  |
Jamie Thistlethwaite
The following are internal notes prepared for the Democratic Central Committee following its endorsement interview of defense lawyer Jamie Thistlethwaite, who is 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.
Treating every person with dignity, respect, equality, and neutrality; decision not based on any bias, whatever the cost to her. It’s not HER courtroom. Wants everyone who leaves the courtroom to know that they were heard.
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?
Furloughs make courts less accessible. Other courts could be used on furlough days: homeless, veterans’ court. Judges can decline to take the furlough day as a day off, and volunteer time to these special courts. Comes from military family background, understands issues for returning vets; support the troops by bringing them home, and having their special court, plus homeless court. The judge donates time to these courts; this process helps clear up warrants, improves efficiency, helps society. Wants DA to pursue setting up these courts.
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 inequitable sentencing laws?
Supports non-partisan sentencing commission.
Re mandatory sentencing: former system gave judges lee-way, and release date was determined by prison parole board. Now have determinate sentencing, aggravating facts have to be determined by jury unless defendant signs Blakely waiver so the judge determines the sentence. For serious crimes – premeditated murder, for example – mandatory sentencing appropriate. Some other crimes she would prefer more discretion. Feels it gives the DA too much power.
4. What is your position on the death penalty versus permanent incarceration?
Anti-death-penalty. As a judge would have to apply the law, and would try to find ways to take the death penalty off the table when jury comes back. Would try not to sit on a death penalty case, but could be a “signing judge.” Says LWOP is the answer. As a society we should respect life in all its forms.
5. What innovative and creative legal work can you point to in your legal career?
Death penalty case in Bodega Bay. Represented the defendant. Spoke to son of victims, discussed whether death penalty was appropriate. After conversation, son went to DA and asked for death penalty to be taken off the table.
Another death penalty case; did interviews with Aryan Brotherhood at Pelican Bay, on behalf of her client who was a defendant; was able to present to DA how her client was different, death penalty was dropped.
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?
Wants to think following tenets in Constitution would do it, but now. Changes in Miranda. Difficult now to defend someone; angry people are passing laws (GPS worn for minor sex offense, for instance).
There is a disadvantage for low-income defendants. If you are fortunate enough to be able to afford private counsel, you will do better. So Co lucky to have good public defender’s office. (was a public defender.) Thinks there are judges who defer to private attys more than public defenders. As a judge you can take control of a public defender who isn’t doing a good job of defending an indigent client.
For civil court: there is California Rural Legal Assistance. Also if defendant is a huge company and the plaintiff is the indigent one, plaintiff is the one at a disadvantage.
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?
Prop 13- ruination of many things but also has helped people keep their homes in the face of rising property taxes. But loss of funding overrides that benefit, and would support repeal.
3 strikes – the judge has discretion to strike the strikes, but still, the law is poorly written. Needs to be rewritten to be directed to violent crimes and repeat violent offenders. Now the 3rd strike doesn’t have to be a violent crime, and the prisons are filling up. As a judge would be willing to exercise discretion – but it’s very limited by case law, and DA can appeal and appellate court can override. Should change to apply only to violent crimes, and 3rd crime must be violent.
8. How does the resignation of such a large number of judges affect the local bench? How do your skills help fill that void?
Nine judges retiring; eight had criminal background. Her skills apply especially to criminal law, and will take CTA college courses on civil law.
9. Would you support efforts to expand diversion opportunities and create homeless and mental health courts? Are there any other areas for diversion opportunities?
Yes. Veterans’ court is coming. Taking away diversion for misdemeanor domestic violence was a mistake; she thinks women don’t report DV because husbands would go to jail now.
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?
Methods:
Identify the disability: see, hear, have access
Sign language, interpreters; sign and Spanish interpreters.
Communicate with people in the room.
Some may need an advocate, and that must be provided.
11. Why are you seeking the endorsement of the Sonoma County Democratic Party?
Giving money to candidates isn’t enough. Did phone-banking for Kerry, went to Nevada on GOTV then.
Obama – threw fundraisers (3) phone banking, poll-worker in Florida, walked precincts there.
We are for the little guy
Helping not hurting
inclusion not exclusion
no wasting money in huge military buildups where we don’t need to be
government is there to help, not hurt.
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
One can be (& Thistlethwaite is) personally opposed to the death penalty and professionally committed to following the laws of the state, including those involving capital punishment.
Then, what is misconstrued? The following summary is NOT a correct statement of Ms. Thistlethwaite’s position: “would try to find ways to take the death penalty off the table when jury comes back.” Specifically, it is the phrase “when jury comes back” that is misleading and inaccurate when linked with her understandable desire to take the death penalty off the table through appropriate use of judicial authority.
I fail to see how one misconstrues “Anti-death-penalty”. Seems fairly clear. The bigger problem is that know she says she didn’t what she said. You can’t have it both ways.
To someone with legal education and experience, these notes reveal a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of the note-taker regarding the criminal justice system. A lawyer reading these notes could tell that the note-taker was not a lawyer and misconstrued this judicial candidate’s comments.