  |
The death chamber at San Quentin prison
A member of the six-person Democratic Party panel that interviewed Sonoma County judicial candidates last month has weighed in on the controversy surrounding Chris Mazzia and Jamie Thistlethwaite over whether the latter promised to take the death penalty “off the table.”
Her position: Mazzia is right.
“She did say that,” said the panelist, who spoke to me on the condition that she not be identified. “She said she would do what she could to take the death penalty off the table.”
Controversy broke out Tuesday when Mazzia criticized Thistlethwaite for taking such a vow during the March 17 interview. He argued that it raised questions about whether Thistlethwaite was willing to put aside her personal views and do her job as judge.
Thistlethwaite quickly denied the allegation and a Democratic Party official said the charge was based on an internal recorder’s report that included statements that were taken out of context.
But this panelist, who actually voted to recommend supporting Thistlethwaite — a position she still defends — says the quotes were not taken out of context. She argues Thistlethwaite went so far as to say she would work as supportive counsel — known as “Keenan counsel” — on the appeal, which is automatic in death penalty cases. How that would work given her role as a judge was unclear.
She said the recorder, whose report Mazzia cited in his criticism, “did a very accurate job of taking notes.”
“So it’s just inaccurate to say that Chris was misinterpreting or misrepresenting what she said,” the woman said. “That is in fact what she said.”
She said two members of the all-female panel cited Thistlethwaite’s position on the death penalty as reasons why they were “uncomfortable” in endorsing her. Another two cited the death penalty position as reasons why they wanted to support Thistlethwaite.
“Well, when I heard her say it I was very concerned,” the woman said. What Thistlethwaite should have done, the source said, is start with the condition that she was bound by her position as a judge to uphold the law. But she didn’t do that.
So why is Thistlethwaite now arguing that she didn’t say that?
“I think she and her campaign realized that the statement came out way too strong,” she surmised.
But the source said, overall, she still agrees with the panel’s recommendation on Thistlethwaite.
“I was just really surprised to see the (online) comments and to see how vehemently people were attacking Chris having put all of this out there,” she said. “It just didn’t seem right that a statement that he actually said would turn around and be thrown in his face.”
- Paul Gullixson
Press Democrat Editorial Director
CLICK HERE to read an internal Democratic Party memo summarizing the Mazzia endorsement interview.
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
Other people do my writing for me, because I cant always write with my hands hurting and my needs for reasonable accommodations. So, if someone wrote something here — I dont agree with what I wrote.
Agreed, why take the risk? Especially since Mazzia is a very good choice. He is ethical and experienced.
why would we take a risk on someone who says these things. we know what will happen.
If there is this controversary just to get elected when everyone is looking, imagine once she is on the bench and no one is looking!
if she would change her opinion on these serious issues what about other criminal laws she did not like,
I agree with this sattement:
Interesting. There is now confirmation from a panelist member who was there at the interview that Thistlethwaite DID say she would try to take the dp “off the table.” That panelist voted to support Thistlethwaite.
The panelist says that this made two members of the committee “uncomfortable” but was the reason two other members chose to support her.
http://www.watchsonomacounty.com/2010/04/featured-articles/panelist-thistlethwaite-opposed-death-penalty/
The real question is this: If you were the family member/spouse of a victim of a violent crime, would you feel, going into Ms. Thistlethwaite’s courtroom after she had vowed to try to “take the death penalty off the table” that she could be fair or impartial? Likely not and that is where the problem lies.
and it sounds like she is starting out of the gate with an anti-law enforcement opinion
I just want a candidate who will be fair.
Bob, that “kid” is a viiolent criminal in our society. Ask to read the gang report on him or order yourself a copy of the transcripts of the expert who spoke about him.
As to married to a public defender, I have nothing ill to say about them, but my point was they have a certain view of the criminal justice system that is not pro law enforcement.
She shares those beliefs because of who she is, what she does for a living and who her close friends and spouse are.
Those beliefs are that 1. “prosecutors have to much authority” and 2. “she would take the death penalty off of the table.”
Those are her words not mine.
heather blue,
Jamie is married to a former public defender. You don’t like public defenders? It seems like you believe that only people charged with crimes who can afford to pay a private lawyer, should be able to have a lawyer. Say that to the kid who was just found not guilty of murder after spending 22 months in jail.
