Gore and Lenzi Respond to District Attorney's Office

Earlier this week, the human resource officials investigating the complaints by the District Attorney's Senior Investigator Rick Gore, dismissed all charges for lack of evidence.

"Every material allegation made by Rick Gore was not substantiated. It was not substantiated that Jeff Reisig was or is engaging in unethical practices. There is no indication that Rick Gore was subjected to a hostile work environment, that he was retaliated against for exercising his rights, and/or that he was discriminated against on the basis of a legally protected category."

In response District Attorney Jeff Reisig issued a lengthy statement claiming vindication.

"I am grateful that this matter is now closed and that all of the individuals who were wrongfully targeted have been vindicated and now afforded an opportunity to respond... I am looking forward to getting back to work for the citizens of Yolo County."

At the same time, both Reisig and his employees continued to make allegations against former Deputy DA Pat Lenzi.

As reported in the Woodland Daily Democrat on Wednesday:

"In that same statement, officials at the DA's Office reiterated their belief that Gore's public accusations were in part orchestrated by former deputy DA Patricia Lenzi.

Lenzi ran an unsuccessful and, at times, bitterly worded campaign against Reisig in 2004.

DA investigator Peter Martin said in a prepared statement that Lenzi called him the evening before the allegations were made public to "discuss" Gore's letter, which he characterized as an effort to "undermine" and "embarrass" the District Attorney's Office, which employs nearly 120 people and handles around 8,000 cases annually.

"I was quite shocked to discover that Pat Lenzi was actively involved with Mr. Gore in pursuing these accusations," Martin said in the statement. "I thought she had moved on with her life after losing the election and resigning from the District Attorney's Office in 2006."

The Daily Democrat reported as well, "Neither Gore or Lenzi could be reached for comment as of Tuesday evening."

In fact it became clear that the Daily Democrat did not have current contact information for either.

Both Lenzi and Gore have now issued responses to report and to the DA's office response. These responses are reprinted here in full and without editorial comment.

Response by Rick Gore

I received a copy of the same report provided to the media that was prepared by Yolo County. I am disappointed with their report, lack of findings and continue to stand by my letter. It is not surprising that a Yolo County directed and controlled investigation would not find any allegations against their Department Head substantiated. After all, if they admitted to wrongdoings of Mr. Reisig, they would be accepting and admitting liability for his actions. Financially and legally, that would not be prudent. From my first dealings with County Counsel on this matter, it has been clear that they were adversarial with me about my letter. I would describe County Counsel has being as helpful as a rattlesnake in a dark room, on this matter. To put this investigation in perspective, if I were allowed to hire an attorney to conduct this same investigation, keep my investigation secret and then get the media to release my report of my findings, does anyone have any doubt that my report would be very different from the county’s report.

As for Mr. Reisig’s comments about his staff being accused only displays his unique way of deflecting my letter by trying to make it about other employees and politics with a former Deputy District Attorney. My letter was about Mr. Reisig and is consistent efforts to undermine checks and balances of the system, to grab more power from other law enforcement agencies and to enhance his political career, by whatever bully means he deems necessary. He makes it difficult for anyone to stand up for what they think is right or anything against his political agenda.

The comments posted by some employees are very “company line” responses, which I am sure, were reviewed and approved by Mr. Reisig. Since a few of these people are “at will” employees and serve at the behest of Mr. Reisig, I would not expect them to say anything negative about the person who could release them from their job without cause. Which is exactly the reason that Mr. Reisig had many positions changed to “at will” shortly after his taking over the office.

It is unfortunate that so many other people have had to have their names mentioned and dragged into this. This has never been about accusing other employees of anything, this is about Jeff Reisig. I am confident that anyone that was mentioned in my original letter or may done things that were questionable, were acting on direction or orders from Mr. Reisig. Although Mr. Reisig is a good young lawyer and an exceptional politician, I have never accused him of being unwise. The only complaints that the county substantiated were the ones where I had copies of emails from Mr. Reisig, so it would be hard for them to deny those. Mr. Reisig is smart enough to know that in order to survive his unethical practices he must not put things in writing, limit his witnesses to his behavior and he has to keep himself isolated with others so he can claim “plausible deniability” or “have someone else to blame.” Since most of my complaints happened between Mr. Reisig and me with no other witnesses, it is easy for him to say it never happened. So, many of the “not substantiated” findings were because these things happened between Mr. Reisig and me in a private setting. I might add that these private meetings were by Mr. Reisig’s design and not by accident. The angst of all these issues are with Mr. Reisig not anyone else.

I do wish the media would give a more balanced view of this investigation. I think it should be noted that no one in this investigation was questioned under oath, asked to sign a statement under penalty of perjury or sworn under penalty of perjury. I was the only one required to talk about my letter, under oath in open court. For me to testify under oath that I was ordered by Mr. Reisig, via DDA Linden, and then for the county to make a grand finding, in this extended and complete investigation, that this was “not substantiated” seems suspiciously odd. For the people out there that want to critically think and evaluate this, Mr. Linden nor Mr. Reisig took the stand and challenged my testimony. We call this a clue in law enforcement.

