michael Stogner <michaelgstogner@yahoo.com>
    To: Board Supervisors <bos_webmaster@co.sanmateo.ca.us>
    Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 12:31 PM
    Subject: Please do not approve DA Wagstaffe's request for $83,241.60 & Al Giannini

    Dear Supervisors,

    I am asking you to vote No to approving DA Steve Wagstaffe's request for $83,241.60 to re-hire Al Giannini for several reasons. You will find some on page 13 of this link I have provided for you. Adrienne Tissier has received copies of letters I personally delivered to the board dated Sept. 30, 2005, October 17, 2005 and 1 letter from a Mr. Michael Zerbe dated October 26, 2005. I also delivered one letter to DA James P. Fox asking him to instruct Al Giannini to stop lying to the jury in a murder case.

    http://www.veritasinitiative.org/wp...rosecutorialMisconduct_FirstAnnual_Final8.pdf
    If San Mateo County had a Single Point Data Base you would be able to look up Al Giannini's name and find these letters, if you would like me to produce copies that can be arranged.
    The William Ayres case should be handled outside of San Mateo County in my opinion because of the conflicts of interest that exist.
    Thank You for considering my request.
    Michael G. Stogner
     
  6. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

    DA Steve Wagstaffe and DDA Ivan Grosshouser opened a criminal investigation against John Johns. This investigation should have never been opened in the first place and once opened should have been completed in about six minutes. Not the case It was kept open just long enough to impact testimony in a civil suit.
    That is abuse.
    Notice at the end of this article it says there are no comments, The Almanac is not being honest with the PUBLIC. not a very good citizen.
    http://www.almanacnews.com/news/2008/07/02/john-johns-pursues-lawsuit-against-atherton-#comment_form
     
  7. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

    Steve Wagstaffe e-mail sent 4/25/07 10:20 AM

    Greg and Carlos

    "Just a quick word of support from me as you go through a difficult time".Talk about a difficult time, what about the Human Trafficked Sex Slaves.

    To those who matter, What about the residents of San Mateo County?

    "your decades of outstanding work in law enforcement are all that count." San Mateo County Sheriff's Office General Orders 2-01 3(F) Shall not commit or attempt to commit any act which is a violation of any State, Federal, County, or City Law, Ordinance or Regulation. Members shall not engage in any activity or behavior which will bring discredit upon the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office.

    "and your integrity is not the slightest marked by the modern media’s efforts to make a story out of a non-story." Wagstaffe is blaming the media.

    "Hard as it is to think it now, remember it will be yesterday’s news and irrelevant by tomorrow." Strange statement from a man who took an oath.
     
  8. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

  9. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

  10. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

    This is from our neighbor County to the South.
    Santa Clara County prosecutor to take early retirement after DA mounts new disciplinary investigation
    By Tracey Kaplan tkaplan@mercurynews.com
    POSTED: 01/13/2015 07:28:30 PM PST2 COMMENTS
    UPDATED: 01/14/2015 06:14:59 AM PST

    A veteran Santa Clara County homicide prosecutor who was suspended for a month without pay two years ago for improperly withholding evidence in a multi-defendant gang case until the brink of trial is retiring early after getting in more hot water with his bosses, this newspaper has learned.

    Daniel Carr, 53, will retire at the end of February after about 20 years as a prosecutor in Santa Clara County, sources familiar with the situation said Tuesday. Carr, no relation to former District Attorney Dolores Carr, could not be reached for comment.

    He will receive an estimated annual pension of about 46 percent of his salary, or about about $90,000 a year. It was unclear Tuesday whether he will also get virtually free lifetime medical benefits as many county employees do when they retire. Carr is now assigned to the south county courthouse in Morgan Hill and has not handled trials since he was suspended.

    Carr's early retirement comes at a time when District Attorney Jeff Rosen, who suspended him in 2012, had mounted an entirely new disciplinary investigation of his conduct. This time, Carr is suspected of a fireable offense -- allegedly misusing the state Department of Justice's statewide criminal database as well as the office's internal criminal-case files. It is against the law to tap into the statewide database for a personal purpose. The administration could not immediatelyi be reached for comment, but is legally barred from discussing personnel matters.

