Tuesday, November 30, 2010

My Right to Jury Service

by Katherine Scardino 

As I experience various things in my life, I usually sit down and tell all of you my feelings. This week, I experienced jury duty for the first time in many years. Although I did not get picked to actually sit on a jury, which I would have loved, the mere experience of showing up was something that got me to thinking about women and our right to even be in a jury room with a man.

Did you know that it was not until 1920, with the passage of the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution, that women were even allowed to vote? Isn't it amazing, looking back at all the accomplishments women have made over the last 100 years, to think that we were looked down upon as second class citizens. Remember the classic movie Twelve Angry Men, not six men and six women or some combination thereof, but a 100-percent male jury. Can you imagine living in a world where you were looked down upon based solely on the fact that you were unfortunately born female? In today’s world, it is hard to even imagine.

The passage of the 19th Amendment did not solve all the women’s issues of the time. It actually had surprisingly little impact on a women’s citizenship status or on the American constitutional order. Women believed that if they had the right to vote, then they would gain equal citizenship by being allowed to assert their political interests, such as serving on a jury. Jury service is democracy in action. Juries help to protect individual liberty and serve as an institution of self-government in which citizens 
apply the law to members of the community.

The amendment helped to lessen the distinctiveness between male and female citizenship, and gave women some recognition as public persons. But, it did not create equal citizenship for both sexes. The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1848, long before 1920. It was used, unsuccessfully, by women's rights advocates to claim both the right to vote and the right to serve on juries as protected rights of citizenship. Even as early as 1872, Susan B. Anthony and several other women went to their local polling places to attempt to vote. But, just as Rosa Parks was prosecuted for trying to use public transportation, Susan B. Anthony was prosecuted for casting an illegal ballot. At her trial, she was not allowed to testify nor was the all male jury allowed to judge her. Instead, they were directed by the Judge to deliver a verdict of guilty.

The liberal interpretation of the Constitution that Anthony hoped for was one in which voting, jury duty, and professional licensing were all among the privileges and immunities of national citizenship. Unfortunately, during her era, a jury of one’s peers excluded one-half of the population.

There is not enough space for me to outline the hard road that women before us have tread so that we may have the right to sit in a jury room and deliberate the fate of one of our peers in the community. I sat in the large gathering room this week and listened to conversations other people were having about why they were there. One woman was talking about the advice she had been given on how to get out of doing her civic duty. I thought about what Susan B. Anthony and other women would have thought about that conversation. How quickly we forget the struggle to gain the right to vote and to sit on a jury.

We have become such a throw-away society. If it is inconvenient to us, we simply throw it away. No one wants to do it anyway. For just one second, think about what our society would be like without a jury. Who decides the punishment for committing crimes? Who decides which person should to pay in a landlord/tenant dispute? Would we have a Judge Judy sitting around every day to make all the decisions for us? That is a great idea. Let’s give the responsibility of making all the important decisions in our lives to the king, only one person. That did not work so well a few hundred years ago, and, I dare say, it would not work well today.

So, my ending thought is this: When you get that summons to appear for jury duty, look at it, smile and say, “Thank you, Susan! Good job.”


Monday, November 29, 2010

A Dysfunctional, Broken System: California Department of Corrections Parole Operation

by Robin Sax
Co-authored by Caroline Aguirre, retired parole agent

In late August 2009, the arrest of parolee Phillip Garrido exposed just how broken and dysfunctional the California Department of Corrections (CDCR) has become. Investigative findings, as published by California State Inspector General David Shaw and the State Attorney's General' office, concluded that a number of parole agents over a period of nine years had failed to do their jobs properly surrounding the parole supervision of Phillip Garrido. A registered sex offender, Garrido has been charged with the kidnapping and rape of Jaycee Dugard. To date, the state of California has paid out a sum of $20 million dollars to Jaycee Dugard. Numerous other law suits are pending in which CDCR is named as defendants.

Then there was John Albert Gardner, also a registered sex offender, who admitted earlier this year to the horrific rape and murder of both Chelsea King and Amber Dubois.

