Category: Victims’ Rights

“Affordable Bail” Does Not Protect Public and Victim Safety

by · Mar 26, 2021 4:41 pm

If an arrestee can be “admitted to bail,” (meaning pretrial release is not precluded), California law authorizes four different methods of pretrial release, only one of which has a monetary requirement. Those four methods include (1) money bail; (2) release on own recognizance (“OR”); (3) OR under supervision; and (4) pretrial diversion. At an arrestee’s first court appearance, a judge will decide if he or she should be released on OR (with or without supervision) or on money bail.

The California Supreme Court’s Humphrey decision announced yesterday initially acknowledged OR as a type of pretrial release, but then they completely ignored it as they delved right into the unconstitutional disparities of money bail. The court also glossed over the fact that Humphrey requested OR release under supervision twice and was denied twice. The trial court denied his request for OR release due to the seriousness of the crimes committed (first-degree residential robbery, first-degree residential burglary, inflicting non-great bodily injury on an elder or dependent adult, and theft from an elder or dependent adult PLUS three prior strikes), the vulnerability of the victim (a 79-year-old man), and on the recommendation against OR release from pretrial service’s Public Safety Assessment Report. In addition to public safety concerns, the trial court was also concerned that Humphrey was a “flight risk.”

What is OR release? Had the court taken the time to examine it in a bit more detail, the public would better understand that it is a discretionary non-monetary alternative to cash bail contained in Article I, section 12 of the California Constitution. Continue reading . . .

Who decides if a teen killer should be tried as an adult?

by · Dec 2, 2020 10:53 am

On Tuesday morning, the California Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of O.G. v. Superior Court (S259011).  The issue is whether the California Legislature unconstitutionally amended the statutory provisions of Proposition 57 when it enacted SB 1391.  Prop. 57 was voted into law by a majority of California voters in 2016.  The ballot measure eliminated a District Attorney’s ability to directly file criminal charges against individuals under age 18 in adult court.  The measure instead gave juvenile court judges the sole authority to decide whether violent juveniles ages 14 and older should be prosecuted as adults only after conducting a full evidentiary hearing in the juvenile court.  In 2018, former Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 1391 into law.  SB 1391 prohibits 14 and 15 year olds from being criminally prosecuted as adults regardless of the crime committed.  In a nut shell, voter enacted Prop. 57 gives juvenile court judges the sole authority to decide whether juveniles (ages 14 and older) should be prosecuted as adults and legislature enacted SB 1391 prohibits 14 and 15 years olds from being prosecuted as adults.  SB 1391 (the legislature) takes away what Prop. 57 (the voters) authorized.  CJLF filed a brief (found here) arguing that SB 1391 unconstitutionally amended Prop. 57.

Continue reading . . .

DNA evidence solves another cold case

by · Oct 23, 2020 1:51 pm

On July 31, 1979, a 45-year old mother of four named Dolores Rocha Wulff mysteriously disappeared in the middle of the night with only the clothes she was wearing from her home in Woodland, Yolo County, California.  Five weeks later, a torso was discovered by two fishermen 50-miles away in the Benicia Bay.  Given the limited scientific technology at the time, the torso was never positively identified.  She became known as “Jane Doe 16.”

Immediately after Dolores vanished, the close knit Rocha family searched for her extensively.  They knew that she would not have simply walked out of her children’s lives on her own accord.  Her husband, Carl Wulff Sr., was looked at as the prime suspect.  He was the last one to see her alive and a search of his car produced a bloodstained blanket.  Almost five years after she disappeared without a trace, Carl Sr. was charged with her murder.  But, his case was subsequently dismissed for a lack of evidence.  Carl Sr. died in 2005. Continue reading . . .

Police lives don’t matter in San Francisco

by · Jan 27, 2020 12:11 pm

Two San Francisco police officers responded to a report of a man who broke into an apartment, then fled and was witnessed trying to break into several parked cars.  When the officers tried to make contact with the subject, he ran towards one of the officers and began beating him in the face and head with a 200ml glass vodka bottle.  When the other officer ran over to assist, the suspect rushed towards him with the bottle, then ran down the sidewalk.  Both officers chased the suspect and demanded several times that he drop the bottle and get on the ground.  They were repeatedly ignored.  The suspect ran in and out of parked cars, and back and forth across the street. When the suspect again rushed towards one of the officers with the bottle in hand, the officer fired his weapon and hit the suspect.  He momentarily fell to the ground, then stood back up.  The officer fired another shot which immobilized the suspect.  Both officers immediately rendered aid.

Sandy Malone and Christopher Berg reported for Blue Lives Matter that when medical personnel arrived, body cam video of the officer who fired at the suspect showed that he was visibly upset:  “The video showed that Officer Flores, clutching an ice pack to his bleeding face, stood with Officer Hayes and kept a hand on his arm as his partner wept.  ‘I didn’t want to do it. I didn’t want to do it,’ Officer Hayes told a female sergeant who arrived on the scene. “I tried to pepper spray him – I got myself.”

The suspect was initially charged with two counts of assault with a deadly weapon and vandalism.  On Friday, however, all charges were dropped:

“Newly-elected District Attorney Chesa Boudin has dropped charges. . . against a man who was shot while beating a police officer with a vodka bottle.  The move comes after community outrage over the shooting and claims that the shooting was unjustified, despite the video evidence showing otherwise.  Boudin says that he dropped the charges. .. because his office is investigating the officers for shooting Hampton.”

Let’s break this down – a man breaks into an apartment, then tries to break into several parked cars.  He attacks and violently beats a police officer, refuses to drop his weapon, and refuses to stop running from the police.  He is being criminally charged with…nothing.  Instead, the police officers are being investigated due to “community outrage over the shooting.”

Crime rates in SF continue to rise, the new DA abolished cash bail, he fired several senior prosecutors within days of taking office, and now he won’t prosecute crimes committed against police officers.