California Assemblywoman Fiona Ma. " First Amendment? Where the heck did THAT come from?"
For this weekend’s Ethics Alarms quiz—the blog’s 2000th post!—I am asking readers to help me determine the Incompetent Official of the Week, when two unusually qualified candidates are running neck and neck.
Candidate A is McLennan County (Texas) District Attorney Abel Reyna: Defense attorney Walter M. Reaves has filed a motion asking for DNA testing as part of his efforts to exonerate Anthony Melendez, currently serving a life sentence for the 1982 slayings of three teenagers in Waco. Reaves says the test is needed because DNA analysis was not available when Melendez was convicted, and Melendez still maintains that he is innocent. D.A. Reyna, however, opposes the test. Why? He argues that such testing shows a lack of faith and support of the jury system, and what the jury has decided usually ought to be free of such post-trial attempts to discredit the verdict.
In other words, the D.A. believes that it is better to honor the jury system by letting an incorrect verdict stand than to use newly available scientific evidence to set an innocent man free.
Reyna’s argument is novel, passionate, and grounds for impeachment. A prosecutor’s ethical duty is to see that justice is done, not to protect possibly erroneous jury verdicts. If Melendez is innocent, the killer is still out there. If Melendez is innocent, no member of the jury that convicted him should want him to remain in jail. If there is a chance that DNA technology will further the interest of justice, then Reyna should be supporting the motion for testing, not opposing it. What’s the matter with him?
Whatever it is, the question is whether it makes him less qualified for his elected post than…
Candidate B, who is California Assemblywoman Fiona Ma. Ma was one of the forces behind Assembly Bill 74, known as the “Anti-Raves Act,” which Governor Jerry Brown signed into law last week. California began cracking down on raves after 15-year-old Sasha Rodriguez died at the giant annual Los Angeles rave, The Electric Daisy Carnival. A huge festival of electronic music, dancing and flashing lights, the Carnival was held in Los Angeles for over a decade. Raves are drug-abuse magnets, however, and when Rodriguez died of an ecstasy overdose, the event lost its L.A. venue and moved to Las Vegas.
Discussing her efforts to stop large raves in California by banning its various components, Assemblywoman Ma told reporters, “We found out later on that, Constitutionally, you cannot ban a type of music. Plus, I, like my opponents said, I didn’t really know what was going on.”
That’s right…an elected government representative had to find out about the First Amendment. No, you can’t ban a type of music, or a type of art, or a type of literature, movie, play or speech, and knowing this has to be one of the few mandatory qualifications for elected office for any post that involves lawmaking or has more power than we place in the hands of the average schizophrenic suffering from a closed head injury.
Your Ethics Quiz Question, therefore, is this: Who is the more incompetent elected official—McLennan County District Attorney Abel Reyna or California Assemblywoman Fiona Ma?
Not to influence you, but I vote for Reyna, though I regard the contest as a dead heat. His particular form of incompetence is likely to get innocent people killed. Fortunately, elected officials who are ignorant of the First Amendment tend to be restrained by the courts from doing as much harm as they might without judicial. That’s enough to break the tie for me.
Ethics Alarms 
I guess that depends on your definition of “incompetence.” Reyna is actively unethical; Ma is dumber than the proverbial sack of hammers. I’d call Ma more incompetent, but Reyna scares me more.
I’m going to go for Reyna as well. The use of DNA evidence to exonerate those who have been convicted of crimes before it became available is so widespread and so universally acknowledged to be a good thing that Reyna’s position is unconscionable and incomprehensible.
As for Ma, the First Amendment prohibits laws abridging “freedom of speech”. It is conceivable that someone unfamiliar with the case law might not know that this includes musical genres, rather than just speech (the distinction between content and form of speech is a tough one, even for law students).
I vote for Reyna. He clearly believes in convicting people by any means necessary and that is a disaster waiting to happen in a DA. Ma is clueless, self-righteous, and like too many candidates we are seeing today. I think Ma’s carelessness coupled with the fact that she needs a lot of help to implement unethical schemes gives Reyna the win.
Reyna. Hands down.
Ma shows a willingness to admit mistakes and grow.
I’ll be contrarian and vote for Ma. Reyna is willing to trample the rights of specific individuals. Ma is willing to trample the rights of everyone who doesn’t think like she does. And how many times has it been said that “Ignorance of the law is no excuse”?
Both richly deserve to be un-elected. Given their respective neighborhoods, I wouldn’t bet the price of a Happy Meal that both won’t continue happily in their current roles until they get elected to Congress.
I’m with Arthur.
Ma is (supposedly) part of government and yet doesn’t fundamentally understand what its roles–and more importantly, its limits–are. That is a huge failure of the duty of competence, born of arrogance. And the Barney Frank “Anything we’re doing that’s unconstitutional will be thrown out in court.” line doesn’t fly with me.
Reyna is doing a job and making a judgement call–one we all agree is a cruel and wrong judgement call–but one that is within the authority of his position. His failure is in compassion and fairness, but he’s not overstepping his authority.
I’m sure my libertarian streak colors my opinion here, but both of these incidents represent an erosion of our rights. IMO, the arrogance of elected officials who think that there are no limits to their power is far more dangerous.
