📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Mendocino County Grand Jury • 1999-2000

Mendocino County Domestic Violence

27 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F41, F42, F43, F44, F45, F46, F47, F48, F49, F50, F51, F52, F53, F54, F55, F56, F57, F58, F59, F60, F61, F62, F63, F64, F65, F66, F67, F68, F69, F70, F71, F72, F73, F74, F75, F76, F77, F78, F79, F80, F81, F82, F83, F84, F85, F86, F87, F88, F89, F90, F91, F92, F93, F94, F95, F96, F97

Findings 41 findings

F1 Page 90
California law includes in crimes of domestic violence, in addition to spousal relationships, former spouses, cohabitants and former cohabitants including (as of 1994) gay or lesbian relationships, any person who is the parent of his or her child, any person with whom there is a dating or engagement relationship, a child, or any other person related by consanguinity. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding, although the Sheriff would defer to the statutory definitions. California Penal Code §13700 defines “abuse” and “domestic violence” as follows: (1) “Abuse” means intentionally or recklessly causing or attempting to cause bodily injury, or placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury to himself, herself or another. (2) “Domestic violence” means abuse committed against an adult or a fully emancipated minor who is a spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or person with whom the suspect has had a child or is having or has had a dating or engagement relationship. For purposes of this subdivision, “cohabitant” means two unrelated adult persons living together for a substantial period of time, resulting in some permanency of relationship. Factors that may determine whether persons 90 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report are cohabiting include, but are not limited to, (1) sexual relations between the parties while sharing the same living quarters, (2) sharing of income or expenses, (3) joint use or ownership of property, (4) whether the parties hold themselves out as husband and wife, (5) the continuity of the relationship, and (6) the length of the relationship. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Sheriff.
F2 Page 91
According to the California Attorney General, in over 75% of domestic violence cases either the batterer or the victim, or both, have been using alcohol or drugs. Mendocino County arrest reports indicate that weapons are involved more than 50% of the time. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board assumes this finding is accurate.
F3 Page 91
The California legislature passed in 1995 a “zero tolerance” statute on domestic violence that requires that all law enforcement agencies implement, by July 1, 1996, written policies that encourage the arrest of domestic violence offenders, if there is probable cause or if a protective order is violated. In the past both parties involved in a domestic violence dispute have, at times, been arrested. This statute discourages but does not prohibit dual arrests. Response (Sheriff): Disagrees partially with this finding, but only so far as the date. Pursuant to California Penal Code §13701, subsection (a), every law enforcement agency in the state was required to implement written policies and standards for officers’ responses to domestic violence calls by January 1, 1986. Subsequent amendments to this statute have addressed the issues of mandatory arrest, dual- arrests, and identification of the primary aggressor. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board has not independently verified this finding. The Board does agree with the response provided by the Sheriff. Domestic Violence in Mendocino County Findings
F4 Page 91
The number of arrests in California for domestic violence, reported to the Attorney General, has risen steadily from 113.6 per 100,000 total population in 1988 to 169.9 in 1998, an increase of 49.6 %. However, in Mendocino County, during the same time frame, the domestic violence arrest rate rose 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 91 from 155.0 to 310.8, an increase of 100 %. This increase in reporting is in large part due to increased awareness and sensitivity to domestic disputes by both law enforcement and the public of Mendocino County. Response (Sheriff): Disagrees in part with this finding. The arrest rate per 100,000 population and the rate of increase appear to be incorrect. The following chart is based on domestic violence arrest data from the California Attorney General’s Office and population data from the demographic unit of the State of California Department of Finance. Mendocino County Domestic Violence Arrests Rate Per 100,000 Population 350 315 310 297 300 232 267 250 219 232 200 218 150 171 143 100 119 50 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Based on this data, the increase from 1988 to 1998 was 62.2%, not 100% as cited by the Grand Jury. However as the chart above shows, neither of these figures reflects the year-to-year fluctuations in arrest rates. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board has not independently verified this finding. The Board does agree with the response provided by the Sheriff.
