  |
The following summary and conclusions are internal notes prepared for the Democratic Central Committee following endorsement interviews of civil lawyer Chris Mazzia and defense lawyer Jamie Thistlethwaite, who are running for the 3rd Sonoma County Superior Court judicial seat:
1. Please describe your judicial philosophy, and what you hope to accomplish as a Superior Court Judge.
Mazzia emphasizes importance of following the law, and points out that the trial court doesn’t make law; emphasizes his practical approach to solutions. Access to court is key issue; justice delayed is justice denied.
Thistlethwaite emphasizes importance of lack of bias, wants everyone to leave the courtroom feeling that they have been ‘heard,’ points out that it’s not her courtroom – it’s the People’s courtroom.
Both emphasize importance of treating all with dignity and respect.
2. How has California and Sonoma County’s budget crisis impacted our judicial system? What can you, as a Superior Court judge, do to mitigate the negative effects?
Both agree that current situation is a disaster, that current funding challenges are affecting access to justice. Both agree that more efficient calendars will help alleviate some of the stress.
Mazzia emphasizes his management experience in a private law firm that gives him skill in managing staffing and morale problems.
Thistlethwaite talks at length about how judges should make use of the mandated furloughs to donate time back to sitting on the various special courts: homeless and veterans’ courts, and how that will help clear up warrants, alleviate the backlog. Emphasizes that the DA needs to set up more of these courts. Thistlethwaite had a more concrete and specific answer about how to get through the problems and possible solutions.
3. What is your position on mandatory sentencing? Do you feel that it helps or hinders you in the performance of your duties? Please explain. Do you support the establishment of a non-partisan sentencing commission to review sentencing laws?
Both support a non-partisan sentencing commission. Both think judges should have some discretion in sentencing.
Mazzia did not speak further to the question.
Thistlethwaite spoke in some detail about how mandated sentencing works, about the differences between who determines the sentence depending on whether or not the defendant signs a Blakeley waiver, giving the judge, rather than the jury, the ability to determine the sentence. She thinks that for very serious crimes such as premeditated murder, mandatory sentencing may be appropriate, and for other less serious (not involving the taking of life) crimes, judges should have more discretion. Believes that the current system gives the DA too much power over the sentence.
4. What is your position on the death penalty versus permanent incarceration?
Mazzia: death penalty is the law now, and he would be sworn to uphold the law. Issues of concern for him are political, social, and impact on budget (death penalty is very expensive in comparison to LWOP.)
Thistlethwaite: as a judge she would have to apply the law, and would try to find ways to take the death penalty off the table, as other judges have done. Would try not to sit on a death penalty case, but would have to do so if assigned. Cited example of Judge Sater, who was on ACLU board, and never sat on a death penalty case. Says LWOP is the answer. “As a society we should respect life in all its forms.”
Mazzia was not willing to state his personal opinion on this subject.
5. What innovative and creative legal work can you point to in your legal career?
Mazzia spoke about two cases: one a challenging case involving land-use issues on a property in the Estero, under control of California Coastal Act. Innovative case, requiring “a lot of adroitness” involving many different agencies over a 5-year period, in which he was on ‘the right side of the law’ protecting the environment. The second was an ADA compliance case in employment law, in which he found practical solutions.
Thistlethwaite spoke of two cases, both involving the death penalty, in which she was counsel for the defense. In both cases she was able to get the death penalty taken off the table for her clients. The first case involved visiting Pelican Bay prison and interviewing Aryan Nation members, to get a clear idea of what that group stood for, so that she could show the DA that her client was not actually associated with them, although the other defendant in the case was. In the second case she visited and talked with the son of the two murder victims, and after their conversations, the son went to the DA and asked for the death penalty to be taken off the table. That case was ultimately settled.
6. Please explain your views on whether defendants currently have a level playing field. Is there a disadvantage for low-income defendants, and if so then what can/should be done to mitigate the imbalance between affluent and non-affluent defendants?
Both agree that there are disadvantages.
Mazzia discusses continued development of special calendars for DUI, homeless, veterans, and identifying people who fit certain profiles to get them the services they need. Identifies language as ‘communication,’ and making sure that people understand what you’re saying. Cites public defender’s office as a mitigation.
Thistlethwaite agrees that SoCo Public Defender’s office is excellent, and also says that if you are fortunate enough to be able to afford private counsel, you will probably do better than if you can’t. Thinks there may be some judicial inadvertent deferral to private attorneys more than to public defenders. Judge can take control of a public defender who isn’t doing a good job of defending an indigent client, mitigating the disadvantage there. Thistlethwaite went on to talk about civil court – California Rural Legal Assistance available for indigent civil defendants. But if it’s the plaintiff that’s indigent, in a case where the defendant is a large corporation, the plaintiff is at a disadvantage – may need to try to find a good attorney on a contingency. Thistlethwaite cited both criminal and civil court issues in response to this question.
