Harry Damkar tried to restrain himself while his successor as
district attorney criticized his former management of the
office.
His frustration has mounted since District Attorney John
Sarsfield’s election in November 2002
– Damkar did not run for re-election.
He has absorbed flak from Sarsfield about an alleged backlog of
cases, and an investigation into a former office inspector’s
conduct. Sarsfield claims it could lead to re-trials of 57
high-profile convictions since 1984.
Harry Damkar tried to restrain himself while his successor as district attorney criticized his former management of the office.
His frustration has mounted since District Attorney John Sarsfield’s election in November 2002 – Damkar did not run for re-election.
He has absorbed flak from Sarsfield about an alleged backlog of cases, and an investigation into a former office inspector’s conduct. Sarsfield claims it could lead to re-trials of 57 high-profile convictions since 1984.
“I’ve sat back, I probably shouldn’t have,” Damkar said. “But I did, hoping maybe he would start doing his job and stop attacking me.”
Damkar spoke out this week, he said, after reading “The D.A.’s Report to the Community” published as an advertisement in The Pinnacle. In the address, Sarsfield blasted Damkar, stating it took eight months to work through the alleged backlog.
Damkar said Sarsfield has grossly distorted the facts.
“It’s just another misstatement,” Damkar said. “And I’m tired of him slamming my 23-year tenure.”
He went on to call Sarsfield’s comments, “an excuse why he’s not getting the job done in his office.”
Sarsfield this week responded to Damkar firing back, saying he doesn’t care how Damkar feels about the criticism.
“I really don’t care if he’s happy with it or not,” Sarsfield said. “If I thought he was doing a good job, I would have never run for office.”
Of the 23 years Damkar spent in the office, he was the district attorney – the county’s head prosecutor – for the last 19 years of that span. Damkar made a run at the Superior Court bench in 2000, but lost to Steven Sanders.
Damkar decided against running for re-election as district attorney, he said, largely to exit the lifestyle of holding a public office. He endorsed Sarsfield’s opponent, Arthur Cantu, in the latter stages of the race for district attorney.
During his final year in the office, Damkar said he did not shirk his duties. He pointed out how he personally prosecuted two high-profile murder cases, both of which resulted in convictions.
“So I couldn’t have been too concerned about having one foot out the door,” Damkar said.
He further disputed Sarsfield’s claims about a backlog, saying there was not an “undue number of cases” awaiting the new district attorney in January.
The way Sarsfield has touted the backlog, Damkar quipped, flailing his arms in the air, “I picture this room with boxes of thousands of files.”
Damkar also mentioned Sarsfield’s appearance at the Board of Supervisors meeting March 11 – three months into his tenure – when Sarsfield announced he would soon complete the cases left behind by his predecessor. At the meeting, Sarsfield said he hoped “the remaining one box or so” of cases would be finished within a week, according to meeting minutes from March 11.
Sarsfield recalled that Board meeting. “It took longer, and I underestimated how long it would take.”
The criticism has left Damkar puzzled and disconcerted. He claims he tried to coordinate a smooth transition in late 2002. Sarsfield, he said, declined meeting one-on-one to discuss pertinent issues related to the office.
In response to Damkar’s request for a meeting, Sarsfield replied two weeks later through a fax – one day before the proposed meeting date. In it, Sarsfield expressed no need to discuss most of the issues suggested by Damkar.
Sarsfield still offered two alternate meeting dates in the conference room at the Sheriff’s Department, but on the condition that Sheriff Curtis Hill could be present. Sarsfield said he showed up. Damkar did not respond to that fax or appear on Sarsfield’s proposed dates.
Damkar did not like the idea of Hill’s presence at the meeting.
“Hey, I got news for him,” Damkar said. “When I’m giving over the office for him, it’s going to be him and me. I don’t need Sheriff Hill, and he doesn’t need Sheriff Hill.”
During the past year, Damkar opened a private practice law firm in Hollister. It is much of the reason he has remained quiet, he said, “because I’m still on the other side of the courtroom from his office.”
In September, though, Sarsfield held a press conference to announce the investigation of former District Attorney’s Office inspector Dennis Stafford.
Sarsfield maintained Damkar’s office withheld information on Stafford – he was listed as a suspect in several police reports – which should have been revealed to defense attorneys on those 57 cases. Federal laws require prosecutors to turn over any information that could benefit the prosecution’s case, including a potential to discredit a witness such as Stafford.
Damkar said Stafford not only has a clean criminal record, but he worked for the defense on more than half of those cases.
“Brady doesn’t apply – doesn’t even apply,” Damkar said. “It only applies when you have a prosecution witness and that witness has to be a critical witness to the outcome.”
The Stafford issue, Sarsfield said, is for the courts to decide.
“Why today? This is going back to September,” Sarsfield said.
The address in The Pinnacle, Damkar said, was simply the last straw.
“He’s lied about the Brady thing and now he’s lying here again,” Damkar said. “And I’m tired of it.”
