By THOM SENZEE (thom@journalist.comi
Correspondent
Unlike other prosecutors in
A copy of an October 2006 an agreement
Stipulation Agreement.pdf
between Cooley's office and the Public Defender and L.A. Superior Court shows that a deal was reached not to seek indeterminate commitments of the worst sexual predators -- instead of the two-year maximum allowed before Jessica's Law passed -- if their cases already were in the legal system.
Jessica's Law contained a retroactive provision allowing indeterminate commitments in all pending cases and that provision has been applied across the state, unheld in appellate courts and supported by Attorney General Jerry Brown.
Cooley's office was afforded two days to respond to the issue but did not issue a statement and Cooley did not agree to be interviewed.
The disclosure comes as Cooley faces a primary election Tuesday and was seized on by one of his opponents Deputy District Attorney Steve Ipsen.
"This is the only place where the D.A. is not following the law," said Ipsen. "Jessica's Law, which is the will of the people and has been affirmed by the courts, says any person who has been determined to be an SVP should be committed to a mental-health facility for an indeterminate period after serving a sentence for their crime."
But that is not what is happening in SVP cases that were filed prior to the effective date of Jessica's Law, which was September 20, 2006, at least not in Los Angeles.
And Cooley's decision has caused repercussions in his Violent Predators Unit and put children's lives at risk, according to sources in his department.
The Stipulation Agreement shows that for a 24-month period after the effective date of Jessica's Law, the District Attorney's Office agreed not to seek indeterminate-period commitments for SVP's facing involuntary treatment at a mental hospital. Every SVP faces such a trial after serving a criminal penalty, as there is no known cure for sexually violent compulsivity.
In L.A. County SVPs whose cases were filed before the passage of Jessica's Law get new recommitment trials every two years. With every trial theoretically comes an opportunity for release. So far, 16 sexual violent predator cases in L.A. County have received two-year commitments since Jessica's Law went into effect, instead of the indeterminate-period specified by the law.
Ipsen accuses Cooley of operating outside the law and the Attorney General's Office agrees that Jessica's Law applies to all SVPs, regardless of when their cases were filed in court.
"Our position, affirmed by two Court of Appeal decisions, is that the sentence applies to any verdict rendered after the change in the law, regardless of when the petition was filed," Brown"s office said in an official statement.
In other words, if the verdict in an SVP commitment trial is handed down after September 20, 2006, the California Department of Justice in the person of the attorney general says the convicted person should be committed for an indeterminate period. That means life for most --barring any fundamental change in the person's mental state as declared by a state doctor.
Other deputies in Cooley's SVP Unit and in other units in his office would speak only off the record, under condition of anonymity. To a person, the message was clear in those phone interviews: Prosecutors are in a state of revulsion because of the Stipulation Agreement. The normally outspoken attorneys say they will be "sent to traffic [division]" if they talk--or worse. One said the atmosphere at SVP and the D.A.'s office among the ranks is "chilly and numb."
Prosecutors elsewhere were surprised to learn about
"I'm never going to have to worry about that that," said Deputy D.A. Phyllis Shess, who heads San Diego's SVP Unit, responding to a question about how she would feel working under similar circumstances of her counterparts to the north.
"It's like asking me if the sun is going to rise in the west."
Shess was shocked to learn about the L.A. District Attorney's agreement not to implement Jessica's Law in existing cases. She feels sympathy for attorneys whose hands are tied against seeking indeterminate commitment terms for sexually violent predators, adding that, in general, SVP prosecutors tend to be passionate about their jobs.
"I hate to sound like I'm on a soap box," she said. "But the commitment to safety from these kinds of guys is so entrenched in the culture here, it's hard to fathom what their reasoning is."
Ipsen is expected to hold a press conference Friday along with victims' rights groups asking the Attorney General to launch an investigation into the matter.
While Cooley did not respond, the prosecutor in charge of the SVP Unit at
"You have your facts wrong," when she was asked about low morale.
Ipsen says one reason Cooley and top deputies signed onto the agreement has to do with funding.
"I am told we get $43 million for SVP funding," he said. "If so, we are wasting this money as every case has to be tried twice. [That] wastes money and risks release of predators."
Ipsen believes the policy also risks causing predators to be released because of potential appeals by those sentenced under Jessica's Law, while other offenders are treated more lightly.
