Just heard from the LA Times reporter who wrote about the epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct in California in January. She informed me that she already knew about Giannini being hired by the Bar and plans to write up this in a follow up to the 9th Circuit court hearing where Judge Alex Kozinski "strongly criticized the state attorney general's office for not pursuing a Riverside prosecutor who apparently lied on the witness stand."

Sure hope someone from the Bay area gets on this story as well.

Al Giannini is the only prosecutor that I have written a letter to his boss at the time James P. Fox demanding that he order him to quit lying to the Judge and jury in a triple murder case.

My letter ref. above was hand delivered and stamped received by the District Attorney's Office on March 30, 2005 with copies to the Board of Supervisors, John Maltbie and Thomas Casey III

"Al Giannini is the only prosecutor that I have written a letter to his boss at the time James P. Fox demanding that he order him to quit lying to the Judge and jury in a triple murder case."

Punctuation is your friend.

I get your point - I think.

I heard from Cookie Ridolfi , former head of the Northern California Innocence Project this week. She is up in arms about this. After her study came out in 2010 on prosecutorial misconduct in California , she was encouraged by the efforts of the Bar's Chief Trial Counsel, Jim Towery, to come down hard on prosecutors who committed misconduct.

Alas , Towery resigned in 2010. The story is that he was finding it hard to reform the Bar.

Then Jayne Km, his replacement, made the appalling decision to hire Jim Fox as her consultant! Under Fox's watch at San Mateo DA's office, Giannini committed misconduct multiple times. Another prosecutor was sued for violating Marcy's Law (victim's rights) and later disciplined by the Bar. People only sued and fled complaints with the Bar because Fox and Wagstaffe ignored all complaints.

We also know of a large number of people who have filed Bar complaints against Fox, Wagstaffe, Giannni and a number of other prosecutors in the DA's office. Bar files on his crew have got to be two feet thick!

The administration at the Bar and the investigative unit do not appear to know what the other is doing. With the LA Times and possibly other papers and legal blogs pursuing this, this is not going to look good for the Bar or the San Mateo DA's office.

PS. The Bar sent DA Wagstaffe a warning after he lied to the press about the facts of a defendant's case. Fox was still in charge then.

An attorney posted the entire Los Angeles Daily Journal story about the Bar hiring Gianinni on his Facebook page here. As you can see, the attorney is disgusted by this.

Web Link

The attorney doesn't list the entire article on his Facebook page. Here's what was left out: the Daily Journal reported on February 18, 2015 that interest in Giannini's job with the Bar was sparked when Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals strongly criticized Attorney General Kamala Harris's office for not prosecuting a Riverside prosecutor who had lied on the witness stand. Cookie Ridolfi told the Daily Journal reporter that there was a lot of chatter among lawyers about the Bar hiring Giannini.

Mercury News has just come out with a big story on this; " Prosecutor with Checkered Past is Training Legal Watchdogs"

Web Link

Al Gianni told the jury the Sobe Soda Softdrink bottle was broken in pieces. This bottle was in 2 Sheriff Reports, and 2 deputies testified to it's existence under oath, they never mentioned it was broken. This bottle never made it to court in any condition. I asked the county to tell me what evidence code number it was given….Never got it. Here is my 2nd letter to the County.

Michael G. Stogner

Re: 2nd Request Evidence Code Number assigned to the Sobe Soda Softdrink Bottle on October 9, 2002 by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office. Eddie Rapoza III SC53584A triple murder case.

Michael P. Murphy County Counsel of San Mateo County
Hall of Justice and Records
400 County Center 6th Floor
Redwood City, California, 94063

Mr. Murphy,
This is in response to your letter dated December 12, 2008. Your office was involved it filed a document full of misleading and dishonest statements. Prepared by Carol L Woodward I am confident that you were aware of this, you might not have expected me to be.

Under the Leadership of Sheriff Don Horsley, Detectives Gary Ramos and Joseph Farmer have Identified this object/weapon in their official police reports and have testified to its existence in the Eddie Rapoza III SC53584A triple murder case. DDA Al Gianni even described the bottle as being broken in the Court. As a concerned citizen and resident of San Mateo County I am asking you to supply me with the Evidence code assigned by the San Mateo County Sheriff Office on the date of October 9, 2002. As you are aware I have spoken publicly to the Board of Supervisors objecting to my Sheriff’s Department under the leadership of Don Horsley declaring the Guilt of people before they ever get to a trial. The Sheriff’s department determined that Mr. Rapoza was guilty the day of the incident. Now we have two deputies and the District Attorney’s office describing this bottle in various conditions. This alleged/fabricated bottle was there excuse for re-entering the ICU room, at 8:30PM, ICU rooms don’t have Sobe Bottles in them. That is why you are unable to supply me with the number, there never was one.

