For Immediate Release:
I understand the community concern about the disposition in
the Ferrer case. On its face, a man is
killed and the man that did the killing is sentenced to 4 years in jail, of
which he will serve 2 years.
But the facts not previously made available to the public
paint a different picture. After
reviewing hours of video, talking with independent witnesses and reviewing the
autopsy results, discussing the evidence with law enforcement and the family of
the victim, it became clear that this was a case of manslaughter – not
murder.
The facts would have shown that:
·
Mr. Anderson-Jordet, the
victim, was inflamed in his demeanor that evening. A bartender would have testified that the
Victim was making homophobic statements to other patrons that evening before
the incident.
·
An independent witness would have testified that
she overheard the argument between the parties and that the victim was yelling
homophobic, sexist, hateful statements at the defendants.
·
Video surveillance showed that the victim was
behind the defendants walking down the street, and the victim was overheard to
yell at the defendants “I am still behind you”.
·
The defendant’s would have testified that the
victim approached them in an angry manner and took a swing at them. And that he was a stranger to them, with whom
they had no prior quarrel.
·
The
defense would have brought testimony that the victim was an angry person when
he had been drinking, and occasionally used street drugs. The People would have brought testimony that
the victim was a hard working man with a good job.
·
The autopsy results show that the victim died of
one knife wound, at a severe angle, that unfortunately pierced the victim’s
heart.
A jury trial in this case would have become a trial of the
victim’s character, for the determination of whether this was voluntary or
involuntary manslaughter. The People
would have had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants were NOT
defending themselves in a hate crime.
In a best case jury trial scenario, Mr. Ferrer would have
been found guilty of voluntary manslaughter.
He would have been sentenced to a term of three years in prison (because
he has no prior record), of which he would have served 85%, or approximately 2
years and 6 months. A plea agreement was
reached to ensure that Mr. Ferrer would serve the maximum term for involuntary
manslaughter allowed by law: 4 years, which, owing to the Governor’s
Realignment Program, he will serve 2 years in county jail.
In other words, a best-case-scenario result at jury trial
would have resulted in an additional 6 months of custody time for Mr.
Ferrer.
The family and involved law enforcement officers were
consulted before a plea was made. We agreed, after careful consideration of the
evidence and the law, that this was the best disposition for the case. It doesn’t bring back Mr. Anderson-Jordet,
and nobody is “happy” about this disposition.
Some decisions are not universally popular. It is the job of the District Attorney’s
office to make tough decisions based entirely on the facts that can be proven
beyond a reasonable doubt to all twelve jurors. That is what I did here. I’m
not proud of this disposition, and it doesn’t feel like justice to the victim’s
family or myself. Unfortunately, it is
the reality of the situation under the law.
The family of Mr. Anderson-Jordet have reviewed this letter,
and are disappointed that it had to be written.
They had hoped to avoid exactly this public forum discussion. Unfortunately, my opponents, who are long on
rhetoric and short on facts, have attempted to take advantage of this
unfortunate case to their political advantage.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.