BY DAVE PRICE
Daily Post Editor
The trial of Sheriff Laurie Smith is a waste of time and money.
Smith is accused of corruption — giving gun permits to campaign donors and withholding information on the jail to outside investigators.
The trial is unusual because it’s not a criminal case, but a hybrid of criminal and civil. If she’s convicted, she will not face the possibility of jail. The only penalty is that she’ll have to leave office.
But here’s the dumb part. She’s already leaving office in December because she’s retiring at age 70. Voters will decide her replacement in next month’s election.
I’m not defending her, but this process will produce nothing more than a symbolic result.
So the jurors, attorneys and judge will go through the ordeal of a lengthy trial and, if she’s convicted, she’ll have to leave office two months earlier than she had planned.
Why waste the time of the jurors?
Many people view jury duty as a necessary evil. People want to avoid jury service because they can’t afford to lose the pay. The juror fees of $15 a day and 34 cents a mile don’t cut it. But if you’re like me, you show up for jury duty because you believe in our system of justice. And, if you are ever put on trial, you’d want good citizens to sit on your jury.
But the Smith trial is a case of jury abuse. This is a meaningless trial.
The worst that can happen for Smith is that she will begin her retirement earlier.
If District Attorney Jeff Rosen thinks Smith is corrupt, he should have charged her the traditional way with criminal charges and put her on trial with the possibility of jail time if she was convicted.
But apparently he didn’t think he had a strong enough case to get a criminal conviction, despite a multi-year investigation that included a surprise raid of her offices.
This trial is little more than moot court — a pretend trial students hold in law school.
A trial like this reduces the public’s respect for the judicial system. Today, the U.S. judiciary is facing attacks at all levels. We literally have people going to the doors of judges to try and kill them. And we have a prominent U.S. Senator who warned the Supreme Court that they’ll be the subject of violence if they decided a case a particular way. At a time like this, DAs, judges and defense attorneys ought to be trying to build respect for the judiciary — and not give the public reasons to laugh at it.
Editor Dave Price’s column appears on Mondays. His email address is [email protected].
It’s also worth noting subjective CCW permitting schemes that enabled this kind of alleged corruption has been resolved with the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision.
Good point. Maybe it really is moot.
Giving gun permits to campaign donors is a victimless crime. If anything, issuing gun permits should be encouraged, though I prefer no such permitting system to begin with – any adult who wants to carry a firearm in public, whether concealed or not, should be able to.
Its not so much the GRANTING of CCW’s that is the issue with me, although there is testimony that applications were illegally submitted, my issue is with the WITHHOLDING of something of value to the citizens Smith swore to serve in exchange for a “donation” or other such favor. Hundreds of those that didnt donate or whom Smith would not benefit by forging a relationship with submitted applications that were never even processed according to sworn testimony of those with personal knowledge. Smith is a dangerous political viper.
Giving gun permits to primates is a victimless crime. If anything, issuing gun permits to apes should be encouraged, although I too would prefer no such monkeying around to begin with. However, any adult monkey who wants to carry a firearm in public, whether concealed or not, should be able to do so. And although there are many similarities between man and monkey, the monkey never requires a firearm and rarely petitions for the right to carry one. For the common monkey, the right to bear arms is completely unnecessary. Perhaps thinking like the monkey may be beneficial to mankind.
In the 1970s I was taught about our rights in Civics class. Our rights come from our ability to act in a manner which does not harm the rights of others.
Our rights were not created by any act of government and do not rely on any laws to exist. We read the D of I, Constitution and Amendments to understand our rights.
Our rights cannot be taken from us, however, if an individual by their own personal bad behavior proves they are not capable of exercising their rights without harming others, then they have forfeited whatever rights they have abused.
If primates gain the ability to communicate with humans, for example, they have the right to do so and should not be prevented from doing so.
“A trial like this reduces the public’s respect for the judicial system.”
Hard disagree, I don’t think the public knows much about the intricacies of the judicial system and most people will just think, “Wow, she must be guilty of something.”
If she’s guilty of something, then the DA should file regular charges against her and put her in jail if convicted.
I think everyone is missing the serious point of all this and it’s not at all moot and not a waste of time. This about both corruption and the laws that California has adopted. The NYSRPA v. Bruen decision may force California to change the laws to comply with that ruling, but the deeper problems of the attitude of law makers, civil servants and law enforcement officers wont be solved that easily. Already we see how California is trying to side-step the Bruen decision, so the law makers have learned nothing from that as yet.
The corruption of the sheriff was practically designed-in to the “may issue”Concealed Carry Weapons laws. We know this because that’s what has been going on in New York since the 1911 Sullivan Act. We need to charge sheriffs all across the state who abuse the discretion the California law makers have recklessly created. If we want politicians to be discouraged from accepting bribes of any form, we need this case to proceed and the sheriff to be held accountable for her corruption.
Dealing with corruption is not moot and people were harmed by her taking advantage of her power for personal gain.
I think you’ve missed the point. Yes, these are serious allegations. And, as such, they should be tried in an actual criminal court, where the defendant faces the possibility of jail time if convicted. This process of using civil charges diminishes the seriousness of the allegations.
If nothing else any pension that would be allotted, should be revoked. Will a formal trial allow for this?