F5 Page 92
Less than 50% of 9-1-1 domestic violence calls resulted in an arrest in Mendocino County during 1998 and 1999. The arrest rate varied among the four law enforcement agencies in the county. Response (Sheriff): Disagrees in part with this finding, because the statistic is misleading. The classification assigned to a call by dispatch is not an accurate indication of whether conduct at the scene should lead to an arrest. Dispatchers do not investigate the circumstances of the call; they gather basic information and relay it to responding patrol units. The verbal information provided to the dispatcher does not in itself establish probable cause to make an arrest. 92 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Sheriff. Dispatchers do not investigate the circumstances of the calls they receive. The verbal information given to the dispatcher does not, in itself, establish probable cause to make an arrest.
F6 Page 93
The Law Enforcement Administrators Association (LEAA) of Mendocino County brings together the heads of all county agencies involved in law enforcement, including the District Attorney, the Sheriff, the Chiefs of the three city police departments, the Captain of the local branch of the California Highway Patrol, The Chief Probation Officer, the Major Crimes Task Force Commander and the Superintendent of the California State Parks. In 1996, the LEAA issued a domestic violence policy detailing arrest and evidence gathering procedures. In February 2000, the District Attorney distributed to all LEAA members a family violence checklist which stresses the importance of taped interviews. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F7 Page 94
A Mendocino County Domestic Violence Council was formed in January 1995 and includes representatives from all law enforcement agencies, the District Attorney, Victim/Witness Assistance, the Court, all relevant county departments, concerned citizens, Project Sanctuary, E.S.C.A.P.E.S. (Emergency Sanctuary for Coastal Acts Providing Escape Services), and other community service agencies. The Council’s stated mission is to ensure that all those affected by domestic violence are treated fairly and with respect and to promote community awareness for the purpose of reducing the incidence of domestic violence in Mendocino County. Not all Council members are active participants. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. The Sheriff’s Office is an active member of this Council. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding but has not independently verified the statement on the number of calls.
F8 Page 94
Project Sanctuary provides an important and diverse set of services for victims of domestic violence in Mendocino County. Important among these services is the providing of shelter and assistance in obtaining temporary restraining orders (TRO’s). Project Sanctuary receives approximately 1800 domestic violence calls each year. Some of these may be repeat calls involving the same victim. 94 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding but has not independently verified the statement on the number of calls.
F9 Page 95
The District Attorney and Project Sanctuary have begun a dialogue and domestic violence cross-training. Response (Sheriff): This finding is directed to the District Attorney and Project Sanctuary. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board assumes this statement is correct and urges the District Attorney and Project Sanctuary to continue the cross training.
F10 Page 95
In October 1999, using Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) funding, the District Attorney hired a victim-witness domestic violence advocate and brought the part-time domestic violence victim advocate to almost full-time. These advocates now provide courtroom support and services to victims and their families. Response (Sheriff): This finding is directed to the District Attorney. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F11 Page 95
The Sheriff’s Department and other law enforcement agencies in the county possess excellent domestic violence training programs and materials. However, it is sometimes difficult, due to staffing shortages and overtime restrictions, to have officers taken off duty to attend training sessions. Penal Code Section 13519 requires all officers who respond to calls of domestic 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 95 violence to complete an updated course of instruction on domestic violence every two years. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding and urges all law enforcement agencies in the County to continue their domestic violence training efforts.
F12 Page 96
Stay away orders issued by the Court are entered by the Sheriff’s Department into the statewide CLETS (California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System) making this critical information available to all dispatchers. However, the paperwork must be carried to the Sheriff’s Office delaying entry into CLETS. Once entered, the dispatcher can then radio data to police vehicles responding to domestic violence calls. The victim of domestic violence is still obliged to file temporary restraining orders (TRO’s) with law enforcement; but once filed, they also are entered into the CLETS. Response (Sheriff): Disagrees in part with this finding. Since the Grand Jury completed its investigation, the handling of criminal stay- away orders has changed. Bailiffs receive the signed orders from the court then fax them to the Sheriff’s Dispatch Center for entry. This has 96 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report eliminated the delay of hand-delivering the paperwork or routing it through interoffice mail. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Sheriff. The handling of these orders has changed since the Grand Jury conducted their investigation. Bailiffs now receive the signed orders from the court and then fax them to Sheriff’s Dispatch for entry into the system.
F13 Page 98
Increased cooperation between law enforcement and the District Attorney’s Office is needed to obtain the best possible services to the victims of domestic violence and to ensure public safety. Testimony indicates that relations between the District Attorney and the Ukiah Police Department began improving in November 1999. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board defers to the District Attorney and the City of Ukiah on this finding.
