⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 19 findings
F1
In December of 2000, a criminal Grand Jury indicted a Sonoma County citizen for the murder of his wife.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
In preparation for the trial, the Sheriff’s Office retained a speech coach to improve the effectiveness of the pathologist as a witness.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
There was an inadequate pre-employment background check of the Sonoma County pathologist conducted by the Sheriff’s Department and the coroner services contractor.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Recently, the Sheriff’s Department advertised widely to fill the forensic pathologist position. However, only one company, the original coroner services contractor, applied. It provides the current pathologist.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
Conflicts within the Sheriff’s Violent Crimes Investigation (VCI) unit, in addition to only one VCI Detective responding to the scene, who decided not to handle the death as suspicious, all had a domino effect on the criminal investigation. Additional personnel and resources normally utilized in homicide cases were not called in, a follow-up investigation remained inactive for over a month, physical evidence at the scene was not collected, and statements and interviews normally taken within days or hours were not completed in some cases, for several months.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
The Sheriff’s Department conducted an “Administrative Review” or internal investigation into their handling of this case by their department.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Following the identification of problems revealed by the suspicious death investigation, the Sonoma County Sheriff’s office took the following actions: • All existing Sheriff’s office contracts were examined to determine whether contractual obligations were being followed. • A procedure was established regarding deaths in Sonoma County that under the following circumstances, the Coroner’s Detectives are to notify the sergeant in charge of the Coroner’s Unit: 1) All homicides. 2) All multiple casualty deaths. 3) Any death that involves suspicious circumstances. 4) All ‘in-custody’ deaths. 5) Any death in which the ‘Critical Incident Protocol’ is invoked. 6) Any death, which in your opinion may generate significant media interest. 7) Airplane accidents. 8) Any other death that has unusual circumstance.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
All Coroner’s Detectives have undergone additional training including “Officer Involved Shooting” and “Homicide Investigations Training”.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
Two VCI Detectives are now required to respond to all suspicious death investigations. An on- call Deputy District Attorney will also respond. 3
No recommendations for this finding
F10
An arbitrary “No Overtime” practice in the VCI Unit had been used as a reason for not thoroughly investigating homicide cases. That practice has been removed, allowing VCI Detectives to properly conduct complete investigations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
The Sheriff’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office should continue to build a strong, mutually supportive team to provide high quality investigations and the successful prosecutions of criminal cases.
F11
In the Sheriff’s Department Administrative Review of the death investigation, some detectives were criticized. But no evidence of that criticism is included in their personnel files.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
The Sheriff’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office should review their policies and practices regarding managing the performance of their respective staffs. Changes should be made to ensure that managers are trained in providing accurate feedback to their employees and in documenting poor performance. Reviews should accurately reflect performance and include annual employee goals to improve. Documentation of poor performance should be permanently retained in personnel files.
R2
Employees who have been identified as chronic poor performers should be terminated, not merely transferred at the same pay rate.
F12
The Sonoma County Sheriff has a dual role as Sheriff-Coroner which, by law, can not be changed until 2006. District Attorney’s Office
No recommendations for this finding
F13
The California Attorney General’s office reviewed the murder prosecution of People v Pelfini (2001) in view of allegations that the pathologist had committed perjury and that the Deputy District Attorney was somehow involved. In a narrowly-focused opinion, the Attorney General’s office concluded that no basis existed for charges of perjury against the pathologist and that “the [Deputy District Attorney’s] participation in preparing the [pathologist] to answer questions regarding his past employment, did not support allegations of criminal misconduct.” This means that there is insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges.
No recommendations for this finding
F14
Immediately after dismissing People v Pelfini, the District Attorney’s office scheduled a mandatory training session with all Deputy District Attorneys which included review of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brady v Maryland . That decision requires that the prosecution divulge to the Court, any exculpatory information, including “material that would impeach an important witness.” Additional steps taken by the District Attorney’s office included: • An agreement with the Sheriff that all future pathologists would be subjected to thorough background investigations • An agreement with the Sheriff that no witness will be prepared by any person or expert without the presence of a Deputy District Attorney • All attorneys assigned to homicide will attend regularly scheduled meetings with local law enforcement homicide detectives.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
The District Attorney and Sheriff should ensure that the policies and procedures drafted as a result of People v. Pelfini are followed by all personnel in their departments.
F15
The handling and dismissal of the murder trial resulted in deep divisions and conflict within the District Attorney’s Office. Those divisions have not completely healed.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3
The District Attorney’s Office should conduct an anonymous internal survey to identify current teamwork/morale issues, and solicit and implement suggestions for improving the department.
R6
The Sheriff’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office should continue to build a strong, mutually supportive team to provide high quality investigations and the successful prosecutions of criminal cases.
F16
Because a jury was impaneled, a trial begun and the case dismissed by the former District Attorney, the rules of double jeopardy preclude a retrial.
No recommendations for this finding
F17
In a separate incident, a Deputy District Attorney involved himself in a case against an acquaintance which had been assigned to another Deputy District Attorney. He dismissed the charges in the case without consulting the charging Deputy District Attorney.