    Sources familiar with the investigation said Carr allegedly accessed the databases to see if his colleagues were entering notes online about their cases, as prosecutors here are expected to do. The Rosen administration initially faulted Carr during the first investigation (into his conduct in the gang trial) for failing to keep sufficient notes. But sources close to Carr said he found that he was not alone in lax note-keeping. However, he apparently could have gotten examples of that to present to the Rosen administration by asking his colleagues rather than resorting to using the databases.

    Carr has expressed interest lately in exploring a new career as a defense attorney, sources said. However, he may still face action from the State Bar, which is responsible for licensing and disciplining California attorneys.

    Carr came to public attention after Rosen decided to suspend him and dock about $16,500 of his salary. Determined to get the money back and salvage his reputation, he appealed the disciplinary action to the county Personnel Board. The panel, which has the final say, is set to vote later this month.

    Last month, Judge Kevin Murphy recommended to the board that the suspension be reduced to two weeks, finding that Carr that he was under great stress in 2011 after completing a three-month trial and that his supervisors apparently knew what he was doing in this case.

    The judge also factored in Carr's "distinguished work history,'' saying the evidence indicated he is a "hard-working, dedicated deputy district attorney proud of his profession and dedicated to public service.''

    But Murphy also blasted Carr for intentionally hiding "highly significant evidence'' until just before the gang murder trial, soundly rejecting Carr's claim that he was the victim of a politically motivated "lynching'' by the Rosen administration.

    During a four-day public hearing, Carr argued that the Rosen administration failed to take into account the fact that other gang prosecutors commonly withheld valuable evidence until the last minute and that his supervisors knew exactly what he was doing in this case. The judge agreed, citing those factors as among the reasons he recommended a shorter suspension.

    But he also noted that every attorney in California is personally responsible for complying with the disclosure law, thereby siding squarely with Rosen's effort to stamp out the remnants of what was once the office's win-at-all-costs culture.

    "Mr. Carr's ... actions caused the postponement of a major homicide trial and the reassignment of the case to another prosecutor, with the accompanying inconvenience and cost to the courts and counsel,'' Murphy wrote. "(His) claim that he was the victim of a 'lynching' and the suggestion that there was a Rosen administration conspiracy against (him) was not established ... the discipline process ... was objective and impartial.''

    Murphy's findings were all the more significant because the judge was a longtime supporter of Rosen's predecessor, Dolores Carr, and almost became her chief assistant. Rosen defeated Carr in 2010, during her race for re-election.

    Contact Tracey Kaplan at 408-278-3482. Follow her at Twitter.com/tkaplanreport.
     
  11. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

    Attorney Paul DeMeester has said that District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe has cost the taxpayers $500,000 and that he was "grandstanding" when he held a press conference at the Redwood City Courthouse Plaza March 24, 2014 where he used the phrase "Capitol Murder".

    Paul DeMeester wants Steve Wagstaffe off of the gang case.

    The Private defender program asked the Board of Supervisors for an additional $5,000,000 because of Wagstaffe's phrase.
    http://www.smdailyjournal.com/artic...-person-case-beyond-budget/1776425134697.html

    http://www.smdailyjournal.com/artic...-to-give-up-sunny-day-case/1776425137528.html

    This should come as NO SURPRISE to any San Mateo County resident per Michelle Durand's article May 14, 2003 titled District Attorney Office needs Probe.
    http://thissideofthehill.com/threads/district-attorneys-office-needs-probe-2003-bos-meeting.21/
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2015
  12. Dan Ullom

    Dan Ullom Administrator Staff Member

    No wonder the DA will not waste our money investigating crimes. It is just not worth his effort, he has better things to do.
     
  13. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

    DA Steve Wagstaffe has a daily newsworthy e-mail he sends to reporters. He chose to exclude this case. Why?

    Man faces 46 felonies for molestation, child porn: San Carlos resident allegedly abused underage relative
    January 31, 2015, 05:00 AM Daily Journal staff report
    [​IMG]
    Daniel Collins

    Prosecutors are working to build a case against a man they say is responsible for molesting an underage relative for six years and videotaping it.

    Daniel Joseph Collins, a 31-year-old San Carlos resident, is charged with 46 felonies he allegedly committed between 2008 and 2014, according to the San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office.

    Collins, who could face more than 10 life sentences, pleaded not guilty Dec. 10.