As noted in the Investigative report findings by State Inspector General David Shaw:
"This report concludes that during the department's parole supervision of Gardner, it did not identify Gardner's aberrant behavior, including unlawfully entering the grounds of a state prison, a felony as well as numerous parole violations. Had the department identified Gardner criminal act and parole violations, it could have referred them to the District Attorney's or the Board Of Prison Hearings for appropriate actions. Successful prosecution of Gardner could have sent Gardner back to prison , making it impossible for him to have murdered Amber Dubois and Chelsea King."
Right after the arrest of Phillip Garrido, Matthew Cate, Scot Kernan and Robert Ambroselli, top administrators for the CDCR, openly stated to numerous news media outlets that parole agents had done a good job.

After the arrest of John Albert Gardner, these same administrators told the elected state officials and the news media that all of the parole records on John Albert Gardner (who was a discharged parolee at the time of his arrest for the murders and rapes in San Diego) had been destroyed. After the San Diego Union-Tribune confronted these same administrators about Gardner's prison central file (central files are never destroyed), then they all made public apologies, and the central file records were released to the news media. Multiple civil lawsuits have been filed naming the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation as the defendants.

On July 24, 2009, 17-year-old Lily Burk was murdered by parolee Charles Samuel in the Skid Row area of Los Angeles. Samuel admitted to the murder of Ms. Burk and received a life sentence without the possibility of parole. CDCR has failed to address the issue of how parolee Charles Samuel, who on the date and time of the murder of Ms. Burk resided in a residential drug treatment program, was able to be out and about in the community?

A CDCR spokesperson told a news media reporter that Samuel had been given a written pass to go to the Department of Motor Vehicles on the date in question and that the assigned parole agent of the residential drug treatment program had verified all of the information on the request form for the pass. Only after the murder of Lily Burk was it discovered that the DMV was closed on the date in question (Friday) for state mandated work furlough days. Where is the internal affairs investigation on the parole agent?

On July 24, 2010, bride-to-be Chere Osmanhodzic was murdered in her home in the Valley Village area of Los Angeles. Parolee Omar Armando Loera was subsequently identified as the murder suspect as a result of DNA and was arrested in Mexico. Loera has been charged with the murder of Ms. Osmanhodzic. This is yet another case of a dysfunctional parole agency. Region 3 Parole Headquarters failed to verify if Loera had been deported to Mexico, in a timely fashion, upon his release from state prison.

As a result of his documented criminal history, Loera was classified as a high-contr
ol supervision case, and this verification should have been done immediately after his release from prison. Instead, individuals assigned to the Region 3 USINS unit waited three months before doing their job. These individuals also failed to update Loera's parole facesheet. The face sheet in question did not even have a photograph of Loera. If the parole administrators assigned to Region 3 had performed their assigned duties correctly, would Ms. Osmanhodzic be alive today?

CDCR failed to make up wanted parolee-at-large notices to distribute to local law enforcement agencies. As mandated by law, per the California Penal Code, parole agents must submit a request for an arrest warrant when a parolee classified as high-control supervision fails to report to the parole unit office within 24 hours of their release dates. This was not the case with Loera. Parole administrators have said that outside law enforcement can check the parole database and find out which parolees have outstanding warrants.

Now, I ask you, with over 120,000 parolees on active parole status within t
he state of California, do these parole administrators truly believe that police officers have the time to check each parolee's status? Or, do the administrators somehow erroneously believe police officers have a magic crystal ball?

On October 30 , 2010, parolee Christopher Orlando Pinn, armed with a TEC-9, attempted to kill a Los Angeles County sheriff's deputy. Pinn was subsequently arrested and faces criminal charges of attempted murder of a peace officer and possession of an assault weapon. A documented hard-core gang member, Pinn had as a special condition of his parole a ban on associating with gang members. Pinn was on parole for possession of controlled substance, a low-level, non-violent criminal offense, and was being supervised at one of the lowest levels of parole supervision.

On October 31, 2010, Halloween day, 5-year-old Aaron Shannon Jr. was proudly wearing his new Spider Man costume, dashing about in the backyard of his home located on East 84th Street, when he was gunned down by one or two suspected gang members. On November 5