The County also found that Mr. Reisig did not order or direct me to only serve one person in the first Gang Injunction. If anyone would care to pull the record of Mr. Reisig’s testimony, in front of the California Appellant Court, I am sure they would find that Mr. Reisig told the court that he did in fact only serve one person since that is all he was required to do by law. The court disagreed and overturned his injunction. I am sure this is just another small oversight of the county’s complete investigation. Another shameful finding of the county is that Dave Henderson did in fact have to order Mr. Reisig to discover the gun flash test during the Halloween Homicide trial. Then the county made the finding that the test was not discovered because of my objections. In all my years, I have never had to go to the District Attorney because a Deputy DA was trying to withhold evidence from the court and the defense. The fact that this incident had to be elevated to the District Attorney, Dave Henderson, and he had to order Mr. Reisig to turn it over, is pretty good proof that this evidence was being concealed and was not going to be discovered without my objections. This appears to be another missed opportunity in the county’s investigation. I could go on with each of the county’s findings, but as the county said, it would moot, they found what they wanted to find.

Another fact about press releases that most people are not aware of is that all press releases from the DA’s office are written and or approved by Mr. Reisig. Therefore, everyone who reads the Jeff Reisig prepared press releases should analyze those articles as a political tool for Mr. Reisig to get “his” message out, the way he wants it perceived. I would again ask the people of Yolo County to critically evaluate press releases and understand they were written by Mr. Reisig and simply reprinted by the local news media. I would challenge anyone out there to find an article about the DA’s Office where Mr. Reisig admitted a mistake or accepted some responsibility for doing something wrong. You will not find it since it would not be in Mr. Reisig’s political interest to release one of those and the media normally only prints what Mr. Reisig gives them.

Lastly, the finding about Mr. Reisig’s speech did not impact the investigation seems minor and probably unclear to most. So people understand what this was about and what kind of man Mr. Reisig is, I would like to explain it a bit. When the county’s investigation started, I was ordered not to discuss the investigation and was told everyone else would be ordered not to discuss it. After I received this notice, the next day, Mr. Reisig had a mandatory meeting with every DA employee. In this meeting, he called me ignorant and made other disparaging comments about me to every employee in the office. In these comments, he accused me of interfering with and impacting the CHP murder trial and tried to connect me to the grief of the wife of the slain officer. Anyone could see that this was a warning and a message that if anyone else spoke out against Mr. Reisig, this is what they could expect. I contacted county counsel and HR and expressed what a cowardly and despicable act I thought this was by Mr. Reisig. People want to talk about dirty politics; it does not get much lower than that. The county’s response to me was Mr. Reisig has the right to do what he did. Of course, the county did not see this "public bashing" as retaliation for my letter. Since I know the county’s position on this matter, I would like to ask the people that elected Mr. Reisig to ask themselves a question. You have read, in the recent press releases from Mr. Reisig, all the grand accolades about Mr. Reisig and his ethics. For a man to use his position and power to compel his entire staff to a mandatory meeting, in a county building, where county employees are compelled to be there and then use this meeting to publicly make disparaging comments about me and my letter and infer that I am to blame for the grief of a slain CHP officer and doing this while knowing that an investigation is about to be initiated appears disgraceful at best. His actions to use a death of an officer and the grief of his spouse, for his political benefit shows a real lack of character. I ask the voter’s is this behavior really the actions of a honorable man, who is ethical, trustworthy and who has nothing to hide? I think not, but I would ask everyone to make his or her own conclusion.

My advice to anyone else who sees or knows of inappropriate conduct in Yolo County is to embrace the conduct, support it and be a good “team player”. If anyone expects honest support from Yolo County, I believe they will be sadly mistaken. This would explain the sudden loss of many senior people that have left the office since Mr. Reisig took office.

Response from Former Deputy District Attorney Pat Lenzi

Dear Mr. Reisig:

You have recently issued press releases, and you and your staff have given statements to the press regarding Rick Gore that have included false allegations about me. These pronouncements by you and your office have been published by several local media outlets including, but not limited to, the Davis Enterprise, Woodland Daily Democrat, and the Sacramento Bee.

I requested that you immediately issue a retraction of the false allegations against me that you, your office and/or staff have issued in the matter pertaining to Rick Gore. I demand that you cease and desist from any further attempts to defame me and malign my character.

In order to provide you with accurate information such that you may base your retraction on facts, I offer the following:

- I did not write Gore's letter.

- I did not call the D.A.'s office regarding Gore or his letter

- I did not speak to Pete Martin regarding Gore or his letter. In fact, I have not spoken to Investigator Martin since shortly before I left the D.A's office nearly two years ago.

- I did not call anyone at, or associated with, the Yolo County D.A.'s office to "plead Gore's case."