    Collins’ charges include 10 counts of substantial sexual conduct with a child 10 years old or younger, seven counts of lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age, 24 counts of oral copulation with a child under 14 years of age and five counts of possessing or producing child pornography, said prosecutor Sean Gallagher.

    Collins appeared in court Friday, however, his preliminary hearing was continued to March 6 to allow both parties to continue their investigations, Gallagher said.

    Collins allegedly began molesting the victim in 2008 when she was 7 years old and continued until she was 13 years old, according to the District Attorney’s Office.

    Collins had access to the victim, who was splitting her time living with relatives in San Carlos and in Southern California, as he would allegedly pick her up from school and baby-sit her, Gallagher said.

    The victim eventually disclosed to a parent who contacted authorities around September, Gallagher said.

    The San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office conducted a six-week investigation during which a search of his cellphone turned up videos of Collins molesting the victim on approximately 14 separate occasions, according to the District Attorney’s Office.

    Child pornography was also found on his computer, Gallagher said.

    Collins’ defense attorney could not be reached for comment.

    Collins was arrested Nov. 24 and is being held in jail without bail.
     
  14. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

    This is going on in San Mateo County.

    U.S. judges see 'epidemic' of prosecutorial misconduct in state

    MAURA DOLANcontact the reporter
    ESSENTIAL CALIFORNIA NEWSLETTER >> Get great stories delivered to your inbox

    [​IMG]
    Criticism of a state prosecutor begins around the 15:50 mark. Video via 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on YouTube.
    Judge Alex Kozinski asked Vienna if his boss, Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris, wanted to defend a conviction "obtained by lying prosecutors." If Harris did not back off the case, Kozinski warned, the court would "name names" in a ruling that would not be "very pretty."

    Judge Kim Wardlaw wanted to know why Riverside County prosecutors presented a murder-for-hire case against the killer but did not charge the man they said had arranged the killings.

    "It looks terrible," said Judge William Fletcher.

    The January hearing in Pasadena, posted online under new 9th Circuit policies, provided a rare and critical examination of a murder case in which prosecutors presented false evidence but were never investigated or disciplined.

    The low-profile case probably would have gone unnoticed if not for the video, which attorneys emailed to other attorneys and debated on blogs.

    In a series of searing questions, the three judges expressed frustration and anger that California state judges were not cracking down on prosecutorial misconduct. By law, federal judges are supposed to defer to the decisions of state court judges.

    lRelated[​IMG]
    CALIFORNIA
    Aircraft worker had retirement lined up -- and then the boom came down

    SEE ALL RELATED

    8

    Prosecutors "got caught this time but they are going to keep doing it because they have state judges who are willing to look the other way," Kozinski said.

    Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen said the judges' questions and tone showed they had lost patience with California courts. State judges are supposed to refer errant lawyers, including prosecutors, to the state bar for discipline, but they rarely do, Uelmen said.

    "It is a cumulative type thing," Uelmen said. "The 9th Circuit keeps seeing this misconduct over and over again. This is one way they can really call attention to it."

    A 2010 report by the Northern California Innocence Project cited 707 cases in which state courts found prosecutorial misconduct over 11 years. Only six of the prosecutors were disciplined, and the courts upheld 80% of the convictions in spite of the improprieties, the study found.

    cComments
    • I always laugh when politicians, judges. police officers and prosecutors tell us this is the best system in the world while railroading innocents people and ruining their lives. The system is very corrupt. It is like an onion with may layers each layer as dishonest as the next. Win at all...
      AWUNGANYI
      AT 8:49 PM JANUARY 31, 2015
    ADD A COMMENTSEE ALL COMMENTS

    200

    Patrick J. Hennessey Jr., who has represented Baca on appeal for nearly two decades, said he had never seen such an "egregious" case of prosecutorial misconduct.

    "That is what bothered me," Hennessey said. "There was never a fair discussion of how serious the issue was."

    A U.S. magistrate who next examined the case said Baca might not have been convicted of first-degree murder but for the false testimony. He said the federal court nevertheless was supposed to defer to the state courts.

    "Sadly, this informant's lies were bolstered by a Deputy District Attorney, who also lied," wrote Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. "What is obvious … is that the Riverside County District Attorney's Office turned a blind eye to fundamental principles of justice to obtain a conviction."

