Santa Clara County DA boycotts judge--guess why!

[LavrentiBeria]

Santa Clara County DA defends boycott of judge; outside experts liken move to nuclear option - San Jose Mercury News

DA Carr instructed her staff Friday to stop bringing all criminal cases before judge Bryan, who recently angered prosecutors by finding that a trial prosecutor in her office committed numerous acts of misconduct, including giving false testimony.

If it holds, the boycott could effectively end Bryan's career in criminal courts, forcing her to hear only civil cases, as well as have a chilling effect on judicial oversight of overzealous prosecution, outside experts noted. Bryan has declined to comment


"I think the boycott is intended to send a message to every judge in Santa Clara County," Uelmen said. "The message is, 'Especially when it comes to prosecutorial misconduct, be careful or this could happen to you.' " Levenson noted the tactic, which is explicitly permitted under California law, is not permitted in federal court.

Unbelievable that a DA can do something so brazen. Not even bothering to try to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest and corruption.

[Charles Brown]

I give more creedence to the DA than to the judge. Don't jump to conclusions. It is the judges that routinely overstep their authority with no repercussions to fear.

[LavrentiBeria]

Well, going by the article, the prosecutors were unethical and the judge reprimanded them. Overzealous, unethical prosecutors are not exactly unheard of.

[Giygas_84]

To be honest, it might be a case of two assholes colliding and them trying to see who can be the bigger asshole.

[SuperHoss]

Originally Posted by Giygas_84

To be honest, it might be a case of two assholes colliding and them trying to see who can be the bigger asshole.

I agree with you there. I think the judge should have let the prosecution retry the case. No reason to let some guy who might have committed child abuse walk. Introduce the evidence and let a jury of his peers convict him again.

As far as the prosecution goes, they really need to start doing something about these overzealous prosecutors withholding exculpatory evidence. We only hear about the ones where the evidence shows up.

Here is the problem. A prosecutor withholds critical evidence. Nobody finds out. He gets the conviction. If the evidence eventually comes out, they usually just retry the case and move on.

If the courts find that there is a pattern or if they find that someone intentionally withheld information, there should be real ramifications. Not just a slap on the wrist from the judge.

Look at this case. Either a child molester walked or a guy that was innocent stayed locked up in jail far longer than he should have.

[Failcake]

I'd be interested in hearing what the other judges in the county think. I bet they are pissed because the docket is getting all backlogged and fucked up.

If they support the boycotted judge, they should posse up and fuck over the DA's office.


Now would be a good time for the public defender's office to all request jury trials and refuse to wave time. With one less judge on the bench, there would be no way to hear all the cases. That would teach the DA's a lesson.

[Failcake]

Originally Posted by SuperHoss

I agree with you there. I think the judge should have let the prosecution retry the case. No reason to let some guy who might have committed child abuse walk. Introduce the evidence and let a jury of his peers convict him again.

Declare a mistrial first?

Sounds like there will be some double-jeopardy issues.

[Denter]

Originally Posted by Charles Brown

I give more creedence to the DA than to the judge. Don't jump to conclusions. It is the judges that routinely overstep their authority with no repercussions to fear.

State judges are generally elected. Prosecutors are not.

[LavrentiBeria]

Originally Posted by Denter

State judges are generally elected. Prosecutors are not.

DAs are elected. Prosecutors tend to be more political than judges, and are more likely to engage in misconduct.