Spokane7
49°
August 12, 2010 in Opinion
Editorial: Bugbee has skills to lead prosecutors
In 2006, with the Otto Zehm controversy raging, The Spokesman-Review gave Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney Steve Tucker a tepid endorsement because his opponents were so weak. This time the field is stronger.
Tucker rode to office in 1998 on a wave of disapproval over the heavy-handed management of his predecessor. Unfortunately, his hands-off style has caused the pendulum to swing in the other direction. He does not call press conferences to get ahead of controversial matters. He does not use the office to educate the public on why prosecutions are handled a certain way. Like it or not, public perception of the office matters, but he stays silent.
Tucker delegates a lot of authority to supervisors and describes a typical day as handling the problems and questions brought to him by his deputies. But there is more to leadership than putting out fires. The issue of not charging suspects within the 72-hour time frame set by law has festered for years. But it took a consultant hired by county commissioners to spotlight the problem and spark solutions.
Chris Bugbee was a deputy prosecutor from 1996 to 2002, prosecuting major crimes and drug felonies. Now a respected defense attorney, he has experience from both sides of the legal table. He says he will use the office to listen to and educate the public. He wants to leave no doubt who is in charge and who is accountable. He acknowledges that the office would have lost some positions regardless of who was running it, but that he would fight harder for the resources needed to charge suspects in 72 hours. He correctly notes that resolution of that issue will involve active participation and coordination with the courts, public defenders, probation office and law enforcement. He points to Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich as the model for public availability and for advocating for an office at every opportunity.
Bugbee’s endorsements include the Spokane County Sheriff’s Association and the Spokane Police Guild. More telling, he picked up 18 of the 44 deputy prosecutors who voted in a union poll, an impressive showing considering he hasn’t worked there for eight years and often opposes them as counsel.
Dave Stevens has worked for nine years as deputy prosecutor under Tucker. He has run unsuccessfully for state Legislature and judgeships. He has been a hardworking and effective prosecutor of domestic violence and property crimes. However, we question his administrative skills to excel above the legal trenches. He got no votes from his fellow deputies.
Frank Malone, the lone Democrat in the race, boasts a master’s degree in business administration, but his opponents have more experience in criminal prosecution. His endorsements seem to stem more from his party affiliation than his criminal justice expertise.
Jim Reierson has run for this office and others before. He is a deputy prosecutor in Kootenai County. He has not impressed us as a person who can command the respect needed to lead a 140-person department.
Ultimately, this race is a referendum on a 12-year incumbent. We’ve heard many complaints from a variety of sources that Tucker is lacking in leadership. Now, with stronger foes in the mix, it’s time to give the job to someone else.
We recommend Bugbee.
Editorial: Workers’ beer routine undermines public trust 
CONCERNEDREADER on August 12 at 7:03 a.m.
I concur….. I think that it is telling that 18 people in the prosecutors office, whose opinion is probably the most important as they know what the job entails, voted to endorse Bugbee at the union meeting … Tucker got 26 votes…. not a ringing or land slide vote endorsement from his deputy prosecutors and I suspect that he got those votes from the “old gaurd” … Stevens and Malone got ZERO votes….. that SAYS alot !
bszottlinger on August 12 at 8:20 a.m.
Certainly a great endorsement for Mr. Bugbee. I also concur. I do not see how the local conspiracy theorists can draw any kind of a correlation between Mr. Bugbee and the newspaper endorsement. But then again I think they are still working on “ The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance”, so who knows.
Not only am I impressed with the endorsements and support Mr. Bugbee received from many career prosecutors, I am also impressed with the diversity of endorsements and support he has received. Very good call editorial board and one that makes perfect sense for the public.
Brad Szottlinger
davepartovi on August 12 at 9:51 a.m.
There are so many great reasons to vote for Chris Bugbee. He is a conservative centrist so all voices will be heard. He is experienced on both sides of the legal aisle so both sides of the story will be considered. He is a hard worker so he’ll set the gold standard in the office. He is calm and mindful so rash decisions will decrease. He is firm but fair which is what prosecution should be about. He will set standards which should increase predictability. He is the consummate adult so the gamesmanship should decrease. He will be respected, trusted and present so the office will finally have leadership.
Our community is lucky that Chris chose the difficult task of running for public office. He is not a politician, he is a trial lawyer. First and foremost, he is the best lawyer in the County for this position. But it is for that reason that he is also the best candidate in the pool. We should be grateful that we have the opportunity to put the right candidate in office rather than settling among those running. Let’s push Bugbee into office in November!
ChefGus/ John Olsen on August 12 at 2:06 p.m.
Thank you too to Mr Malone for running for this office… he is also not a person who has run for office before….The administrative skills needed are present in anyone who has reached the rank of Lt Col in the armed forces… A Master’s degree in business is also a big plus for Mr Malone…. remember the “Prosecutor” is the person responsible for the efficient and effective administration of that most important County task….. I am sure that Frank Malone can do the job as well. John Olsen
Ron_the_Cop on August 12 at 3:45 p.m.
Welcome ChefGus and others,
For a number of reasons we all can agree including the S-R that it is time for Steve Tucker to go. I may have a more cynical take on the S-R not endorsing Steve Tucker ala Jim West. Tucker’s usefulness has been used up and certain factions may be now cutting bait.
Tucker did get the support of the prosecutor’s union. The vote was split 28 to 16. There are 65 attorneys in the office. Some of the civil attorneys are not in the union and are not reflected in this vote total I’d be willing to bet the “deadwood” in the office were the deciding factor in maintaining the status quo.
The 72 hour issue of not getting the paperwork filed in time to make the statutory arraignment time is inexcusable. Tucker should have taken a leading role with the law enforcement agencies and the courts to curtail this as much as possible. This is a significant waste of scarce resources, clogs the courts and results in doing duplicative paperwork to rearrest and charge suspects and places the public in danger in the case of career criminals.
As a former police union president I wouldn’t put a whole lot of stock in the 16 votes for Mr. Bugbee either. I would venture to say the deadwood in the office, who seldom if ever go to trial, are interested in maintaining the status quo and hence a “no vote” for Mr. Stevens.
No disrespect for Mr. Bugbee, Mr. Malone and or Mr. Reierson as any would probably be better than Tucker on any day. I’m a little concerned about Mr. Bugbee’s relationship with the Police Guild and the Sheriff’s Association. That’s not a disqualifying factor but SPD/Guild do have major issues that need to be addressed that potentially will involve some toe to toe between the Co Prosecutor’s Office and the police.
Can Mr. Bugbee remain independent? Is he willing to rock the boat when necessary? On the other hand Mr. Stevens is a dedicated prosecutor not necessarily beholding to the bench, the defense bar and/or the unions. Mr. Stevens strikes me as a fighter with a fire in his belly as a career prosecutor to shake up the status quo in this office that is very necessary for the safety of the public that has been neglected under Tucker’s reign.
Nationally famous, former Sheriff Tony Bamonte of Pend Oreille Co (Google Breaking Blue + Spokane) and I recently met with Mr.Stevens for over three hours. We have carefully evaluated all of the candidates for Spokane County Prosecutor with the exception of Steve Tucker It should be of no great surprise that we’re actively campaigning against Tucker. BTW Tucker has pulled another stunt claiming the support of Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich on his new campaign website.