F14 Page 99
Although this investigation was prompted by citizen complaints against the current District Attorney, the Grand Jury found complaints dating back more than five years, criticizing the previous District Attorney for an “apparent lack of interest (in) pursuing domestic dispute complaints.” Response (Sheriff): Neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board neither agrees or disagrees with this finding. Prosecution and Sentencing Findings
F15 Page 99
Domestic violence prosecution is a complex issue that involves not only the District Attorney, but the Courts, the Probation Department, Law Enforcement and the victims themselves, who play vital roles in the determination of outcomes. The arresting agency, after completing their investigation, forwards the case file to the District Attorney for prosecution. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F16 Page 99
The review of domestic violence case files revealed some apparent inconsistencies, although there was no obvious pattern of dismissals nor in sentencing practices among the several courts in the County. Response (Sheriff): Neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the District Attorney. The ultimate decision on sentencing rests solely with the Courts.
F17 Page 99
The differences in domestic violence prosecution and conviction rates between 1998 and 1999 was statistically insignificant. There was however a notable drop in domestic violence arrests, from an average of 25 per month in 1998 to 20 per month in 1999. Response (Sheriff): Disagrees with this finding, only because the arrest statistics cited by the Grand Jury do not agree with the official statistics maintained by the California Attorney General, which show that for 1998 there were an average of 16.7 domestic violence arrests per month in Mendocino County. According to the Attorney General’s statistics, arrests for domestic violence in Mendocino County have fluctuated for several years. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 99 Mendocino County Domestic Violence Arrests 300 264 267 250 250 188 223 200 200 181 185 150 134 100 110 98 50 0 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provide by the Sheriff. The official statistics maintained by the California Attorney General indicate that in 1998, the average monthly arrests for domestic violence was 16.7.
F18 Page 100
Often, the victim will recant testimony made at the time of arrest, making prosecution difficult. However, the District Attorney’s Victim-Witness Protection program is a positive force in aiding the victims of domestic violence and supporting the prosecution of batterers. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F19 Page 100
In 1984, the California Legislature enacted a new domestic violence law (Chapter 1609). This statute in part states: “It is the intent of the legislature that the official response to cases of domestic violence shall stress the enforcement of the laws to protect the victim and shall communicate the attitude that violent behavior in the home is criminal behavior and will not be tolerated. Arrests of domestic violence offenders are encouraged if there is probable cause that an offense has been committed.” A review of Mendocino County domestic violence arrest records, dating back to 1988, demonstrate that the county’s law enforcement agencies have clearly been responsive to this legislative directive. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding and commends all of Mendocino County’s law enforcement agencies work in this area. 100 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
F20 Page 101
Section 243 (e) (4) of the Penal Code (domestic violence battery) states: “The Legislature finds and declares that these specified crimes merit special consideration when imposing sentence so as to display society’s condemnation for these crimes of violence upon victims with whom a close relationship has been formed.” In the Grand Jury’s review of domestic violence case files, no indication of such special consideration was found. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding as it relates to the text of the statute. I neither agree nor disagree with the Grand Jury’s finding regarding their review of domestic violence case files. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board has no specific knowledge of the cases reviewed by the Grand Jury, therefore, we cannot comment on this finding.
F21 Page 101
According to the District Attorney, these Penal Code Sections, that reflect the desire by the California legislature to place special emphasis on crimes of domestic violence, apply to the Court and to law enforcement and not to the district attorneys of the state. The District Attorney maintains that he treats all crimes equally and to do otherwise would expose him to censure and possible charges of misconduct. Response (Sheriff): This finding is directed to the District Attorney. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors defers to the District Attorney on this finding.
F22 Page 101
The goals of domestic violence prosecution, as stated in the District Attorney’s Policy and Procedures Manual, are: (1) protection and safety for the victim and family members (2) punishment of the offender (3) referral of the victim and vulnerable family members to ... support agencies (4) rehabilitation of the offender Response (Sheriff): This finding is directed to the District Attorney. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F23 Page 101
In addition to these goals, the City of Duluth, Minnesota, the model for the batterers counseling program used in Mendocino County, has the prosecution goal “to create a general deterrence to domestic violence in the community.” The Mendocino County District Attorney maintains that cases must be prosecuted on the basis of evidence and not on possible community reaction. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 101 Response (Sheriff): Neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. I have not read the Duluth, MN, program model. The remainder of this finding addresses statements made by the District Attorney. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board defers to the District Attorney on this finding.