- I did not go to the Attorney General's office with Rick Gore, or on his behalf.

Furthermore, I have no record of any calls or any contact of any sort from any reporters prior to the most recent news stories in the paper surrounding Rick Gore. I find statements to that effect objectionable.

Finally, I am not a candidate for office. I am a private citizen now. Those who continue to force my name into press releases and publications, using false statements about me that are libelous and are defamatory to me show a reckless disregard for the truth. This must cease immediately.

In addition to you issuing a retraction, I would appreciate an apology as well.

Signed,

Pat Lenzi

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Rick Gore completes Testimony on Gang Injunction

It was likely not the kind of testimony that those seeking to avoid a temporary gang injunction were looking for. Under very strict guidance from Judge Kathy White, Rick Gore completed his testimony yesterday about an affidavit he signed in support of the gang injunction.

The gist of what we learned from this is that in late 2004 Rick Gore was working in conjunction with West Sacramento Detective Villanueva. While he was not working specifically on the anti-gang unit, as there was no such unit until Jeff Reisig became District Attorney in 2007, he nevertheless was familiar with the situation in West Sacramento and worked on a number of gang cases.

In late 2004 until sometime prior to 2007 he worked on this and sent forth an affidavit in 2004 attesting to his support for the gang injunction. Last year the gang injunction was thrown out. In May of 2007, he was asked to sign the same gang affidavit that he signed in 2004, but he refused citing the fact that he did not believe in it. He told them that he would not sign it again until ordered. He was given the order by District Attorney Jeff Reisig through Deputy District Attorney Linden to sign it.

He had language removed from the affidavit that he did not agree with before signing the document under the penalty of perjury. By the time he signed the document it was simply a statement of some facts from prior to 2004, there was no opinion expressed on support for the gang injunction.

Throughout the entire hearing, there was a question as to whether or not this was relevant to their proceedings. Rick Gore testified that everything that he signed in the original affidavit was accurate as was everything he eventually signed in 2007.

In his letter from March 5, 2008 which was discussed but not entered into evidence during the course of this hearing, Gore stated:

"I think this injunction is being used for your political benefit and not for what it was intended. It is no longer a tool for law enforcement and public safety."

When asked about whether he believed this as of May 2007 when he signed the affidavit, Rick Gore said repeatedly he was unsure of what he thought at that time. His reason for not wanting to sign it was that he was not involved in the process and did not therefore have direct knowledge of the situation.

He had two reasons for not wanting to sign it, the first was that he was no longer involved in the process. The second was based on his experience with the first gang injunction, he felt that Jeff Reisig had turned it into a political benchmark. And his dealings with DA Jeff Reisig over the past year led him to be skeptical about the process. He therefore did not want to be involved in signing anything unless ordered to do so by DA Jeff Reisig.

He also described this as an unusual request. Deputy District Attorney Ann Hurd went to great lengths to show that signing documents under the penalty of perjury was part of his job descriptions, but under cross examination, Rick Gore suggested that this was really not part of his job descriptions. The process of being asked to sign an affidavit in support of a policy was neither usual nor part of his job description.

At the end of the day, it is not clear that any of this matters for the gang injunction. As the Deputy DA Hurd demonstrated, the actual affidavit is devoid of personal opinion, it is not clear that Gore had opposition to the Gang Injunction back in May of 2007 and even if he did, it was based largely on his opinion rather than his expertise.

From a political standpoint, the testimony is a bit more interesting, however, because of the narrow parameters laid out by Judge White--intentionally to avoid the political aspect that transcends the courtroom--very little of this came out.

Rick Gore wrote in his letter:

"As for the current and past Gang Injunction, when gathering intelligence, contacting active members and working with Detective Villanueva, I fully supported these efforts. However, after seeing this become your political benchmark, I have watched this injunction grow into something I did not want to be associated with or a part of, since I felt it had lost its original intent and purpose. As a Peace Officer and a public servant, I feel I should be doing the right thing and standing up against dishonest behavior. You make this very difficult."

What became clear yesterday is that this is an opinion that has evolved over time and was not necessary one that was held in 2007. Moreover, as Gore suggested in his own testimony, he had not intended the letter to be a legal document.

In the end, the county investigators will have to tease apart what did and did not happen. From the standpoint of the political system outside of the courtroom, it was interesting because Gore did put under oath some of what was written in the letter.

The most interesting facet of the letter remains the intent to conceal discoverable evidence about a material witness in the Halloween Homicide case.

As an aside, there was an interesting piece of information that came out of the proceedings is that there was no gang unit prior to Jeff Reisig becoming District Attorney. At which time, Reisig got a grant for gang money which carries with it enough money to hire individual investigators who are specifically assigned to prosecuting gangs. How much money is it? Enough to hire additional people and also for law enforcement in local jurisdictions as well. There are few avenues for additional money going to a prosecutor's office and gangs are one of them. It would seem in their best interest to have a concerted effort to crack down on gangs and to make it look like there is a bigger gang problem perhaps than actually exists.

