Vote NO on the DA Recall - Friends of Paul Gallegos - Humboldt County District Attorney - A legal and academic view of the DA recall [Times-Standard]

My Word by Ben T. Allen

Thursday, February 26, 2004 -

As the recall election rapidly approaches, many voters are still trying to decide how to vote. I regularly am asked questions regarding the issues so I have decided to offer the following to help voters in their decision process.

Is Paul Gallegos a competent district attorney?

In my opinion, District Attorney Gallegos is very competent and is a man of integrity. I have observed the conduct and skills of many prosecutors. Mr. Gallegos is going to rank among the very best of them, particularly for those people who want a district attorney who believes that the criminal justice system should apply fairly to all persons.

Is District Attorney Gallegos "soft on crime/drugs?"

One of the issues that seems to arise most commonly relates to the practice of "plea bargaining." District Attorney Gallegos' staff is making reasonable and legally appropriate case dispositions. Interestingly, there have been thousands of cases filed and plea bargained (7,900 is the reported number of filings). How come the proponents for recall have been able to find only two cases to try to use against Gallegos? I believe that the only reasonable conclusion is that all of the other numerous cases have been handled correctly.

Was Martinez-Hernandez given too lenient of a sentence? Despite what the recall proponents hope voters believe, the job of a district attorney is not to put people in jail for the longest time. This isn't some game where we score points by how many years we send someone to prison. The job of a district attorney is to make decisions under difficult circumstances and to consider fairness to all parties, including the victim. That is what Gallegos is doing.

Mr. Gallegos also has taken reasonable steps to clarify the legal issues regarding medical marijuana. The argument by his opponents that therefore he is "soft on drugs" is absurd. Mr. Gallegos is doing exactly what he should be doing -- clearly interpreting the law. Mr. Gallegos did not make the law; the voters did. Mr. Gallegos' actions are entirely consistent with those of other reasonable district attorneys in California.

Why do some law enforcement officers oppose Gallegos?

This is one of the most critical questions in the recall. The answer to this question depends on what you think is the job of a district attorney. I have highest regards for the profession of law enforcement. But I also believe that the job of law enforcement is to investigate alleged crimes and is not to decide who will be prosecuted or what sentencing should be. The job of a competent district attorney, such as Gallegos, is to evaluate evidence and law, to determine what cases have merit, and to serve as a buffer between law enforcement and the criminal courts.

The job of a competent district attorney is not to serve as an arm of law enforcement. This distinction is exactly why district attorneys must be lawyers and elected into office. Law enforcement officers are not lawyers and are not elected. I suggest that you vote against the recall if you believe, as I do, that one of the jobs of a district attorney is to see that justice be applied fairly in compliance with the law and believe that law enforcement officers have a different job than the prosecutor. I sincerely hope that this wound between some law enforcement officers and the District Attorney's Office caused by this recall will heal rapidly once this matter is concluded.

So what is really behind this recall?

I believe that PL is the primary force at work to mislead the voters of Humboldt County. This election is not about the competence of Gallegos. This recall is not about jobs. PL supports this recall in order to stall the lawsuit that they know they likely will lose. No matter what happens in the election, PL will log as fast as they can to pay bond debt and will leave the people of this county with the consequences. The longer they stall the lawsuit, the more cash they can take out of Humboldt County and the longer they can avoid paying millions of dollars in penalties. If you believe differently, please think about what Maxxam has already done to pensions and look at how much money has been spent to support the recall.

I urge you also to think about how much money they have spent on "polls" designed to distort the truth and to look at this person, Robert Flanigan, they have brought to our county -- his sole job is to distort the truth for PL. Do you really think that PL or Maxxam care one bit about the people of Humboldt County? I am almost tempted to thank PL for giving the people of Humboldt County this wonderful opportunity to vote and to show that we have had enough of outside corporate wealth trying to deceive us and trying to treat us as though we are ignorant. However, I do not thank them because they have far over-stepped any boundaries of decency and thereby have deeply divided our community.

I urge all voters to participate in this election, to refrain from the apathy that has so overtaken us, and to send a clear message by voting to continue Mr. Gallegos in office.

Ben T. Allen, a member of the California State Bar since 1973 and a former prosecutor, is a professor of business law at Humboldt State University. He lives in Eureka.