You can view Tucker’s website and listen to all five candidates’ interviews and the League of Women Voters candidate’s forum i on my website:
http://tinyurl.com/277pea9
Sheriff Bamonte and I have chosen to support Dave Stevens as we believe he has the fire in his belly to aggressively prosecute career criminals and to stop the revolving door involving the 72 hour arraignment fiasco that Tucker has not taken a leadership role to resolve with the leaders of the criminal justice system.
I would encourage all not to vote for Tucker and to view/research each of the other candidates and make an informed vote.
Det. Ron Wright (Retired)
Riverside PD, CA
ChefGus/ John Olsen on August 12 at 7:13 p.m.
Ron The Cop…. I’d love to see the fall election have Mr Stevens and Mr Malone both on the ticket… we’d have the issues surfaced and be given enough information to make an informed decision… My vote and time and energy has gone to Mr Malone….as it will after the Primary… but I find Mr Stevens intriguing and a brave guy… john
Ron_the_Cop on August 12 at 7:59 p.m.
ChefGus,
We can all hope that Tucker is defeated in the primary. As I said above all the opponents on their worst day will probably be better than Tucker:-)
Truth_and_Justice on August 12 at 11:23 p.m.
@ Ron the RETIRED COP FROM CALIFORNIA:
You state: “The 72 hour issue of not getting the paperwork filed in time to make the statutory arraignment time is inexcusable.”
By this statement you once again demonstrate your complete ignorance of how the criminal justice system works in WASHINGTON. The 72 hour rule is found in the Court Rules, not the statutes, and it has nothing to do with the time for arraignment. Not filing charges within 72 hours has absolutely no impact on the case and is not somehow fatal to the ability to file charges in the future. If it was there wouldn’t be a 3 year statute of limitations for most felonies.
The “72 hour issue” is quite literally the man-made global warming of this campaign. It is a complete and total hoax fabricated to try to get people to change their behavior. The rule exists as a check on government power. It prevents suspects from being held in jail indefinitely without the filing of formal charges. The fact that certain cases are not filed within 72 hours of arrest is not evidence of prosecutorial mismanagement and simply reflects prioritizing the use of scarce resources.
Any violent offender, any sex offender and any repeat offender or career criminal is charged within 72 hours by the prosecutor’s office as it stands today. None of Mr. Tucker’s challengers will be able to do so any more than is already being done. Further, some of these people will still get out of jail pending trial.
There is one thing that the challengers fail to discuss regarding this “issue”. You see, there is another player involved and that is the court. The court rules in Washington presume that almost all persons arrested will be released pending trial (see CrR 3.2 at the Washington Courts website (www.courts.wa.gov)). This is what actually happens everyday. It makes no sense to rush charging people who will be released by the court pending trial; doing so is what will clog up the system. It’s really a pretty simple math problem. Law enforcement makes thousands of felony arrests every year; charging them all within 72 hours would be irresponsible. Mr. Tucker knows that, his challengers clearly do not.
CONCERNEDREADER on August 13 at 9:09 a.m.
I heard a radio interview where Mr. Steven’s referred to himself as “no deal dave” - you are telling me that a prosecutor advocating no plea bargains and no deals is a good idea ? really - every case goes to trial - the prosecutors office is already over worked, understaffed… so every case going to trial - that will work ? the system will fall apart…. and I agree with truth and justice that half of the comments made are made without ANY understanding of the legal system - just like a promise to NEVER negotiating and pleas or deals ?….and calling yourself “No Deal Dave” ???? Really ?
CONCERNEDREADER on August 13 at 9:11 a.m.
and Ron_the_cop… why didnt Mr. Stevens get ANY of the votes or support from his fellow deputy prosecutors ?
bszottlinger on August 13 at 10:33 a.m.
T and J:
I find your assertion that those other candidates do not understand the “72 hour rule” a bit self-serving. The “72 hour rule” is quite simply the right of every individual taken into custody without a warrant to have a magistrate independent of the police and prosecutor make a finding within a reasonable amount of time as to whether or not there is probable cause to continue to hold that individual in custody. As you point out the intent of course is to prevent law enforcement from throwing away the key. I believe the Washington “72 hour rule” excludes weekends and holidays so under some circumstances an individual may be held longer than 72 hours without a probable cause finding. I believe the California rule is 48 hours. I wonder how they handle that. I think you would agree that to effectively deal with the “72 hour rule” when it comes to keeping the real bad guys/gals in custody or under appropriate release guidelines, it is necessary to have all the various criminal justice agencies on board to develop a system that works. I do not see that happening at this point under the administration of your candidate. In the interest of full disclosure, I feel that Mr. Bugbee is best suited to get all the components together.
1.Since we have you here, how can you justify the prosecution agreeing to a bond reduction to $3,000.00 in the Christopher W. Hardwick case?
2. How can you possibly justify withholding of discovery for over a year in the death penalty case involving Christopher Devlin causing the death penalty to be taken off the table as well as adding considerable expense to Spokane County?
Just two of the many questions that your candidate has not adequately answered. Because this race is so critical to getting the system on track, I just hope the people elect the candidate with the most tools in his box and in my mind, that is Chris Bugbee.
bszottlinger on August 13 at 10:39 a.m.
Ron_the_Cop
To answer your question regarding Mr. Bugbee’s independence. His list of endorsements demonstrates that many believe that regardless of party affiliation he will represent the entire community in a fair and just way. His supporters come from the ranks of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Conservatives, Liberals, Lawyers, Cops, Prosecutors, and good old John Q. Mr. Stevens, a Vice Chair, in the Republican Party appears to me to have endorsements primarily along very conservative lines.
Mr. Stevens has unsuccessfully ran for elected office on two previous occasions, one Judicial and one Legislative This demonstrates to me his desire for political office far beyond that of Spokane County Prosecutor. Mr. Bugbee on the other hand has stated that he wants to retire in the position. That is the kind of person I want in that office. Someone who will make the commitment to make the office what it should be. Mr. Bugbee knows full well that he would have to be elected over and over again. He also knows that will not happen if he is not extremely effective every term.
Ron_the_Cop on August 13 at 10:39 a.m.
Concernedreader and T & J,
Just have a couple minutes now. I will answer in more detail later. Yes, Stevens, did say he has a stamp “No Deal.” He wasn’t referring to the initial arrests, appropriate plea agreements et al. What he was saying was “No Deal” on career criminals. When the prosecution never goes to trial the threshold for deals can go too low. If the defense believes it can hold out for a better deal there’s no incentive to plead a client to a “reasonable” deal offered by the prosecution based on the defendant’s past criminal history. Cases go stay if they’re allowed to language. Yes you’ve got three years to file on most felonies but that’s not realistic and doesn’t take into account the potential danger posed to the public.
I think I answered above why Stevens didn’t get any votes from his fellow prosecutors. They either went for Tucker or Bugbee. Tucker is completely unacceptable to me. Bugbee would be a definite improvement over Tucker but I like Stevens better for a number of reasons. Bottom line my vote is against Tucker and those beholding to his laid back style of management.
I will explain my views later on the career criminals the 8 to 10% of criminals that commit most of the crimes esp. serial property and crimes against persons. It’s these folks that don’t deserve any breaks and are a danger to the public. The other offenders can be dealt with in alternative sentencing, work release et al.
DPA on August 13 at 1:17 p.m.
