Is this common practice by a DA?

[quincy]

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.

I just see a disproportionate number of offenders who are poor sitting in jails while those with the ability to pay released from confinement. But that might change in this area before long.

 

[CdwJava]

I just see a disproportionate number of offenders who are poor sitting in jails while those with the ability to pay released from confinement. But that might change in this area before long.

I choose to err on the side of public safety. It may be egalitarian to let everyone out before court, but, the cost to society and to individuals is too high, in my opinion. I can't tell you the number of people we arrest for new offenses that have outstanding warrants for FTAs already. Most misdemeanor offenders here are released the night of the arrest on only a signed promise to appear for arraignment, and a great many do not show. Perhaps those new offenses might not occur if they had remained in jail. It's particularly frustrating out here today since most misdemeanors - and even felony property crimes - do not seem to be prosecuted. In many counties, even assaults on officers are not pursued! (But, that's happening most everywhere right now, so it's not a CA thing.)

 

[quincy]

If you are interested in reading the 66-page class action complaint filed in April of this year by the ACLU of Michigan, to see the problems that have been experienced with bail in Michigan, here is a link to the complaint:
https://www.aclumich.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/aclu_lawsuit_challenging_discriminatory_cash_bail.pdf

 

[mollym.sequoia@]

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.

Thank you for this answer! I didn't want to persue this if it was commonplace. Since I don't know the justice systems common practice, I had to find out if this was normal before wasting too much time.

My concern was that they were waiting on purpose. If anybody they had arrested and not immediately charged re-offended, then it could be used as leverage in the first case to persuade the offeder to take a deal.

But if it's common due to lab delays, etc. then I'll just let the issue go.

 

[CdwJava]

From my reading of it, it's similar to the ACLU arguments out here - identical, in some respects - and one of the reasons they managed to maneuver this law through the legislature. It all sounds as if it is about fairness, but discounts the effects on the community and victims. Particularly in the case of property crimes where the offenses are rarely punished in CA today and often the only relief the community and the victims may have is to prevent the offender from having the ability to commit additional offenses for a time.

A means based test for bail would be great if there was some way to ensure attendance in court. There is not. It's why the most common warrant we have out here is related to FTAs. Many offenders are repeat offenders who only return to court or jail when they are caught ... again. And, I have to say that the argument that these misdemeanants might lose their jobs is - at least in CA - overstated, or pure hogwash, because most misdemeanors hold bail in the $2,000-$3,000 range with 10% down, and most people with a job can afford a couple hundred bucks even if it's a stretch. Frankly, the most overwhelming entry into the "employment" box on an arrest and booking sheet here is "unemployed." And, if unemployed, one might argue that it might be better for them to remain in where they will receive food and care. But, currently in my state, most misdemeanor offenders are released on a Notice to Appear and not on bail, anyway. Those misdemeanors that might require bail tend to be for domestic violence, court order violations, and in the case of an offender who is not from the area.

 

[CdwJava]

Thank you for this answer! I didn't want to persue this if it was commonplace. Since I don't know the justice systems common practice, I had to find out if this was normal before wasting too much time.

My concern was that they were waiting on purpose. If anybody they had arrested and not immediately charged re-offended, then it could be used as leverage in the first case to persuade the offeder to take a deal.

But if it's common due to lab delays, etc. then I'll just let the issue go.

What county is this?

Yes, such delays are common - and have been for much of my career, but more so in the past decade as resources have dwindled.

 

[mollym.sequoia@]

Thank you for this answer! I didn't want to persue this if it was commonplace. Since I don't know the justice systems common practice, I had to find out if this was normal before wasting too much time.

My concern was that they were waiting on purpose. If anybody they had arrested and not immediately charged re-offended, then it could be used as leverage in the first case to persuade the offeder to take a deal.

But if it's common due to lab delays, etc. then I'll just let the issue go.

It's Lake County, CA. Very small. Pretty poor. Some areas on the other side of the Lake don't have roads, even, just poor condition dirt roads. But my side of the Lake had great roads and wineries. Beautiful area. Great sheriff department that does a good job by the community. Wasn't always the case, though. The previous elected Sheriff was boating while drunk and ended up running into another boat, killing a woman. He didn't get into trouble. Later it came out that the county helped him skirt the charges by unfairly placing the blame in the driver of the boat that was hit. The accused ended up sying the county and won. That was years ago and the system has been overhauled since then. Strange criminal system, though. The local bailbondsman is on the Board of Supervisors, for example. It's a good old boy area.

