Shrugging off Jury Duty? County to issue warrants for repeat offenders. +California Judicial Council may respond Mendocinocoast.news’s criticisms

Mendocino County will begin arresting residents who repeatedly fail to appear for jury duty, according to Court Executive Kim Turner in a statement to Mendocinocoast.news. Due to a low juror turnout, a new system has been implemented that may require significantly more travel for those summoned. The new system makes it much more likely that a Fort Bragg juror will need to drive to Ukiah for jury duty and vice versa. Prospective jurors from Westport going to Ukiah are now equally likely to pass a prospective juror from Hopland coming to serve in Fort Bragg. Turner explains:

“We changed our jury system from regional (coastal and inland) to combine the entire county for two reasons.  1) We were the only court in CA that had a regional pool.  All other courts summon from the entire county population.  2) Our juror “no show” rate has been very high since COVID.  We are actually implementing a Juror Failure to Appear program in which jurors who have disregarded our summons repeatedly will have to come before a judge to explain why they have not appeared to serve.  We hope our juror appearance rates will improve by summoning from the entire county.”

As a member of the news media, I have taken part in many initiatives to encourage jury participation. 

The courts are now actively obstructing objective observation, offering no justification. By outsourcing access to a private vendor and imposing stiff double fees, they effectively shielding the courts from criticism by third parties, ranging from the Innocene Project to the person who suspects someone may have murdered a family member.  If jurors are expected to serve under these conditions, shouldn’t they receive a fair share of the spoils? $100 per day, at minimum?

Here is the story we published on this issue, where we sharply criticize the California Judicial Council for creating two tiers of public access, one for lawyers and one for the general public.

No explanation has been given for this policy, yet those of us now treated as second-class citizens are now being charged substantial fees to read court files (NOT CALENDARS).       

I am not a lawyer. I’ve reached out to several attorneys and received three responses so far – all three expressed concern that the policy violates the spirit of the Constitution, although they also believe it’s a legal battle we’re unlikely to win.  In our system, money and power often prevail – even when guilt is evident – while the disadvantaged sometimes face prison despite their innocence.  I have witnessed this imbalance time and time again – justice favoring the powerful, punishing the vulnerable. Rarely have I seen it work in reverse. 

The California Judicial Council’s apparent failure to recognize that “separate but equal” is inherently unequal speaks volumes, unless they offer a compelling justification. To that end and to my surprise, I received a response from the California Judicial Council. Years ago, I tried reaching out half a dozen times, often with multiple calls and no reply. This time, after one unanswered call on Monday, I followed up with an email.   To my surprise, on Friday, I got a response from Merrill Balassone of the Judicial Council’s media relations team. She offered to help track down more information.

Hopefully we can get at least an answer as to why the California Judicial Council in a time when social justice is on the agenda wish to prevent anyone from observing the courtroom and go so far as to say that the counties need not provide ANY access to public records if its not “feasible” to do so.  The computer system was inaccessible to me to buy documents for its first 11 months before the problem was fixed. Without actual files, injustice cannot be challenged and innocence projects could not free the wrongly convicted.

Many people have been confused by my story – understandably, it’s long.  But let me be clear: this is NOT about the calendar. I say that four times in the piece.  People look up the calendar, see it’s still online, and assume the story is wrong.  It’s not.  This is about access to case files – the only source of real information – being so restricted that we can’t reliably report when someone is found innocent, unless we simply trust the press release machine.  

Our court system is always like all things Democratic, it only works as well as people can participate – and now its gears are hidden from public view. Mendocinocoast.news presents my most important story of the year Justice In The Shadows: how an unconstitutional move by the California Judicial Council has ended public access to innocent verdicts and dismissed charges.   

In my career I have seen the media in California courts uncover the truth about four people – not just “not guilty” but completely innocent.  They were victims of circumstance, not crime.  None of that would ever have happened without an objective third party reading files. And I’ve seen firsthand how some district attorneys abuse their authority.  

When I was in Yubaland, a sheriff’s deputy murdered his girlfriend but the courts there would not try him. After reviewing court files and police reports, 60 Minutes featured the case and the California Attorney General watched the news and relocated the case to Central California where that murderous deputy was tried and convicted, using the testimony of another deputy.  The second, honest deputy was arrested and tried on every possible trumped up charge in Sutter, Yuba and Butte counties. 