The Vanguard will continue to follow this matter and report on any updates.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Rick Gore Appears in Court in Gang Injunction Challenge

On Tuesday, we learned in the local media that attorneys opposing the implementation of the second gang injunction including Mark Merin were seeking to call Senior Investigators for the Yolo County District Attorney's, Rick Gore as a material witness.

At issue is an affidavit signed by Rick Gore attesting to his support for the gang injunction.

In his letter to the District Attorney, Jeff Reisig on March 5, 2008, he argues that he no longer agrees with the current gang injunction nor does he think it is needed. However, he was compelled to sign "an affidavit in support of the injunction under penalty of perjury. I did not want to sign it as written since it was not prepared by me and I thought portions of my affidavit were untrue." He signed an affidavit of support for the second gang injunction that is currently in the process of being challenged.

He continues:

"I was called in by DDA Linden a few days later, and was told [Reisig] had ordered me to sign this injunction and I had no choice. Knowing I could be fired for not following this order, I signed it after changing some of the language."

The fact that Deputy District Attorney Linden was named in the letter forced him to disqualify himself from conducting the cross-examination of Rick Gore who was called by the defense as a hostile witness. This postponed the hearing until the afternoon when Deputy District Attorney Ann Hurd would be available.

Judge Kathleen White once again warned both sides that this was a hearing about law, she understands that there are outside politics in play on this issue, but she was only interested in Mr. Gore's testimony as far as the law went.

From our standpoint however, Mr. Gore got up and under oath and penalty of perjury he told the court yesterday that he was compelled to sign an affidavit that he did not believe. In other words, he confirmed under oath what he had said in that portion of the letter.

However, at the point in which he was directly questioned about the letter he sent off, he asked to consult his attorney and was granted a recess for him to make a call to his attorney who was not present. Upon return, he expressed a desire not to address the issue of the letter until court returns on April 8, 2008.

The attorney's for the defense and the District Attorney's office disagree over whether his expertise on the matter of the gang injunction is relevant. DDA Hurd argued that he was no longer working on the gang injunction and therefore he was not an expert on the matter. However, the defense argued that he only stopped working on the gang injunction a month prior to sending the letter and therefore he knew as much as anyone. This is a disputed issue that will be taken up on April 8, 2008.

It is interesting to note that there was a good deal of dispute between the two sides as to whether Rick Gore could even testify. It was pointed out by the defense that he was a listed witness for the people by virtue of the fact that his declaration was on file. And if they chose to pull his declaration, this could all end.

However, the District Attorney's office declined to do so. So Rick Gore was able to speak on the record.

The defense obviously sees Mr. Gore as a key material witness corroborating their claims that the gang injunction is not needed. But in terms of an overall impact on the case itself, the bigger intrigue was having Rick Gore basically confirm aspects of the letter under oath.

If we look at this objectively--when the letter came out, the District Attorney's office claimed that Rick Gore wrote his letter at the behest of Former Deputy District Attorney and Candidate for DA Pat Lenzi. Mr. Gore responded questioning why he would put his career in grave jeopardy for someone else's agenda. And we can now extend that further--why would he make claims under penalty of oath to help Pat Lenzi.

From that standpoint he testimony in court yesterday and any future testimony he offers flies in the face of that logic.

It seems to me however, that in terms of the impact on the gang injunction, this will be minimal unless at the April 8, 2008 hearing he offers very compelling evidence to suggest that the gang injunction is not needed.

Overall Rick Gore seemed to be an impressive and compelling witness. Perhaps a straight shooter to a fault. There was one exchange with Judge White right after he reported on his conversation with his attorney where the Judge was trying to clarify Mr. Gore's remarks, Mr. Gore said he did not say that, and the Judge laughed and commented on how straight he was shooting.

In terms of the overall gang injunction, while I see the approach the defense is trying to take, and from a political standpoint it may be a good approach. From a legal standpoint it would seem better to go after this case on constitutional grounds--the notion of due process of law still applies here. While it can be argued certainly that the District Attorney's office made a greater effort to notice the affected community than on the first gang injunction, it still seems rather lacking.

On this point, I think Gore's letter is actually far more compelling because it gives us insight into the motivation of Jeff Reisig to really stack the deck against those who would be impacted by the injunction and to prevent them from being able to challenge it.

The Vanguard will continue covering and following the injunction and future court appearances by Rick Gore very closely.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

News and Commentary: Major Hearing of the Gang Injunction Slated For Monday

In a press release issued on Friday, it was announced that on Monday in Woodland, lawyers representing defendants in the controversial West Sacramento "gang injunction" case will argue the court should not allow a Preliminary Injunction in the case as requested by the District Attorney.

A rally will occur among homeowners and community members from West Sacramento at the Yolo County Courthouse on Monday at 1 pm prior to a 1:30 PM hearing where the defense team will attempt to submit more than "100 affidavits from residents of West Sacramento claiming there is no need for the so-called "gang injunction," but the DA is arguing that residents should not be allowed to speak."

