Is this common practice by a DA?

[mollym.sequoia@]

Px Hx.

What does "patient history" have to do with this being an ethical or unethical practice by the DA?

 

[Taxing Matters]

What would be the excuse for delaying the other cases: the charges are delayed for 80% of the people arrested in this county. This includes felon with a firearm, possession of stolen items, even spousal abuse.

You'd have to ask the prosecutors. They are the ones responsible for the filing of the charges. I could speculate as to a variety of reasons why it might be occurring, but that doesn't help you determine what the actual reasons are in your county. It might be as simple as the prosecutors are backed up on cases and not ready to get to these yet, so the work through the cases already on their plate and then file the charges against these folks when they have the time to work on them. But it may be any number of other reasons, too.

The person gets arrested for these things and booked into jail. They show up to trail and DA does not. The judge exonerates the offender (but that is a bail exoneration only). The offender goes home. A year later the charges are issued and the offender gets arrested for the event he was previously arrested for. In some cases this means posting bail twice for a single event. It doesn't seem right. What do you think?

I think that without knowing how the prosecutors handle their cases and what reasons they have for doing it this way it's impossible to comment on whether it's a problem and if it is, what other options might be available to remedy it.

 

[HighwayMan]

lf its not normal for 85% of the people arrested in a county to not get charged until a year after they were arrested, then let me know.

You're throwing these numbers around but what is the source of your information, or is it just a guess?

 

[Just Blue]

What does "patient history" have to do with this being an ethical or unethical practice by the DA?

posting history.

 

[quincy]

Not my friends. I've never been arrested. I'm investigating a practice I observed and thought was unfair.


But if he was already arrested and booked, Then why arrest him again? The letters these people received had the charges listed and a new trial date. And, no, they did not have attorneys. Every alleged offender I interviewed was poor. The average person in this county makes $30,000/year. Since Public Defenders are not assigned until charges are issued they were not issued a lawyer for up to a year after they were arrested. So for that year, no one was there monitoring their civil rights.

80% of the people that get arrested in this county are released after the first court date or their bail is exonerated. This is because, although they were arrested and booked, no charges were filed. This is for felony offences and misdemeanor offences of all types (not just involving drugs- these people were arrested for offences ranging from domestic abuse, felon with a firearm, stolen vehicles, possession just happened to be the most common offence committed by the people I interviewed). The DA filed the charges nearly a year later in all of these cases.

If they were arrested based the charge then it doesn't seem right to make them get arrested for the same event/offence twice. They already were arrested, the DA just let them go only to charge them later.

Is this ethical? Why? Why not?

In what County in California has this been occurring?

An offender can ask for a public defender after an arrest. The offender does not have to wait for an arraignment to get legal assistance, although I understand many who are arrested might not realize this.

I question the statistics you are using. As a "journalist" (freelance or associated with a recognized news organization), you should be looking to reliable sources for your facts and statistics. Facts should be verified. What are your sources for the statistics you are using?

I agree with you that those who can afford a private attorney have an advantage over the indigent who must rely on public defenders, not because public defenders are not good lawyers but because public defenders often have huge caseloads that can limit the amount of time they have to devote to any one client. Some public defender offices are run more efficiently and effectively than others.

That said, I am not seeing anything necessarily illegal in what you are describing. If you believe there is a widespread problem with the handling of cases in your county, you might want to contact the ACLU chapter in your area.

 

[CdwJava]

But if he was already arrested and booked, Then why arrest him again?

Because the state was not prepared to proceed by the time of arraignment. That's the way the system works. In the case of misdemeanors in CA this is a common enough practice.

The letters these people received had the charges listed and a new trial date. And, no, they did not have attorneys. Every alleged offender I interviewed was poor. The average person in this county makes $30,000/year. Since Public Defenders are not assigned until charges are issued they were not issued a lawyer for up to a year after they were arrested. So for that year, no one was there monitoring their civil rights.

So, what "rights" do you believe they were deprived of while they were out of custody? If they were not being prosecuted at the time, what need did they have for an attorney?

80% of the people that get arrested in this county are released after the first court date or their bail is exonerated. This is because, although they were arrested and booked, no charges were filed. This is for felony offences and misdemeanor offences of all types (not just involving drugs- these people were arrested for offences ranging from domestic abuse, felon with a firearm, stolen vehicles, possession just happened to be the most common offence committed by the people I interviewed). The DA filed the charges nearly a year later in all of these cases.

Again, NOT uncommon. Some counties are quicker than other, but with resources being scarce, what few misdemeanors are pursued are often pushed out to near the end of the SoL in order to make room for the felonies. In the county where I now work, we are just now going to prelims and trials on offenses from the beginning of the year.