There was another case of a man pulling over a woman. He had lights on his car and a fake badge. He also had a loaded weapon in the car. He was also a felon. He was not a cop, just pretending to be one. He pulled this woman over at night on a lonely road walked up to her window. Said he pulled her over for whatever reason and told her to wait. He walked back to his car and, sensing something was wrong, she immediately drove away and called the cops. He was arrested and bailed out. He remained out for 9 months because that's how long it took them to press charges. There was no lab work to wait on in this case so I don't get the delay. And it let a dangerous guy walk the streets for a long time unnecessarily. I actually have spoken with the current DA about a separate issue. Shes very smart. Very compassionate. And, IMO after hearing the answers from you guys (thank you) very overwhelmed with the workload. I don't think she's doing things maliciously, but if the current delayed system is making things worse for both sides. Then I still think something should be done to at least get the DA more funding to hire more help or something.

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.

 

[quincy]

It's Lake County, CA. Very small. Pretty poor. Some areas on the other side of the Lake don't have roads, even, just poor condition dirt roads. But my side of the Lake had great roads and wineries. Beautiful area. Great sheriff department that does a good job by the community. Wasn't always the case, though. The previous elected Sheriff was boating while drunk and ended up running into another boat, killing a woman. He didn't get into trouble. Later it came out that the county helped him skirt the charges by unfairly placing the blame in the driver of the boat that was hit. The accused ended up sying the county and won. That was years ago and the system has been overhauled since then. Strange criminal system, though. The local bailbondsman is on the Board of Supervisors, for example. It's a good old boy area.

There was another case of a man pulling over a woman. He had lights on his car and a fake badge. He also had a loaded weapon in the car. He was also a felon. He was not a cop, just pretending to be one. He pulled this woman over at night on a lonely road walked up to her window. Said he pulled her over for whatever reason and told her to wait. He walked back to his car and, sensing something was wrong, she immediately drove away and called the cops. He was arrested and bailed out. He remained out for 9 months because that's how long it took them to press charges. There was no lab work to wait on in this case so I don't get the delay. And it let a dangerous guy walk the streets for a long time unnecessarily. I actually have spoken with the current DA about a separate issue. Shes very smart. Very compassionate. And, IMO after hearing the answers from you guys (thank you) very overwhelmed with the workload. I don't think she's doing things maliciously, but if the current delayed system is making things worse for both sides. Then I still think something should be done to at least get the DA more funding to hire more help or something.

More funding can be a cure for a lot of problems.

Thank you for providing the name of your county.

 

[CdwJava]

It's Lake County, CA. Very small. Pretty poor.

Lake County is small and rural, with a high poverty rate, but it has a relatively high cost of living and a high end population rubbing elbows with the poor. Some years ago it had a high number of narcotics registrants and parolees because it was rural and poorly policed - too few officers and deputies, and too poorly paid to attract many qualified applicants who would stay for a career (especially when the cost of housing was out of whack with the wages). There are, however, a number of interesting tales that came out of there, but no more or less than most rural counties in the state (mine included).

There was another case of a man pulling over a woman. He had lights on his car and a fake badge. He also had a loaded weapon in the car. He was also a felon. He was not a cop, just pretending to be one. He pulled this woman over at night on a lonely road walked up to her window. Said he pulled her over for whatever reason and told her to wait. He walked back to his car and, sensing something was wrong, she immediately drove away and called the cops. He was arrested and bailed out. He remained out for 9 months because that's how long it took them to press charges. There was no lab work to wait on in this case so I don't get the delay. And it let a dangerous guy walk the streets for a long time unnecessarily.

I can hypothesize all day as to the delay. Suffice it to say that real life is not like TV, and bringing a case to trial is not something that can be done in a a single episode (i.e. an hour). If I had to guess, I'd say there was a deep dive into the suspect's background and a search for additional victims, and that can take time.

I actually have spoken with the current DA about a separate issue. Shes very smart. Very compassionate. And, IMO after hearing the answers from you guys (thank you) very overwhelmed with the workload. I don't think she's doing things maliciously, but if the current delayed system is making things worse for both sides. Then I still think something should be done to at least get the DA more funding to hire more help or something.

Even if the DAs are fully funded (and I don't know of an office that is) the courts are also understaffed. The unintended consequence of the effective decriminalization of drugs and most thefts is that the misdemeanor offenses whose fines provided a good chunk of the court's funding is now gone. As a result, court staffing has dropped and their ability to accomodate court proceedings is impacted. In the county where I live and used to work, Traffic offenses would be arraigned three weeks from the stop and trial 2 to 3 weeks later. Now, it is not uncommon for a court trial to be 6 months out. More serious offenses, even further. I had been retired for more than a year when I was subpoenaed for a preliminary hearing on a stalking, felony battery/DV, and maiming case. And, in the county where I currently work, misdemeanors that ARE charged (most aren't) are set for trial more than 6 months out from the arraignment - my experience is 8 to 9 months.