Once again Ron the former cop shows his ignorance of the issues and Washington law. Truth and Justice is correct. The 72 hour rule is a court rule, not a statute and is not a requirement for filing cases. It is a limitation on government’s ability to hold a person in jail or subject to release conditions without the formal filing of charges. You would think that a peson who holds himself out as an expert in law enforcement (why else would he continue to refer to himself as a cop as opposed to what he really is) would take the time to educate himself on the law.
The fact that he stated, in his last posting, he had to come back to this issue only further underscores his ignorance. It takes time to assemble the other conspiracy buffs to in order to touch decoder rings, make aluminum foil hats and come up with some crazy theory.
Property and cases are not currently filed within 72 hous is because 1) the prosecutor’s budget has been slashed, 2) because law enforcement cannot complete those investigations within 72 hours and 3) the prosecutor’s office does not file these cases while the investigation is continuing.
Ron, did you have all of your investigations complete within 72 hours? If so. you must have been the super cop you want everyone to believe. How has Riverside California been able to deal with your retirement?
bszottlinger on August 13 at 3:32 p.m.
DPA:
For the most part, I agree with what you have written. I do however disagree that it is necessary for the police to complete their investigation within the 72-hour period. The filing can be made if probable cause can be established during the initial investigative process and the subsequent law enforcement investigation would determine whether amending the charges is necessary or dismissing the charges all together is appropriate.
Though I understand, prosecutors would like to be in a position to have the investigation complete prior to filing, for a number of reasons. I would think, in certain property cases involving dangerous and or career criminals where PC exists yet the investigation is not complete it would be best to file the case to properly protect the community.
I would hope that you are only referring to property cases when you state “the prosecutor’s office does not file these cases when the investigation is continuing”, many cases including homicide, complex fraud investigation, sexual assault, etc. require investigation well beyond 72 hours, and I would hope that these type of cases when appropriate are filed while the investigation is continuing.
If I am in error, please correct me.
Brad Szottlinger
Ron_the_Cop on August 13 at 3:50 p.m.
Sorry - cases go stay = cases go stale
DPA,
You shouldn’t throw stones if you live in a glass house. I’m am correct in what I’ve said.
Here’s a time line for felony “in custody arrests” in CA. I won’t even go into misd arrests. In CA like here but probably under a different system of court rule/statutory law provisions, any ARRESTEE booked into jail unless otherwise released on bail/OR had to be arraigned in court within 72 hours of the physical arrest. The clock started ticking at the time of the arrest. You got a little bit of a break if the arrest was on a Friday as they wouldn’t have to be arraigned until Tuesday.
Actually the time was even shorter than 72 hours. If the arrest was made before midnight that counted as day one. The following day was day two. MInd you as an investigator these arrest reports from patrol drifted in during the afternoon of day two to your desk. We weren’t all in the same building. The patrol station was about seven miles away. Our records building was another four miles in another direction that had to process the reports before we got them in yet third location and the DA/prosecutor was in a fourth.
In order to make the court’s felony arraignment calender (1pm on the third day), you had to have your case file to the DA’s/Prosecutor’s Office by 8AM on the third day. The filing DAs/prosecutors would review the cases and prepare the criminal complaints. The filing DAs had to make the court’s 11AM deadline to meet the court’s felony arraignment calendar at 1PM. If the arrestee was still in custody and was not arraigned in time, the jail would cut the arrestee loose that evening per 825 CA Penal Code without any conditions on the release (not arraigned within the statutory time).
The exception was murders and a few other high crime cases. These were done in a separate manner with “staffings” between the investigators and the special DA units. The investigators would meet with the homicide DAs. The investigators would brief the case and what evidence was still lacking. The homicide DAs would issue a criminal complaint to hold the suspect if they believed the case could be made at that point with the expectation that the investigating agency would later come through with the witness statements/crime scene evidence processing and forensics et al before the statutory preliminary hearing date.
Again these are IN CUSTODY - on sight arrests based on “probable cause” without arrest warrants by patrol officers and/or detectives. For instance say a patrol officer made an on sight arrest for a residential burglary (459 PC first degree - a felony strike offense in CA - neighbors called re in progress burglary - suspect caught at the scene or a short time later at another location), the patrol officer would do the initial investigative report/crime scene evidence/processing and book the suspect into the county jail. The arrest report would come to one of the investigative units whose job it was to make sure the arrest report was complete with witness statements/evidence and close any loose ends/holes. The followup detective was responsible for confirming the ID of the suspect and any relevant enhancement charges - prior prison priors, strike offenses or other enhancement. The detective would prepare the charge sheets for the reviewing DA and related paperwork
[Continued]
Ron_the_Cop on August 13 at 3:51 p.m.
[Continued from above]
The filing DAs would screen the arrest package sent over by the arresting agency for legal sufficiency. Their standard at this point was not “probable cause” but “reasonable cause” sufficient that the case would normally survive a later preliminary hearing. If the case was lacking at this point it was sent back to the submitting agency for further investigation and the suspect was released per 825 PC.
If you had a case where the suspect was released per 825 PC either because the case wasn’t presented in time and/or the DA rejected it for further investigation, you had basically two choices. If the case was good on it’s face and simply did not make the arraignment time, you had to do an arrest warrant declaration which is a statement of the case under oath and send it back through the DA’s Office for review, The DA would prepare the criminal complaint and forward the package to the court who would assign it to one of the duty judges that would read and hopefully approve and sign the felony warrant. The warrant would then go in the system until the suspect was stopped at a later time an arrested again.
If the suspect was a career criminal type we would sometimes “walk” these arrest warrants through as it would take several weeks to make it through the system/process. Once we had the arrest warrant in hand we would go find the suspect again before they went into the weeds and rearrest them.
If the case was lacking, witness missing et al, and it couldn’t be brought up to a “reasonable cause” standard it was dumped. If the case could be made it was sent back through to the DA filing deputies as an “out of custody” as outlined above.
As a detective working a followup investigation you would not arrest the suspect normally until you knew you had enough to make the case and could complete the paperwork once you started the arraignment clock ticking when you made an on sight arrest without an arrest warrant. Or you would send the case through for an arrest warrant. Once an arrest warrant was issued you would clue in the patrol officers working your area and tell that so and so now had a felony warrant.
There were other ways to finesse the system but this is how it worked normally. As you can see a lot of responsibility was put on the arresting agency. The DA’s Office would triage these case as they came in. If you made the filing deadline they would do their part to ensure the complaint was completed and sent to court to make the arraignment calendar. You didn’t send over incomplete cases as you didn’t want to bog the system down. The filing deputies would get wise to those investigators that would send over knowingly incomplete cases and they would hit the bottom of the pile to be rejected so they could get the good cases through on time.
So you can see it’s a complicated dance between different players in the criminal justice system that all must be working together and playing off the same sheet of music. This is what I see is lacking in Spokane. The key player in all of this should be the prosecutor - TUCKER - who should take the leading role to work with the other players to ensure that the cases are filed in a timely manner. Further those career criminals that should not be released are kept in custody so that all of their cases can catch up with them at one time. As you can see if an arrest is made and is not arraigned on time it can cause duplicative work and create needless backlogs in the court’s criminal calendar.
Yes am I aware of reduction in both police and prosecution resources but there are ways of streamlining/triaging the process with the mindset of protecting the public from the career criminals that will game the system and play it like a fiddle - the 8 to 10% as I explained above.
