Town Square

Post a New Topic

State Supreme Court rejects most misconduct claims against assistant DA

Original post made on Aug 29, 2014

California Supreme Court justices have reversed a state appeals court ruling of egregious prosecutorial misconduct against Jay Boyarsky, Santa Clara County's chief assistant district attorney.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, August 29, 2014, 8:50 AM

Comments (4)

Like this comment
Posted by Wondering?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 29, 2014 at 12:22 pm

This article seems to ignore the issue at hand (Boyarski’s behavior), spending most of its efforts to rehash the crimes of the villain that Boyarski was prosecuting when he was accused of prosecutorial misconduct, rather than dealing with the charges laid against Boyarski for prosecutorial misconduct.

Unlike the FPPC complaint against Karen Holman, these charges were laid by professional lawyers, working in the realm of law enforcement. The most damning claims of prosecutorial misconduct did not come from an unnamed resident of Boyarski’s constituency, but from the judge of a California Appeals Court. Yet—according to the California Supreme Court—the charges against Boyarski were not valid.

Got to wonder if anyone in the legal profession really knows what they are doing? Far too many times “justice” can only be obtained with a case review by the Supreme Court.

This article is clearly not reporting on Boyarski’s behavior during this trial--giving us some idea what he was accused of doing wrong--from a legal point of view. All of the rehashing of the crimes being prosecuted clearly is intended to make Boyarksi out as “the good guy”—even though it is clear that he was not totally so.
The article does not seem to want to give us any idea why one Court sees prosecutorial misconduct in such a clear light as the Appeals Court did, and why the Supreme Court sees things in such a different light.

> The justices did find that Boyarsky committed misconduct
> when he suggested that jurors consider what their family
> and friends would think if they returned a verdict
> favoring Shazier.

> Boyarsky also committed "arguable" misconduct
> when he implied there were additional, unreported
> crimes in Shazier's background.

Also interesting is that Boyarksi’s only comments in this article seem to suggest that he did nothing wrong--even though the Supreme Court did not dismiss all of the charges against him. Given how one-sided (almost biased in a way to make Boyarski seem more like a victim, rather than a transgressor) this article seems to be, it’s surprising that these proven charges of misconduct were even reported. It remains to be seen if these proven charges of misconduct will result in any Bar disciplinary actions against him, however.

Given the questionable behavior of Jeff Rosen during his campaign to unseat Delores Carr from her DA’s job, and then these charges against Boyarski—it’s really difficult to believe that Rosen was the breath of fresh air that he claimed he was going to be. (Remember—Rosen filed a bogus FPPC complaint against Carr just before the election, which the FPPC rejected.)

Prosecutorial misconduct happens all the time. Sadly, because our judicial system has enshrouded itself in black robes and a complete lack of transparency that we ought to call secrecy—we just don’t know how frequently it really occurs.

Like this comment
Posted by Bruce Li
a resident of Barron Park
on Aug 29, 2014 at 5:55 pm

"Shazier had pleaded guilty to multiple sexual assaults on minor boys and was sentenced to 17 years and eight months in prison in October 1994. He pleaded guilty to sodomy and oral copulation of a drugged or intoxicated 17-year-old victim, forcible sodomy of a 14-year-old boy and multiple counts of child molestation against boys ages 13 to 16.

Shazier has a history of sexually assaulting underage boys dating to 1987, and he was first convicted of the crimes in 1988. Though he was paroled and promised not to commit further acts, he repeatedly committed additional sex crimes against boys ages 13 to 17 each time he was released from prison. He had at least 12 known victims, the Supreme Court justices noted."

Looks and sounds to me like Mr. Boyarsky was looking out for the safety of our children and the public, exactly what I'd want from my District Attorney's office! Thank you Mr. Boyarsky for a job well done!!

Like this comment
Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Aug 29, 2014 at 6:37 pm

Hmmm is a registered user.

Speaking of looking creepy, this DA should take a good look in the mirror.

Like this comment
Posted by Right Decision
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 30, 2014 at 5:52 pm

I agree with Bruce. The California Supreme Court reversed almost every aspect of the appeals court ruling. And keep in mind that the trial court judge did not raise any concerns about Boyarsky's statements. What's more, the one item where the Supreme Court did not reverse the appeals court hardly sounds like misconduct. It seems like the appeals court must have had some ax to grind in this case and the Supreme Court has, fortunately, set things straight. Given Shazier's record, kudos to Boyarsky and the DA's office for keeping him off the streets.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Burger chain Shake Shack to open in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 5 comments | 2,757 views

Eat, Surf, Love
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 1,019 views

Couples: So You Married Mom or Dad . . .
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 978 views

The Cost of Service
By Aldis Petriceks | 2 comments | 637 views