The defense will also question the veracity of statements issued by police officers.

"Residents of Broderick, many of them Latino, say the injunction is targeting innocent victims. They have outlined abuses by police, including charges that their families are photographed at picnics in the park, and that their children, while riding home on their bicycles, have been harassed by police."

This will be the first major hearing since a letter from a Senior Investigator from the District Attorney's Office disclosed that the District Attorney Jeff Reisig was dishonest with the court in the first go round of the Gang Injunction and its subsequent court challenges. He also admitted that he was pressured to sign an affidavit in support of the gang injunction this time round.

"As for the current and past Gang Injunction, when gathering intelligence, contacting active members and working with Detective Villanueva, I fully supported these efforts. However, after seeing this become your political benchmark, I have watched this injunction grow into something I did not want to be associated with or a part of, since I felt it had lost its original intent and purpose."

He admits efforts to mislead the appellate court with regard to initial efforts at noticing a single individual who was not high up in the Broderick Boys organization.

"I also feel you misled the appellate court when you argued, as an officer of the court, that serving only one person during the initial injunction was intended to result in the word getting out to the rest of the Broderick Boys. You and I know that the opposite was true and Wolfington was not high up in the organization and was not expected to pass the word to the others."

He also reveals reasons why they selected Mr. Wolfington to notice.

"I remember you telling me that you specifically selected Mr. Wolfington for being a less than “smart person”, you said he was “too stupid” to show up for court, he lived out of the area (in Sacramento) and he would likely not tell anyone."

Rick Gore no longer agrees with the current gang injunction nor does he think it is needed. However, "an affidavit in support of the injunction under penalty of perjury. I did not want to sign it as written since it was not prepared by me and I thought portions of my affidavit were untrue." He signed an affidavit of support for the second gang injunction that is currently in the process of being challenged.

He continues:

"I was called in by DDA Linden a few days later, and was told [Reisig] had ordered me to sign this injunction and I had no choice. Knowing I could be fired for not following this order, I signed it after changing some of the language."

Investigator Gore's acknowledgments call into question the veracity of the gang injunction.

Moreover, the District Attorney's office has always maintained that they have full backing of the public in West Sacramento. Recently those claims at the very least have to be called into question as hundreds of residents have put up signs and walked precincts against the gang injunction. From the start they have claimed that the police department has used the gang injunction to target and harass members of the Latino Community, most of whom have little to do with the Broderick Street Boys street gang.

The District Attorney and other supports have pointed to a fall in crime as a result of the gang injunction. Those are difficult claims to maintain at best, however, it would be interesting to see all evidence laid bare for the public to see. Is there evidence that suggests that the gang injunction works beyond anecdotal rhetoric? Is there evidence that the public in the Broderick Street area--non-gang members--support the gang injunction? Let us see that evidence. I do not mean to suggest that we law enforce by public opinion, however, I have simply grown weary of certain claims made by the District Attorney's office--I simply do not find them credible anymore.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Rick Gore Responds to District Attorney Jeff Reisig's Statement

On Friday, March 7, 2008, the Vanguard received a letter from Senior Investigator Rick Gore of the Yolo County District Attorney's Office. In that letter, Rick Gore accused the District Attorney, Jeff Reisig, of unethical practices relating to several incidents and cases.

Two of the more serious charges includes lying to the Judge during hearings on the gang injunction, and the failure to disclose the results of a gun test during the Halloween Homicide Case.

Jeff Reisig responded by calling the charges "reckless allegations," issuing a full denial, and suggesting that former Deputy District Attorney and candidate for DA in 2006, Pat Lenzi had been responsible for these charges.

"On March 6, 2008, the Yolo County District Attorney's office received notice that former candidate for the office of District Attorney, Patricia Lenzi, and current District Attorney Investigator, Rick Gore, have accused several currently employed prosecutors and investigators, including the District Attorney, of committing unethical acts.

'On behalf of the entire office, including the prosecutors and investigators targeted by these accusations, I deny these false and reckless allegations. I have requested an independent investigation, will be fully cooperative and look forward to the results."

Yesterday for the first time, the Vanguard along with the Davis Enterprise, Woodland Daily Democrat, and Sacramento Bee, has received a statement from Rick Gore.

He writes:

"It is not surprising to me that Mr. Reisig would not admit any wrongdoing. We all see this every day from every politician in a scandal. The rule is “Admit nothing”, “Deny everything”, and “Demand Proof”. After that, the common response is to claim it is politically motivated."

He goes on to argue that it is implausible that he would throw away his longtime law enforcement career based on the grievances of another individual.

"For someone to suggest, that I would throw my law enforcement career away, change my life as I know it and put myself in financial hardship, for someone else’s motivations is ludicrous."

The decision to write a letter was a very difficult one according to Mr. Gore.