No recommendations for this finding
F18
There is a perception among some employees (and this Jury) that the new District Attorney could be more accessible.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The current District Attorney should make himself more accessible to all staff members and to other law enforcement agencies. 5
F19
The lack of adequate space within the District Attorney’s offices has a negative effect on deputy district attorneys’ ability to meet with their clients in a private, professional setting. Their offices are cramped and shared by at least two deputies. Conclusions 4 The Jury concludes that the suspicious death case was mishandled by both law enforcement agencies involved. The publicity surrounding the investigation and the trial tarnished the reputations of the District Attorney and the Sheriff. There are many outstanding employees of both offices and their reputations were tarnished as well. In the case of the Sheriff’s Department, it appears that lack of real accountability and lax supervision permitted unit leaders and other department members to function at unacceptable professional levels. Even when less-than-professional behavior was confirmed by internal investigations, those employees with unacceptable levels of performance were merely transferred, and no permanent record was placed in their personnel files. Thus, patterns of behavior unacceptable to law enforcement officers are not tracked and the new supervisors who receive the transferred officers do not have the documentation they need as managers to counsel the officers or replace them if that is appropriate. Without a documented record of poor performance, it is difficult to remove incompetent personnel. The Jury determined that not holding people responsible for questionable performance is also an issue in the District Attorney’s Office. For example, there was no written evidence in personnel files about a deputy district attorney’s inappropriate behavior in a case against a personal acquaintance. In addition to these cases, the Jury reviewed other, more recent complaints and cases that lead us to the discomforting conclusion that neither office has fully resolved the people, process and procedural issues raised. The new policies and procedures drafted by both the District Attorney’s and Sheriff’s Offices are admirable steps to strengthen their departments. The Jury believes that if the leaders of those two offices hold all personnel accountable for strictly following those policies, many issues raised in this report will have been addressed. It is imperative that the citizens of Sonoma County have confidence in the professionalism and competence of law enforcement agencies in their county. The cases reviewed by this Jury call into question some significant issues with the two law enforcement agencies involved. We have a new Sheriff and a new District Attorney. Both want to put the high-profile case behind them and build strong, professional agencies that will be respected by our citizens. Both leaders have implemented significant changes within their departments and have created a stronger working partnership between the two agencies. However, we believe there are still issues that need resolution by the respective offices before the Jury can be confident that justice will be served in our county.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
The District Attorney and Board of Supervisors should explore all avenues to provide adequate space for the District Attorney staff.
Additional Recommendations 1
These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.
-
R8The 2003-2004 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury should review evidence collected by this year’s Jury and take appropriate action. Required Responses to Findings Sheriff: F11 District Attorney: F15 Required Responses to Recommendations Sheriff: R1, R2, R6, and R7 District Attorney: R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and R7 Board of Supervisors: R 6
Conclusions 1
-
CL14 The Jury concludes that the suspicious death case was mishandled by both law enforcement agencies involved. The publicity surrounding the investigation and the trial tarnished the reputations of the District Attorney and the Sheriff. There are many outstanding employees of both offices and their reputations were tarnished as well. In the case of the Sheriff’s Department, it appears that lack of real accountability and lax supervision permitted unit leaders and other department members to function at unacceptable professional levels. Even when less-than-professional behavior was confirmed by internal investigations, those employees with unacceptable levels of performance were merely transferred, and no permanent record was placed in their personnel files. Thus, patterns of behavior unacceptable to law enforcement officers are not tracked and the new supervisors who receive the transferred officers do not have the documentation they need as managers to counsel the officers or replace them if that is appropriate. Without a documented record of poor performance, it is difficult to remove incompetent personnel. The Jury determined that not holding people responsible for questionable performance is also an issue in the District Attorney’s Office. For example, there was no written evidence in personnel files about a deputy district attorney’s inappropriate behavior in a case against a personal acquaintance. In addition to these cases, the Jury reviewed other, more recent complaints and cases that lead us to the discomforting conclusion that neither office has fully resolved the people, process and procedural issues raised. The new policies and procedures drafted by both the District Attorney’s and Sheriff’s Offices are admirable steps to strengthen their departments. The Jury believes that if the leaders of those two offices hold all personnel accountable for strictly following those policies, many issues raised in this report will have been addressed. It is imperative that the citizens of Sonoma County have confidence in the professionalism and competence of law enforcement agencies in their county. The cases reviewed by this Jury call into question some significant issues with the two law enforcement agencies involved. We have a new Sheriff and a new District Attorney. Both want to put the high-profile case behind them and build strong, professional agencies that will be respected by our citizens. Both leaders have implemented significant changes within their departments and have created a stronger working partnership between the two agencies. However, we believe there are still issues that need resolution by the respective offices before the Jury can be confident that justice will be served in our county.
No Responses Found 3
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Sonoma County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office
Sonoma County District Attorney
Elected County Office
Sonoma County Sheriff
Elected County Office