The Nov. 20 Free Lance contained a letter allegedly written
by
”
Sara Jones.
”
In the letter, Ms. Jones stated she was an office assistant in
the District Attorney’s Office and complained that prior to the
arrival of the new District Attorney,
”
there had been a backload of cases
”
and
”
it was difficult to do our jobs because our former boss knew he
would shortly be working with the opposite side.
”
Dear Editor:
The Nov. 20 Free Lance contained a letter allegedly written by “Sara Jones.” In the letter, Ms. Jones stated she was an office assistant in the District Attorney’s Office and complained that prior to the arrival of the new District Attorney, “there had been a backload of cases” and “it was difficult to do our jobs because our former boss knew he would shortly be working with the opposite side.”
This is a complete lie and fabrication. No person named Sara Jones ever worked or now works for the District Attorney’s Office. Cases are not backlogged. My policy was to have cases reviewed and charged as soon as all relevant evidence was obtained.
Knowing that there was to be a transition in administrations, I offered to meet with Mr. Sarsfield to discuss the transition as well as several other matters. Mr. Sarsfield refused to meet with me one on one and stated he would only meet with me at the Sheriff’s Office and only in the presence of Sheriff Hill.
This was certainly strange as I have never heard of having a transition meeting in the presence of another department head. Needless to say, the meeting never took place.
One purpose of the meeting was to discuss Mr. Sarsfield’s anticipated policy regarding review and charging. I informed the staff that since the last six weeks of cases could not possibly be disposed of during my administration, and not knowing what Mr. Sarsfield’s position would be, that it would be better to concentrate on closing out pending cases and let the new administration determine their own policy regarding charging. We continued to charge all serious crimes and in-custody matters.
The total number of cases was certainly a lot fewer than Mr. Sarsfield has tried to intimate. Mr Sarsfield, in his report, stated it took him about eight months to complete review of these matters. Yet in his 60 day report to the Board of Supervisors on March 11, 2003, Mr. Sarsfield stated he was done with his review of the “backlog.” Given the fact that he personally chooses to review each case rather than assigning cases to attorneys in his office could explain why it took him 60 days to review the matters.
As to Ms. Jones’ other statement about my anticipation in working on the “opposite side,” I can only respond by saying that during the final months in office, I personally prosecuted two high profile first degree murder cases and one vehicular manslaughter all of which resulted in convictions.
Further, I supervised prosecution of two high profile civil cases that yielded judgements of over $1 million. They were in addition to my other duties.
Unlike Mr. Sarsfield, I did not complain about a shortage of attorney resources, but took on a caseload myself. I served the citizens of this community in public service for over 23 years and I strongly resent Mr. Sarsfield and his supporters using cheap tricks such as this to attack my record. It is a misdemeanor to use a false name in submitting a letter to the editor. Perhaps the District Attorney should investigate that.
Harry J. Damkar,
Hollister