"The decision to send this letter was deeply challenging, extremely stressful and one of the most difficult decisions I have made in my life. I made this decision, knowing full well what Mr. Reisig and the people in his inner circle, were capable of doing. I expected to be attacked and to be made the bad guy in this. I did not expect him to blame someone else and use this as an opportunity to take a cheap shot."

He then patently and emphatically denies any involvement of Pat Lenzi.

"For the record, Former DA Lenzi did not write this letter, did not encourage me to send this letter and was in no way responsible for this letter. The decision was mine and mine alone."

He then suggests that the media and investigators ought to look into these charges and then they can determine whether they are really that "reckless."

"I would hope the news media would keep their eye on the ball. This letter is to bring attention to the ethics of DA Reisig. The people of Yolo County need to know who they elected, how he is spending their money and how he is using and or abusing the power they gave him. It is my belief that the DA should be acting in the best interest of the people, not his own best interest.

I find it interesting that Mr. Reisig called my entire letter “reckless allegations”. Being an investigator, I have to think that a worthy reporter would try to confirm one or two facts in the letter. Perhaps a call to Woodland Police to see if a letter was sent by Mr. Reisig stating his authority to send his investigators where he pleased. Or maybe asking the county how many employees have left or been asked to leave since Mr. Reisig’s election."

The Vanguard also spoke with former Deputy District Attorney Pat Lenzi.

"Rick Gore is as honest a man as you will ever meet," she told the Vanguard. "I hope the investigation into Rick's allegations is thorough and professional."

Following Mr. Gore, she also suggested that authorities and the media examine the questions that were raised rather than motivations.

"It is more important to look at the questions Rick has raised and ascertain the level of merit they have than it is to chase after the DAs red herrings. That will only lead you to lose sight of the importance of Rick's actions."

She concludes:

"Rick is willing to put himself out there at risk to his career to do what he firmly believes is the right thing. We can all learn from and maybe even be inspired by his example."

The Pat Lenzi angle never made a lot of sense. Rick Gore was a career law enforcement officer who was two years from retirement. Pat Lenzi was no longer in the chain of command at the Yolo County District Attorney's Office. What benefit was there to Rick Gore to make things up in order to carry the water of an individual who was not in a position to help him? If he was going to act in an unethical manner, why would he not simply carry out the orders of the District Attorney who could give him career advancement?

At the end of the day, I agree with all that we need to let this process play out. We need to have an honest and thorough investigation into the allegations. Stay tuned for the Vanguard as this situation continues to develop.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

County Vows Full and Thorough Investigation

REISIG HAS A PRIOR CASE WHERE HE FAILED TO DISCLOSE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE

The Vanguard spoke briefly yesterday with both Yolo County Supervisor Helen Thomson and Yolo County Supervisor Matt Rexroad regarding Senior Investigator to the District Attorney Rick Gore's letter. Neither could speak about this matter as it is a personnel matter. However, I was able to confirm that there would be a thorough independent investigation into the accusations of wrongdoing leveled at District Attorney Jeff Reisig. Supervisor Rexroad would only state that they will "fully and completely investigate it."

The news coverage of this has so far focused on charges and counter-charges. The District Attorney and his office has tossed aside these allegations and spun them onto former candidate for DA and former Deputy DA Pat Lenzi.

District Attorney Jeff Reisig in his statement to the Davis Enterprise called the allegations "false and reckless." He also vowed to be fully cooperative.

"On March 6, 2008, the Yolo County District Attorney's office received notice that former candidate for the office of District Attorney, Patricia Lenzi, and current District Attorney Investigator, Rick Gore, have accused several currently employed prosecutors and investigators, including the District Attorney, of committing unethical acts.

'On behalf of the entire office, including the prosecutors and investigators targeted by these accusations, I deny these false and reckless allegations. I have requested an independent investigation, will be fully cooperative and look forward to the results."

There has been very little talk about the substance of these allegations. Of particular note is history that suggests at least the plausibility of at least one of the charges.

Rick Gore in his letter, accused the District Attorney of attempting to "hide and conceal discoverable evidence about a material witness."

He writes:

"One major disagreement you and I had was when you tried to hide and conceal discoverable evidence about a material witness and refused to discover evidence during an on-going murder trial.

...

Bruce Naliboff told me, in front of you, to "put a muzzle" on Randy Skaggs for talking about this discovery issue. You and I had extensive email discussion about this. Lt. Skaggs was in the office when Dave Henderson had to order you to comply with the law and therefore discover the evidence. I am sure the date of the gun test and the date of discovery of the report will show the long delay in providing this evidence, shooting and gun test, to the defense."

While District Attorney Reisig denies these allegations as "reckless" and "false," he has had a conviction reversed in part previously for failure to turn over exculpatory evidence.

In early 2007, the Vanguard received court documents about a 1999 case where Reisig had a verdict overturned for failure to disclose exculpatory evidence.

