As to that situation with Judge Gonzalez dismissing the case, without waiting even more time, that was perhaps a bit harsh but the main culpability, by far, lies with the A.D.A.
It is the first day of a murder trial and he seems to have no idea when, or even if, his witnesses will arrive?
It is not nearly enough for him to direct that subpoenas be sent out and served. Considering that the victim/star witness is a homeless heroin addict he should have been pulling out all the stops, well in advance, to locate and confirm witness attendance, etc.
Now some might say that for all we know he might have taken those steps, but it certainly didn't appear that way on the video. He never said that he just spoke to this or that witness the other day and they confirmed they would be here, etc. He, instead, was just real vague, and on a wing and a prayer was hoping some witnesses may deign to eventually appear.
And his requirement to be extra diligent increased even greater based on the product he was dealing with– his victim/star witness is a homeless drug addict.
It's possible(although not clear) that he may have at some point confirmed service of subpoena, but if he does not follow up where does he expect this homeless addict to be when the court appearance finally rolls around? This person probably can't even remember what abandoned building they slept in last night, and every fiber of their body and mind is probably in exquisite agony yearning for the next fix. We actually expect this person, with no attempts to follow up and locate them and secure their attendance, to comply with appearing on some date and place written on some piece of paper handed to them quite some time ago? And how would such person even get to the court house even if they were willing to cooperate, and remembered to do so? The person, again, is a homeless addict.
So, sorry, although I am not necessarily a fan of the judge's demeanor and somewhat abrupt and impatient approach, attacking the judge for dismissing the case is a distraction and displaces the main emphasis from where it needs to be.
The emphasis needs to be on an A.D.A. who apparently thinks all one need do is serve a homeless drug addict, and then with little or no follow through expect them to timely appear for a murder trial. And the apparent lack of follow through and diligence is further established by the fact that there were other state witnesses beyond this victim witness, and NONE of the other noticed witnesses appeared either.
Me thinks Wolfson, rather than spending too much time publicly criticizing the judge, should speak to the A.D.A. about more diligent pre-trial practices in cases with key witnesses who constitute high risk of nonappearance.
Well said. I happen to love Betsy precisely because of her demeanor and decisiveness. To each his own, but this ADA coulda shoulda been a bit more prepared. Of course, we should not blame him but his boss. Who was watching over this junior DA? What resources were allocated to this case? Who was put in charge of rounding up the witnesses? The buck must always rest with the CEO.
Sure, she makes bad decisions. In fact, last year she bent me over royally in a case that I should have prevailed in easy and early. But that's life. At least she made her call and let me be. Compare that to "under-advisement" zombie judges.
Wow, yes, an impaneled jury is the same as a hearing. I would rather wait a few minutes on a judge who applies the law to the facts, instead of an on time Gonzalez.
Wait, what? Me thinks this all be related, all the anti Villani posts.
Guest
Anonymous
February 28, 2020 7:36 pm
11:21 needs some real lessons in brevity and more direct communication, but agree with a lot of the points made.
That said, don't let the judge off the hook to that extent. These are extremely serious charges, the jury is already in place and everything is ready to go.
Would it not be far better to give the state the benefit of every reasonable doubt that a witness may appear, and simply wait another 30 or 60 minutes. The judge could retire to chambers during that time if she wants.
I realize that yesterday posters were taking clear sides in this, and with bothsides making real good points, so I guess I'm by myself when I suggest that neither the court, nor the state, handled this matter anything close to ideally.
She wants time off. She does not want a trial. Betsey is lazy. An hour and a half, and you dismiss an attempt murder case, are you fucking kidding me? Wolfson must be happy, makes his office look bad.
Sorry. 1146am and 1204pm. Betsy is NOT lazy. I worked for her during her Beckley Singleton days (years 1999+). She puts in the hours and is a competent as any judge on the bench and way better than most. Sure she gets it wrong occasionally. But, if history is any indicator, she knows your case as well or better than you do. She isnt even close to being my favorite judge, but she is far from lazy and she is smart as hell.
I glanced at the brief. One thing I noticed was that the State was under the impression that court would begin at 10:00 and told the victim to show up at 10:00. Having dealt with flaky witnesses more than once, you tell them to be there at 9:15 if the start time is 10:00; 9:30 at the latest.
