Yesterday I reported to you that my opponent Jaime Esparza lost a murder case to Attorney Stuart Leeds and me. After eight months of very contested hearings, all hearings instigated at our behest, after weeks of our carpet bombing Esparza's office with defense motions and tens of thousands of dollars later on DNA experts and investigative fees and legal fees, Esparza was forced to admit publicly what he knew all along and dismiss the case against our client for Lack of Evidence. (Please see my blog from yesterday). One of my main complaints regarding Esparza's mishandeling of the charges against my client was the glaring fact that he had charged my client with murder, conceivably the worst crime to be charged with, before the police had finished their investigation and turned their file over to Esparza. The question I pose is, if the police had not turned their file over to Esparza (and they had not at the time of indictment) what evidence in the world did Esparza present to the grand jury to get them to charge my client? Reporter Ms. Alexsis Vance from Channel Four understood the import of this story and got on it. She interviewed both Esparza and me yesterday regarding Esparza's dismissal of this murder case and the implications it has on the race for District Attorney. These interviews aired on the five, six and ten editions of the news. At least at five and six it was the lead story.
Esparza actually admitted on the TV interview that he had formally charged my client with murder PRIOR to receiving the police report. He defended himself by saying that although he had not received the police report yet he had "the nuts and bolts of the case." What in the world are the "nuts and bolts" of a case if not the police report? My client was indicted on January 17, 2007. On January 22, 2007, five days later, we asked Esparza's office to see their file (as is the common practice) and amazingly we were told that the case had not come in yet from the police and when it did, they would let us know. And since the police department was conducting the investigation, what is it Mr. Esparza claims made up the "nuts and bolts of the case?" A file full of air? Because that is what he had at the time.
When asked to respond to what I had said in my portion of the news interview, Esparza told the reporter, "Ms. Caballero, as she has done in the past, is misinforming the public." This is Esparza's usual mantra along with the other mantra, " I'm proud of my office." What I would like Esparza to address is what did I misinform the public about? Did he not indict my client before the police had turned over the case to him? Did he not have to dismiss the case due to lack of evidence?
Esparza is the type of politician who believes that he can say whatever he wants whether it is true or not, whether it makes sense or not, because he is reckless enough and drunk enough with his own power to think that the public is too dumb to get it. Anyone watching last night's news after seeing my interview and then seeing Esparza explain how he charged my client before the police had given him the fruits of their investigation would know that that is not the way things should ever go.
What are the nuts and bolts of a case:
-witness statements;
-DNA evidence;
-Poice report;
-a statement from the Defendant;
-physical evidence (the murder weapon, a video tape)
What did Esparza have at the time he indicted my client from the above list. NOTHING. What did the police department have at the time Esparza indicted my client from the above list, two eye witness statements saying my client didn't do it and a video taped statement of my client saying he didn't do it. There was no DNA evidence until well into April and May, evidence our DNA expert, Dr. Paul Goldstein of Goldstein Consulting, made short shrift of.
One observer of the news piece commented that Esparza looked angry and he looked like someone who had been in office too long. The Observer said that "he now looks like someone desperately trying to hang on to his job."
I am happy to report that my client was elated at his newfound freedom and very grateful to Stuart Leeds and me. It is also encouraging that we have a news reporter, Ms. Vance, who covered this story and exposed to the public what harm Esparza inflicted on our client and on the legal system.
Part of my interview which was not aired was my challenging Esparza to a debate on this case and any other issue relevant to this race. For my readers who may be a part of a news outlet or civic organization that sponsors debates, please feel free to contact me for a debate. (241-8418) I will make myself available. Will Mr. Esparza?
Esparza actually admitted on the TV interview that he had formally charged my client with murder PRIOR to receiving the police report. He defended himself by saying that although he had not received the police report yet he had "the nuts and bolts of the case." What in the world are the "nuts and bolts" of a case if not the police report? My client was indicted on January 17, 2007. On January 22, 2007, five days later, we asked Esparza's office to see their file (as is the common practice) and amazingly we were told that the case had not come in yet from the police and when it did, they would let us know. And since the police department was conducting the investigation, what is it Mr. Esparza claims made up the "nuts and bolts of the case?" A file full of air? Because that is what he had at the time.
When asked to respond to what I had said in my portion of the news interview, Esparza told the reporter, "Ms. Caballero, as she has done in the past, is misinforming the public." This is Esparza's usual mantra along with the other mantra, " I'm proud of my office." What I would like Esparza to address is what did I misinform the public about? Did he not indict my client before the police had turned over the case to him? Did he not have to dismiss the case due to lack of evidence?
Esparza is the type of politician who believes that he can say whatever he wants whether it is true or not, whether it makes sense or not, because he is reckless enough and drunk enough with his own power to think that the public is too dumb to get it. Anyone watching last night's news after seeing my interview and then seeing Esparza explain how he charged my client before the police had given him the fruits of their investigation would know that that is not the way things should ever go.
What are the nuts and bolts of a case:
-witness statements;
-DNA evidence;
-Poice report;
-a statement from the Defendant;
-physical evidence (the murder weapon, a video tape)
What did Esparza have at the time he indicted my client from the above list. NOTHING. What did the police department have at the time Esparza indicted my client from the above list, two eye witness statements saying my client didn't do it and a video taped statement of my client saying he didn't do it. There was no DNA evidence until well into April and May, evidence our DNA expert, Dr. Paul Goldstein of Goldstein Consulting, made short shrift of.
One observer of the news piece commented that Esparza looked angry and he looked like someone who had been in office too long. The Observer said that "he now looks like someone desperately trying to hang on to his job."
I am happy to report that my client was elated at his newfound freedom and very grateful to Stuart Leeds and me. It is also encouraging that we have a news reporter, Ms. Vance, who covered this story and exposed to the public what harm Esparza inflicted on our client and on the legal system.
Part of my interview which was not aired was my challenging Esparza to a debate on this case and any other issue relevant to this race. For my readers who may be a part of a news outlet or civic organization that sponsors debates, please feel free to contact me for a debate. (241-8418) I will make myself available. Will Mr. Esparza?
on September 8, 2007, 8:37 am
Reply to this comment
on September 8, 2007, 8:57 am
Just like he could not state specifics of how you were misleading because you weren't.
I can't wait to see if he will debate you. It's a lose-lose proposition for him. If he does you will destroy him and win. If he doesn't, as an embattled
incumbent, he will show he is scared to debate you and you will still win.
Reply to this comment