📋
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.
⚠️ 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 3 findings
F1
Page 61
Search for Replacement Parts Power outages in June burnt out a receiver, so neither the arraignment nor the court security system were work- ing. The company that originally supplied the system was no longer in business, so a search for replacement parts was conducted. A source was located and replacement cost was quoted as in the neighborhood of $4000. Insurance coverage is $500 deductible. Trial Court and Sheriff agreed to pay $250 each. Claims forms are being submitted to the insurers. Judge and Sheriff are consulting on paying the full price if insurance does not cover.
F2
Page 61
Surge Protection. Electronic components get “fried” in power outages or surges because they are unprotected. Surge protectors cheaply and effectively prevent such problems. It is rea- sonable to suppose that a surge protector could have prevented this problem.
F3
Page 61
System Obsolescence. If the system is repaired this time, the next time it goes down it will likely be unrepairable. There is no way to predict how soon this will happen, but it inevitably will. As suggested in Recommendation #1, upgrade will be- come necessary. The cost of an all-new, full-function system is estimated to be $25,000, and it is in the inter- ests of both Court and County to negotiate that up- grade.
Recommendations 3
-
R1Page 61The Video Arraignment System should be repaired as soon as possible. If insurance does not cover, interested parties should include in their discussions a cost-benefit analysis of upgrading to a new system.
-
R2Page 61Install protection with new components.
-
R3Page 61Now that the video arraignment system has proven its value, Court and County should commence early plan- ning towards expeditious replacement of the system when next it fails. CONCLUSION: Judges, Marshal, Sheriff’s staff, Public Defenders and District Attorney’s staffs are to be commended again for integrating a novel element into their procedures. What is next in importance is that the system be kept operational. 30-DAY RESPONSES REQUESTED FROM: Supe- rior Court Judges, the Marshal, the Chief of General Services, the County Auditor, the Deputy in Charge of the Jail. Response of Deputy in Charge of the Jail To: The Trinity County Grand Jury From: Sgt. Bob Angulo Re: Grand Jury report Video Arraigment I would like to thank the Grand Jury for their time and effort in putting this report together. RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 1: The video arraignment system should be repaired as soon as possible. If insurance does not cover, interested parties should include in their discussions a cost-benefit anaylsis of upgrading new system. RESPONSE: The video arraignment system has been repaired and is now in service. RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 2: Install electrical protection with new video arraignment components. RESPONSE: A surge protecter has been installed at the jail facility. RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 3: Now that the video arraignment system has proven its value, Court and County should commence early plan- ning towards expeditious replacement of the system when next it fails. RESPONSE: This will be initiated in future budget packages to the board for their consideration. CONCLUSION: I would like to thank the Grand Jury for their in-depth report and recognition of the challenges faced by our employees and commend the staff for the tremendous job that they do. Response of the Superior Court Judge To: Trinity County Board of Supervisors 1998-99 Trinity County Grand Jury From: John K. Letton, Judge of the Superior Court Date: April 5, 1999 Re: 1998-99 Grand Jury Judicial Committee Final Report Video Arraignment System I agree with the Judicial Committee Final Re- port on the video arraignment system. I propose that future maintenance/replacement costs of the video arraignment/security camera system be born 50% by the county and 50% by the courts. Response of the Trinity County Auditor To: Trinity County Board of Supervisors From: Brian Muir, Auditor – Controller Date: September 22, 1999 Subject: 1998/99 Grand Jury Judicial Commit tee Final Report- Video Arraignment System