No a Defendant who had his case dismissed at 10:22 a.m. for a trial that was to commence at 9:30 a.m. when the State had no witnesses. State could have had the flaky victim show up early and had backup witnesses waiting in the wings should the testimony of the victim have gone fast or not occurred at all. The State asked for 20 minutes and got 20 minutes. The State asked for another 20 minutes and got 15 minutes (until 10:05 am). The State asked for another 20 minutes and got 5 minutes which turned into 15 minutes, at which time the State asked for more time again without any discussion of who the State had coming at what time.
Furthermore, the defendant was held even though his case was dismissed to allow the State to seek appellate relief.
Trevor Atkins, don't understand why he filed against him. One of the few decent at the RJC
Guest
Anonymous
February 28, 2020 11:32 pm
It's entirely possible (and probably appropriate) to think that both parties in the Gonzalez/Villani battle were incorrect. The DA's office should have done more to have their witnesses lined up in advance of the times they were scheduled to testify. Failing that, though, the almost immediate jump by Gonzalez to dismissal and the way she delivered it were extreme.
The only winner in this battle is the comment section, as we get to watch Gonzalez and Villani duke it out again by Internet proxy. Shame this didn't happen early in the week so we could have avoided the weekend breakup.
Guest
Anonymous
February 28, 2020 11:50 pm
I wonder if there was a conference between Wolfson and Betsey over this. This what the RJC had become? Real bad.
Guest
Anonymous
February 29, 2020 12:12 am
Jake Villani is running against Bita Yeager for Dept. 1. He has taken the disgusting tactic of copying Mike Villani's billboards and website. Cf. villani4judge.com with villaniforjudge.com. He's running on Mike's reputation and name because his own merits would not get him anything. Shameful.
2:44 + 4:19 — Then DELETE your posts before other people get the wrong idea, too.
Guest
Anonymous
March 1, 2020 7:00 am
11:21 here. I don't know or care about whether this A.D.A. had an affair and left his family, as one post insists. Nor am I concerned if he is trying to cause voter confusion by aligning his identity with that of the sitting judge of the same last name, as another poster inists.
To play fair and fight fair, this discussion concerns the legitimate legal issue of how the witness situation was handled in the case being discussed.
If he left his spouse, well then he has the company of a huge percentage of the populace, and such action is, without knowing context, not inherently bad or remotely evil in and of itself. It establishes no character flaw in him simply because an isolated poster claims he left his wife.
Likewise, if he is trying to benefit by causing voter confusion over his name, it seems people are quite selective about when and if they get offended by this action. I can think of at least four judges right off the bat(no, I won't name them, but they should not be too hard to figure out) who were elected in large pat, and perhaps primarily, because they were the off-spring(and thus shared the same last name) of former judges and/or public officials who were still very prominent with high name recognition.
So, him benefitting from being aligned with someone of the same last name who he is not related to, is no worse, in my view, than people trading off of a family name. In both instances the candidates are not primarily getting elected based on their own merit, experience and reputation, but are instead elected based on the record and reputation of someone else.
Bottom line is, without me giving a damn about his personal life or political strategy, it appears he did little or nothing meaningful to secure the attendance, in an attempted murder trial, of a victim/star witness who is a homeless heroin addict. And shifting the blame to some(admittedly impatient) judge is reprehensible.
When one has a witness such as this, the presumption should be that absence extreme and repeated diligence on the part of the D.A.'s office, that some witness will never appear.
DUI, is that it? Come on, he killed how many people? Please elaborate.
If you read the article, they say it's not clear what charges he'll plead to yet. Hard to elaborate until it happens…
Fat donation and probation? Bets please.
Happy happy Wolfson.
Wolfson was far too busy carefully monitoring his junior DA's trial preparations and performance…..
DUI resulting in death and DUI resulting in substantial bodily harm. He was told at the hearing that he will spend time in prison. Sentencing in June.
Better than I thought. Gragson is scum
As to that situation with Judge Gonzalez dismissing the case, without waiting even more time, that was perhaps a bit harsh but the main culpability, by far, lies with the A.D.A.