Members of the panel knew that Patrick Band is Jamie’s campaign manager and he always recused himself from voting. This wasn’t some underhanded plot!
There is no reason to accuse Jamie of lying because her opponent has jumped all over a quote which may or may not be accurate. At least she has the guts to say she is against the death penalty instead of pussy-footing around.
The person who leaked the quote should be disciplined by the Central Committee and all interviews should b recorded in the future.
Do I have this right: Jamie’s campaign manager is a memeber of the committee involved in interviewing and recommending the candidate to endorse… and he didn’t recuse himself or bother to tell anyone?
This is a deal breaker for me.
Not only are Jamie’s and her campaign manager’s integrety in question, but the integrity of this Democratic Party panel must be questioned.
Please tell me I don’t have the facts straight on this.
I just received a call from Patrick Band who it turns out is Thistlewaites campaign manager telling me I must change my memory. He stated I am causing problems for him. I never mentioned his name in my article, someone else must have given his name. I told him I remembered him taking notes as an observer, I remembered him voting for Jamie at our second meeting of the whole committee and not once telling the committee he was working for Jamie.
He told me if I did not change my memory he would see to it I was kicked off of the Central Committee. When I challenged him, he said not him, but others would have me kicked off if I do not change my memory. I do not like being threatened by this young man when he should not have been on the committee related to judges especially without declaring he was working on Thistlewaite campaign. Now he want’s me to take the blame for his violation of ethics. I understand that on the 23rd of March he did not vote, but he did vote to give Jamie the extra vote she needed by the Committee to get the committee endorcement by one vote. This recommendation then went to the full Central committee.
I have called other members of the Central committee already, Threats have no place in these campaigns. I am sorry if Patrick disagrees with my memory. I am sorry that all of a sudden so many others are having memory changes. But I will not have someone call me and threaten me because of their poor behavior or indiscreation. He has every right to disagree with me, but not to threaten me.
I am not the person who let out the leak, I am not even a member of the yahoo group. So I suggest he look at another source. I did not name Terry Price as I was not at the 23rd of March meeting. All this information was supplied by others.
Probably Patrick Band who is a member of the Central Committee and Thistlethwaite’s campaign manager. Can you say inside job.
Activist,
Both Terry Price and Chris Mazzia showed up at the Central Committee’s deliberations the night they voted to endorse Thistlethwaite (by a margin of 19 to 1). Price is Mazzia’s campaign manager, and is well known for his slick campaign tactics.
From what I’ve heard, the only people in the room when either Mazzia or Thisltethwaite were interviwed were members of the Candidate Search committee. It’s unfortunate that Ms. Moller got her facts wrong.
Ultimately, you’ve got to ask yourself what the anonymous leaker had to gain from sharing confidential information with the PD. My guess – they’re not being entirely forthcoming about their other associations with one of the campaigns.
–
Christian
Terry Price, the campaign manager, attended the interview?
Like Susan, I also was a panelist and do not know who the person was. However I support the persons response. I do not like character attacks that are uncalled for or unjust. Jamie did not answer the questions as the other Judges did by stating that this was the law and she must abide by the law. She immediately talked about how she was against the death penalty and to what extent she would go to never be appointed to a death penalty case. She went further in talking about how she would guide a Jury were she on a case. I was very bothered as I felt she was putting herself at risk of being challenged by all future council were she ever to serve as a Judge and stated such. I did not speak up at the March Meeting as I was out ill with pneumonia. Had I have been there I would have spoke to this and other concerns. I am concerned now about Jamie challenging ethics of another Judge candidate, when in fact it is she who has properly learned to better answer the questions. A Judge should be beyond this, and should be able to put personal opinion aside. The law is the law, if you do not like it, then work to change the law, not ignore or avoid it.
Like Susan I am surprised that Statements made in the interview were taken out of the meeting, however it should be noted that one of the observers in the meeting turned out to be someone working on Jamie’s campaign and he never told anyone this. Something had we have known would never have been allowed. Another thing I find questionable about the ethics of this candidate.
This one is directed at Heather Blue, as she seems to be a lead instigator in this matter…
Perhaps you should do a little research on what you are talking about before broadcasting your trite, incorrect, and petty opinions. First of all, may I ask, why are you so hung up on Judge Daum, and what on earth does that have to do with Thistlethwaite running for Judge? Also, they are not best friends, but run in the same social circles…big deal.
