DoloresCarrResponse by BayAreaNewsGroup

VIEWS: 317 PAGES: 3

									Wednesday, November 4, 2009

District Attorney Dolores Carr Looks Forward to Running Against “Tainted Trials” Prosecutor
Dolores Carr has the following reaction to Mr. Rosen’s announcement: “A Deputy District Attorney in my office, Jeffrey Rosen, has decided to run for DA. I welcome him to the race. “When I ran for office in 2006, Jeff was just the kind of young attorney I wanted to help free from the ‘win at all costs’ attitude that was creating serious ethical problems in the office. Although Jeff had shown good trial skills, he was flagged for prosecutorial misconduct and was unapologetic about it. “A key part of being the District Attorney is accountability and taking responsibility for one’s conduct. Jeff should acknowledge his misconduct and apologize for it before he presumes to ask the voters for their support in his quest for the most important position in our County’s criminal justice system. “Jeff also must learn to avoid the kind of ethically questionable tactics that got him into trouble before. I notice that his new campaign website claims ‘prosecutors in the District Attorney’s office are endorsing Jeff Rosen over Dolores Carr by a wide margin.’ He purports to support this claim with a list which includes many lawyers who have never been prosecutors in our office. Jeff can do better than that, and I encourage him to do so. “This election will be about whether we want the Office of the District Attorney to operate as it did in the past, with all of its ethical problems—remembering that Jeff was accused of epitomizing these problems by our local newspaper. Or do we want it to continue on a path where solid legal ethics, truthfulness, and accuracy are paramount. “These values are what the 2010 campaign for District Attorney is all about.” Click here for a 2006 Mercury-News graphic included in the “Tainted Trials, Stolen Justice” series written about problems in our criminal justice system. The graphic features Jeff Rosen as a “poster child” example of the ethical problems in the District Attorney’s Office at that time. Sincerely,

Please click here to unsubscribe from our list.

Paid for by Judge Carr for D.A. 2006, ID #1279159 and Re-Elect D.A. Dolores Carr 2010, ID #1297991

11/4/2009

The following was sent in a letter to the Mercury News by Dolores Carr. As for Mr. Rosen’s points: 1. Mr. Rosen’s claim that I cut our Cold Case Unit to hire two PIOs shows his lack of knowledge about our Office and a far too casual attitude toward the facts. First, I did not ax the Cold Case Unit; Like other county departments, my budget was cut significantly. The prosecutor who handled those cases retired, and I was not able to replace him, because we needed prosecutors in the court room. This was a very tough choice, but that is what being a District Attorney requires during tough economic times. This Office still has investigators assigned to review Cold Cases, which apparently Mr. Rosen either didn’t know or chose to ignore. Second, and most important, the PIOs are different classifications of employees, - they are not attorneys. So the choice was not between maintaining the Cold Case Unit or hiring PIOs. In fact, hiring PIO’s freed up an executive manager to do attorney work, Was that a good decision? Absolutely. We are now spending less money to give better service to the media, and the public. Other District Attorney’s Offices do exactly the same thing (Los Angeles County for example); it is time that we joined the 21st century. You should talk to two other people who would agree. First, your own Scott Herhold suggested that we hire PIOs because he thought we needed them to respond to the media in high-profile cases. Further, the new District Attorney of Alameda County, Nancy O’Malley, recently told the Recorder legal newspaper that one of her first budgetary priorities would be to hire PIOs. She cited the same reason: communicating with the public through the media is important. Again, there was no tradeoff between staffing courts with prosecutors and hiring PIOs. 2. Rosen’s comments about being the only “real prosecutor” are ridiculous and further damage his credibility. He has never been a supervisor in the office. Not only was I a prosecutor for 15 years, I was in charge of the Sexual Assault Unit before I left for the bench. 3. As for restoring the Office’s integrity, that is what I promised to do, and have been doing. Mr. Rosen is saying a lot of things. That is what challengers do. Please refer to our response, which points out Mr. Rosen’s shortcomings in this regard. Mr. Rosen’s own ethical challenges remind us of the ethically challenged time, chronicled rather vigorously in Mercury News stories which speak almost exclusively about events which happened before I became District Attorney, and which I have been dealing with. 4. Finally, with respect to the De Anza decision, Mr. Rosen shows a cynical disregard for the opinions of his peers. Our most senior lawyers recommended against filing the case. The Attorney General conducted a year long independent investigation, and declined to

file charges. And Mr. Rosen, without having reviewed the file, believes otherwise? Ask him why. The only noteworthy part of his claim is the recklessness with which he makes it. That lack of caution characterizes Mr. Rosen. It led to his citation for prosecutorial misconduct. His lack of caution encapsulates the problem with Mr. Rosen’s candidacy— he is simply not ready to be more than a line deputy district attorney. Dolores Carr


								
To top