7. What is your position on possible reformation of the Three Strikes/Proposition 13 law? If you are in favor of reforming it, what changes would you like to see? If you oppose reforming the law, why?
Both agreed Prop 13 has caused great damage; Thistlethwaite thought that the homeownership help given by Prop 13 is outweighed by the damage its done to funding of needed government services.
Re “3 strikes:” both discussed the issue of the 3rd strike that can send the person off to jail for a long time.
Thistlethwaite discussed in detail. Thinks law is poorly written and should be rewritten and directed specifically to violent crimes and repeat violent offenders. Prisons are filling up as a result of this law. Judge has very little discretion in striking out a third strike, and when it’s done, it opens the case up for the DA to appeal and appellate court to overturn. Emphasizes that the third strike must be a violent crime to make this law fair.
8. How does the resignation of such a large number of judges affect the local bench? How do your skills help fill that void?
Both agree that 50% turnover is dramatic.
Mazzia states that means now is the time for people in private sector to step up for public service, to bring private-sector experience to public service. Cites broad range of legal experience in private sector, and management experience in private legal firm. States that he can learn criminal law, doesn’t think civil law is easier than criminal law.
Thistlethwaite: 9 judges are retiring, and 8 of those had criminal background. She has specific skills for criminal law. Is taking courses on civil law.
Candidates each lack experience in the field of the other’s strength. Both cite ability to learn. Thistlethwaite has immediate ability to step into criminal court.
9. Would you support efforts to expand diversion opportunities and create homeless and mental health courts? Are there any other areas for diversion opportunities?
Both say yes, and point to veterans’ service court to come. Mazzia cites efficiencies gained in these courts (or calendars.) Notes clustering of administrative services. Hopes Elder court can be developed.
Thistlethwaite states that the elimination of the diversion program for misdemeanor domestic violence was a mistake, as women don’t report when they think it will send their husband to jail.
10. What is your understanding of the Americans with Disabilities Act and how it must be applied in your courtroom, to both plaintiffs and defendants? What methods would you use to make certain that all those with disabilities are given all required accommodations in your courtroom?
Both candidates aware of the challenges, state that all should have access to justice, cited issues with seeing, hearing, need for language interpreters, sign language for languages other than English, importance of communicating with everyone in the room.
Mazzia had broken ankle which opened his eyes to the larger challenges faced by those with disabilities. Sonoma County courthouses are not as well equipped as those in other counties. Need lifts and other devices, special arrangements for hearings.
Thistlethwaite commented that advocate must be provided for those who need it.
Candidates appear equally aware of the issues revolving around ADA and access to justice.
11. Why are you seeking the endorsement of the Sonoma County Democratic Party?
Mazzia states that the idea of having an election for judges, when judicial candidates are so restricted in the kinds of comments they can make, creates quandary for voters: how can they find out who to vote for? Endorsements can help voters make up their minds.
Thistlethwaite states that she is an active Democrat, having phone-banked for Kerry and gone to Nevada for GOTV for him; for Obama she held three fund-raisers, did phonebanking, and went to Florida as a poll-worker, walked precincts there.
Both made statements about Democratic Party values that showed full awareness of what we stand for.
Conclusions:
1. Mazzia replied with detailed knowledge and ideas on innovative legal work, the un-level playing field for the disadvantaged, the effect that the 50% turnover has on the bench and what he can do to help, and ideas for diversion courts.
2. Thistlethwaite replied with detailed knowledge and ideas on how a judge can mitigate the effects of the budget crisis on delivery of justice, on mandated sentencing, on innovative legal work she has done, on the three strikes law, and on diversion courts.
Candidates are each weak in areas of the other’s strength. Thistlethwaite is very strong in criminal law, the area of the bench that is losing the most strength with the judges that are retiring, and can go to work immediately if elected.
Thistlethwaite appears to have been a strongly active Democrat in the last two Presidential elections.
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
@Democrat: Why are you attacking her campaign manager? That’s just low.
Based on what I read here, I would vote for Thistlewaite in an election. I am a Democrat, so no matter who you endorse, Thistelewaite would be my vote.
By one individual’s notes, don’t you mean the Chair of the Committee responsible for interviews? Please, her campaign manager Patrick Band set this up for her, she knew what to say to please people, said it, and is now trying to back peddle…sad.
I am an elected member of the Sonoma County Democratic Central Committee and its Recording Secretary. These are one, let me emphasize one, individual’s notes, which were posted on a private list serve. Anyone who was in attendance at the publicly held meeting March 23, when the endorsement vote of the entire SCDCC was taken, would know that we did not base our decision on these notes. Several of us are fairly certain that one member, who was a Mazzia supporter, leaked this unofficial information.
I’m all for lifelong learning– but maybe Thistelwaite should wait until she finishes her classes on civil law to become a judge in Sonoma County.
The Democratic Party should not be considering how politically active one is when considering endorsement. That is just wrong. Bredth of knowledge, fairness and willingness to follow our laws (including death penalty, if one must) should be the measure.