The following is excerpted from the January 17, 2007 Vanguard article:

In 1999, a jury found a Woodland man guilty of using a firearm in the commission of an a threat to commit great bodily harm. The man was sentenced to five years in prison but had that sentence suspended and was placed on probation under a variety of conditions including that he serve 250 days in the county jail.

However, the defendant challenged that sentence on the basis that the prosecution knowingly withheld material exculpatory evidence. Mr. Reisig's defense was that this was inadvertent.

The basic problem was that in this case, the victim never saw a gun when the defendant threatened to shoot her and yet the prosecutors sought a firearm enhancement charge. The jury during the court proceedings twice sent notes to the court concerning the question as to whether the object was actually a firearm (a necessary conditions of this enhancement is that the object actually be a firearm).

One of the key questions that arose after the trial by the jury was whether or not a vehicle had been searched for the gun in question. This only surfaced after the trial in an inadvertent conversation between a juror and Mr Reisig. The juror asked him if the car had ever been searched and Mr. Reisig said that he believed so. The defense attorney came out about the same time and heard that the car had been searched and no gun had been found.

It turns out that the vehicle had indeed been searched and that no gun was found. This information never made it to the jury during the trial. Nor was it given to the defense.

Based on this new evidence, the defense requested a new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence and prosecutorial misconduct--the withholding of exculpatory evidence. The trial judge denied this motion arguing that there was no probability that the jury would have come to a different result "even if this additional information had been presented."

This decision was appealed and the appellate court overturned the ruling and the conviction.

According to the law, the prosecution must disclose evidence favorable to the accused regardless of whether or not the defendant specially requests the evidence.

Moreover, the evidence must specifically be material to case--in the sense that its suppression potentially changes the outcome of the trial. In this case, the victim never saw a gun but only an object and at least one of the jurors questioned whether even the current evidence was sufficient to prove to prove that the defendant actually possessed a gun (a necessary condition for the enhancement).

The judge ruled that "the duty to disclose this evidence was the exclusive responsibility of the prosecution..., whose failure to do so violated defendant's right to due process of law."

"In sum, the prosecutor violated defendant's right to due process by failing to disclose to the defense the existence of material exculpatory evidence pertaining to the issue of whether defendant used a firearm while threatening to shoot the victim."

The judge ordered that the firearm enhancement was to be reversed and a new trial. The prosecution then dropped the firearm charge at the subsequent trial and the defendant was given probation.

This case also came up in a May 31, 2006 Davis Enterprise article following accusations against Pat Lenzi:

"Woodland attorney Larry Cobb described Lenzi as "up front and candid." He said that was not his experience with Reisig several years ago, during a trial in which the defendant was accused of threatening a nightclub bouncer while holding a gun.

According to Cobb, the jury began its deliberations believing police had not searched the defendant's car for gun. The jury convicted the defendant, and while speaking with the jury afterward, Cobb said he overheard Reisig tell jurors there was a vehicle search during which no gun was found. Cobb says he believes Reisig knew that information, potentially favorable toward his client, before the jury received the case.

The case went before the 3rd District Court of Appeal, which Cobb said ordered a new trial on the gun enhancement. The charge was never refiled.

Reisig disputes Cobb's version of events, calling it "outrageous." He said the jury never received information about a vehicle search, though a police officer mentioned while the jury was deliberating the case that police had searched a car and the area around it, but found no weapon.

The appellate court ruling, Reisig said, reflected the court's opinion that the jury was entitled to hear information about the car search in case it would have affected the verdict. He added that there was no finding of intentional misconduct or hiding of evidence, and he declined to refile the gun charge because the defendant was performing well on probation.

"It wasn't the best use of resources to proceed with a new trial for the use of the gun," he said."

While this prior case does not prove that Reisig acted wrongly in the incident referenced in Rick Gore's letter, it does suggest that we need to further scrutinize these allegations because Mr. Reisig does have a history here.

Again, it is our hope that this is investigated fairly and equitably.

In the meantime, Rick Gore would seemingly be protected by California's Whistleblower Protection Laws.

The pertinent California Labor Code Section is 1102.5 where the employer cannot make rules preventing the disclosure of information nor can they retaliate against an employee for disclosing such information.

Section 1103 of the code states, "Any employer who violates this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor ..." Furthermore, Mr. Reisig would be the responsible party here. "The employer is responsible for the acts of his managers, officers, agents, and employees" (Section 1104). Finally, Section 1106 extends the definition of employee to include among other things, county employees.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Both the Davis Enterprise and Woodland Daily Democrat have cited the People's Vanguard of Davis in their reporting on the DA's case

Rumors Swirl Following Letter Accusing District Attorney Reisig of Ethical Breaches

When the Vanguard received and published sections of a letter from Senior County Investigator, Rick Gore on Friday afternoon, little did we realize the political firestorm that would develop as a result of the article.

The Yolo County District Attorney's Office has responded by denying the charges, calling them "reckless allegations," and accusing Mr. Gore of acting on behalf of former District Attorney candidate Pat Lenzi, who previously was a Deputy District Attorney in the office.