F24 Page 102
The current District Attorney has instituted the use of “Cite Hearings” in selected domestic violence cases (a total of 15 through October 1999). The accused and the victim are both brought together before the District Attorney. The hearing includes a strong warning to the offender that a repeat offense within a year of the hearing will result in the reopening of the current case. The presumption by the District Attorney is that the hearing is a forceful deterrent. It is used primarily when the chance of a conviction resulting from prosecution, in the view of the District Attorney, is not certain. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with the response provided by the District Attorney. 102 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
F25 Page 103
In 1998 and 1999, the most common reason cited by the District Attorney when not prosecuting a domestic violence case was “Insufficient Evidence.” Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Although I have not reviewed the data used by the Grand Jury, their finding is consistent with my personal knowledge. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board neither agrees or disagrees with this finding.
F26 Page 103
When the District Attorney makes a determination that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute a case, the file is returned to the arresting law enforcement agency. The procedure followed by law enforcement when a file is returned to them for insufficient evidence, varies considerably among the four County agencies. For the most part, local law enforcement agencies do not routinely re-open investigations on cases returned for insufficient evidence, unless specific instructions from the District Attorney accompany the returned file. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. However a rejection for insufficient evidence does not necessarily mean more evidence is available. The reason returned domestic violence cases are not routinely reopened is that all available evidence is generally gathered at the time the call is handled. The identities of the victim, suspect and witnesses are known; statements are taken; physical evidence is gathered. Follow-up is usually limited to securing medical records documenting the victim’s treatment and photographing bruises that may take several hours to develop. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board has not conducted an independent investigation into the Grand Jury’s finding, therefore we neither agree nor disagree. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 103
F27 Page 104
The District Attorney does not follow-up cases that have been returned to law enforcement. The District Attorney depends on the arresting agency for gathering additional evidence to permit prosecution. Investigators in the District Attorney’s staff are not used for this purpose. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding as to follow-up on returned cases and dependence on the arresting agency for gathering additional information. I cannot comment on how the District Attorney’s investigators are assigned. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board defers to the District Attorney on this finding.
F28 Page 105
The District Attorney’s open door policy has allowed batterers and victims of domestic violence opportunity to make direct presentations of their situation. The Grand Jury has found that, in at least two instances, such conversations have resulted in decisions, which were then forwarded to the prosecuting Deputy District Attorney as directives. The knowledge of the case and the views of the Deputy District Attorney were neither solicited nor heard by the District Attorney. Response (Sheriff): This finding is directed to the District Attorney. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board neither agrees or disagrees with this finding, therefore we defer to the District Attorney for verification.
F29 Page 106
The Court has the final say for all sentencing, though it may often rely on the
F30 Page 106
Most interviewees involved in domestic violence issues, representing a number of different agencies, expressed strong concerns regarding the inconsistent prosecution and sentencing of accused domestic batterers. Response (Probation): Department assumes this is correct. Response (Sheriff): Neither agree nor disagree with this finding; I was not present during the interviews. I am nevertheless aware that individuals involved in domestic violence issues have expressed strong concerns regarding what they perceive as inconsistent prosecution and sentencing of accused domestic violence batterers. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board neither agrees or disagrees with this finding.
F31 Page 106
The Grand Jury heard testimony that, at times, plea agreements are entered into. Additionally, a review of case files and court records demonstrate that when a domestic violence crime is committed by a probationer, the case is often prosecuted as a violation of probation (VOP). In the prosecution of a VOP, the burden of proof is much less demanding and the probability of conviction is generally high. Response (Probation): Agrees with this finding. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. 106 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
F32 Page 107
The Mendocino County Court began a vertical calendar process in February
F33 Page 108
According to Penal Code Section 1203.097 (a) (6), if a person is granted probation for a crime of domestic violence, mandatory attendance in a weekly, two hour, batterers counseling program for a minimum of one year is required. Imposition of this requirement is the responsibility of the Court. The District Attorney has neither power nor discretion in this matter. Response (Probation): Agrees with this finding. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F34 Page 108
There are 19 approved batterers counseling programs in Mendocino County. Each program is led by a professional facilitator licensed by the State of California. The programs and their facilitators are approved by the Probation Department based upon established criteria. Response (Probation): Agrees with this finding. The number of programs is not limited or static. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding and notes that the Chief Probation Officer stated that the number of programs are not limited.