If they were arrested based the charge then it doesn't seem right to make them get arrested for the same event/offence twice. They already were arrested, the DA just let them go only to charge them later.

The alternative would be to illegally hold them in jail for a year as the DA makes a filing decision. Would you prefer that??

 

[cbg]

Here is the bottom line, Molly.

It is legal. It is ethical. The reasons why it might be done this way are fact specific and are not one-size-fits-all.

Your statistics are highly questionable.

If you do not understand why any of the above is true, then I suggest you go back to journalism school because you clearly did not understand the basics the first time through.

 

[quincy]

Because the state was not prepared to proceed by the time of arraignment. That's the way the system works. In the case of misdemeanors in CA this is a common enough practice.


So, what "rights" do you believe they were deprived of while they were out of custody? If they were not being prosecuted at the time, what need did they have for an attorney?


Again, NOT uncommon. Some counties are quicker than other, but with resources being scarce, what few misdemeanors are pursued are often pushed out to near the end of the SoL in order to make room for the felonies. In the county where I now work, we are just now going to prelims and trials on offenses from the beginning of the year.


The alternative would be to illegally hold them in jail for a year as the DA makes a filing decision. Would you prefer that??

I think that there is a misunderstanding by mollym of how the system works coupled with a belief that indigent offenders are treated unfairly.

While the latter might be true in some cases, it does not appear to be the case here.

 

[CdwJava]

Yep. The system they describe in CA seems to be one that is commonplace and has been for quite a long time. Prosecutors are rarely ready to proceed by arraignment (48 hours - 2 court days - after arrest) so they choose not to proceed and the defendant is released pending the filing of charges, often months - later if at all. In my experience, less than half of misdemeanor arrests are pursued these days, so a good many of those released never have to risk re-arrest.

 

[quincy]

Yep. The system they describe in CA seems to be one that is commonplace and has been for quite a long time. Prosecutors are rarely ready to proceed by arraignment (48 hours - 2 court days - after arrest) so they choose not to proceed and the defendant is released pending the filing of charges, often months - later if at all. In my experience, less than half of misdemeanor arrests are pursued these days, so a good many of those released never have to risk re-arrest.

I would be interested in learning in which California county this is happening, though, to see if there has been a noted problem with how offenses and offenders are handled.

 

[CdwJava]

I would be interested in learning in which California county this is happening, though, to see if there has been a noted problem with how offenses and offenders are handled.

Sure. It would be interesting to note. Though, what mollym describes seems to be pretty mainstream process - particularly in the larger counties. Smaller counties may be able to get to things quicker, on average. But, this will vary based upon resources and the nature of the offense. Crimes that require lab work (DUIs, under the influence cases, and the like) will often take longer than simpler offenses where evidence is pretty much based upon statements alone (battery, petty theft, etc.).

 

[quincy]

Sure. It would be interesting to note. Though, what mollym describes seems to be pretty mainstream process - particularly in the larger counties. Smaller counties may be able to get to things quicker, on average. But, this will vary based upon resources and the nature of the offense. Crimes that require lab work (DUIs, under the influence cases, and the like) will often take longer than simpler offenses where evidence is pretty much based upon statements alone (battery, petty theft, etc.).

What mollym describes sounds typical of many large counties - and actually better than many.

Recently in Michigan, the ACLU filed suit over pre-trial detentions that keep indigent offenders in jail solely because of their inability to pay for their release. These indigent offenders were not informed of their right to consult with a public defender after arrest.

 

[CdwJava]

What mollym describes sounds typical of many large counties - and actually better than many.

Recently in Michigan, the ACLU filed suit over pre-trial detentions that keep indigent offenders in jail solely because of their inability to pay for their release. These indigent offenders were not informed of their right to consult with a public defender after arrest.

That won't be a problem soon in CA since we are effectively doing away with most bail (providing it is not overturned via referendum in 2020) ... yet one more law that puts the public here at risk of further predation.

 

[quincy]

That won't be a problem soon in CA since we are effectively doing away with most bail (providing it is not overturned via referendum in 2020) ... yet one more law that puts the public here at risk of further predation.

I have mixed feelings about bail. I am not at all sure it is effective.

 

[CdwJava]

I have mixed feelings about bail. I am not at all sure it is effective.

As the guy who has had to arrest all those folks who choose not to appear on signed Notices to Appear, I'm a fan. I suppose no bail will cut down on court costs, though, since many criminals will not go to court and will have to wait until after they are caught. Again. And, based upon some stats, that might mean AT LEAST 3 to 4 or more NEW offenses before they are caught once more. I prefer my criminals to be isolated than free to roam and continue preying on the public. But, maybe that's just me.