Roy, The Reluctant DA
The other day FFFF had representation in the comments section of from “Roy,” in a post about – Roy. He’s a reasonable sounding fellow who claimed to be the jury foreman on the Kelly Thomas murder case, and who also got a ration of shit on the John and Ken radio program as he defended his work on the jury that exonerated the cops who baited, harassed, and killed a schizophrenic homeless man.
When asked (by me) if he had ever worked for the DA Roy said that he had completed the District Attorney’s TAP program, a gig that takes civil lawyers and immerses them in the DA culture for a couple of months. Roy noted that this relationship had been disclosed during the voir dire of the jury selection process.
Well, this got me thinking of the completely inappropriate placement of a juror who had received psychological indoctrination into the mindset of the prosecution apparatus. But it also made me wonder about the defense attorneys who accepted Roy and the possible reasons for their approbation.
One of the very first things they must teach in TAP to would-be prosecutors, is that to get ahead in that line of work you need convictions; and the cops are the guys whose testimony will get you convictions. The abstract concept of justice doesn’t come within a million miles of the equation. If justice is done, well, what a happy coincidence! Therefore, a virtually complete trust must be given to whatever the police have done, or, to be more accurate, what they say they have done. And if you are a defense attorney representing cops, what better sort of chap to have on your jury; and better still if this guy gets himself appointed foreman.
But what about the Tony Rackauckas? Did the DA believe that Roy was possibly a reliable vote for conviction given his prior TAP relationship? Of course it’s possible that both these potential prosecution and defense motives are accurate, which would explain Roy’s presence on the jury.
On the other hand, there has been a lot of speculation that DA Tony Rackauckas intentionally boobed the case by charging the wrong persons with the wrong crimes; and that he also blew it by trying the case himself, even though he hadn’t personally prosecuted a case in decades.
And then it hit me. Maybe both sides wanted Roy on the jury for the same qualification: a person able to grasp the big picture, that is, a subliminal or maybe even overt desire to protect a system in which the prosecutors and cops exist in a symbiotic relationship where convictions mean everything, and neither are held responsible for arresting and prosecuting the wrong people and gathering information any way they can get it.
Well, there it is. Have at it.
That’s pretty strange. I would have thought a guy who went to little prosecutor school would be an automatic boot by a defense lawywr.
Not if the fix was in.
Some states don’t even allow lawyers to sit on juries at all.
The fact that this particular trial had TWO lawyers on the jury (John Barnett bragged about it) and that one of them was connected to the DA is very suspicious.
The prosecution of law enforcement faces systemic problems. The Thomas case added some magnifiers
…I noticed that after my last post (below) to “Roy” the other day, that he never had he never responded back?
Fullerton Lover
February 4, 2017 at 7:47 AM
I noticed in this tape of the “vegetable garden” of OC jurors selected for the Kelly Thomas trial, that one of the jurors was smiling and laughing afterwords?
Roy was that you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwwx4OWwFOI
Reply
Roy
February 4, 2017 at 9:16 AM
No, I’m not in the video. By the way, this clip was not “after” the verdict as most people claim. It was during a break well before we even began deliberations. I can assure you that each member of that jury took this very seriously and understood the weight of their responsibility.
Reply
Fullerton Lover
February 4, 2017 at 10:52 AM
Roy,
You can “assure’ me all you want, however it doesn’t mean that I buy your BS.
You also said that you worked for free for Tony Rawcockupmyass’s office for two weeks as a visiting prosecuting attorney.
Yet here you are still telling people that the jury took this very seriously, yet as I recall, the jury deliberations took less than one day?
I think you’re starting to believe your own BS.
Reply
…I wanted to ask him:
A) clarify that I meant to say that he had spent two MONTHS and NOT two weeks in the OCDA’s Trial Attorney Partnership Program prosecuting cases on his own.
B) ask Roy if for parity’s sake, does the OCDA has a similar program for the Public Defender’s office, where it would seem that the REAL need for trail attorney’s would truly exist, so that defendants charged with a crime who cannot afford legal representation?
Seems like the resources that the government has available to prosecute would be the LAST place that we would need additional attorneys if we are all truly interested in seeing that justice prevails for an individual with scant resources to defend themselves from a herd of high priced attorneys.
A city attorney for Brea was seated on a jury several years ago; not sure if it was a civil or criminal case
Roy!
http://m.imgur.com/gallery/6iTUK
” desire to protect a system in which the prosecutors and cops exist in a overt relationship”….Bingo! The hostility could be felt from radiating from the investigating parties by at least one of the witnesses from the beggining. Assitant DA S. Berry Walking away from an interview at 3:00 that was supposed to start at three 3:00, luckily he was stopped on the way back to the parking lot . A gross misrepresentation of the witness being interviewed in the deposition statement. Tony R. asking seemingly very non essential questions at a second interview before asking with what seemed a slight smirk somepthing to the effect,..so were they hitting him in the face, then the interview ended. Didn’t understand.. why an important interviewer would put words in your mouth..And lastly a staff picture of the Fullerton PD on the wall in Stans office sort of got me thinking.
I was also contacted by OCDA Investigator Stan Berry, and had a very similar experience as Streets of Fullerton.
That point in time is when I knew that this trial was nothing more than a charade for the masses who still believe in justice.
I was approached by Stan Berry one evening at the Transportation Center. This was right after we found out he was best pals with Sellers. I told him to go screw himself into the ground.