PBS did a nice piece on false (coerced) confessions -- good material to consider no matter what "top cop" is being looked at!
..
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-confessions/?utm_campaign=homepage&utm_medium=proglist&utm_source=proglist
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Monday, November 1, 2010
PRESS ENTERPRISE article on Rex Gutierrez conviction:
http://www.pe.com/columns/cassiemacduff/stories/PE_News_Local_D_cass30.30c0567.html
Blogger Bob's comments:
..
While Rex G. may have done some things I would never tolerate as a former institutional manager (such as expensing travel and meals that should have not been submitted), I can't help but think there may have been a governmental immunity defense that could have been argued on other counts but was not (that should have been argued?):
.. (1) Rex G. was hired to fill a job the County Board of Supervisors' approved (which is a governmental act that is constitutionally permissible-- a discretionary function), which had few specific requirement's, which per his review(s) and lack of disciplinary actions, he performed adequately--did the county's immunity cloak Rex G given the nature of his job?;
.. (2) The DA at trial was allowed to argue the duties, accountabilities and time keeping duties were somehow greater than what the job description and reviews required--how? The standard of Gutierrez's job performance had to be measured on what the job was and not what the prosecution created it to be (so to build its felony prosecution strategy); did the defense bring a motion in limine to prevent the prosecution from arguing the job involved anything more than what was in the reviews and job description?
.. (3)Rex G. was convicted for doing the very job the county created so someone could do--it happened to be Rex G that was hired; that the prosecution was allowed to redefine the job to create a standard is what appears to have happened--is this any less a part of the culture of corruption in this county? The ends do not justify the means or now does it in San Bernardino County?
http://www.pe.com/columns/cassiemacduff/stories/PE_News_Local_D_cass30.30c0567.html
Blogger Bob's comments:
..
While Rex G. may have done some things I would never tolerate as a former institutional manager (such as expensing travel and meals that should have not been submitted), I can't help but think there may have been a governmental immunity defense that could have been argued on other counts but was not (that should have been argued?):
.. (1) Rex G. was hired to fill a job the County Board of Supervisors' approved (which is a governmental act that is constitutionally permissible-- a discretionary function), which had few specific requirement's, which per his review(s) and lack of disciplinary actions, he performed adequately--did the county's immunity cloak Rex G given the nature of his job?;
.. (2) The DA at trial was allowed to argue the duties, accountabilities and time keeping duties were somehow greater than what the job description and reviews required--how? The standard of Gutierrez's job performance had to be measured on what the job was and not what the prosecution created it to be (so to build its felony prosecution strategy); did the defense bring a motion in limine to prevent the prosecution from arguing the job involved anything more than what was in the reviews and job description?
.. (3)Rex G. was convicted for doing the very job the county created so someone could do--it happened to be Rex G that was hired; that the prosecution was allowed to redefine the job to create a standard is what appears to have happened--is this any less a part of the culture of corruption in this county? The ends do not justify the means or now does it in San Bernardino County?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)