An Appalling Example of California Justice . . .

[Hiracer]

Based on the Lat 38 article, we now have another member of the Sheriff's department stating ex-Sgt. Beland was instructed by a superior officer to NOT give Perdock a breathalizer test.

And more witnesses are agreeing with Perdock's ex-wife that Perdock lied when he stated he was at home early that evening because these witnesses claim to have seen him at a local bar at that time.

And because of the fine investigative work completed by the sheriff's department, all of this is coming out on the eve of trial some three years after the accident.

The wheels are coming off the coverup. Things are spinning out of control. If this goes to trial, the sheriff's department will be the actual party on trial.

I think there might be a chance an outside agency could eventually nail Perdock and his buddies with perjury, obstruction of justice, conspiracy thereto, etc.

I think the DA wants time so he can think through whether he should flip sides to save his career. As facts develop further and further, he's going to have a harder and hard time explaining why he didn't charge Perdock in the first place.

Too bad he's got immunity for his decision to charge Dinius.

[TaoJones]

Originally Posted by Hiracer

<snip>

I think there might be a chance an outside agency could eventually nail Perdock and his buddies with perjury, obstruction of justice, conspiracy thereto, etc.
<snip>

It might even be that if this, to me, transparent conspiracy is properly investigated and prosecuted, then the SoL (statute of limitations) for Perdock may not apply - then he'd be SoL (sh*t outta luck). I'd be very interested to read what slomo and Southern Star have to offer on that possibility.

TaoJones

[Hiracer]

Man, there is definitely a movie/book in here:


"There is a report on file with the court which was prepared by the District Attorney's Office regarding a statement from Dennis Olson, and the upshot of it is that Perdock was at Konocti (Harbor Resort & Spa) prior to the accident," Dinius' defense attorney, Victor Haltom, said.

Olson was allegedly an employee at the resort at the time of the incident. Olson is currently in custody at Lake County Jail.

In a statement to Record-Bee News Editor Mandy Feder, Perdock said that he stands behind his initial statements, and was not a patron at Konocti Harbor Resort & Spa on the day of the fatal collision.

. . .


Langan [the District Attorney] wrote in his motion to continue the trial that another former LCSO sergeant at the scene of the crash indicated Beland may have been "ordered" not to give Perdock a Breathalyzer test.

Langan further wrote that he was informed Beland's employment with the LCSO ended after an internal affairs investigation. Langan wrote that the investigation began after Dinius' preliminary hearing and focused on Beland's testimony and statements to Langan.

New developments in Dinius case - www.record-bee.com





I stand corrected. Beland was not terminated for talking to Dinius's defense counsel. He was terminated for talking to the District Attorney!?!

Dumb, and dumber.

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by TaoJones

It might even be that if this, to me, transparent conspiracy is properly investigated and prosecuted, then the SoL (statute of limitations) for Perdock may not apply - then he'd be SoL (sh*t outta luck). I'd be very interested to read what slomo and Southern Star have to offer on that possibility.

TaoJones

Yep, one would think the statute is tolled when there is a supression/falsification of evidence by the investigating sheriffs department.

[TaoJones]

Originally Posted by Hiracer

<snip>

I think the DA wants time so he can think through whether he should flip sides to save his career. As facts develop further and further, he's going to have a harder and hard time explaining why he didn't charge Perdock in the first place.

Too bad he's got immunity for his decision to charge Dinius.

I can't get over the feeling that this fiasco is headed onto the same rocks that sank the S.S.Mike Nifong.

TaoJones

[Hiracer]

Perhaps. Would depend on what the DA knew, when he knew it, and what proves he knew it when.

There real culpable parties here, besides Perdock, are the members of the sheriffs department who worked in concert to frame Dinius. Their refusal to take exculpating witness statements, the failure to secure the boats after the accident, failure to give Perdock the breathalizer test, the funny business about Perdocks bloods test. It just goes on and on. It was real transparent from day one that it was a set up to save Perdock.

They really need to clean house in the sheriff's department.