F35 Page 109
Since 1997, the number of referrals to batterer counseling has been averaging 5.6 per month. However, for four months, from April through July of 1999, there was only one referral to the batterer counseling programs. The referral rate returned to normal in August. There were fourteen convictions for domestic violence in the second quarter. Of these, seven were denied probation and received jail time. One case was transferred to Marin County and two probationers failed to report to the Probation Department for their initial visit, leaving three probationers unaccounted for. The District Attorney was unable to provide domestic violence records for the first quarter of 1999. This data might have been helpful in trying to resolve the small discrepancy in the number of referrals. Response (Sheriff): Neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. The Sheriff’s Office does not maintain countywide statistics on batterer referrals. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board did not independently determine the accuracy of this finding. We assume it is correct
F36 Page 109
The effectiveness of the counseling programs is much debated in the literature reviewed. Polar opposite views were expressed by those interviewed by the Grand Jury. There are no reliable statistics that attest to the effectiveness of these classes. Violations of probation are more than 80% for domestic violence probationers and violations average two times per probationer, often as many as five times or more. Response (Probation): Neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. I do not know from where or how the statistic was derived, or whether it pertains to the population as a whole or just Mendocino County. As with any learned behaviors, it takes time to modify that behavior, and many probationers will have difficulties throughout the term of treatment and for the rest of their lives. As with alcoholics in recovery, recovery from the patterns of domestic violence is a continuous process. Often the violations of probation are technical, such as missing meetings or counseling, rather than repeated abuse. Continued use of drugs, detected through urinalysis, is also a recurring cause for violations. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 109 Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board did not independently verify the accuracy of this finding. We assume it is correct. The Chief Probation Office also could not verify the statement due to the uncertainty of the source.
F37 Page 110
The most common cause cited for probation violations by domestic violence probationers was drug use. Other frequently cited causes were missing appointments with the probation officer and the counseling program. New offenses, including repeat domestic violence, were the least of probation violations. Response (Probation): Agree with this finding. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding. 110 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F38 Page 111
Since attendance in a batterers program is a mandatory provision of probation, the probationers are rarely asked to enroll in substance abuse programs, even though drug use is by far the most common cause for violation of probation. A majority of domestic violence incidents involve the use of drugs or alcohol or both. Response (Probation): Agree with this finding in that substance abuse is a major contributing factor to domestic violence. A component of the educational and treatment program should and does include substance abuse counseling. We direct them to attend AA and NA meetings when we feel it is appropriate. Counseling through the Public Health’s Alcohol and Other Drugs Program requires substance abuse counseling, before entering the Men’s Alternatives to Violence Program. Participating in a year-long counseling program makes demands on the client’s time that make it difficult to attend anything other than that program. If substance abuse is interfering with compliance with the program, further counseling may be ordered. Most domestic violence cases are misdemeanors that do not require the presence of a court officer. The terms are decided by the court. We are in the process of revising these terms to include rehabilitation programs, such as substance abuse counseling, Response (Sheriff): Neither agrees nor disagrees with the statement about probationers enrolling in a substance abuse program. The Department agrees with the remainder of the finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Chief Probation Officer. Substance abuse is a major issue in domestic violence and Probation does direct that probationers attend AA and NA meetings when appropriate.
F39 Page 112
Review of case files revealed instances when domestic violence charges were reduced to “aggravated assault” and “disturbing the peace” misdemeanors as part of plea bargaining. These lesser charges do not require batterer counseling classes when on probation. Response (Sheriff): This finding is directed to the District Attorney. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board has no independent knowledge of this finding. We assume it is correct.
F40 Page 112
The District Attorney disagreed that there is a deep public concern about the handling of domestic violence cases. In his view, the public uproar is the work of a few disgruntled counselors, who are unhappy that their batterers counseling programs have suffered declining enrollment. Response (Sheriff): This finding is directed to the District Attorney. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board defers to the District Attorney concerning this finding.