Det. Ron Wright (Retired)
Riverside PD, CA (Daytime pop approaching 300K)
Past two-term president of the Riverside Police Officers’ Assn
JimReierson on August 13 at 4:23 p.m.
There have been a few letters submited to the Spokesman-Review about me for consideration as letters to the editor. They have not all been printed (but I do understand no one has a guarantee all will be printed However, several (favorable)for Mr. Stevens were, as well as for Mr. Bugbee (which attacked me - but I stand on the letter I submitted entitled by S/R ‘No leniency for robbers’ which was printed in Sunday July 25)
One that has not been printed, that discusses my history, in particular is noteworthy, especially since the recent endorsement of Mr. Bugbee by the S/R. It is very short, and I am going to list it, because it is relevent. I do live in Spokane and went to Gonzaga Prep (1968 grad), and served the U.S. in both Navy and Air Force (as JAG, retiring as Lt. Col. in Reserves jan. 1, 2010, with total service of 30 yrs. Kootenai county, where I work, has a safer community because we get folks charged quickly and try to keep them in jail until they plead guilty or go to trial. The same should be happening in Spokane. Both Spokane and Coeur d’ Alene are part of large metro. community - with samecriminals often committing crimes in both places. We need a prosecutor who is familar with both States’ justice systems.
Letter, written by Geri Merriman Douglas, Post Falls, Id.:
The citizens of Spokane county have a rare opportunity to elect a no nonsense career prosecutor. Jim Reierson has been an effective, no nonsense prosecutor in both Kootenai County and Walla Walla. Jim has prosecuted some of society’s worst criminals. Jim Reierson attended Gonzaga Prep and went on to become an effective prosecutor. My family and friends in Spokane will be voting for Jim Reierson for Spokane County Prosecutor.
My history and experience can be seen at Spokane County Elections, by Google, then click on voters’ guide, then type in the search box prosecuting attorney.
My e-mail: JimReierson@yahoo.com
Ron_the_Cop on August 13 at 6:03 p.m.
Mr. Reierson,
Welcome to the party. From listening to you at the League and on the Mike Fitzsimmons Show, I do believe you understand what is at stake here. Some in this thread don’t want to acknowledge the laid back nature of this prosecutor’s office. I’m sure there are many hard working men and women in the office but I believe Tucker and his prodigy/close associates don’t want to rock the boat of a good thing. The defense bar also probably is not interested in rocking the boat either as negotiating pleas will become harder as the deals will be drawn back to the middle if the prosecution is willing to try cases from time to time when necessary.
You can find the links to all the interviews and the League’s forum on my website:
www.ronthecop.com
As I said upthread I wish all the candidates well with the exception of Tucker. This election is all about not voting for people that lack professional ethics et al - Laurel Siddoway, Ralph Baker, Al French and most of all Steve Tucker:-)
DPA on August 13 at 6:29 p.m.
Brad,
Property and Drug cases do get filed based on the filing of the PC affidavit while the investigation is continuing when there is a threat to public safety. This does require the detective to lay out the investigation to the unit supervisor with an explanation of what is left to do and an expectation of when the investigation will be complete. As prosecutors we have a duty to the public to make sure that we not only file cases based on probable cause, but also that the suspect actually committed the crime. This requires a complete investigation. We are not in the business of charging citizens with felony crimes only to learn that person did not do it or we can’t prove it. It is a responsibility we take seriously and one the public expects us to take seriously.
DPA on August 13 at 7:06 p.m.
Ron the retired cop,
A simple admission that you don’t know anything about the law in the State of Washington regarding the 72 hour rule would have been sufficient. A lengthy explanation of your lack of knowledge on the subject wasn’t needed. It’s not a statutory requirement and has nothing to do with arraignment as you earlier posted.
What you fail to recognize is that these cases were filed within 72 hours when properly referred by law enforcement until the severe cuts to the police and prosecutor budgets made this impossible. As it stands now, law enforcement are short staffed and these cases are not many times referred for prosecution within 72 hours. This isn’t a criticism of our hard working law enforcement officers, just a realization of the impact of the budget.
You also fail to recognize the impact of the cuts to the prosecutor’s office. The drug unit has lost 3 prosecutors and the property unit one prosecutor. The misdemeanor unit lost almost every attorney in the unit. The county commissioners were told what would happen if they made such deep cuts. These explanations came not only from Steve Tucker but unit supervisors and both independent consultants they paid for to review the entire criminal justice system. They made the cuts anyway in these hard economic.
Your criticism of the prosecutor’s office shows total ignorance of the law in this area and a total lack of knowlege of the budget shortfall. Your comments also call into question the very integrity of the deputy prosecutors (dead wood?), none of whom you know. Learn something about the people in this office before making such silly comments. You might be surprised how dedicated and professional they are. You might also learn we are the most efficient large office in the state with the best conviction rate. The independent consultants have supported how efficient and professional the prosecutors are.
Learn something about what you’re talking about before posting again. Otherwise you’ll continue to let your ingnorance show.
Ron_the_Cop on August 13 at 7:53 p.m.
DPA,
Look I’m trying to keep this thread civil. I’m not entirely disagreeing with you. Yes I know there have been difficult cuts. The reasons for these cuts are beyond the scope of this thread but are directly related to the co-option/corruption of local government that has spent large amounts of money frivolously and in some cases fraudulently to personally benefit Spokane’s power elite. The public is unaware, is shortchanged in the process and in some cases put in danger.
What I’m saying is there appears to be a lack of cohesiveness, cooperation and coordination between the law enforcement entities, the prosecution and the courts. I see Tucker’s laid back style of management as a central factor in this lack of coordination. While he may have spoken out to the Board of Commissioners, he seems to have lost out to the needs of Sheriff Knezovich. Tucker needed to bring these issues to the public’s attention so they could have held the Board accountable if they so chose.
Tucker’s lack of steering the ship and public persona to demand critical resources is my main complaint. In so doing he’s failed the many fine men and women in your office that slog it out on a daily basis. We need a leader in this very important office. One that is visible on a daily basis, not hiding in the weeds, that educates the public and will fight for the necessary resources.
At this point I’m supporting Mr. Stevens but as I’ve said the public would be better served too by Mr. Bugbee, Mr. Malone and Mr. Reierson than Tucker any day.
Marie on August 13 at 9:37 p.m.
Ron,
The County Commissioners have shown time and time again that they do not value public safety. Sheriff Ozzie is probably the most visible and vocal politician in this county and his budget still took huge cuts because the commissioners choose not to spend money on anything that isn’t a race track. Despite all the public outcry on the race track they still continue to throw money down that rathole.
This paper and some of the bloggers mistakenly think that a prosecutor somehow runs the criminal justice system. He doesn’t. Filing a case within 72 hours of arrest doesn’t guarantee anything except that the case has been filed. The release conditions are set by a judge who is supposed to be impartial and not rubber stamp the prosecutor’s or defense attorney’s recommendation. You should sit through a week of the first appearances in Superior Court and see how many people are released on low or no bond. Once they’re out, even if the case is filed within 72 hours, there is nothing to keep a defendant from picking up new charges. The criminal justice system in this county is overloaded and underfunded and until people are willing to pay for services all through the system they will keep getting quick fixes that don’t work.
bszottlinger on August 13 at 9:48 p.m.
DPA:
I would like to believe that I have a reasonable understanding of the role of a prosecutor. Though I must admit, I am not intimately familiar with the role of the Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney as you obviously are. It is nice to hear that at least some effort is being made to identify those cases where a defendant may pose a risk to the community. You only mention that a Detective is required to interact with the “unit supervisor”, I am assuming that is the unit supervisor in the PA’s Office. Is it then the Detective’s responsibility to muster the information from the parole and probation, pretrial release, and other CJ Organizations who might have input at the time of filing regarding the defendant and his/her community risk or is that the responsibility of someone else.
I am in agreement with the following statement; “As prosecutors we have a duty to the public to make sure that we not only file cases based on probable cause, but also that the suspect actually committed the crime. This requires a complete investigation. We are not in the business of charging citizens with felony crimes only to learn that person did not do it or we can’t prove it. It is a responsibility we take seriously and one the public expects us to take seriously.” as long as your intent in making the statement is to describe the role of the prosecutor and not to infer that the 72 hour filing standard for a case is limited to one you can prove at trial or one that requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect committed the crime.
Since you seem to be “in the know”, maybe you could answer these two simple questions?
1.How can you justify the prosecution agreeing to a bond reduction to $3,000.00 in the Christopher W. Hardwick case?
2. How can you possibly justify withholding of discovery for over a year in the death penalty case involving Christopher Devlin causing the death penalty to be taken off the table as well as adding considerable expense to Spokane County?
Brad Szottlinger
bszottlinger on August 13 at 10:32 p.m.
Marie:
You are right! The system here is a mess and the question is who can do the best with the resources available.
72 hours…blame the prosecutor. 72 hours…. blame the cops. Low bail…. blame the prosecutor, cops, and judge. 72 hours, low bail…blame the county council. To much crime…. blame the cops. Not enough oversight blame the cops and everyone else even close. Hell instead of attaching blame all over the place why not all of them get together and do the best job of protecting the public with what resources are available.
Brad
Ron_the_Cop on August 13 at 10:40 p.m.
Marie,
Agreed that’s my point. I’ve experienced firsthand how the court systems works. Trust me I know how career criminals can play the system like a fiddle. One of my specialties was bird dogging career criminals types to ensure that appropriate bail was set, did bail enhancement declaration when necessary when standard bail was not appropriate, and enhancements were alleged et al to keep them in custody to put a stop to the revolving jail door.
My point is Tucker could have used his bully pulpit to address the public with the support of the Sheriff and the police chiefs to fight for resources. Judges because of judicial canons are reluctant to speak out. Tucker was MIA. He only really surfaced publicly to fire Dave Stevens. Where’s he been for the last twelve years particularly the last four? The critical factor for me was the Jo Ellen Savage death was a homicide - a first degree manslaughter. Tucker did nothing and allowed the statute of limitations to run. It’s a misconception/illusion that other law enforcement agencies really did the complete and thorough criminal investigation that was necessary. This is why I’m not voting for Tucker. I’m supporting Stevens.
bszottlinger on August 13 at 10:44 p.m.
JimReierson:
Is the story I have linked below true? Did you in fact as the prosecutor in this case try to make a deal that would allow a defendant in a sex abuse case receive unsupervised probation?
If so, I am glad the judge had some sense.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/jul/02/plea-deal-settles-baby-sitter-sex-case/
Brad Szottlinger
eagleproducer on August 14 at 10:25 a.m.
waaaaahhh, waaaahhhh, waaaahhh, we can’t do our jobs because of budget cuts, waaaahhh, waaahhh, waaaaahhh, the 72 hour rule, the constitutional rights of citizens… can’t do it, budget cuts, waaaahhh, waaaahhh, waaaahhh….
I’m glad my fellow educators don’t use the same excuse for NOT DOING THEIR JOBS!
Let’s see Bugbee’s endorsements:
Spokane Police and Sheriff’s office. The Cowles Gang.
Pretty much the same good ol’ boy network that keeps most of Spokane living in crime infested poverty.
Why so many endorsements before results of the primary are even known? Ballots went out weeks ago and I”ll wager most of the people who bother to vote have already mailed theirs.
bszottlinger on August 14 at 11:17 a.m.
spoketucky:
There are a lot of depressing posts on this board, but this may well be the most depressing I have read.
Please tell me this is not true “my fellow educators”! I hate to imagine how your hatred for law enforcement, your cynicism for almost everything associated with government and your complete lack of respect for the opinions of others may rub off on your students. I pray you are not in a position to influence the youth of America and that the “education” you are imparting is limited to individuals who are incapable of being influenced by one so cynical and vitriolic.
I would hope your educational position is simply that of reading aloud to those incarcerated at SpokAnimal CARE. Which would be a good thing not only for those poor caged animals but for you as well perhaps from them you would be able to gain a better understanding of how society was meant to work?
Brad
Ron_the_Cop on August 14 at 3:18 p.m.
<let’s see=”” bugbee’s=”” endorsements:=”” spokane=”” police=”” and=”” sheriff’s=”” office.=”” the=”” cowles=”” gang.=”” pretty=”” much=”” the=”” same=”” good=”” ol’=”” boy=”” network=”” that=”” keeps=”” most=”” of=”” spokane=”” living=”” in=”” crime=”” infested=”” poverty.=”” pretty=”” much=”” the=”” same=”” good=”” ol’=”” boy=”” network=”” that=”” keeps=”” most=”” of=”” spokane=”” living=”” in=”” crime=”” infested=”“ poverty.=”“>
Brad,
Whether you believe it or not, Spoketucky, actually stumbled onto a core truth about Spokane. The paternalistic feudal nature between Spokane’s power elite and the serfs. While I wouldn’t cast Mr. Bugbee in this net yet, Spoketucky does raise a point re the suppression of the Spokane economy by the actions of the good ol’ boy network.
This is why this election for County Prosecutor is so important. I would encourage all voters to educate themselves on these issues and make an informed vote. I’m voting for Dave Stevens.
I touched on this in a letter to a colleague at the Federal Trade Commission who I provided key information to in a multi-million dollar charity fraud headquartered in Orange Co., CA.
http://tinyurl.com/2d4vbn6
and in my letter to US Attorney Jeffrey Sullivan:
http://tinyurl.com/23t7hww
“I believe based on my training, education, and investigative experience there is an ongoing criminal conspiracy in Spokane where a group of individuals at different times have acted individually and or in concert together to commit criminal acts with the knowledge and approval of this group headed by the Cowles Co. The Cowles Co, its surrogates, have systemically co-opted and or corrupted governmental officials both elected and appointed including the sitting US Attorney for the Eastern District of WA, Jim McDevitt. The normal political and governmental controls have failed because of being so thoroughly co-opted and/or corrupted by this incestuous, insidious, and malignant ongoing criminal enterprise .”
“… The Cowles Co through intimidation also controls the flow of adverse information in other media it doesn’t own. When this is not successful, it silences reporters or other voices cutting too close to the bone by squelching them through a series of unfair subtle business practices and/or by violating the fundamental regulatory scheme of the FCC. While beyond the scope of this complaint, in my opinion a compelling FTC antitrust case can be made regarding a clear pattern and practice of unfair business practices carried out over many years by the Cowles Co et al that has given it an unfair competitive advantage over other businesses both new or established in the Spokane Regional Market. There are high costs associated for those who would choose to challenge the Cowles Co market domination. New businesses are similarly deterred from locating here because of “the company town” nature of Spokane. This is nothing more than organized crime … that must not be tolerated and must be eliminated.”
bszottlinger on August 14 at 4:38 p.m.
Ron_the_Cop:
Well, I guess resubmitting that to Jenny Durkan would be out of the question.
Brad
JimReierson on August 14 at 5:05 p.m.
I am (1) replying briefly to Brad Szottlinger (8-13 at 10:44PM), and(2) listing a ltr to editor the S.Review apparently won’t print, relating to the OxyContin robberies and what I heard Mr. Bugbee say when asked about overcrowding at jail, and need to keep ‘addicts’ locked up.
(1) With regard to the criminal case that you had a link to. In Kootenai County, it is common for deputy prosecutors to cover dockets that have other prosecutor’s cases. On this one, the assigned prosecutor was Art Verharen - a very good man. This case had problems, and the full article you referred to indicates the elected prosecutor, Barry McHugh, was questioned by the S.Review, and indicated the main State’s witness had made conflicting statements and the case too risky to take to trial on felony charges. As a result, the case was negotiated to misdemeanors, and I was in court to cover the sentencing in front of a Magistrate (misd. judge), and explained to him how the case had evolved from felony to misdemeanor. I had nothing to do with the case - so please do not infer that I am weak on sex offenders. I have a good record on taking cases to trial and obtaining convictions. I would encourage anyone to read the entire article referenced, and not jump to conclusion that Jim Reierson is soft on sex abuse cases - that is absolutely NOT TRUE!
(2) On July 23, 2010, Mr. Robert Queen, a Pharmacist working for a local grocery chain, submitted a letter to the editor - and was never contacted by the S.Review editors. He even re-submitted the letter - again to no avail. Seeing as how the Review has embraced Mr. Bugbee, who has had all of 6 years experience as a prosecutor (compared to the 25 years I have had - military, Walla Walla, WA and Kootenai County, Idaho), it is not surprising they would not want to print a favorable letter from a man who is concerned about dangerous people committing robberies in busy supermarkets.
His Letter:
I am writing to express my full support of Jim Reierson for Spokane Prosecuting Attorney and encourage my fellow citizens to vote for him as well. Jim is a career prosecuting attorney with over 25 years of experience. Jim is passionate about keeping the community in which he was raised safe. He believes in holding criminals accountable for their actions and bringing them to justice. He pledges to promptly charge criminal suspects arrested, keeping them in jail and preventing any further victimizing of the community.
One man opposing Jim on the ballot is Chris Bugbee. Mr. Bugbee was said to recently advocate drug rehab, in lieu of jail or prison time, for those convicted of armed robbery of narcotics from pharmacies. Violent crimes, such as these tear apart the fabric of our community by spreading fear among hjard working individuals working to improve the lives of others. Reierson firmly believes that individuals willingly committing violent crimes within our community must be found, charged and sent to prison for their crimes.
Like Mr. Reierson, I too genuinely care about the Spokane community and for that reason in the August 17th primary, I will proudly vote for Jim Reierson as Prosecuting Attorney.
Note: Please refer to letter I wrote and printed July 25, in Sunday Spokesman, titled ‘No leniency for robbers.’
Also, for anyone’s information I grew up in Spokane, graduated from Gonzaga Prep in 1968, spent 9 years in Navy (Submarine Service), and 5 1/2 as AF JAG, and 16 yrs as a Reservist at Fairchild, retiring as Lt. Col. (JAG). I live in Spokane, and have been lucky to work in Kootenai County, where Idaho has tougher laws and the community is much safer than Spokane. Google Spokane County Elections, click on Voters’ Guide, and in search box, type in Prosecuting Attorney.
Please vote (regardless of your Party affliation) for Law & Order Party candidate Jim Reierson. This prosecutor race is the most important one, in my opinion, on the ballot!
Ron_the_Cop on August 14 at 5:06 p.m.
Brad,
One never knows. Also I should finish with my FCC complaint:-)
Ron_the_Cop on August 14 at 5:15 p.m.
Mr. Reierson,
I too have a letter pending for at least two weeks that has not run. I even resent it after calling Doug Floyd this week about it. He’s answer was he was off for a few days of vacation and that they get a lot of letters just before the election.
I have personal knowledge that the S-R is very selective on the LTEs it runs. Some are critical of the S-R and the business interests of its owners end up on the press room floor. Why do you suppose?
Also I’m curious why the S-R waited so long to run it’s endorsement for this very important position. I’m sure it’s been in the can for some time as the candidate interviews were done several weeks ago. Makes me wonder why too?
bszottlinger on August 14 at 6:52 p.m.
JimReierson:
I withdraw the inference, and apologize. I would hope that while standing for Mr. Verharen you explained to the Magistrate that you were not a party to the plea agreement and I would hope that you acquiesced with regard to any argument the defense might have made to keep the plea arrangement in tact.
I understand that were problems with the case. There are often problems in sexual abuse cases. That does not mitigate the fact that a plea deal was made with a sex abuse defendant that did not allow for supervision. Did you bring this to the attention of your boss or did he approve the plea deal?
Brad
eagleproducer on August 15 at 9:41 a.m.
brad: I ALWAYS begin my units on Shakespeare with this quote:
“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”
I enjoyed your rebuttals to my claims. As an educator, I recommend you re-visit Logic 101, paying close attention during the logical fallacy lectures. Especially the ad hominem.
All education is ideological. The voice that tells you to discredit me as a professional was learned in a system of ideology that is taught in our schools. Believe me, the kids are alright; they’ll recieve a dizzying dose of red, white and blue hued distortions and emerge mostly like you.
You can’t “withdraw” an inference made on a blog. This is not the make-believe world of the courtroom (that I’m sure you, like most lawyers, rarely visit) where you can make a ludicrous claim and expect it to be laundered of it’s influence with the sweep of a magical lawyerly wand. Your inference was that Rierson was soft on child abusers or somehow complicit with the plea bargain. You concocted that lie to advance your chosen politician. Call it what it is, not an apology.
When I help students become better writers I encourage them to be specific and use examples that are germane and bolster their claims. Your last message towards myself contained none of those elements. It is a simpleton’s screed that reveals a nonsensical understanding of reality.
ronthecop: I didn’t “stumble” upon anything about the Cowles gang. I have lived here most of my life and simply kept my eyes and ears open. Brad does not have that capability because he is a member of a profession that seeks to obfuscate the truth to improve the positions of his clients. How can that not translate into one’s personal life?
jimrierson: I am a fellow “bubblehead” and I don’t remember any officers from the JAG corps aboard our boats. Any. So you either weren’t a lawyer in the military as you claim or served in another capacity in the silent service. Which one is it? In addition, intelligent people understand the results of a generation of relying upon the mind-numbing mantra of “tough on crime.” Record levels of incarceration don’t reflect success, but massive failures of the criminal justice system. Using the poor as a tool to garner more resources from the state and federal government for your departments is immoral. We need law enforcement professionals and policy that is “smart on crime” and politicians willing to confront the madness of mandatory minimums, three strikes laws and the insistence of treating adolescents as adults. Our current law enforcement and incarceration policies are racist, target the poor disproportionately and include the ludicrous war on drugs that impoverishes communities, rips apart families and hasn’t worked.
The real criminals are in the corporate office blocks. When a prosecutor in Spokane County decides to pursue them they’ve got my vote and I’ve got their back.
A boy can dream…
bszottlinger on August 15 at 10:45 a.m.
No further questions Your Honor.
eagleproducer on August 15 at 7:24 p.m.
Oh, touche, Bradley… you really got me there.
It’s okay to rest when you’re whooped.
Ron_the_Cop on August 16 at 11:37 a.m.
Spoketucky,
You may believe I’m a hardcore conservative re tough on crime mantra of the right. It might be of a surprise to you I agree with your statement “smart on crime.” There are other solutions than locking everyone up. Plus this is very expensive to the taxpayers that our elected saddle us with simplistic solutions and waste scarce public resources.
Bottom line is the criminal justice system should focus on the true career criminals who are typically the 8 to 10% of all those who are arrested. These are the ones that for now must be removed from society that they prey upon. All the others I’m open to alternative means of dealing with them.
JimReierson on August 16 at 4:03 p.m.
Reply to (1) bszottlinger, re: plea bargain on Kootenai criminal case. The Court was aware the plea negotiations were of a stipulated nature, and the Judge agreed to the recommendations. Keep in mind, the decision to ‘amend’ the original charges had been made before the day I was covering the case on the docket. The article you attached that contained the elected prosecutor’s comments (Mr. McHugh) speak for itselfl. There were other cases on the docket, and as I had not been familiar with this one (it had been going on for a long time), I was merely passing on the recommendations the prosecutor assigned the case (Mr. Verharen) wanted made to the Court.
(2) for ron the cop: yes, there were several letters submitted on my behalf. I did not write them and ask someone to sign them, as some candidates are prone to do. That is unethical, in my opinion. I would strongly recommend you and anyone else concerned at this late date (Mon 8-16 4PM), who has not filled out ballot, to read my letter to editor entitled ‘No leniency for robbers’ published on July 25 (Sunday). It details the issue of the drug store robberies, and Mr. Bugbee’s comments about the people were only addicts and needed treatment not jail. He brought up the topic at the repub. forum that I attended, even tho not invited. he did not use word robbery, nor fact weapons were being used on all these numerous robberies in Spokane area over past 2 years. That is why I submitted the letter on saturday, from one of the area pharmacists - who is concerned about this serious issue. My point: Mr. Bugbee is totally a defense attorney, and not a career prosecutor like I am.
The S. Review had this letter since July 27, and would not print it, even tho the pharmacist re-sent it and asked for a call on it. He was ignored. Also, a reporter for the paper was at that forum, and if I was wrong in my letter to editor on what I heard, I assume he would have printed something!!! (But that was not done!).
I stand on what I heard. It is important for voters to know mr. Bugbee is not that different than Tucker - a friend to the defendants.
bszottlinger on August 16 at 7:12 p.m.
JimReierson:
I understand the position you were in when you stood for Mr. Verharen. When I was young and even more, brash than I am now I would have refused to stand for someone and present a plea agreement that, I did not believe in, even at the risk of my job. Principle was and is far more important to me than employment. As it turned out I actually gained more respect for doing the right thing, and later that became a benefit. If I did not believe a particular case was sufficient to pursue an indictment, regardless of pressure I would not go forward. I want someone in the position of prosecutor that is willing to do the same.
I for one get annoyed when I continually here that I am the right person for the job because I have been a “Career Prosecutor”. All to often “Career Prosecutors” end up with vision so tunneled that they do not have the ability to recognize when law enforcement agents, witnesses, co-conspirators, and the like are lying. Their cases end up being totally focused on hanging the “Perp”. The community would be far better off with someone who has demonstrated they are confident enough in their abilities and have the fortitude to take on all of the problems and hardships associated with a private defense practice. Something some “Career Prosecutors” would not even dream of doing as long as they can count on that monthly government check (Please note I said some). It is in private practice where a good lawyer gains the understanding that our criminal justice system, as flawed as it is, was meant to dispense justice for everyone not just the “Perps”, not those falsely accused, but for the entire community.
Your reputation precedes you and to say that Mr. Bugbee or Mr. Tucker is “a friend to the defendants” demonstrates to me an exacting assessment.
Brad Szottlinger
CONCERNEDREADER on August 16 at 9:49 p.m.
Mr. Reierson.. I notice that your post from Friday, August 13 was timed at 4:23 pm… and your post on Monday, August 16, was timed at 4:03 pm… so 2 questions, were you busy being a “career prosecutor” or reading the comments, sitting down and spending time coming up with and then posting your comments….. and also, you call out the other candidates regarding ethics… is it ethical to be answering and posting your comments on Idaho tax payer money during your 8 hour work day ??? Just curious…..
Ron_the_Cop on August 16 at 10:24 p.m.
Brad,
You make good points. I don’t like railroading either. Either you can make a case or not. If you can’t you’ll get them the next time if they don’t change their behavior. I esp don’t like the feds ability to charge suspects with lying to a federal investigator. Somehow I don’t see this as fair. Where the system breaks down is when the career criminals know the system better than the police, attorneys and the courts. These crooks exploit the weaknesses and game the system.
Scoutster on August 17 at 12:19 a.m.
My, what a nasty little sandbox we get when we have too many brilliant legal minds chasing the same pail and shovel.
Is there any prosecutor candidate willing to stand up and admit “we lost the war on drugs, and I plan to operate my office accordingly”? Didn’t think so. That’s the one who would get my vote.
In the mean time, I’m just another any one but Tucker (and, after this thread, Reierson). They are all just a bunch of “tough on crime” interchangeable suits.
bszottlinger on August 17 at 9:32 a.m.
CONCERNEDREADER:
I am glad it was you that pointed out Mr. Reierson’s posting times. He is not the only one that has posted during times that would appear the individual should be paying attention to their caseload. I have pretty much given up on pointing that out and consider it an example of that person’s true dedication to the community. Three in particular chap me but I understand a lawyer’s zealousness to make a point so I have let it go. Two of the individuals supporting Mr. Tucker still have not had the decency to answer my questions regarding the Devlin case. You would think that if they were on my dime they could at least answer my questions. As far as Mr. Reierson is concerned, I doubt we will be hearing much from him after today, and we will likely have to wait until another election for prosecutor takes place somewhere close to Spokane.
Ron_the_Cop:
I would bet you would have liked to have that hammer when you were in law enforcement. Charging lying to a federal officer is not routine but it isn’t rare either, and they are lied to all the time. Just so, I don’t suffer the wrath from law enforcement I must clarify that law enforcement agents who lie is very rare in comparison to defendants, witnesses, and co-conspirators but it does happen all over this country.
Scoutster:
“They are all just a bunch of “tough on crime” interchangeable suits.”
It used to be that a lawyer would wear his lucky suit throughout a trial. Times changed, juries changed, and now it is a matter of being “GQ Up”. I do know some lawyers, prosecutors, and defense that don’t change their lucky underwear through trial.
eagleproducer on August 17 at 10:29 a.m.
“Brad. That’s your name? Isn’t that just perfect.”
Challenge: What film is that line from?”
Sorry to disappoint you, counselor, but I am a teacher AND a business owner. It’s possible for people to construct lives and identities separate from their profession(s) and I’m no different. The district I work for respects the professional service I provide for their schools and most importantly, I have positive, nurturing relationships with all the students who are always happy to see me and receive the help I provide.
