On September 22, Visiting Judge Marjorie Carter denied the County's demurrer.
That hearing is scheduled for November 13. If you are unfamiliar with the lawsuit, please read previous coverage linked below.
Previous posts:
http://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2017/10/it-is-clear-why-humboldt-county-board.html?m=1
http://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2017/09/judge-carter-rules-in-favor-of-patrik.html?m=1
http://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2017/05/patrik-griego-v-humboldt-county-on.html?m=1
http://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2017/03/why-didnt-any-of-applicants-raise-this.html?m=1
http://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2017/03/whoever-did-david-marcus-background.html?m=1
http://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2017/03/is-humboldt-public-defender-david.html?m=1
http://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2017/03/not-everyone-sees-issue-with-david.html?m=1
http://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2017/04/ncj-greg-elvine-kreiss-and-deputy-das.html?m=1
And no word what the County might have said/done in the closed meeting?
ReplyDeleteI know you can't answer this question, but if in his official role David Marcus did not provide proper legal aid to someone who suffered from that failure, I wonder how much the 'defendant' could sue the County for?
With so many employees of the Public Defender's office leaving because of Marcus, how many clients of the office who have suffered from delays, additional costs & problems with witness schedules so that they have a case to bring to court against the County?
I've read judgments against municipal entities as well as individual lawyers for failure to provide proper legal counsel.
You know a lot of lawyers John, do you think some of them aren't already looking at the delays and failures of various people being brought to trial who might not think: "They could have a case...."?
With Jeffrey Blanck as County Counsel, has he advised the Supervisors what Marcus' continued employment by the County could increase their exposure to lawsuits other than Mr. Griego's?
Of course Mr. Blanck does not have extensive experience in such matters. He's been on the other side, representing plaintiffs in civil rights matters. I believe he was counsel for a school district (all in Nevada) but a school district is quite different from a county, as Nevada is from California.
One last question which I don't think you can answer (although I'm sure you'd like to know also): Who is responsible for hiring two such attorneys with such ill-defined work records (and experience)?
Blanck's total pay and benefits for 2016 was over $205,000. And over $40,000 of that was benefits.
Siskiyou County hired a new County Counsel earlier this year.Here is a quote about his hiring:
"The Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors has approved an employment agreement with Brad Sullivan as the new Siskiyou County Counsel at its meeting on Tuesday.
The Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors has approved an employment agreement with Brad Sullivan as the new Siskiyou County Counsel at its meeting on Tuesday. Following the board’s action, Sullivan will assume that position effective April 23.
The County Counsel’s office oversees and directs county litigation management and advises the board of supervisors and county departments concerning legal issues and options. Sullivan has over 30 years of legal experience, including considerable natural resources, land use and public agency representation legal work.
“There has been a long recruitment and qualifications vetting process, and speaking for the entire Board of Supervisors, we are extremely happy to have Mr. Sullivan come on board as our new County Counsel,” stated board chair Michael Kobseff."
The previous County Counsel for Siskiyou in 1915 had a total of a little of $163,000 for both salary and benefits.
Jeffrey Blanck has a total of salary and benefits of over $205,000. I do wonder why Humboldt County doesn't use as much diligence in hiring counsels and defenders as Siskiyou seems to. I chose Siskiyou for the comparison because of similarities. I also find the information of his selection was detailed and well covered by the local paper. Pleasant surprise.
Thank God (and I do mean it) that the office of District Attorney is an elected one.
The Supreme Court has severely limited legal malpractice actions against indigent court-appointed public counsel. They must show true factual innocence which is an almost impossible standard to meet, and but for the negligence of the lawyer, the person was wrongfully convicted. If for some other reason, like a motion should have been filed or an important witness was not called, then there would be no negligence. It might be Ineffective Assistance of Counsel or IAC requiring a new trial, but there would be no county legal liability.
ReplyDeleteAllan Dollison:
ReplyDeleteThank you for your very informative comments.