It is the first day of a murder trial and he seems to have no idea when, or even if, his witnesses will arrive?
It is not nearly enough for him to direct that subpoenas be sent out and served. Considering that the victim/star witness is a homeless heroin addict he should have been pulling out all the stops, well in advance, to locate and confirm witness attendance, etc.
Now some might say that for all we know he might have taken those steps, but it certainly didn't appear that way on the video. He never said that he just spoke to this or that witness the other day and they confirmed they would be here, etc. He, instead, was just real vague, and on a wing and a prayer was hoping some witnesses may deign to eventually appear.
And his requirement to be extra diligent increased even greater based on the product he was dealing with– his victim/star witness is a homeless drug addict.
It's possible(although not clear) that he may have at some point confirmed service of subpoena, but if he does not follow up where does he expect this homeless addict to be when the court appearance finally rolls around? This person probably can't even remember what abandoned building they slept in last night, and every fiber of their body and mind is probably in exquisite agony yearning for the next fix. We actually expect this person, with no attempts to follow up and locate them and secure their attendance, to comply with appearing on some date and place written on some piece of paper handed to them quite some time ago? And how would such person even get to the court house even if they were willing to cooperate, and remembered to do so? The person, again, is a homeless addict.
So, sorry, although I am not necessarily a fan of the judge's demeanor and somewhat abrupt and impatient approach, attacking the judge for dismissing the case is a distraction and displaces the main emphasis from where it needs to be.
The emphasis needs to be on an A.D.A. who apparently thinks all one need do is serve a homeless drug addict, and then with little or no follow through expect them to timely appear for a murder trial. And the apparent lack of follow through and diligence is further established by the fact that there were other state witnesses beyond this victim witness, and NONE of the other noticed witnesses appeared either.
Me thinks Wolfson, rather than spending too much time publicly criticizing the judge, should speak to the A.D.A. about more diligent pre-trial practices in cases with key witnesses who constitute high risk of nonappearance.
Well said. I happen to love Betsy precisely because of her demeanor and decisiveness. To each his own, but this ADA coulda shoulda been a bit more prepared. Of course, we should not blame him but his boss. Who was watching over this junior DA? What resources were allocated to this case? Who was put in charge of rounding up the witnesses? The buck must always rest with the CEO.
I don't like her demeanor at all, but she is decisive and derisive. She makes bad decisions.
Sure, she makes bad decisions. In fact, last year she bent me over royally in a case that I should have prevailed in easy and early. But that's life. At least she made her call and let me be. Compare that to "under-advisement" zombie judges.
If A.D.A. Villani wins his judicial race, everyone should show up 20 minutes late for his first calendar.
Wow, yes, an impaneled jury is the same as a hearing. I would rather wait a few minutes on a judge who applies the law to the facts, instead of an on time Gonzalez.
Jake Villani is a POS that abandoned his wife and kids after a steamy interoffice affair. To vote him in would be a grave mistake.
Wait, what? Me thinks this all be related, all the anti Villani posts.
11:21 needs some real lessons in brevity and more direct communication, but agree with a lot of the points made.
That said, don't let the judge off the hook to that extent. These are extremely serious charges, the jury is already in place and everything is ready to go.
Would it not be far better to give the state the benefit of every reasonable doubt that a witness may appear, and simply wait another 30 or 60 minutes. The judge could retire to chambers during that time if she wants.
I realize that yesterday posters were taking clear sides in this, and with bothsides making real good points, so I guess I'm by myself when I suggest that neither the court, nor the state, handled this matter anything close to ideally.
She wants time off. She does not want a trial. Betsey is lazy. An hour and a half, and you dismiss an attempt murder case, are you fucking kidding me? Wolfson must be happy, makes his office look bad.
We talking about the same judge? She is a lot of things, good and bad, but lazy ain't one of them.
We are. She is.
Sorry. 1146am and 1204pm. Betsy is NOT lazy. I worked for her during her Beckley Singleton days (years 1999+). She puts in the hours and is a competent as any judge on the bench and way better than most. Sure she gets it wrong occasionally. But, if history is any indicator, she knows your case as well or better than you do. She isnt even close to being my favorite judge, but she is far from lazy and she is smart as hell.
