In 1985, a few years after he was released, he forced an eightyear-old girl to orally copulate him in an elevator. This resulted in his commitment to Patton State Hospital, where he was treated as a mentally disordered sex offender for two years. When the girl tried to get away, he grabbed her arm and made her touch his penis.
In 1980, at the age of 21, he exposed himself to a girl on a playground and pressed his erect penis against her buttocks. 3 FACTS Having been sexually abused as a child, appellant began committing sex crimes himself when he was a teenager. Liberty’s program includes daily monitoring with GPS technology, drug testing, polygraph assessments, weekly treatment, and job and housing assistance.
1 More specifically, Liberty CONREP, a private firm that contracts with the state to supervise SVP’s who have been released from Coalinga State Hospital. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand the matter for a new trial. 1 According to appellant, he was denied a fair trial because the prosecutor interfered with his right to testify, and the trial court erroneously refused to admit his release plan into evidence. He challenges the trial court’s order denying his petition to be placed in the conditional release program known as CONREP. (a)(1)) who is currently receiving treatment at a state mental hospital for pedophilia and exhibitionism. Appellant Steven Force is a sexually violent predator (SVP Welf. We publish that reversal not to pillory him, but as a reminder of the unrelenting vigilance and ethical clarity required daily of prosecutors if they are to fulfill our nation’s promise of a fair trial. The prosecutor here took his eyes off the prize just long enough to commit misconduct in a way that requires reversal. But we still encounter cases where a prosecutor has lost sight of the one paramount goal: fairness. We are fortunate in this state that our legal history has been informed and shaped by ethical and honorable prosecutorial agencies. It is suited only to people who are capable of handling exceptional stress, complicated legal issues, and difficult judgment calls. Successful prosecution is defined not by the result, but by the process. 2 A prosecutor who gives the defendant a fair trial has completed that task, no matter the outcome. And the prosecutor’s job is to fulfill that promise. But we can – and have – promised fairness. 2009), § 1-1.1.) Human systems are not capable of perfection, so we cannot guarantee the criminal defendant justice, although we seek it in every case. Assn., National Prosecution Standards (3d. The National District Attorneys Association phrases it somewhat differently, adding appropriate eloquence, but the focus is – significantly – aspirational the goal of the prosecutor is phrased not in terms of obtaining convictions but of seeking justice: “The primary responsibility of a prosecutor is to seek justice, which can only be achieved by the representation and presentation of the truth.” (Nat. Fairness is the sine qua non of the criminal justice system, and no amount of technical brilliance or advocative skill can make up for a failure to provide it. And it’s certainly not about won/lost records. It’s not about convictions, it’s not about courtroom mastery, it’s not about prison sentences. Enforcing the law, protecting the public, supporting crime victims, any phraseology you choose for other aspects of criminal prosecution are subsets of that one job. When you get right down to it, that’s the whole job of the trial prosecutor: Provide a fair trial. The prosecutor’s job is to provide them the platform for their decisions by presenting the evidence against the defendant clearly and fairly. They must decide, through their verdicts and judgments, the outcome of the trial. Judges and juries bear the responsibility of identifying what justice requires. As this case demonstrates, prosecutors’ understanding of their burden to provide such a trial is more important than their understanding of the burden of proof. Our criminal justice system has only one absolute requirement: the accused must receive a fair trial. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Robin Urbanski, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Rudy Kraft, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Steven D. M90013) STEVEN FORCE, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. Filed 8/29/19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.
0 kommentar(er)
