Actions speak louder than words. Or so it's said.
So let me summarize two recent actions of the Alameda County courts and let you decide what they say about our criminal justice system.
Last week former San Leandro narcotics detective to charges that will allow him to avoid jail in the face of allegations involving and .
You can read the lurid details by following the links above, but I don't think that's necessary.
Quite simply, Fredrikkson was a sworn officer of the law who abused his authority.
Hold that thought.
Last month, a of interfering with two sheriff's department investigators in the performance of their duties. That verdict followed a trial in which an Alameda County prosecutor proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the business owners had been crude, disrespectful and obstreperous.
Again, there's a litany behind that case. Dillman has . He's .
So there's no way to quarrel with the prosecutor who framed the case : "Mr. Dillman is here for one reason and one reason only. Because he has a problem with authority."
So I have posited that Fredriksson abused his authority while stipulating that Dillman defied authority.
How did the system match punishment with crime in each case?
Last week under which Fredriksson will do 30 days work for the sheriff's department but won't spend nights in jail. He'll serve probation, pay some fines and accept other conditions.
Last month to four months behind bars in county jail, a decision that is stayed while the defendant appeals.
Both judges work in the Superior Court in Hayward. Perhaps they'll bump in to one another some day and compare notes on these sentences and what they say about the local justice system.
Likewise, Alameda County District Attorney Nancy E. O'Malley might want to chat with her deputies on each case: Michael Roemer, who negotiated the Fredriksson plea, and Scott Ford, who prosecuted the Dillman trial. Are we focusing on the right wrongs? What signals are we sending? That sort of thing.
What do you think?
Is there a message in this tale of two verdicts?
Please share your views in the comments below.
(Get San Leandro Patch delivered by email. Like us on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter @sanleandropatch)
Here are my inherent biases: I've been married 33 years to a retired police sergeant of great integrity, as most of them are. I'm also Dan Dillman's aunt, and know him to an intelligent, strong personality, a creative business owner, and someone deeply dedicated to his family and their safety. I was sickened by the Dillman verdict.
Our system is probably the best out there but has flaws, of course. If you know how to maneuver, there is almost always a means to reduce the punishment one may face.
"We were afraid we wouldn't get a conviction." Or something like that. If this goes to trial and they LOSE, he can get off FREE as a bird. It sounds like the case wasn't very strong and they didn't want to roll the dice. Is it fair? I don't know honestly. What I do know is that if you don't have a good case a plea might be the ONLY way you can get someone to face the music at all.
I worry greatly about the ongoing increase in camera surveillance given the abuse of power repeatedly shown by those who use the system and those who are failing in their obligations to hold them accountable. I expect we will see more cameras and more surviellance by our city government going forward unless there is significant push back by San Leandrans. It may seem like more security, but it's really only putting more power in the hands of those to whom we are already vulnerable and powerless. That is to say, it eliminates some crimes, but creates a single entity with the power to commit all crimes with relative impunity. And this article shows it without a doubt.. Private citizens are sentenced to jail for defending their legal rights, while the system gives one of their own a gift of a sentence. Wanna bet how long a sentence a normal Joe would get for one, let alone six, pounds of marijuana? Just look at the record, it ain't 30 days.
Ever consider that the evidence in one case was much stronger than in another? I'm willing to bet the DA didn't have much of a case against the corrupt officer, that plea versus spending $200,000 on a trial they feel they may lose... take the plea. If it was a circumstantial case with little direct evidence, he might have walked at trial. Mr. Dillman was defending his family? Were they under threat on the sidewalk by the ACSO Deputies? Why didn't he dial 911 on the spot, move his family inside the doors and lock them while waiting for other officers to arrive? Feelings aren't always reasonable. Let's say you're somehow elected to office and you decide to help change policy in a way that will harm my business- If I shove you around to get my point across FEELING like I'm protecting my family and property, am I justified or did i commit battery?
But what does it say about America when you need to compare it with China and Mexico to make a point about how great it is? Why not compare it with France or Sweeden or Holland or even Canada? Yes, the American justice system is better than that of a pseudo-communist dictatorship and of a country in the mist of a bloody drug war. I'll go further for you, it's also better than Liberia's, Eritrea's and, I'm pretty sure, Saudi Arabia's. It should make you proud.
I believe trials should happen only if you can't serve the community via a plea agreement. Trial should be the last resort. I don't know how putting a business owner in jail served the community. That's THE big question, in my mind. "How did you make the streets safer by holding that trial?" On the plea for the former officer, they at least got him out of law enforcement, got a conviction, and his LE days are over which is how it should be. If he had walked, no record of conviction... yeah, not cool.
In the true, civilized world, a DA who doesn't think should get a conviction, should not be prosecuting someone. I'm pretty sure no DA would be stupid enough to say that outloud, but it may be try calling them and asking them. Tom, why don't you do that?
As for Dan protecting his family...Dan's wide did indeed call 911 and one of the sign workers called 911. Let's recall the advice from SLPD when confronted with suspicous people who say they are police officers. Lt. Jeff Tudor stated to the community that you should ask for badge, ID, and business card. Dan followed those instructions and when the two men didn't comply his wife called the police. There was no shoving at all. The only shoving that occurred was in Detetive Montigue's police report, not in his partner's police report, not in the witness statements, not anywhere else but in a few words in a police report written by a detective who had been caught falsifying documents in the past (the testimony the jury was not allowed to hear).