You might think filing a false response (1/5/2004 Respondent San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Produce Documents) or Police report and committing perjury in our Courts is OK, I don’t.

I expect honesty and accurate law enforcement reports and testimony in San Mateo County and Our Courts.

Evidence code number please, the one assigned on October 9, 2002

Its time the truth comes out, if it never existed just say so.

Sincerely,


Michael G. Stogner

Bill Keller, former executive of the New York Times ( and who grew up in San Mateo County) now runs the Marshall Project, which investigates problems in the American criminal justice system. The Marshall Project today has just posted a link to the Mercury news story about Al Giannini and the Bar.

Web Link
COMMENTARY

Prosecutors look after themselves, first. A searing look at prosecutorial immunity from Glenn Harlan Reynolds, otherwise known as “Instapundit.” USA TODAYRelated: Why is the “poster boy for misconduct” training other prosecutors? SAN JOSE MERCURY-NEWS

2 of Menlo Voter's posts have been deleted with no record of it.

I think if the Almanac would at least leave the post record up and make it blank, than the readers could see how much editing is done. For example

Menlo Voter

Blank

Menlo Voter

Blank

They keep deleting my posts because I keep pointing out our DA is CORRUPT.

Menlo Voter says "They keep deleting my posts because I keep pointing out our DA is CORRUPT."

You would think that would be what the Almanac should be reporting to the especially when you offer some many examples. It's not a secret.

You would think that would be what the Almanac should be reporting to the readers especially when you offer so many examples. It's not a secret.

You would think that the Almanac and local papers would be reporting on corruption in the DA's office now that places from the opposite end of the country, like the Marshall Project in New York City, run by the former executive of the New York Times are starting to take notice of what's going on in San Mateo County.

Here is a letter to the Supervisors of San Mateo County, 2005

He is talking about Al Giannini

Web Link

Sounds like Mr. Rapossa had incompetent counsel. He should have been able to appeal his conviction based on that alone.

Well, anyone in California who is a victim of prosecutorial misconduct who goes looking for sympathy from AG Kamala Harris shouldn't bother. There is a lot of buzz in the press today about a Kern County, California prosecutor who FABRICATED A CONFESSION from the defendant. The prosecutor later ADMITTED to falsifying the confession. But Attorney General Harris's office defended him on the grounds, well, putting the fake confession into the case wasn't that outrageous because it wasn't as if the prosecutor had committed brutality.

From a legal expert in USA Today today: "Prosecutors Protect Themselves First"

Web Link

Excerpts:

In the course of negotiating a plea bargain with the defendant, a Kern County prosecutor committed what the California appeals court called "outrageous government misconduct."

What prosecuting attorney Robert Murray did was produce a translated transcript of the defendant's interrogation to which he had added a fraudulent confession....

When the trial judge found out, charges against the defendant were dismissed. Incredibly, the State of California, via Attorney General Kamala Harris, decided to appeal the case. The state's key argument: That putting a fake confession in the transcript wasn't "outrageous" because it didn't involve physical brutality, like chaining someone to a radiator and beating him with a hose.

___

Thankfully, the appeals court did NOT agree with Harris's office's bogus argument and the defendant was set free.

The California Bar is now working on disbarring the prosecutor. But he is STILL working for the Kern County DA

a fraudulent confession.

San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Joseph Farmer confessed for Eddie Ropaza III because he got tired of Eddie saying it was an accident my foot got stuck.

The alleged confession on SMSO tape recorder is in Joe Farmers voice, not Eddie's and he refused to sign the confession.

Welcome to San Mateo County, and a Big thank you to concerned citizen around America.

What's the story? Web Link

Menlo Voter says

"Sounds like Mr. Rapossa had incompetent counsel. He should have been able to appeal his conviction based on that alone."

He tried he lost, looks like prison for life

Jack asks a Great question, "What's the story? Web Link"

All I can say about this latest article is it's simply strange. To dismiss the obvious and grab one piece of evidence that really didn't carry much weight in the overall picture.

Strange is all I can say.

Here's some more information.
Web Link

Jack, that is very interesting the Michael Zerbe was mentioned in that brief because he was never called as a witness in the trial even though he was the only eye witness and he saved Eddie Rapoza III life by pulling him out of the ocean and he removed Eddie's wife and daughter from the wrecked van by cutting the seat belts with a knife thrown down by a SMSO deputy and carried them to the beach.

San Mateo County has a Private Defender Program not Public Defender Program. We are the only County out of 58 with such a program.

Bear in mind that there are dozens of cases- less high profile but still just as important- that were prosecuted by Giannini that need to be reviewed. I can think of a few off the top of my head... the Quincy Dean Norton case, for one. Giannini's behind the scene work on that case is VERY interesting, to say the least.