    Armed with the magistrate's report, the three judges on the 9th Circuit panel appeared incredulous about the facts of the case.

    [​IMG]
    Changing neighborhood engulfs their Old Hollywood home

    maura.dolan@latimes.com
    Twitter: @mauradolan
     
  15. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

    Kamala Harris has got to get rid of this guy Kevin Vienna this doesn't look very responsive to what the judges ordered him to do.
    [​IMG]
    Case: 13-56132, 01/15/2015, ID: 9384640, DktEntry: 31, Page 1 of 4

    KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General

    State ofCalifornia DEP ARTMENT OF JUSTICE

    II 0 WEST A STREET. SUITE II 00 SAN DIEGO. CA 92101 P .O. BOX 85266 SAN DIEGO, CA 92186-5266

    Public: (619)645-200I Telephone: (619) 645-2198

    E-Mail:

    Facsimile: (619)645-2191 Kevin. Vienna@doj.ca.gov

    January 15, 2015

    Clerk ofthe Court
    United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit P.O. Box 193939
    San Francisco, CA 94119-3939

    RE: Johnny Baca v. Derral Adams Ninth Circuit Case No. 13-56132

    Dear Clerk ofthe Court:
    This case was argued on January 8, 2015, at 9:30a.m. in Pasadena, before

    the Honorable Judges Kozinski, Wardlaw, and Fletcher. During the course of argument, the Court directed me to confer with the Attorney General of California regarding the circumstances ofthe case, which involved false testimony, and to report the concerns expressed by the Court during the course ofthe argument. Ultimately, the Court invited the Attorney General to consider whether this matter mightberesolvedinsomewayshortofadecisionoftheCourtonthisappeal. I have passed the relevant information up to the California Attorney General. However, the question of resolution is still undergoing careful examination.

    [​IMG]
    Case: 13-56132, 01/15/2015, ID: 9384640, DktEntry: 31, Page 2 of 4

    Clerk ofthe Court January 15, 2015 Page 2

    The Court, clearly recognizing that the issues were complex and might take some period of time to resolve, directed me to report within a week, but also allowed that I could ask for some additional time for this matter to be worked on, should that be necessary. This letter is sent both to provide a status report and to make that request for additional time. I have discussed this request with counsel for Appellant Baca, Mr. Patrick Hennesey, Jr., and he has authorized me to state that he has no objection.

    Since the argument, I provided a report o f the case, the oral argument, and the Court's clearly-expressed concerns to the California Attorney General. There have been extensive discussions ofthis matter at the highest level ofour office. In addition, my superiors and I have engaged in discussions with the office ofthe prosecuting authority in this matter, the Riverside County District Attorney, including a lengthy telephone conversation I had with the new Chief Assistant District Attorney, John Aki.

    As I related to Mr. Hennessey in our telephone conversation, the question of resolution of this matter is being carefully considered and discussed. My office is now waiting to learn the official position of the Riverside District Attorney. Mr. Aki has asked for some additional time to consider the question of possible resolution.


    [​IMG]
    Case: 13-56132, 01/15/2015, ID: 9384640, DktEntry: 31, Page 3 of 4

    Clerk ofthe Court January 15, 2015 Page 3

    Accordingly, I ask the Court for an additional two weeks to permit adequate deliberation and discussion between both the California Attorney General and the Riverside County District Attorney, as well as necessary additional discussion with Mr. Hennessey regarding any potential agreement. I believe that the possibility of resolution remains open and that this additional time can be useful in that regard.

    In the meantime, I will notify the Court ofany intervening important decisions immediately. If necessary, I will advise the Court of the status of this matter not later than two weeks from today.

    Sincerely,

    s/ KEVIN VIENNAKEVIN VIENNA
    Supervising Deputy Attorney General

    For KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General

    SD20 13807023 710 12207.doc












    [​IMG]
    Case: 13-56132, 01/15/2015, ID: 9384640, DktEntry: 31, Page 4 of 4

    9th Circuit Case Number(s) 113-56132 ~--------------------------------------------~

    ~OTT: In "~'~un: )OUr tnput. ~··U )l11mld printth~ filled-in lonn tv PDI· (I ik >Print> J>[)T Pmuer·( reawrl. *********************************************************************************

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEWhen All Case Participants are Registered for the Appellate CM/ECF System

    I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk ofthe Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system

    on (date) I I· Jan 15, 2015

    I certify that all pat1icipants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system.