The District Attorney's response seems calculated to divert attention away from the REAL story: Are these allegations true? What is the proper course for an investigation of this type of allegation? Who is investigating the allegations?

The Woodland Daily Democrat published a prepared statement from District Attorney Jeff Reisig.

"On behalf of the entire office, including the prosecutors and investigators targeted by these accusations, I deny these false and reckless allegations. I have requested an independent investigation, will be fully cooperative, and look forward to the results of the investigation. Since this is a personnel matter and there is a pending investigation, I cannot comment further."

Accusations tending to divert the course of the investigation, however come from "sources close to the DA's office."

"Sources close to the DA's Office have said, however, that Gore's letter campaign is nothing more than dirty politics engineered behind the scenes by Reisig's former political rival, Patricia Lenzi."

The Woodland Daily Democrat then goes from reporting about the allegations made by Mr. Gore and responded to by Mr. Reisig to another part of their story, much of it based on unidentified sources, rumor and an accusation by Yolo County DA Chief Investigator Pete Martin some of this involving the Vanguard:

"The letter first came to light Friday on a blogsite, The People's Vanguard of Davis, by it's host, David Greenwald.

Greenwald said Gore's letter was sent to him by its author, a 10-year investigator for the Yolo County District Attorney's Office. "

Furthermore, the timing has been linked to the political event my wife, Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald, a candidate for the Davis City Council had at the home of Pat Lenzi. According to rumors desperately being floated by the "sources close to the DA's office" and lacking any truth whatsoever, the release of the letter was specifically timed to coincide with the event on Saturday. Why anyone would do that, is simply beyond me.

The Woodland Daily Democrat however proceeds to print:

"Lenzi recently hosted a coming-out party for Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald to announce her candidacy for the Davis City Council.

Escamilla-Greenwald is wife to the same David Greenwald who first made public the letter on his blogsite."

There are two inaccuracies in the Daily Democrat's article.

First, "Gore is presently on paid administrative leave and could not be reached for comment late Monday."

Gore is in fact on medical leave for stress relating to his present job situation.

Second, "DA Chief Investigator Pete Martin also said Lenzi called the DA's office Friday on "behalf" of Gore promoting his cause."

In fact, Pat Lenzi made no such call to the District Attorney's office.

These allegations coming from the District Attorney's office are largely a political smokescreen designed to distract from the grave allegations against Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig contained in a letter written to him last week by his own Investigator Rick Gore.

Rumors linking Gore's letter to Pat Lenzi and a political fundraiser held at her house are irrelevant at best. The rumors include claims that Lenzi wrote the Gore letter and accompanied Rick Gore to the State Attorney General's Office to make his accusations there.

To check the rumors I contacted Ms. Lenzi directly and here's what I learned:

1) Lenzi committed to the political fundraiser in November 2007;
2) the date of March 8 for the fundraiser was chosen the week of January 12;
3) Lenzi secured Assemblymember Dave Jones' commitment as keynote speaker for the event on January 12;
4) Lenzi had surgery February 29 and was in bed up to the day of the political fundraiser for which she made her home available;
5) Rick Gore called Lenzi last week about the letter he had written and she referred him to lawyers qualified to advise him on the matter; and,
6) Lenzi says she did not write the letter nor did she accompany Gore to the State Attorney General's Office.
7) Lenzi never called the DA's office on Friday, March 7.

Rick Gore sent his letter Wednesday, March 5, 2008, to Reisig, the State Attorney General, the California State Bar Association, the Yolo County Human Resources Department, Yolo County Counsel, Yolo County Supervisors, Yolo County Public Defender's Office, and I trust they will all be compelled to investigate Gore's allegations against Reisig.

Rumors, smokescreens, diversions - including questioning authorship - aside...District Attorney Jeff Reisig has some explaining to do and he'll have to respond to investigations of his alleged misconduct.

Attempting to reduce this situation to rumors and gossip and charges of political motivation are a smokescreen for the real story - serious charges of misconduct by an elected Yolo County official.

The logic here seems lacking to begin with. Rick Gore is an employee with a spotless record, he is the senior investigator in the office, he has spent his entire career in law enforcement, he is just two years away from retirement, so why would he risk such consequences for a political vendetta of another individual? That makes no sense.

Furthermore, Rick Gore supported Mr. Reisig in his election with Ms. Lenzi.

My objection to the news media in general and local news in particular is that far too often they are easily diverted from the crux of an issue.

It would be fairly simple for the news media or investigators to verify claims in this letter. Yet they simply take at face value the claims of the District Attorney.

I do not know to the extent that the allegations are true. However, I become suspicious when instead of clean denials, I see political accusations and subterfuge. Hopefully the proper authorities will thoroughly investigate the matter and we can be confident in the veracity of their findings.

I hope that Yolo County will ask an outside and independent source to head up the investigation, so that it will not be tainted by either politics or agency loyalty.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting