Jump to content
Last login: Thursday, October 21, 2010
I suspect Bonnie Dumanis is not being completely honest when she says"In this case we were not able to file charges because there was not proof beyond a reasonable doubt," Ms. Dumanis knows very well that direct victim evidence presented to a jury is sufficient in and of its self to establish that standard of proof. The victim of a crime testifying under oath to the facts in this case would be sufficient if the jury believes the witness/victim to sustain a conviction with proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
In all likelihood, The deputy reviewing the officer's report wanted additional information before proceeding with the filing of the felony charges. The deputy most likely did not think time was of the essence and additional information would help win a conviction with a little more additional evidence. Remember, once charged a defendant has a constitutional right to a preliminary examination within 10 days of his arraignment. If he not held to answer at that hearing, the damage to the people case can be devastating.
A MISTAKE...but in all likelihood an honest mistake by an overworked Deputy District Attorney. I am willing to guess that he or she feels terrible about not proceeding with the information at hand. A woman is dead and that deputy will have to deal with that result and his/her decision not to file immediately for the rest of his/her life.
Bonnie on the other hand is just covering her political ass....She could give us a pretty good idea of what really happened without endangering any future investigation. She knows the best political course of action is to stall as long as possible then in a few months quietly admit the mistake and point out that she personally did not learn of the decision not to proceed in the case until after the fact. She'll promise changes will be made!
October 21, 2010 at 8:21 p.m.
( permalink | suggest removal )
© 2014 KPBS