The chairperson of the California District Attorneys Association's SVP Committee, Santa Clara County Deputy D.A. James Cahan says not implementing Jessica's Law across the board is unthinkable.
"If someone forced me to do a two-year term I would appeal," Cahan said. "I cannot envision my boss disagreeing with that. I've heard rumors about what they're doing in L.A., but I can't comment on it because I'm not familiar with it."
Cahan says the retroactive question pertaining to Jessica's Law has been decided in court. He and the attorney general agree that at least one case has settled the matter.
"That was decided by two appeals court decisions--Borquez and Shields," said a spokesperson for the attorney general. "But to be fair and frank, Jessica's Law was not well written."
Ipsen says several judges have refused to hear SVP cases while the Stipulation Agreement, which was signed on their behalf by then-presiding judge, David Wesley, was in effect. That has the D.A. "shopping cases around," Ipsen says, adding that the act of doing so is, in itself, illegal.
No Los Angeles County Superior Court judges responded to our requests for interviews.
Ron Kaye is the former editor of the Los Angeles Daily News where he spent 23 years helping to make the newspaper the voice of the San Fernando Valley and fighting for a city government that serves the people and not special interests.
Twice in recent years, Los Angeles Magazine listed Kaye among the city’s most influential people, specifically in the area of politics. Kaye has been variously described in the media as the “accidental anarchist,” “the Patrick Henry of the San Fernando Valley” and a “passionate populist.” He is now committed to
carrying on his crusade for a greater Los Angeles as an ordinary citizen. Previously, Ron worked at the Los Angeles Herald Examiner,
Associated Press, Cleveland Plain Dealer and The Australian as well as papers
in Fairbanks, Alaska and Yakima, Wash. He also wrote for Newsweek magazine, The Guardian in London and the National Enquirer.
No big shock here... Cooley ignored the voters and other D.A.'s in the state with his three strikes policy. He does what he wants. He thinks he's above the law.
Something does not ring true here...Jessica's Law was passed November 7, 2006 not September 20, 2006. Who put together these facts? Whether it be the will of the people or not, this law has not passed muster with the courts. There are several pending cases and more to come as parolees come off parole next year. Furthermore, the will of the people does not mean a law is Constitutional or enforceable. The Runners wrote this at the 11th hour with not a care for the unintended consequences it has caused or the fact that it is uneforcable probably unconstitutional. This law was written to secure votes and their jobs. Now we have sex offenders dropping off the registry because they have nowhere to live. It does not protect children one bit more than they were protected before its passage. 90+% of molestation occurs between a child and a familar adult such as a relative, close family friend, clergyman (think Catholic church my friends), or coach. The SVPs that are referred to amount to 1% of this population. Why would put your resources into 1% of the population when 99% are not a threat. This stranger danger is nothing more than a myth. Parents need to educate their children and be responsible for their children's whereabouts. It is not the responsiblity of the local police to run down a registered sex offender who lives 1999 feet from a school. RSOs can be within 2000 feet of a school or park all day long when children are at school or playing, but they must sleep at least 2000 feet from the school or park when children are at home with their parents. This is pure insanity and does not protect anyone especially children. Legislators need to stop passing off "child safety" as a way to get votes and stay in office. Let's balance the budget!
It's this simple, retroactive laws are unconstitutional, particularly in cases of involuntary commitment. These laws are currently being tested in court, hundreds of cases in California, and thousands nationwide. The Georgia Supreme Court has ruled retroactive residency restrictions on registered sex offenders unconstitutional, Ohio courts have made the same decision in regards to that state's laws. Many states have refused to even attempt to make any of these sex offender laws retroactive , recognizing the shaky
legal ground it represents. Whether you like it or not, sex offenders enjoy the same legal protections that you and I do. No one argues that children should be safe, but if these sexually violent predators actually present a danger to children, they should be in jail. Judicial discretion has been taken away from our judges with sentencing mandated by the legislature. When legislators make laws which are crafted in response to a single well-publicized incident, such as Jessica's Law, all you are guaranteed is that you'll end up with a bad law, a law which fails to address the base problem, a law which it is doubtful would have prevented even the single incident which it responds to, much less any future incidents. The facts about child molestation are out there for anyone who cares to look. The majority (93%)of child sexual abuse is committed by a family member or friend of the family. Only 3-5% of first time sex offenders will re-offend (U.S. Department of Justice statistics). The public has been sold a bill of goods on "stranger danger" by legislators who want to win votes by getting tough on sex offenders "for the children" and journalists trying to promote their own political agenda. I applaud AG Cooley for recognizing an unenforceable, unconstitutional law, and refusing to waste the precious resources of the people of California in trying to implement it.
