In what has to be the most ridiculous turn of events ever, Judge Fuchs dismissed the case against the raging grannies in court just now, because the District Attorney’s office subpoened the cops to appear tomorrow, rather than today. The DA moved for the trial to proceed tomorrow, but there has to be a very good reason to delay a trial, and incompetence isn’t one of them.

District Attorney Mike Schrunk says: “If the trial was set to go to trial today and we weren’t prepared, then it should be dismissed.”

I asked DA Schrunk if he expects a general level of competence from his deputy DA’s, including scheduling appearances by cops correctly. He said our information on this case was more current than his, and that he’d have to get back to us.

So I asked whether this appearance of incompetence on behalf of the DA’s office might, in fact, be a convenient way for the DA’s office to get out of trying a politically controversial case..that it doesn’t look good to prosecute aging protesters, and so on. But if they’ve committed a crime, I pondered, shouldn’t they be brought to justice?

“I’m sorry, I missed you,” Schrunk said. “I was doing something else.”

I bet you were, Mike. I bet you were.

UPDATE, 11:01am: Schrunk called back and put me in touch with Senior Deputy DA Jeff Howes, in charge of misdemeanor prosecution at his office. Howes said the trial was originally scheduled, on May 29, for 6/9/08, but that someone had also scheduled the trial for 6/10/08, and that the Police Bureau’s computer picked the second date, automatically. So, it was all the result of a computer error…
2001_a_space_odyssey_hello_dave.jpg
HAL 9000: Meting out Portland’s Justice since 2001…

Howes didn’t know who, exactly, had entered the wrong date on the computer system, but he was sure of one thing: “It’s not the fault of the District Attorney’s office,” he said.

On the other hand, “It is the responsibility of the DA’s office to have its witnesses ready for trial,” Howes admits.

Asked about the amount of taxpayers’ money wasted in the case, Howes said “that’s the phrase that gets tossed around a lot when a case gets dismissed.”

He added: “We try to walk the line of upholding the law and prosecuting violations and crimes. Doing so, sometimes, people who are protesting are charged with violations and crimes. It appears that sometimes their goal is to be charged with violations and crimes as a way to draw attention to their cause. We’re not just playing along, but we can’t pick and choose which people to prosecute and which people not.”

Again, I asked if the computer error was convenient.

“It’s not convenient,” he said. “It’s inconvenient. I think these issues are best aired in the trial proceeding.”

So do I. It’s better for democracy. Still, GREAT NEWS FOR THOSE WHO LIKE THEIR JUSTICE FUDGED, TODAY.

Matt Davis was news editor of the Mercury from 2009 to May 2010.

7 replies on “Raging Grannies: Case Dismissed, Owing to DA’s Incompetence A “Computer Error””

  1. Wait…”we can’t pick and choose which people to prosecute and which people not”??? Isn’t that a major component of a DA’s job?

  2. That’s a funny way to phrase it – “violations and crimes” – because what the DA’s office did is reduce what should have been misdemeanor crimes (offenses for which the penalty is a year or less in jail) to violations (in which no jail is possible on their own discretion!

    The result of this is that no lawyers were appointed for the grannies and so they are forced to defend themselves or hire attorneys. In this case some kind lawyers volunteered to help them. But such a reduction is in fact a tactical decision on the part of the DA to avoid both a jury and a lawyer.

    Let’s be honest. Really the DA does decide what to charge and how to charge it.

    [As a semi-related aside: It is funny how the DA doesn’t think that issues around police behavior or police killings of unarmed civilians “are best aired in the trial proceeding” ]

  6. Whoever’s pretending to be a cat: You’re upsetting me. It’s upsetting. Please stop. I take your comments as emotionally hostile. They hurt me. Please stop.

  7. Way to kickass Bonnie!

    This seems like a 5-way victory:

    #1 briefly stopping the tank

    #2 media coverage bringing light to the issue of tanks as a part of a parade in a time of war

    #3 having lawyers like Stu Sugarman and Thaddeus Betz step up to defend the grannies pro bono

    #4 winning (even on a technicality) so you have more time to fight the good fight

    #5 fewer tax dollars spent

    btw, do we usually have tanks in the Rose Parade?

Comments are closed.