How can I say that?  We all saw it and were rightly scared. A federal judge wrote about it in the honest deputy’s suit, saying the law enforcement systems in all three counties were a dark world and excoriating the total failure of justice there. This would never have been exposed had 60 Minutes not had open access to court files.  I only use the example from long ago and not very far away in California courts for the same reason Shakespeare set Hamlet in Denmark, not England. “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark” Come – Come  Let’s not be beheaded!

The Innocence Project, which fights to release people wrongly convicted has gotten 253 people exonerated and released. More were innocent but not exonerated. In 50 cases, they did this by reviewing court files and using the files to show the conviction was wrong, with no help from the likes of DNA evidence.  Although the California Judicial Council thinks the press and public do not need any access to court files, the fact is justice is unequal. The sick, the confused and the poor have a very tough time fighting back.  They are easily convicted when nobody is watching.  Fear and distrust of the legal system grows in the dark. And it should!  

Here is another point.  All mug shots have been banned by a court ruling for a year.  This time, Mendocinocoast.news is all for restricting something from the public. Mug shots aren’t probative. There is a very strong restorative justice reason not to have mug shots out there for anything but the most extreme crime and for organized cime. They don’t help the media watch the courts. They are instead fodder for online trolls on ogglers.

Releasing all mug shots, which was done until 2024 is horrible and unnecessary. We can almost always get them but we dont use them.  Except once, when lots of people were confusing the arrested guy with other people and there is much more there.  But the obedient media has no mug shots anymore, which is GREAT!!  But they get them for inexplicable reasons at time from the court system.

Once we issued a lawsuit threat to the county and a CPRA for that one case we felt a mug shot was needed. Then we withdrew it when we got the photos another way.  I did not wish to be giving lazy fellow reporters mug shots to splash all over without spending the least bit of energy doing so, and destroying many lives. People arrested in the days when every mug shot was published still can’t get work, no matter how minor the crime might have been.  So mug shots are now virtually absent. Virtually but not entirely.

 This week, this man had his mug shot sent out by law enforcement, Patrick Painter. Patrick was convicted of traffic crimes. I can’t get mug shots of people conviced of major felonies but we get this guy? Yes, this man was a menace to humanity behind the wheel and was convicted of DUI  more than once. He also led police on a 100 mph chase and was convicted of .30 blood level , more than 3x the legal limit.  But was he worthy of a mug shot being all over everywhere?  He is an out-of-control alcoholic who kept turning off the machine that was supposed to keep the car from working and was convicted on several charges just for that. Make a better machine?  Give him an even longer sentence unless he agrees to two years of involuntary rehab first. These may have been options, but I doubt it and we will never know with court files off limits.

Since mug shots are illegal for law enforcement to share unless they deem it necessary, there should be a standard of when they should be made public, as we can’t read the files anymore.  This guy is of to prison for a 4 year year stint, which the obedient media is trumpeting, as they do all convictions, never reviewing them.  Why put his photo out there?  Im omitting his photo but you can get it on all the press releases sites if you need to oggle.

Here are my ideas for a standard:

1.Anyone authorities are searching for, such as escapees or people fleeing the scene or just ill people

2. Anyone about to be released from prison whom victims might have reason to fear. Megan’s Law covers this for sex offenders.   

3. Anyone who might have additional victims. This is a decision law enforcement should actually advise the media on.  I have seen such pleas result in delusional people claiming to be victims.

4. People on trial facing possible life terms, such as those accused of murder

5. Those accused of white collar crimes involving a conspiracy

That is about it. The courts are not really subject to discussion or public input anymore, nor for viewing of records they agree are public. Maybe we need new classes of public records?

The tides may shift, the headlines may change, but one thing remains constant: this coast thrives on connection.  Mendocinocoast.news isn’t just a platform – but a living archive of voices, visions and values. Do you agree with what we are doing Here, every comment here carries weight.  It’s not just feedback, it’s participation. It’s legacy. 

 We would love to hear from you. Comments on Mendocinocoast.news are worth a thousand  facebook likes – It helps shape the next chapter in our shared story.

Join the dialogue. Share your truth.  Help us build a more connected coast.