“What are you thinking?”
It’s a question a lot of people are asking while talking about the actions of District Attorney David Brower. Brower’s first year in office has been marked by some controversial decisions.
Serious sexual abuse charges were dropped against a former police officer accused of, and indicted for child molestation. Those counts were dropped not just against the alleged victim’s will but without even a heads-up to her attorney. It was a lousy 18th birthday present for a young woman whose life was already turned upside down to be revictimized by the court system.
Brower did come around and get a stronger plea deal, again with no sex-related charges, only after a member of Brian Ervin’s family came to Juneau to testify that Ervin had molested him when he was a child. Brower has consistently refused to explain his reasoning.
A few weeks ago the D.A. tried to charge an 18-year-old man from Hoonah for having and distributing child pornography — an inappropriate photo his 17-year-old girlfriend had sent him via cell phone before they broke up. Bad judgment to share that photo? Yes. Kiddie porn monger? No. Inexplicable decision by the D.A. to go for the jugular? Definitely. The eight counts of possession and two counts of distribution of child pornography would have meant some serious jail time.
“Upon further review, it didn’t meet the statutory requirements for child pornography,” the D.A. said after dropping the charges. That determination should have been made before an 18-year-old was publicly charged with a horrible crime.
There are more examples, but the biggest and most recent legal travesty to roll down the courthouse steps is a charge of domestic violence assault against a man who accidentally shot his brother in the leg last year while disassembling a recently purchased and unfamiliar firearm in a car. Great bodily injury resulted. This is not only a family tragedy but a case of very bad judgment that could have gone even worse.
Misconduct with a firearm? Maybe. But calling this accident a domestic violence assault cheapens the actual crime of domestic violence, a crime so serious Gov. Sean Parnell has been running a high profile “Choose Respect” campaign against real domestic violence for some time now.
Brower has repeatedly said he can’t talk about ongoing cases, and even suggested that witness Darcy Ervin, whose father was offered that one-year plea deal when sex crime charges vanished, shouldn’t have talked about that case either before sentencing.
It’s time for the district attorney to start talking about the reasoning behind some of these odd decisions to prosecute or, in the Ervin case, to cut a deal. It’s starting to look like the wheels of justice are attached to a runaway train, and the risk that innocent people might get in the way has been demonstrated.
Comments (35)
Add comment@ Puffin--aptly named
Rather smug and sanctimoneous defense of Brower--I doubt you're a defense attorney; most likely work in the DA's office. Your holier-than-thou tone isn't doing Brower any favors either--as if citizens can waltz into the DA's Office (isn't that floor blocked from public access anyway?) and demand a look at their files to "review" all the documents you listed in your last post.
There's a vast difference in a DA saying "I can't discuss this case," as you point out a good DA doesn't try his case in the media; and a DA who says he "doesn't need to explain himself" which is the epitome of arrogance.
People question Brower's reason for pursuing questionable cases/plea deals as many of us posting here feels it demonstrates questionable judgment on Brower's part--particularly if the ADAs are overworked and understaffed.
Puffin has a point
And it's fair to demand the same level of transparency from the Empire editors as they're demanding from the DA.
What background research did you do to support the editorial you wrote? Bold positions require solid foundations. What's yours?
A test of conjecture versus facts
I like that, No Doubt. Your comment about 'aptly named.' That same phrase is -- no doubt! -- accurate about you, I assume.
I assume you have no doubt that, as you opined based on your lack of doubt and firmly held belief in a vacuum, that instead of being a defense attorney as I so clearly stated, I work for the district attorney's office. In other words, based on your observation of my words, you accuse me of lying about who I am. It is a classic ad hominem attack.
Here is the test, and it epitomizes the very discussion in which we engage: You have staked your position about your case (that I work for the DA's office and am not an adversarial defense attorney, based on belief.) I, by contrast, have stated what I claim are facts.
We can present our separate and contradictory cases to, say, a group of 12 impartial citizens. If I work for the DA's office, or something remotely similar, I stand convicted and will do four years in prison. If I am a defense attorney, then you lose and do the four years.
Before you pack your bags -- which is what the result would be -- I suggest you re-evaluate your thinking processes. It goes to the very heart of this matter, one in which good citizens like yourself read a few newspaper articles written by reporters who don't do a thorough job of investigative journalism, and you come to a conclusion that has very little foundation in complex reality.
You jumped to a conclusion about me based not only on scant evidence ... but no evidence. That I support Brower and laud his work doesn't fit your preordained expectations, and thus you claim I must be lying about my perspective. Instead of accepting that I have been his adversary for quite a few years, you simply change the facts and claim I must be working for the DA's office.
You, like some others with equally narrow minds, see witches where there are none. You have no doubt, No Doubt, because your restricted belief system allows none, not because it doesn't exist.
Actually - I think it's
Actually - I think it's reasonable that PP is a PD. And maybe this is starting to make sense. Her butt-kissing toward the DA may explain how this deal was reached in the first place. She's probably just fully relieved that her client basically got off, so of course she's going to praise the DA.
As for the DA's lack of explanation: maybe we, as the public, do not deserve any explanation. After all, it was none of our business until the Empire made it our business. But Darcy sure as hell deserves an explanation.
she absolutely does
Amen, SueDoeNimby, Amen