I don't know anything about the topic discussed, but I do know that Roger Mahohey is running amok amongst the wreckage of lives he leaves in his wake wherever he goes.
I've heard Cooley on McIntyre in the Morning several times, and none of his answers, alibis or excuses for why Mahoney doesn't have a cot with his name on it in the gray bar hotel made no sense whatsoever.
For every loophole one attorney can jump through, another one can can slam the door on with a big, loud clank, just as the cell doors should slam shut on Mahoney.
Why doesn't Cooley make any effort to identify and prevent the release of illegal felons from jail? Challenger, Asst. DA Steve Ipsen makes some very compelling arguments against Cooley in this regard (actually, both main challengers do), alleging that he doesn't want to take the political heat for doing this -- while at the same time, Cooley's spinners insist he's not "part of the City Hall Clique" of Bratton/the Mayor, whom many in the public accuse of pandering to illegal criminals as part of their refusal to acknowledge that illegal immigration is a crime, hence pandering to the Hispanic vote.
Cooley's hypocrisy comes off as even more insidious than Bratton being open about not being proactive in identifying illegal gangbangers. And it's the DA after all, not the City Attorney, who's responsible for prosecuting felonies -- any illegal arrested on an assault weapons charge, for dealing drugs, etc. (among Pedro Espinoza's crimes), or re-entering the country illegally after being deported, IS a felon. The fact that so many are released back onto the streets to return to their ways is an indictment of Cooley -- not just of the Sheriff's dept. which runs the jails, as Cooley alleges. Cooley was the only head of a law enforcement dept. to decline to attend the Western Hemisphere Conference on Gangs convened by Chief Bratton. "Leah" and "Chevy61" are the ones who "don't ring true here," and are transparent attempts to exonerate Cooley as someone who doesn't enforce the will of the people because he's just plain smarter than them, and they don't know the law.
As a parent, I don't buy that "stranger danger is a myth," however, I do understand there have been "unintended consequences" of putting such stringent limits on where paroled sex offenders can live, that they're relegated to overpriced motels that are far enough from a community to fit the criteria, and that makes it even harder to hold a regular job -- which makes them more likely to end up on general relief, or disappear and refuse to register. These points can be argued -- but not that these people don't pose a serious, continuing danger.
Cooley's Three Strikes Law, where the third offense can be stealing a can of coke, is what's filling our prisons to the point where we're about to go under a Federal Consent Decree, while he won't cooperate with ICE to deport illegal felons to free up space and money for more humane treatment of the mentally ill and those needing substance abuse programs.
Like all wanna'-be politicians like Steve Ipsen and the author of this article, they don't know the facts, don't know the law and have no knowledge of the consequences of what Jessica's law tried to do.
First, the new law made it mandatory for hospitalized individuals (SVP identified people) to have their trials BEFORE the new law took effect. The system, D.A.'s, courts, defense attorneys, etc. did not have the resources or time to take all then pending cases to trial. Not enough judges, not enough lawyers and not enough time to do so. What would have happened? Well, as an appellate court said, the cases would have to be dismissed if the SVP individuals demanded their trials but did not timely get those trials. I will be a dime to a dollar that neither Ipsen nor Kaye knew this. (And Ipsen wants to be D.A. when he does not know the law?)
Secondly, had the SVP individuals not had trials in a timely manner law suits against the county could have cost L.A. millions of dollars. Wow...like government has money to spend on lawsuits?
Thirdly, the agreement permitted a timely, logical and permissible way to bring all cases to trial in L.A. county.
Fourth, the system of justice, i.e., the courts, could allocate judicial resources in a manner that permitted these trials to go forward in a manner that the Constitution set forth adhering to Due Process and Equal Protection. (OMG, you mean the Constitution has be be followed?)
So, before all the folks who are apt to throw stones in glass houses do so, they might want to GET THEIR FACTS AND LAW STRAIGHT. However, when pettiness, politics and personality get in the way of the administration of justice--what the hell!