Sherman R. Frederick
Marinscope
Marin County District Attorney Lori Frugoli has issued her response to a critical report on her office by the Marin County Civil Grand Jury.
The Grand Jury last spring issued a report that found justice in Marin had ground to a near halt and most of it was the fault of Frugoli’s office.
Frugoli responded to the findings on July 15 in which she found merit in some of the conclusions of the Grand Jury, such as giving the DA’s office more money and staff positions, but dismissed any finger pointing back at her management of the competence of her office.
Here are some of the key points Frugoli made in her defense.
BACKLOG
DA Frugoli said she “partially disagrees” with the conclusion that cases are backlogged in Marin County.
“There is a backlog,” the DA’s office admitted. “However, the backlog has trended downward during the period of time evaluated by the Grand Jury, despite the COVID-19 global pandemic forcing court closures.
“The Grand Jury’s report evaluated jury trial numbers commencing from January 2019. As of July 6, 2023, there were 48 fewer cases set for trial than in January of 2019. Accordingly, the backlog of pending jury trials is no more substantial than before the period the Grand Jury is investigating and in fact has been reduced substantially since the current District Attorney took office in January 2019.”
‘UNREASONABLE’
The Grand Jury found that people charged with crimes in Marin were waiting an “unreasonable” amount of time – in many cases more than a year.
Frugoli responded that she “agrees several criminal cases have been pending for more than a year. However, a delay in the resolution of a case is not fairly deemed ‘unreasonable’ merely by the passage of time and, indeed, a one-year duration can be quite expeditious in many instances.”
She cited an example in the Grand Jury’s report in which a gang-related homicide case was cited as in trial for six months.
“That case involved a May 25, 2016, incident, and charges were filed that same month. The case started with four co-defendants and within a matter of months expanded to eight co-defendants, all associated with the MS-13 criminal street gang. They were accused of killing (decapitating and mutilation of) one Novato High School student with a machete and attempting to kill another student with a gun and a knife. The co-defendant whose trial lasted ‘in excess of six months’ was represented by two defense attorneys who had filed over 100 motions in the case, raising legitimate legal issues that needed to be litigated. Pretrial motions were litigated over the course of several years, and the trial motions themselves lasted four months. Jury selection took nearly six weeks, and the trial itself lasted from August 2022 to March 2023. Following the jury’s guilty verdicts, the case was continued for sentencing and other post-judgment proceedings so one of the defendant’s attorneys could travel to Pennsylvania this summer to represent Robert Bowers, the man accused of 11 murders in the 2018 Pittsburg synagogue shooting. Sentencing in the Marin County case is expected to resume in the Fall when the defendant’s attorney returns.
“This is but one example of the many serious cases pending in the courthouse. At no time did the victims’ families complain about the duration of the case and instead repeatedly have expressed their gratitude to the District Attorney’s Office for its countless hours of effort bringing those defendants to justice.”
DA RESPONSIBLE
The Grand Jury said the DA’s office is primarily responsible for the delays.
Frugoli “wholly” disagrees.
“Short of dismissing charges,” Frugoli said, “the District Attorney’s Office cannot unilaterally resolve a criminal case and certainly cannot force a defendant to plead guilty. Rather, the decision to plead guilty rests solely with the defendant, and even then a defendant can only do so if the decision is “knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.” Several current defendants, however, are legally incapable of making a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent decision to plead guilty … the District Attorney’s Office should not be faulted for the often very lengthy delays that occur in mental health cases.
“Even where a defendant is legally competent to enter a guilty plea, many cases are pending because a defendant simply rejects the People’s offer. A routine response from defense attorneys when asked why an offer was rejected is: ‘I advised my client to take the deal, but they want to go to trial. I don’t have any client control in this case.’ The District Attorney’s Office is wholly understanding of this all-too common scenario that results in delays at no one’s fault other than the defendant.”
INTERNAL CHAOS
The Grand Jury found that the District Attorney’s Office lacks the internal organizational structure and operations to facilitate the efficient processing and resolution of criminal cases.
The DA responded that the Grand Jury was operating on “dated” information.
“Assuming ‘structure and operations’ refers to additional staffing,” she said, “who could assume duties such as processing discovery, law-and-motion work, murder cases, parole hearings, discovery compliance, and updating protocols, I agree with this finding.”
“However,” she added, “there is no indication the Grand Jury visited the District Attorney’s Office, reviewed the internal structure of the office, met with its office finance manager, its legal support manager, its IT manager, or its Investigations Unit when making this finding. Had these employees been interviewed, or the processes observed first-hand, the Grand Jury likely would have revised (this finding).”
“Other observations in the report appear to be based upon a similar lack of information.”
The full response is available on the Marin County Civil Grand Jury website.
Leave a Reply