Bottom line is that the system is slooooow. It has long been slow, but in recent years with reduced funding and changes in the laws, things have only gotten slower. So long as the rights of the accused are not violated (and nothing you have stated thus far says that they have been) then this is the system that will proceed forward into the future.

 

[quincy]

Lake County is small and rural, with a high poverty rate, but it has a relatively high cost of living and a high end population rubbing elbows with the poor. Some years ago it had a high number of narcotics registrants and parolees because it was rural and poorly policed - too few officers and deputies, and too poorly paid to attract many qualified applicants who would stay for a career (especially when the cost of housing was out of whack with the wages). There are, however, a number of interesting tales that came out of there, but no more or less than most rural counties in the state (mine included).


I can hypothesize all day as to the delay. Suffice it to say that real life is not like TV, and bringing a case to trial is not something that can be done in a a single episode (i.e. an hour). If I had to guess, I'd say there was a deep dive into the suspect's background and a search for additional victims, and that can take time.


Even if the DAs are fully funded (and I don't know of an office that is) the courts are also understaffed. The unintended consequence of the effective decriminalization of drugs and most thefts is that the misdemeanor offenses whose fines provided a good chunk of the court's funding is now gone. As a result, court staffing has dropped and their ability to accomodate court proceedings is impacted. In the county where I live and used to work, Traffic offenses would be arraigned three weeks from the stop and trial 2 to 3 weeks later. Now, it is not uncommon for a court trial to be 6 months out. More serious offenses, even further. I had been retired for more than a year when I was subpoenaed for a preliminary hearing on a stalking, felony battery/DV, and maiming case. And, in the county where I currently work, misdemeanors that ARE charged (most aren't) are set for trial more than 6 months out from the arraignment - my experience is 8 to 9 months.

Bottom line is that the system is slooooow. It has long been slow, but in recent years with reduced funding and changes in the laws, things have only gotten slower. So long as the rights of the accused are not violated (and nothing you have stated thus far says that they have been) then this is the system that will proceed forward into the future.

California differs from other states in many many ways but a lack of funding appears to be an unfortunate commonality.

 

[mollym.sequoia@]

Lake County is small and rural, with a high poverty rate, but it has a relatively high cost of living and a high end population rubbing elbows with the poor. Some years ago it had a high number of narcotics registrants and parolees because it was rural and poorly policed - too few officers and deputies, and too poorly paid to attract many qualified applicants who would stay for a career (especially when the cost of housing was out of whack with the wages). There are, however, a number of interesting tales that came out of there, but no more or less than most rural counties in the state (mine included).


I can hypothesize all day as to the delay. Suffice it to say that real life is not like TV, and bringing a case to trial is not something that can be done in a a single episode (i.e. an hour). If I had to guess, I'd say there was a deep dive into the suspect's background and a search for additional victims, and that can take time.


Even if the DAs are fully funded (and I don't know of an office that is) the courts are also understaffed. The unintended consequence of the effective decriminalization of drugs and most thefts is that the misdemeanor offenses whose fines provided a good chunk of the court's funding is now gone. As a result, court staffing has dropped and their ability to accomodate court proceedings is impacted. In the county where I live and used to work, Traffic offenses would be arraigned three weeks from the stop and trial 2 to 3 weeks later. Now, it is not uncommon for a court trial to be 6 months out. More serious offenses, even further. I had been retired for more than a year when I was subpoenaed for a preliminary hearing on a stalking, felony battery/DV, and maiming case. And, in the county where I currently work, misdemeanors that ARE charged (most aren't) are set for trial more than 6 months out from the arraignment - my experience is 8 to 9 months.

Bottom line is that the system is slooooow. It has long been slow, but in recent years with reduced funding and changes in the laws, things have only gotten slower. So long as the rights of the accused are not violated (and nothing you have stated thus far says that they have been) then this is the system that will proceed forward into the future.

Is that why this is happening? I got into minor trouble when I was 19 (many many moons ago) and things didn't take this lobg to progress. There was no delay in getting charged. Everythibg was wrapped up by the second court date only a few months later. Nothing like now a days. Sad and surprised to hear it's happening in other counties, too.

 

[quincy]

Is that why this is happening? I got into minor trouble when I was 19 (many many moons ago) and things didn't take this lobg to progress. There was no delay in getting charged. Everythibg was wrapped up by the second court date only a few months later. Nothing like now a days. Sad and surprised to hear it's happening in other counties, too.

I don't think anyone here can give you a definitive answer as to why there are delays in your county. All we can say is that it would not be unusual for such delays to occur.

Staffing and funding are two possible reasons why the offenders you spoke to had to wait for charges and a hearing. There are other possibilities and I believe a few of these were discussed earlier.

You could speak to an attorney in Lake County. The attorney would be in a better position than any of us to tell you if the delays are business as usual. I saw nothing on brief research to indicate a concern.