Prosecutorial Throwdown

Ugghh, I need a shower after reading about this DA's office. Fire them all and start over.

The bias this newspaper shows toward the liberals is out of control.

Joyce Dudley is the best canidate, do your own research learn about the people and their careers and you will come to the same conclusion.

Does the D.A.'s office really have to break along party lines? I thought that law enforcement in general is considered "Conservative." Can't we simply vote for the best qualified, most fair and just candidate?

After learning that Josh Lynn has created a web site with the url JoyceDudley is unethical dot com (or something equally ridiculous and childish) my vote will be going to Joyce Dudley.

If Dudley's a Democrat then I'm the Queen of Sheba. Unless the party has changed dramatically since I last checked, "win at any cost prosecutors" (a la Nancy Grace) play for the other team. It seems to me that this paper doesn't spend enough time acknowledging that, or reporting on it. And the misconduct goes beyond the case discussed in this article, as the public record shows--for anyone who cares to do his/her homework.

Oh please, if Josh Lynn really didn't want to be appointed to the slot, why did he, on Monday of this week, request the IT department of the County, change all legal documents signature page to Interim District Attorney at taxpayer cost, for all documents related to the DA's office while he was acting. If this was procedural clean up, it could have been done months ago, not the day before the Board of Supervisors decided on the issue. A bit presumptious on his part and his sleezy attack web page should not be tolerated for this very important position. As from the letter from Christy Stanley, I would love to see her come out and either confirm she wrote this letter or not

The problem with RBT's argument is if its true neither Stanley or Lynn should have headed up the DA's office. If she was really that bad and they have allowed her to remain at her job what does that say about their leadership?

I wonder if another candidate will step forward before the election.

"rbtlines, " you'd better get fitted for your crown.

I'm not referring to what her voting card says, but her actions. But that was kind of funny, binky, I have to admit.
Also, I said in my earlier post that the indy didn't report enough on defendants' rights (or I tried to imply it), but I would like to commend the paper for the Frimpong piece. Better late than never.

It is funny that attorney Balash seems to be diminishing Dudley's action as commonplace. According to the judge's decision, Dudley actually went so far as to bring up in front of the jury a polygraph exam the defendant took. Criminal Law 101 teaches that a prosecutor is NEVER to comment on the defendant taking a polygraph. Before this article goes to paper I hope Nick Welsh recontacts Balash and asks him if allegations of misconduct are so common, how many cases has he been a part of that have resulted in a new trial because of prosecutorial misconduct. I think that what Mr. Welsh will find is that while allegations of misconduct are common, that a judge actually finding misconduct to the point of granting a new trial is extremely rare, so rare that it is likely true that Dudley is the only one in the office to have a new trial granted for prosecutorial misconduct. Shouldn't the DA have the best ethical record in the office, not the worst?

Frankly, though I do commend the paper on the recent Frimpong article, I have always wondered why they are so uncritical on the criminal justice front--and yet do such good reporting/investigating/editorializing on environmental issues, SB newspress, national/local politics, etc. I guess it's too boring to read court documents or something. But I'd like to see better reporting on what's actually being said in the case Johnny 123 describes, because it is significant. How could anyone who researched the issue act like "it's no big deal"? She's a candidate for D.A.!

Wait a minute. johnny123 says, "Dudley actually went so far as to bring up in front of the jury a polygraph exam the defendant took." Really?

Polygraph exams have the same reliability as a ouija board. If Dudley used such exams in a court trial, she should be banished from the legal profession.

Mr. Welsh, I find your article very disturbing. The light you cast on Mr. Lynn and Mr. Ward for “contending” that Mrs. Dudley was unethical is not a political tactic, it is a fact that was echoed not once but several times by judges and many of Mrs. Dudley’s peers. In any job interview, most people are subjected to background checks. The DA’s office is no different. The fact that Mrs. Dudley wasn’t more forthcoming about her misconduct shows directly to her questionable character. The fact that Judge McMahon wrote a 114 page brief that was put on record shows how serious he thought her actions were. The fact that 80% of Mr. Lynn’s peers support him and want him to be their boss speaks volumes. Why has Mrs. Dudley been passed up time and time again for judicial appointment, maybe it’s because you need at least 50% peer support to even get considered? Hmmmmmmm. The citizens of Santa Barbara would continue to be safe and our lives “living in paradise” would have been uninterrupted but for the Santa Barbara City Councils appointment. I ask all your readers to do their research before deciding. Mr. Welsh don’t be so biased. Do your research. If I do some research of my own, will I find that you get a birthday and holiday card from Mrs. Dudley yearly? Hmmmmmmm.

My choice is Joyce.

My choice, and the DA's Office choice by 3 to 1, is Josh. He's ethical and that's what's required to be the DA.

Boy there seems to be a lot of Josh supporters continuing the rhetoric on here.

In reference to the polygraph topic above. Polygraphs ARE admissable in court as long as both parties stipulate to them. Since they often lean one way (towards guilt or innocence) the majority of time one side will not stip to letting it be entered into evidence, but that is not saying that it never happens. To the other mooks that say otherwise, YOU ARE WRONG.

Okay, to those who support Joyce, why don't you refute all we've been saying? What other prosecutors in the office, for example, have had cases overturned because of their conduct? Is that a normal or typical thing? Wasn't the judge on the case quite a respected man? I'm not hearing anything persuasive from the Joyce supporters. All I've heard is "my choice is Joyce", which is nursery school level logic, and "Josh looks like a sleazeball" (based on one unfortunate picture), which is junior high level thinking. Sooo, where's the evidence of his misconduct? And please don't say pointing her misconduct is misconduct on his part --it's part of the public record and anyone, anyone running for office would have done so.

Keep up that confusing and negative campaigning on a issue already settled by the higher courts. Attacking the news reporter as the messenger also is so ineffective with the voters.

For bonus points, criticize people as being "liberals".
"Socialists" is next.

Keep it up.

What are you talking about? I am saying the paper is not looking hard enough at prosecutorial misconduct. That makes me Rush Limbaugh? This comment wants to make me say the "r" word. Okay, I am going to stop commenting on these boards. I just keep saying the same thing: read the opinions, do your homework! Let me sign out by saying yet again: locking people up and throwing away the key because it's politically expedient for you, having a "win at all cost mentality" and failing to see defendants as human beings is not part of the democratic agenda. That's the right wing Republican Nancy Grace side, folks. Simple as pie. But I'm giving up the fight--good night.

Gee whiz, the comments perpetuate the disgusting status of the DA's office. To think that this unethical DA's office formulates cases that deny people liberty and even life.

Separating everyone and starting over from scratch makes the most sense.

Nick, you know better than to say the appointment of Bramsen was a win for Dudley; it clearly was not.

Josh Lynn had zero chance of being appointed by the BOS whereas Dudley has two strong supporters on the board and rumors were rampant that she could get the appointment. The only win for Dudley would have been an appointment; instead they appointed a 3rd party which is a draw at best for Dudley.

Knowing Lynn can never muster 3 votes on the board, can you point to one (one!) logical reason why this was a "win" for Dudley? Can anyone?

My point exactly Bajades with the "tounge n' cheek" comment about the birthday and holiday card.