Most of the junior high students I tutor in writing know the difference between “hear” and “here” as well as when to use “too” or “to.” You might want to bone-up on your composition skills before you delve much further into the blogosphere. Thanks for that hokey harkening back to the good old days with the “lucky suit” tale. For some reason, Atticus Finch isn’t coming to mind.
ron: Thanks for being one of the only law enforcement professional I have come across who understands that mass incarceration should be viewed as a failure of criminal justice policy. Such policies rob vital sectors of the economy (like education, infrastructure) of resources and restrict job growth. As you correctly indicated, most crimes are committed by the Eddy Ray’s of the world and the focus should be upon them. The more money that is poured into law enforcement and incarceration means the less money for the very programs that prevent crime and is a viscous cycle that won’t end until law enforcement professionals quit using the poor to get more resources for their departments.
All of the problems about crime, drugs, terrorism are framed in a manner to create near hysteria amongst the public because knee-jerk policies that don’t work and are draconian are much easier to shove down the throats of the collective while they inhabit such a state.
bszottlinger on August 17 at 11:09 a.m.
Nice try Spoke my friend but it won’t work. I thought your posting on the NY Times blog was interesting “Mead”? Real interesting. I’m without clerical support, so I’ll just rely on you to correct all of my mistakes, I appreciate it.
Brad
eagleproducer on August 18 at 8:58 a.m.
Nice try, Bradley… why don’t you post a link to material I supposedly posted on the NY Times blog so I can expose you further for the charlatan hack shark that you are. Thanks for admitting your clerks do most of your work. It’s hard to bill eight people for the same half hour without them, eh?
Mead? Wrong. Try again, pal!
How’d that whole hitching yourself to Bugbee’s wagon go?
SCOREBOARD!
eagleproducer on August 18 at 4:16 p.m.
Nice to know, Bradley, especially since my “Otto Zehm production” is still in production and very few people have seen any of the rough cuts. You aren’t one of them. All you know about me is from trolling my previous posts on this site and what you managed to glean from Facebook.
I’m still waiting for that link to the NY Times blog you attributed to me.
Tick, tick, tick…
Truth_and_Justice on August 18 at 4:42 p.m.
@ Brad
“Two of the individuals supporting Mr. Tucker still have not had the decency to answer my questions regarding the Devlin case.”
As one of those individuals, sorry, but life intruded (mother-in-law quite ill). Regarding Devlin, I could not defend playing discovery games in a potential capital case, or in any case for that matter. As far as I am concerned there are no prosecution secrets, other than the identity of confidential informants in drug cases. Even that becomes known if the case is going to go to trial.
If that is what actually happened, that key information was withheld (unlike many I don’t believe everything I read in the papers), then it was flat out wrong and there should have been some consequence for the responsible (actually irresponsible) party. The thing is, for all anyone knows there has been a consequence. Although many things about public employees are public, not everything is.
As to Hardwick, I’m not familiar with the case so I don’t know whether or not a $1000 bond would be appropriate in all of the circumstances. The only thing I would note is that there is always another party that is often overlooked in this process and that is the court. Attorneys can request a certain bond amount or agree to a certain bond amount but it is the judge who actually signs the order and sets the bond.
PS - - I don’t always agree with your take on things but I do appreciate your generally informed and thoughtful commentary in here. Thanks!
bszottlinger on August 18 at 5:25 p.m.
T and J:
I do not know if it was playing games (I hope not) or a huge mistake. I personally would have changed the crew up after it happened if as the judge ruled they were at fault and provide an explanation if the media got into it. The people really suffering are the county taxpayers and there is no one that can defend that.
I still have not heard a verdict and I would assume the jury had it Thursday or Friday. I guess I am second-guessing here but not to call your main witness when his expected testimony has been presented in opening leaves a wide open door for the defense to lead the jury to believe the witness not called was the bad guy and the government is trying to hide that fact. If they come back hung I would suggest that whatever influence you might have with the powers to be you use to suggest a public explanation and the steps that will be taken to correct the problem
As far as Hardwick is concerned of course it’s up to the judge and there is some blame there as well but a with a guy with a record like his, in my mind the state should have been beating the drum for a high bond. If they did beat the drum, then someone should come out and explain that to the public so some the blame if any can be attached to the appropriate party.
Brad
misjustice on August 18 at 9:55 p.m.
bszottlinger = blog troll.
Not really sure what you are attempting to “prove” by “outing” Spoketucky but your behaviour is boorish and bordering on being an abuse of the SR forum standards.
bszottlinger on August 19 at 6:15 a.m.
misjustice:
Please note it was at his request and I have restrained from posting any other items without his specific permission. I’ve been called alot of names in my time but this is a first for blog troll.
Brad
bszottlinger on August 19 at 6:49 a.m.
T and J:
I read the SR report of the verdict today. What an odd verdict. I bet the little talk with the jury after trial was interesting. It is a murder case so obviously there will be an appeal but in my opinion based solely on the media reports there is a good chance this may come back to haunt Spokane County. I did not like this statement attributed to Mr. Tucker, “I’ll have to check about why he didn’t testify”, referring to Hoskins. This jurisdiction does not have that many murder trials and as far as I know, it was the only one going on at the time. Why Mr. Tucker did not know what was going on with the case puzzles me, especially after the original “mismanagement”. It is important to allow your trial team to have their own heads to a certain extent, but it looks to me like in this case they may have needed considerably more direction. I’m not discounting the fact they got a guilty verdict, good on them, but I would think you would admit that there APPEARS to be some real problems with this one. I don’t know if Mr. Clouse is going to look into what the “mismanagement” of the case cost the taxpayer but it is something I’d be interested in.
Brad Szottlinger
misjustice on August 19 at 7:36 a.m.
Brad, I should have put a question mark behind the equation…
I usually enjoy your posts, even if I don’t always agree with your conclusions, they are well written and at least you can present an argument.
Please don’t cross the line in an attempt to score on a personal attack against another poster…delving into someones facebook account to “out” them on this forum could be construed as an invasion of privacy…
bszottlinger on August 19 at 8:36 a.m.
misjustice:
I accept your criticism. Be assured there was no hacking involved it is all out there. I like many others have the character flaw that when I’m challenged I respond. You would think someone as old as I am I would know better. I believe in everyone’s right to express their beliefs, in fact I spent my time in hell so that they can. I assure you I will not post anything he does not give me the go ahead for. I actually think his Otto Zehm flick is good and he should consider putting it out there.
In my opinion, the classroom is not a place to impart ones own ideology, rather it is a place to explore all ideologies. This is a good place for imparting ideology whatever it may be. I was glad to learn that Tucky is not a teacher they are certified in the state so that information is readily available. Based on the way Tucky expresses his beliefs here I doubt he would be able to restrain himself in the classroom.
As far as an invasion of privacy is concerned, people must know by now that with this great new tool (the internet) when you put it out there people will find it. From a political perspective I consider myself independent with a slight conservative lean, but I bet you and I would likely agree when it comes to various issues involving government intrusion.
Brad
andrewz on August 20 at 2:31 p.m.
This thread has gotten seriously off topic and devolved to personal attacks. I’m closing it to comments. For anyone interested in discussing the issues of the prosecutor’s race, please consider joining the conversation at A Matter of Opinion:
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/opinion/2010/aug/16/election-roundup/