Why did I pick those two countries- I've seen comments directed at you Marga that suggest you comment often about things you know nothing about. Since I've actually researched those countries and know more about them versus France, Canada, etc., I'm simply speaking to places I know in an attempt to avoid commenting on what I don't know. Also, one was far away and one is right next-door. Perhaps there's some aspect to Canadian trial/case law you'd like to point out as superior to our trial system that you have experience with or have researched? I am proud of this system despite the flaws. We spend so much time, effort, money and energy keeping the innocent out of jail that many times the guilty go free. Compare it to any country you want, yes, this is a good system that we can be proud of as it matures. And a side note about Mexico in particular- I'd be a foreign national I'd have to purchase land through a bank trust and only get the land for 100 years before the bank would own it. That has nothing to do with drug wars, it's just part of their system that make it someplace I don't want to live. Cops- we get 99 good ones for every bad cop. We'll never get perfect police departments, do you agree or do you have a secret formula you're not sharing with the world?
If my life was built on formulating ad-hoc senseless arguments on Patch, you'd totally be my idol. Pretend you're the ADA and this case is on your desk. Your job future depends on you getting a certain conviction rate, and this is a high-profile case. If you review what is in front of you, and the case is built on indirect links and circumstantial evidence, and the word of people a jury may find untrustworthy, if you don't believe you can go to trial and win over 12 jurors (people like you and me with widely different value systems and experiences) then you are well advised to seek a plea agreement. I wish they had some video of this guy walking out with a pound of bud in his hand, but I bet they don't have that and this was the best result for a case of someone hiding their tracks too well to risk jury trial. I know in Marga's world the accusation of guilt is enough to warrant someone being put behind bars for 20 years (which ironically makes your China comment seem self-identifying more than anything) but in this country we have a burden of proof that needs to be met, and rightfully so. In reality it looks like I'm defending the better principal here, Marga. You're coming off as the one that prefers that good old "Shoot em' all and let God sort them out." way of doing things.
I don't care if you stay or go, I did suggest you look at what happens elsewhere in hopes that you might do some research and see what works and what doesn't globally. Did I question if you were American? I don't remember asking that question, I think you're taking a page from Marga's book, making things up as you go along. I said I think there are flaws but also said I think this is a great system despite it's flaws. Now you're posting about leaving the country, people asking about your citizenship, and underwear... I'm the calm person between the two of us, if I do say so myself. Again, my suggestion to learn about other country's justice systems stands. If you want to try doing it in immersion by going out of country, more power to you, safe journey. If not, at least go to Wikipedia, it ain't perfect but you could use it.
Now, I do know quite a lot about the different criminal justice systems of different countries, as I've had to deal with many of them. And I can tell you that by international standards, the American justice system is very poor. Plea bargains, in particular, are an abomination. A basic concept of criminal justice is that defendants should neither be coerced nor induced to admit guilt, because a confession that is not freely given cannot be trusted. Indeed, in some systems of justice people are not allowed to admit guilt at all. In our system, however, we pretty much blackmail every defendant into pleading guilty by scaring them with the prospect of extremely harsh sentences. This induces guilty people to confess, but does the same for innocent people. We don't have a system in which we protect the rights of the innocent, quite the opposite. I'm glad that you only want to talk about the systems of justice you do know about, but it'd be foolish to think that the Chinese and Mexican justice systems are representative of anything. Indeed, because of their particular situations, they are rather different from others.
If what you posted were indeed the facts of the case, I would have a hard time voting guilty. Again I'm careful not to say one way or the other because I have only what you've said and a glancing read of a Patch article to go by. At trial, what was presented to them is all they can go by. I can say I hope there wasn't misconduct, that the Judge was impartial and followed state and local rules. The more I hear the more curious I am about the case.
If a DA believes s/he cannot prove a case against a defendant, then that DA must drop the charges. If you cannot prove someone is guilty, they are innocent, ergo they should not be prosecuted. But that wasn't the case here. The evidence was pretty overwhelming. They did a plea bargain because there was too much attention on the case to just let him walk free, but this is pretty much the equivalent of it. What is'made clear to anyone who doesn't have their lips firmly attached to the SLPD's ass, is that cops in Alameda County can do as they please with no consequences to speak off.
as close a paraphrase of "America Love it or Leave It" as you can get
For more on the collapse of criminal justice in America, I found this January 2012 article in the New Yorker a fascinating primer: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2012/01/30/120130crat_atlarge_gopnik?fb_ref=social_fblike&fb_source=timeline
People are busy calling for pay clawbacks from incompetent bankers betting with their firms' money (*not* even the depositors' cash) and losing, why are there no calls for clawing back our tax dollars going to corrupt people on the public payroll?
The long time harassment of Dan Dilmann, his family and his dream are part of the continuing legacy of violent inflexibility on the part of the city and the county. For those of you frothing at the mouth right now, remember who the Blue Meanies were of People's Park fame and the continuing legacy of White's Only in San Leandro. Nothing really has changed, except that the whole system is fixed. To resist is futile without the power of the vote and the gun.
http://www.buybuycoach.com Coach Factory