–Dwayne
Since the question was about “competence” and not “ethics,” I would vote for Ma. Every elementary school student probably knows more about the First Amendment than she demonstrated. The fact that she admitted she was ignorant of the basics of the Constitution only makes it worse… What’s next for Ma? “Oops! I didn’t know I couldn’t buy votes! Well, live and learn!”
If the question was about ethics, it would of course be Reyna. His refusal to use a common and respected method to perhaps let an unfairly convicted individual freed is clearly egotism and abuse of power. He doesn’t care that if Melendez is found innocent means that the real perpetrator still lives free? And this aside, his rationale is that such testing shows a lack of faith and support of the jury system, and what the jury has decided usually ought to be free of such post-trial attempts to discredit the verdict? Who says? Technology has overtaken this kind of attitude and he knows it. Whatever happened to the concept (widely quoted) that it would be better for ten guilty people to go free than have one innocent imprisoned?
But remember that competence, for anyone who accepts a job or duty, IS ethics. If your duty is justice, and you aren’t capable of understanding justice, that’s incompetence to me.
Reyna gets my vote. The argument that you are somehow preserving the integrity of a jury decision is by honoring one made without benefit of such a substantial piece of evidence is a misplaced priority. However, Melendez confessed and entered a guilty plea to avoid the death penalty (which is pretty persuasive in Texas) so there would have been no jury trial for him. The “defend the earlier jury decision” argument goes out the window completely.
So, this would mean that Melendez is asking for his first trial for a crime he confessed to almost 30 years ago based on potential new evidence that may not even be exculpatory. There was a lengthy trial back in the 80s that resulted in one death penalty and two life sentences (one being Melendez). Many of the witnesses and co-defendants are now dead so denying him a trial at this point may actually be the just thing. However, getting the facts about that DNA evidence before making that decision would be the ethical thing.
Saying he is honoring a jury’s decision on Melendez’s guilt when he was never actually tried is unethical. Even giving Reyna the benefit of the doubt that he knows much more about the Melendez case than we do and that the ultimate decision may be a just one, his statement and approach are unethical.
As for Ma. She seems well intentioned but unprepared for her office. I hope Tim is right that she is willing to learn and grow.
Yep!
NO CONTEST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE: District Attorney Abel Reyna is incompetent, possibly corrupt and definitely unethical.
There are far too many DA’s that have done the same thing and probably will continue in the future. In a number of the cases the prisoner was INNOCENT and those who prosecuted them hid exculpatory evidence; in a few cases encouraged perjured testimony. For some time now, eye witness testimony has proven to be unreliable.
Another example from Texas when the DA fought DNA testing for years. Finally, an appellate court allowed the testing. On October 13, 2011 the Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board published “Beyond innocence, Morton owed answers.”
“We all should celebrate the swift action of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to dismiss Michael Morton’s 1987 conviction and life sentence for a murder he did not commit. That happened Wednesday, eight days after Morton walked out of a Texas prison, where he had spent nearly 25 years for killing his wife, Christine Morton. In the past few weeks, it has become abundantly clear to anyone paying attention that Morton did not commit that heinous crime in 1986.
For the first time in his life, Michael Morton has no conviction over his head. It’s a good day for justice, but that won’t be fully realized until the system is held accountable for the misconduct or incompetence by the Williamson County legal system that put him in prison and kept him there.
Justice won’t be served until there are answers. Morton through his lawyers has made that clear. He and the public are owed a full explanation of why the system broke down, given what has come to light in the past few weeks regarding evidence that prosecutors and law enforcement hid from Morton’s attorneys that could have established his innocence. ******
Allegations of misconduct focus on whether then-District Attorney Ken Anderson, now a district judge, improperly suppressed pretrial evidence that pointed to Morton’s innocence. Defense lawyers also allege that sheriff’s investigators ignored clues that could have identified Christine Morton’s true killer.”
CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLYWOMAN FIONA MA may make mistakes but they generally will not cause someone to be executed or spend countless years in jail when they’re actually innocent.
THE INNOCENT PROJECT has now helped overturn 273 convictions “with exculpatory DNA evidence making what was once a shocking revelation of a miscarriage of justice a more commonplace occurrence.”
I know of a case, where the man was “said” to confess, after many hours of interrogation. He was still intoxicated, and as convinced he was guilty.
He soon recanted, but too late. Spent 22 years in prison.
Only after his release, did he contact The Innocent Project, and a lawyer was referred. DNA finally cleared his name, but not until after losing everything, including watching his little girl grow up.
False convictions ruin lives, and permits the true guilty party to continue their criminal behavior. NO ONE should ever want to permit such a miscarriage of justice.
I really think this goes to show that a DA shouldn’t be elected. It’s too easy to put away innocents to shore up your “tough on crime” record. It’s just as bad as judges being elected. These sorts of officials need to be appointed, either for life or a set, single term, so they can make impartial decisions instead of trying to get re-elected on the backs of defendants.
Just to note something about Melendez’s case, and how Reyna’s reasoning is invalid, There was no jury in Melendez’s trial. They plead guilty to avoid the death penalty. However, he recanted his plea later once dna testing became available. Reyna’s father was on the case during those trials.Fortunately for Melendez, in Texas it has now been passed that the DA cannot deny the DNA testing/evidence. Unfortunately, the other man tried and sentenced in the Lake Waco murders has already been executed.
Make Reyna take a surprise drug test