OTOH, we have that video clip of the DA saying he doesn't know what a safe speed is for a motor boat at night. That was brilliant. Yes, the DA was in on the ruse too. Clean him out with the rest. The DA's immunity extends only to the decision to charge or not charge. If there is criminal conduct beyond that, his immunity will not apply. And ethical problems, viz disbarment, are completely outside any immunity; likewise termination of his employment. So his immunity goes only so far. He's sweating a tad bit right about now, for sure.

I bet there is somebody within the sheriffs department playing the mutully assured destruction (MAD) card: You, Mr. DA, take down this department and we'll take you with us. You knew from the beginning what the game was and played along. We go down; you go down--very simple.

Interesting calculus happening.

[Hiracer]

The thing about Nifong is that Nifong was using the rape trial to get free publicity for re-election purposes. Didn't work out too well, but that was his motivation.

This DA can't even claim that. He was just playing along with a frameup because . . . because I don't know why. I think he's so dirty that he really didn't know any better. He had no compelling reason to go along with the cover up and went along anyhow because he didn't NEED a compelling reason. It was just business as usual to him. Even sadder than the Nifong case when you think about it in those terms.

[imagine2frolic]

One of my first questions why no one was coming forward that had witnessed Perdock drinking. Was it fear from the force?

I am wondering how many other people wrongly convicted exist in this county, and if they will be jumping on the bandwagon?

Sometimes the system is slow, and doesn't work. I love it when it does work!.....i2f

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by imagine2frolic

... I am wondering how many other people wrongly convicted exist in this county ...

Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in the 1970s, 130 people have been exonerated from death row in 26 states – roughly one for every nine executed.

In fact, the most comprehensive study of capital trials ever conducted found that nearly seven of every 10 death sentences handed down by state courts from 1973 to 1995 were overturned due to “serious, reversible error,” including egregiously incompetent defence counsel, suppression of exculpatory evidence, eyewitness misidentification, false confessions, snitch and accomplice testimony, and unreliable forensic science.

The Innocence Project provides more information, including the seven most common causes of wrongful convictions:
* Eyewitness Misidentification
* Invalidated or Improper Forensic Science
* False Confessions / Admissions
* Government Misconduct
* Informants or Snitches
* Bad Lawyering

Goto ➥ The Innocence Project - Home

[slomotion]

The trial has been continued again at the request of the prosecution. The new date is June 30, 2009:

Lake County News | California

Apparently, there are new witness statements to the effect that Perdock was seen drinking prior to the incident. A witness also stated that he and Perdock raced their boats on the lake between 7:30 and 8:00 PM. Perdock says they're all lying:

http://lakeconews.com/index2.php?opt..._pdf=1&id=8712

It sounds like all or much of this new information was conveniently "discovered" after the statute of limitations had run out on Perdock.

[imagine2frolic]

I was asking about this particular county. The reason being that most likely this is not the first cover up to protect their own. They seem use to it. They just didn't know some boaters would jump on it!.......i2f

[slomotion]

Originally Posted by TaoJones

It might even be that if this, to me, transparent conspiracy is properly investigated and prosecuted, then the SoL (statute of limitations) for Perdock may not apply - then he'd be SoL (sh*t outta luck). I'd be very interested to read what slomo and Southern Star have to offer on that possibility.

Under various circumstances fraudulent concealment, misrepresentation, and/or deception by one party will toll the statute of limitations for CIVIL cases.

In criminal cases statutes of limitations are much more strictly applied and the equitable principles that prevail in civil cases are generally not available. There’s a rather famous case in Florida called State v. King, 282 So.2d 162 (Fla. 1973).

Many and perhaps all states have SOL extenders for criminal cases where the crimes involve a continuing course of conduct - especially where the crime itself involves some kind of fraud. But those would not apply to manslaughter. Where law enforcement and the district attorney engage in deception or other corruption in order to protect a law enforcement officer from prosecution - dunno.