Second of all, Thistlethwaite’s husband is no NOT a public defender, and has not been for over a year. If you cannot even get that fact straight, then who knows what else you have stated that is completely incorrect or just a downright lie…?
Thirdly, perhaps you should actually read Thistlethwaite’s quotes before getting on your “Mazzia horse”. Anyone can clearly see that her opinion as an attorney is to protect her client’s rights and to put his/her best interest at hand. Her committment and obligation as a Judge is to uphold the integrity and values of our justice system, and to follow the law within the State of California. That is obvioiusly distinguishable to anyone who actually reads the statements in question.
I would like to see that those wishing to share information with the press do so in an honorable manner, by not hiding behind anonymity! Have the courage to stand behind what you are saying. Additionally, if you were so concerned about her stances, did you voice them during the debate of this endorsement or did you simply share your concern with the press?
I’m sorry Susan, but just because your candidate got caught in her back door commitment to you, does not mean you can rewrite history.
I, too, was a member of the interview committee for Superior Court Judge and I won’t hide behind anonymity. Regarding our question on the death penalty, and this is not a quote from Ms. Thistlethwaite, they are my notes, read: anti-death penalty. Doesn’t do society any good, but as a judge I would have to impose the law. CA has life without parole and is very effective.
The next question was, What innovative and creative legal work can you point to in your legal career? My notes: Got the DA to get the death penalty off the table by collecting information from the Arian Brotherhood to show how far outside that structure her client was. Additionally, one of the hardest things she did was to sit on the Keenan Council and asked to speak to the son who had found the murdered bodies of his parents who listened to her philosophy on the death penalty and he agreed to take the DP off the table and go with life without parole.
The answers to the second question had nothing to do with Ms. Thistletwaite’s philosophy regarding her judgeship, but had everything to do with her role as an attorney. She was doing her job.
Not only have her answers been taken out of context, but the security and integrity of the Candidate Search & Development Committee has been breached and maligned.
The person responsible for this misrepresentation has broken the trust given to us by those we interview. Once broken, trust is very hard to regain.
I sincerely hope that the Democratic Central Committee will not be maligned because of the malicious actions of one of its disgruntled members.
Susan K. Baritell
Many thanks to the panel member who stepped forward and admitted the truth even though it may not be popular with the Democratic Party. Perhaps she will run for judge next time.
In the meantime, let’s vote for someone who tells the truth and is willing to follow the law. Isn’t that the point?
As I said earlier. Why are you just taking her word when he said he has the documents to prove it. Then she says the typist misquoted her. And now we find out not only was the typist accurate, Thistlethwaite went far beyond what MAzzia even reported she said.
Thankfully a person who is more concerned about the truth than politics had the courage to step forward and give us the real, firsthand story.
Thistlethwaite is a liar and would go farther than we thought by actally saying she would be an attorney for the defendnat and not a judge.
That is grounds for her being removed from the bench if she was a judge. As it stands it most certainly should be THE reason she should not get a single vote.
Judges are neutral, NOT attorneys for a defendant. Once a criminal defense attorney, apparently always a criminal defense attorney. Just look at her best friend, and former colleague in the public defender’s office, Judge Daum. She is also married to a public defender.
Enough said.
What pandering. The job of judge is to independently and objectively follow and apply the law. We hold our judges to a higher standard, one that requires them to set aside personal bias. Thistlethwaite’s blatent attempt to unduly politicize the process by playing to a particular constituency, and then denying she did so is disgusting. Certainly we can do better.
Speaking about nuanced legal matters to non-lawyers is tricky business. However, it is clear (from the actual notes of the meeting) that Ms. Thistlethwaite’s response was detailed and thoughtful – she will follow the law and that she opposes the death penalty. The note-taker misunderstood Ms. Thistlethwaite’s complex analysis, as well as misconstruing the criminal justice system and the role of judicial officers.
She obviously has done something wrong. Either she is lying to the press about her support of the death penalty reported earlier or she is lying to the democrats about her opposition to the death penalty…either way she is lying.
it’s clear that thistlethwaite crossed a line in her desperate grab for an endorsement. what does that say about the way she would be a judge in this community?