    Signature (use "s/" format) Is/Bonnie Peak

    ********************************************************************************* CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    When Not All Case Participants are Registered for the Appellate CM/ECF System I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk ofthe Court for the

    United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system on (date) I I.
     
  16. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

  17. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

    Michael G. Stogner

    Re: 2nd Request Evidence Code Number assigned to the Sobe Soda Softdrink Bottle on October 9, 2002 by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office. Eddie Rapoza III SC53584A triple murder case.


    Michael P. Murphy County Counsel of San Mateo County

    Hall of Justice and Records

    400 County Center 6th Floor

    Redwood City, California, 94063


    Mr. Murphy,

    This is in response to your letter dated December 12, 2008. Your office was involved it filed a document full of misleading and dishonest statements. Prepared by Carol L Woodward I am confident that you were aware of this, you might not have expected me to be.


    Under the Leadership of Sheriff Don Horsley, Detectives Gary Ramos and Joseph Farmer have Identified this object/weapon in their official police reports and have testified to its existence in the Eddie Rapoza III SC53584A triple murder case. DDA Al Gianni even described the bottle as being broken in the Court. As a concerned citizen and resident of San Mateo County I am asking you to supply me with the Evidence code assigned by the San Mateo County Sheriff Office on the date of October 9, 2002. As you are aware I have spoken publicly to the Board of Supervisors objecting to my Sheriff’s Department under the leadership of Don Horsley declaring the Guilt of people before they ever get to a trial. The Sheriff’s department determined that Mr. Rapoza was guilty the day of the incident. Now we have two deputies and the District Attorney’s office describing this bottle in various conditions. This alleged/fabricated bottle was there excuse for re-entering the ICU room, at 8:30PM, ICU rooms don’t have Sobe Bottles in them. That is why you are unable to supply me with the number, there never was one.


    You might think filing a false response (1/5/2004 Respondent San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Produce Documents) or Police report and committing perjury in our Courts is OK, I don’t.


    I expect honesty and accurate law enforcement reports and testimony in San Mateo County and Our Courts.


    Evidence code number please, the one assigned on October 9, 2002


    Its time the truth comes out, if it never existed just say so.


    Sincerely,



    Michael G. Stogner
     
    Dan Ullom likes this.
  18. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

    Prosecutors protect themselves first: Column
    Glenn Harlan Reynolds6:34 p.m. EDT March 8, 2015
    When prosecutors lie and falsify evidence, 'absolute immunity' protects them from justice.
    420TWEET 16LINKEDIN 10COMMENTEMAILMORE
    When you're charged with a crime, you're in a tough spot. As soon as charges are filed, you're faced with the necessity of either (1) negotiating a plea bargain, which means you'll plead guilty to something or other; or (2) going to trial, where you risk a much more serious conviction if the jury doesn't believe you. Facts are often confused. The prosecution has access to law enforcement for its investigations. You'll have to pay for yours.

    It's a big enough challenge when everybody plays things straight. But what about when you've got a prosecutor willing to lie? Then things are worse. And given that prosecutors often face no consequences for misconduct, it's not surprising that some are willing to lie about it.

    That's what happened in the California case of The People v. Efrain Velasco-Palacios. In the course of negotiating a plea bargain with the defendant, a Kern County prosecutor committed what the California appeals court called "outrageous government misconduct."

    What prosecuting attorney Robert Murray did was produce a translated transcript of the defendant's interrogation to which he had added a fraudulent confession. The defense attorney got a copy of the audio tape of the interrogation, but it "ended abruptly." Eventually, Murray admitted to falsifying the transcript, presumably in the hopes of either coercing a plea deal, or ensuring a victory at trial.

    When the trial judge found out, charges against the defendant were dismissed. Incredibly, the State of California, via Attorney General Kamala Harris, decided to appeal the case. The state's key argument: That putting a fake confession in the transcript wasn't "outrageous" because it didn't involve physical brutality, like chaining someone to a radiator and beating him with a hose.

    Well, no. It just involved an officer of the court knowingly producing a fraudulent document in order to secure an illicit advantage. If Harris really thinks that knowingly producing a fraudulent document to secure an illicit advantage isn't "outrageous," then perhaps she slept through her legal ethics courses.