The real problem is that there is no evidence that Perdock himself did anything to conceal evidence or prevent his own prosecution, except lie - something which most defendants do without losing the protection of the SOL. There is no duty to confess even for law enforcement officers. Even under civil case principles, Perdock is arguably the "innocent" beneficiary of an unlawful, but (wink, wink) not unexpected, conspiracy by others to protect him at Dinus’s expense. Perhaps a federal prosecution - but that would be for violation of Thorton’s and Dinius’s civil rights, not state manslaughter. Plus as others have pointed out, there are other crimes such as conspiracy, obstruction, misprison of felony, solicitation, witness tampering, perjury, etc. for which the statute may not have run for Perdock, other deputies, and the district attorney.

I don’t know much about RICO prosecutions, or whether you can bring one against a state agency, but if this sort of thing is business as usual in Lake County, a federal RICO prosecution might fly.

[imagine2frolic]

Wouldn't Perdock not giving up his blood sample in a timely fashion make him part of the coverup negating his SOL?.......i2f

[Southern Star]

Good analysis Slomotion, thank you. In Canada we do not have limitation periods in relation to indictable offences (our equivalent of felonies), but do with respect to summary conviction matters (misdemeanors). Unless the limitation period provides a statutory exception (such as in income tax frauds, where they start to run only after the fraud was discovered), they are absolutes here as well (although we too have distinctions with respect to civil limitation periods where fraudulent concealment, etc., can extend the deadline).

In the final analysis, if the statute of limitations has passed with respect to the manslaughter, Perdock will escape criminal prosecution for that offence. Whether there is evidence that he subsequently conspired with others to obstruct justice, or to deny the civil rights of Thorton and Dinius is, as has been pointed out, questionable: it seems just as likely that he was the beneficiary of the conspiracy of others.

That being said, the conduct of the Sheriff's and DA's office in this case has been deserving of far more than negative commentary. At the outset I and others opined that both the Sheriff's office and the DA should have referred the investigation/prosecution of the case to outside agencies in order to ensure not only that justice was done, but that it was seen to be done. The failure to do so in a case such as this borders on negligence; the efforts at cover-up, selective presentation of evidence and the continuation of a prosecution against Dinius in these circumstances hints at much more.

I truly hope that an investigation follows and that, assuming the evidence is as it now appears, federal charges are pursued against the members of the Sheriff's and DA's office who participated in this travesty. Anything short of that will only further undermine public respect for the administration of justice and the ability of honest police and prosecutors to carry out their sworn duties.

Brad

[Hiracer]

The statute of limitations in CA is 6 years, not 3 years, for crimes that carry a sentence term of 8 years or more. CA Codes (pen:799-805)

We have been focusing on the 3-year SOL for the crime with which Dinius has been charged. That crime may or may not be applicable to Perdock's situation.

Perdock's conduct was more wanton, more reckless than Dinius's conduct, and therefore a different crime might be charged, perhaps one that carries a sentence of eight years or more.

In CA, it appears to me that alcohol is a factor that may increase the sentence term. This might be why the testimony about Perdock's activities before the boating accident take on great significance. It might have the effect of making a 6-year SOL apply to Perdock's crime(s).

I don't really know.

* * *
Second-Degree Murder (California PC 187)
A person may be charged with second-degree while driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs if malice is believed to have been a factor. Murder involving malice implies that the person either acted intentionally to cause the unlawful death of a human being or fetus or acted in a manner that he or she knew could lead to fatal injuries. Second-degree murder is considered a felony in California. The penalty that accompanies a second-degree murder conviction while driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs is 15 years to life in prison.

Vehicular Homicide
In California, vehicular homicide involving DUI/DWI is considered a “wobbler” offense, which means that it can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony. If charged as a felony, the defendant will have to face time in state prison. If this is not the driver’s first DUI offense, 15 years to a lifetime prison term may be imposed.
Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated, Without Gross Negligence (California PC 192(c) (3)
This is a “wobbler” offense with a penalty that can lead to time in state prison. Visit the Felony DUIs section of our Web site for more information.

Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated, With Gross Negligence (California PC 191.5) The penalty for this conviction comes with a state prison sentence of up to 10 years. However, if this is not a driver’s first DUI offense of this kind, Courtney’s Law could bump the penalty to 15 years to life in state prison.

La Mesa, California DUI Lawyer :: Vehicular Homicide :: San Diego Drunk Driving Attorney

Any CA attorneys out there that can help us with this?