No she is not smart as hell, I am 12:04, not 11:46.
3:32, so Gonzalez knows a case and is smarter than a party's own attorney? Yeah, not Betsey. Full of yourself.
332pm here
I have known her for 21 years. I dont love her, but I do respect her. And yes, she is smart as hell.
To each his own, she is not that bright to me.
the State's appeal was filed and is public.
Yes, I encourage people to look at appeal. It can show you how good or bad the Eighth Jud. judges are, if you have the time.
I glanced at the brief. One thing I noticed was that the State was under the impression that court would begin at 10:00 and told the victim to show up at 10:00. Having dealt with flaky witnesses more than once, you tell them to be there at 9:15 if the start time is 10:00; 9:30 at the latest.
An appeal all over 20 minutes? An attempt murder defendant freed bc of 20 minutes, sounds reasonable and decisive to me.
No a Defendant who had his case dismissed at 10:22 a.m. for a trial that was to commence at 9:30 a.m. when the State had no witnesses. State could have had the flaky victim show up early and had backup witnesses waiting in the wings should the testimony of the victim have gone fast or not occurred at all. The State asked for 20 minutes and got 20 minutes. The State asked for another 20 minutes and got 15 minutes (until 10:05 am). The State asked for another 20 minutes and got 5 minutes which turned into 15 minutes, at which time the State asked for more time again without any discussion of who the State had coming at what time.
Furthermore, the defendant was held even though his case was dismissed to allow the State to seek appellate relief.
What is the case number for the appeal?
Who is Vllani running against? The DA Villani?
Trevor Atkins, don't understand why he filed against him. One of the few decent at the RJC
It's entirely possible (and probably appropriate) to think that both parties in the Gonzalez/Villani battle were incorrect. The DA's office should have done more to have their witnesses lined up in advance of the times they were scheduled to testify. Failing that, though, the almost immediate jump by Gonzalez to dismissal and the way she delivered it were extreme.
The only winner in this battle is the comment section, as we get to watch Gonzalez and Villani duke it out again by Internet proxy. Shame this didn't happen early in the week so we could have avoided the weekend breakup.
I wonder if there was a conference between Wolfson and Betsey over this. This what the RJC had become? Real bad.
Jake Villani is running against Bita Yeager for Dept. 1. He has taken the disgusting tactic of copying Mike Villani's billboards and website. Cf. villani4judge.com with villaniforjudge.com. He's running on Mike's reputation and name because his own merits would not get him anything. Shameful.
My bad, I thought it was Trevor Atkins.
2:44 + 4:19 — Then DELETE your posts before other people get the wrong idea, too.
11:21 here. I don't know or care about whether this A.D.A. had an affair and left his family, as one post insists. Nor am I concerned if he is trying to cause voter confusion by aligning his identity with that of the sitting judge of the same last name, as another poster inists.
To play fair and fight fair, this discussion concerns the legitimate legal issue of how the witness situation was handled in the case being discussed.
If he left his spouse, well then he has the company of a huge percentage of the populace, and such action is, without knowing context, not inherently bad or remotely evil in and of itself. It establishes no character flaw in him simply because an isolated poster claims he left his wife.
Likewise, if he is trying to benefit by causing voter confusion over his name, it seems people are quite selective about when and if they get offended by this action. I can think of at least four judges right off the bat(no, I won't name them, but they should not be too hard to figure out) who were elected in large pat, and perhaps primarily, because they were the off-spring(and thus shared the same last name) of former judges and/or public officials who were still very prominent with high name recognition.
So, him benefitting from being aligned with someone of the same last name who he is not related to, is no worse, in my view, than people trading off of a family name. In both instances the candidates are not primarily getting elected based on their own merit, experience and reputation, but are instead elected based on the record and reputation of someone else.
Bottom line is, without me giving a damn about his personal life or political strategy, it appears he did little or nothing meaningful to secure the attendance, in an attempted murder trial, of a victim/star witness who is a homeless heroin addict. And shifting the blame to some(admittedly impatient) judge is reprehensible.
When one has a witness such as this, the presumption should be that absence extreme and repeated diligence on the part of the D.A.'s office, that some witness will never appear.