    The California Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District didn't buy Harris's argument, and upheld the dismissal of charges. That means the defendant went free.

    On one level, that's fair: The prosecution should pay a price when it engages in outrageous misconduct. On the other hand, it's entirely possible that the defendant was actually guilty (sure, Murray was trying to railroad him, but you can railroad a guilty man) and now the charges against him have been dropped. If he's guilty, taxpayers are at risk for future crimes.

    Meanwhile, Murray suffered no actual punishment for his wrongdoing. As a report in the New York Observer notes: "For reasons beyond comprehension, he still works for the District Attorney Lisa Green in Kern County, Calif." Murray does face the possibility of discipline from the California bar, but even disbarment would be a light punishment for knowingly producing a false document in a criminal proceeding.

    Our criminal justice system depends on honesty. It's also based on the principle that people who do wrong should be punished. Prosecutors, however, often avoid any consequences for their misbehavior, even when it is repeated.

    Worse yet, prosecutors are also immune from civil suit, under a Supreme Court-created doctrine called "absolute immunity" that is one of the greatest, though least discussed, examples of judicial activism in history. So prosecutors won't punish prosecutors, and victims of prosecutors' wrongdoing can't even sue them for damages.

    That leaves courts without much else to do besides throwing out charges in cases of outrageous misconduct. But if we care about seeing the law enforced fairly and honestly, we need more accountability.

    First, courts should sanction prosecutors directly and personally for misconduct. Second, legislatures need to pass laws promoting accountability — and ensuring that prosecutorial misconduct is policed by someone other than the same prosecutors' offices that are committing it. Third, the notion of absolute immunity for prosecutors, which has no basis in the law or the Constitution, needs to be abolished.

    In truth, I'm not terribly optimistic that we'll see any of these changes. Prosecutors are politically powerful, and neither judges nor legislators are interested in crossing swords with them in a big way. But until prosecutors are held accountable in the same way that the rest of us are, there will be no assurance that they're not breaking the law themselves. And that's no way to run a "justice" system.

    Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor, is the author of The New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself.

    In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors. To read more columns like this, go to theOpinion front page or sign up for the daily Opinion email newsletter.
     
  19. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

  20. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

    San Mateo County has a little tiny problem, its called corruption
    By Michael G. Stogner (Open Post)October 12, 2013 at 10:49am
    I'm going to give just one example on Aug.7, 2013 approx. 2:30 PM a former Senior Accountant and another SamTrans employee met with Kevin Raffaelli of the District Attorney Office of San Mateo County. The entire meeting was recorded by Mr. Raffaelli, the two reported several criminal acts. On Aug.19, 2013 approx 1:10 PM Mr. Raffaelli called and reported that the District Attorney's Office did not have the funds to investigate this complicated type of crime. This is a pretty simple white collar crime with specific dates and evidence. What is the estimated cost for the investigation? Did Steve Wagstaffe request funds from the BOS for this type of crime? What other crimes do we not even bother to investigate, I'm not talking about prosecuting only investigating. This senior accountant was fired after she reported this activity to Supervisor Carole Groom per Counties website on Whistleblowing. When a person does the right thing and reports wrong doing and gets fired for it, they have already suffered, then to be lied to by the DA's office only causes more injury.
    I'm going to give just one example on Aug.7, 2013 approx. 2:30 PM a former Senior Accountant and another SamTrans employee met with Kevin Raffaelli of the District Attorney Office of San Mateo County. The entire meeting was recorded by Mr. Raffaelli, the two reported several criminal acts. On Aug.19, 2013 approx 1:10 PM Mr. Raffaelli called and reported that the District Attorney's Office did not have the funds to investigate this complicated type of crime. This is a pretty simple white collar crime with specific dates and evidence. What is the estimated cost for the investigation? Did Steve Wagstaffe request funds from the BOS for this type of crime? What other crimes do we not even bother to investigate, I'm not talking about prosecuting only investigating. This senior accountant was fired after she reported this activity to Supervisor Carole Groom per County's website on Whistleblowing. When a person does the right thing and reports wrong doing and gets fired for it, they have already suffered, then to be lied to by the DA's office only causes more injury. It is up to the residents of San Mateo County to fix this.
     

Share This Page