Don't forget District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe contacting the America's Most Wanted to report that Victor Willis was a failure to appear in drug court one day. Mr. Wagstaffe starred in that show.

Mr. Stogner: That's hilarious. Mr. Wagstaffe really does pick and choose the cases he wants to publicize, often with no rhyme or reason.

Kind of small town of him to go after Mr. Willis.

Michael said: "Jack, that is very interesting the Michael Zerbe was mentioned in that brief because he was never called as a witness in the trial..." The link I provided,Web Link
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 1/26/11. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2011) states that Zerbe was called by the prosecution and cross-examined thoroughly by defense counsel. Is that document falsified?
Do you have a transcript of the trial?

Michael Zerbe testified at a preliminary hearing and after he testified that he pulled Eddie Rapoza III from the ocean he untangled a strap from his foot the strap was connected to a six pack size cooler blue nylon cooler.

After that he was removed from the witness list and never testified in front of the Jury.

I don't have transcript, but I'll post his letter to Supervisors.

Mike Zerbe letter October 26, 2005
Web Link

Many other sites have picked up the Giannini/California Bar story, including the National Law Journal


Ethics: The California state bar is drawing criticism over the attorney the group picked to lead training, the San Jose Mercury News reports. "He's like the poster boy of misconduct," one lawyer told the news outlet. Alfred Giannini, the former prosecutor who’s the target of the criticism, defended his record. "It's troubling that the people who claim to be in the ethics business are as careless with the facts as they seem to be," he said.


Read more: Web Link

Michael, if the below excerpt from the U.S. District Court ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS has been falsified, it should be challenged.Web Link

EXCERPT:
"Petitioner claims that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to call eyewitness Michael Zerbe on behalf of the defense. The claim is without merit.
The record reveals that petitioner’s claim has no factual merit. Mr. Zerbe did in fact testify at petitioner’s trial on March 3, 2005 (Exh. 3 at 1404-32). While he was called as a prosecution witness, defense counsel took the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Zerbe. Ibid.
Furthermore, defense counsel did question Mr. Zerbe about the blue bag that he pulled from petitioner’s foot. Specifically, Mr. Zerbe testified:
I looked down, and I seen something tugging on [petitioner’s]
foot, and there was a blue bag looped over his foot. So I took it
off because I thought the waves going in and out was hurting his
foot so I took it off his foot. (id. at 1420). Mr. Zerbe testified that he threw the bag aside and did not recall pointing it out to anyone (id. at 1421). Defense counsel went on to elicit more details about the blue bag, and Mr. Zerbe testified that it was a nylon blue soft cooler, “big enough for a six [p]ack” (id. at 1426). It was flexible and had a strap (ibid.). The strap was not twisted around petitioner’s foot but rather, was just looped around, making it easy to pull off (id. at 1427).
During cross-examination, Mr. Zerbe also testified that when he reached petitioner after the accident, petitioner stated more than once that his “foot was stuck” (id. at 1419-1421). Mr. Zerbe also testified that petitioner had called out for his wife, wanted to be next to her, and put
his arm around her on the beach (id. at 1424-1425). After a review of the record, the court finds that defense counsel’s examination of Mr. Zerbe at trial was thorough and competent and accordingly, did not fall below the Strickland standard of objective reasonableness.
Furthermore, defense counsel presented expert testimony to show how the accident could have happened under petitioner’s story that his foot was stuck. Specifically, the defense called Richard Allen Schmidt, a psychologist with a specialization in “human factors,” which he
described as essentially the same as ergonomics (Exh. 3 at 2665-66). Mr. Schmidt testified, based on his own physical study of the vehicle, that there was a way in the particular make and model of the van, for one’s foot to become entangled between the brake and the accelerator pad, while wearing the shoes that petitioner was wearing (Exh. 3 at 2677-78, 2696-97, 2725-27).

Jack, Mr. Zerbe did in fact testify at petitioner's trial on March 3, 2005 (Exh. 3 at 1404-32). While he was called as a prosecution witness, defense counsel took the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Zerbe. Ibid.
Furthermore, defense counsel did question Mr. Zerbe about the blue bag that he pulled from petitioner's foot. Specifically, Mr. Zerbe testified:

No Jury on March 3, 2005. Mr. Zerbe was called as a prosecution witness Why?
Private Defender Program put on a good show and don't call the only eyewitness.
Mr. Zerbe was removed from the witness list after that. He never testified in from of the Jury.

He never testified in front of the jury.

I'm confused. What do you mean "No jury on March 3, 2005? Did they remove the jury from the courtroom?
Where is the prosecutorial misconduct by Giannini in this case?