F98 Page 98
1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 14. Although this investigation was prompted by citizen complaints against the current District Attorney, the Grand Jury found complaints dating back more than five years, criticizing the previous District Attorney for an “apparent lack of interest (in) pursuing domestic dispute complaints.” Response (Sheriff): Neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board neither agrees or disagrees with this finding. Prosecution and Sentencing Findings 15. Domestic violence prosecution is a complex issue that involves not only the District Attorney, but the Courts, the Probation Department, Law Enforcement and the victims themselves, who play vital roles in the determination of outcomes. The arresting agency, after completing their investigation, forwards the case file to the District Attorney for prosecution. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. 16. The review of domestic violence case files revealed some apparent inconsistencies, although there was no obvious pattern of dismissals nor in sentencing practices among the several courts in the County. Response (Sheriff): Neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the District Attorney. The ultimate decision on sentencing rests solely with the Courts. 17. The differences in domestic violence prosecution and conviction rates between 1998 and 1999 was statistically insignificant. There was however a notable drop in domestic violence arrests, from an average of 25 per month in 1998 to 20 per month in 1999. Response (Sheriff): Disagrees with this finding, only because the arrest statistics cited by the Grand Jury do not agree with the official statistics maintained by the California Attorney General, which show that for 1998 there were an average of 16.7 domestic violence arrests per month in Mendocino County. According to the Attorney General’s statistics, arrests for domestic violence in Mendocino County have fluctuated for several years. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 99 Mendocino County Domestic Violence Arrests 300 264 267 250 250 188 223 200 200 181 185 150 134 100 110 98 50 0 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provide by the Sheriff. The official statistics maintained by the California Attorney General indicate that in 1998, the average monthly arrests for domestic violence was 16.7. 18. Often, the victim will recant testimony made at the time of arrest, making prosecution difficult. However, the District Attorney’s Victim-Witness Protection program is a positive force in aiding the victims of domestic violence and supporting the prosecution of batterers. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. 19. In 1984, the California Legislature enacted a new domestic violence law (Chapter 1609). This statute in part states: “It is the intent of the legislature that the official response to cases of domestic violence shall stress the enforcement of the laws to protect the victim and shall communicate the attitude that violent behavior in the home is criminal behavior and will not be tolerated. Arrests of domestic violence offenders are encouraged if there is probable cause that an offense has been committed.” A review of Mendocino County domestic violence arrest records, dating back to 1988, demonstrate that the county’s law enforcement agencies have clearly been responsive to this legislative directive. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding and commends all of Mendocino County’s law enforcement agencies work in this area. 100 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 20. Section 243 (e) (4) of the Penal Code (domestic violence battery) states: “The Legislature finds and declares that these specified crimes merit special consideration when imposing sentence so as to display society’s condemnation for these crimes of violence upon victims with whom a close relationship has been formed.” In the Grand Jury’s review of domestic violence case files, no indication of such special consideration was found. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding as it relates to the text of the statute. I neither agree nor disagree with the Grand Jury’s finding regarding their review of domestic violence case files. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board has no specific knowledge of the cases reviewed by the Grand Jury, therefore, we cannot comment on this finding. 21. According to the District Attorney, these Penal Code Sections, that reflect the desire by the California legislature to place special emphasis on crimes of domestic violence, apply to the Court and to law enforcement and not to the district attorneys of the state. The District Attorney maintains that he treats all crimes equally and to do otherwise would expose him to censure and possible charges of misconduct. Response (Sheriff): This finding is directed to the District Attorney. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors defers to the District Attorney on this finding. 22. The goals of domestic violence prosecution, as stated in the District Attorney’s Policy and Procedures Manual, are: (1) protection and safety for the victim and family members (2) punishment of the offender (3) referral of the victim and vulnerable family members to ... support agencies (4) rehabilitation of the offender Response (Sheriff): This finding is directed to the District Attorney. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. 23. In addition to these goals, the City of Duluth, Minnesota, the model for the batterers counseling program used in Mendocino County, has the prosecution goal “to create a general deterrence to domestic violence in the community.” The Mendocino County District Attorney maintains that cases must be prosecuted on the basis of evidence and not on possible community reaction. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 101 Response (Sheriff): Neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. I have not read the Duluth, MN, program model. The remainder of this finding addresses statements made by the District Attorney. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board defers to the District Attorney on this finding.

Recommendations 8