Most Popular
Recent Blog Posts
SLIDESHOWSNational Features >
print | email | write comment
Letters From OC Weekly ReadersCompiled By StaffPublished on March 19, 2008 at 11:37am'It Must Be Great to Be You'
Allen D. Wilson, via e-mail
It must be great to be you. You appear to be clairvoyant, with detailed knowledge all of the evidence that the district attorney presented to the Special Criminal Grand Jury during the nine-month investigation. Without knowing what 79 witnesses testified to under oath, and without examining the numerous documents the grand jury examined, you say that the reason no charges were filed against sheriff's officials was because the district attorney does not have "the balls . . . ahem, the political will to bust a deputy." Apart from such intimate knowledge about the testicular fortitude of the district attorney, you may have been snoozing during the press conference. The district attorney stated, "If we could have proven a case that any member of the sheriff's department, from the lowest ranking to the top of the department, was criminally responsible for the death of Mr. Chamberlain, there is no question that indictments would have been issued." Normally, you are banging on us, claiming we should not have charged a defendant because we did not have sufficient evidence. It seems when you don't like a person, you insist we charge without sufficient evidence. In order to charge anyone with a crime, the district attorney and the grand jury need more than testicular fortitude. We actually need admissible, credible evidence that proves every element beyond a reasonable doubt to charge anyone with a crime. The standard applies no matter who they are or what job they hold. George Jaramillo (then-assistant sheriff convicted of corruption charges), David Park (then-Irvine police officer charged but acquitted of sexual battery of a stripper while on duty) and Brad Wagner (then-Anaheim police officer awaiting trial on charges that he sexually assaulted an undocumented woman while on duty) surely disagree with your assessment. I hate to date myself, but you seem to be the new "Amazing Carnac," able to predict that the district attorney will not be pushing for penal reform in Orange County. After you fish out the district attorney's statement from your round file, you might want to reread this section: "This does not mean the public airing of these facts is closed. As soon as I am legally able to reveal the facts presented to the Special Criminal Grand Jury, I look forward to submitting a detailed report to the Board of Supervisors and the public. This report will outline all of the facts we covered in this investigation. I want this report to facilitate a public dialogue about how in-custody deaths should be investigated in Orange County. We are going to discuss what penal reforms should take place in Orange County and clean up our act." So please, Nick, why don't you try waiting until the district attorney's report is available to the public the next time you talk about this case? Susan Schroeder, Public Affairs Counsel, Orange County district attorney's office, via e-mail
Anne Rogers, via e-mail
Chris Young, via e-mail
Duke Rescola, Opinion Editor,Daily Forty-Niner, Long Beach
write your comment
|