[b]Reply to the District Attorney’s Opposition to Motion for Recusal of Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office Pursuant to Penal Code Section 1424[/b] Excerpt: The District Attorney of this County does not have a personal right to prosecute Mr. Jackson. Instead he has a duty to prosecute cases in a fair and even handed manner. If there is a reasonable possibility that he cannot do so, he must step aside and allow another professional prosecutor to handle the case. (People v Conner (1983) 34 Cal. 3d 141, 147-148.) This is a matter that has to be examined in an objective fashion by neutral trial judge. Unfortunately, from a neutral vantage point there is no question that the District Attorney crossed the line so many times during the course of this case that more than the required “reasonable possibility” exists. So be it. If Mr. Jackson ought to be prosecuted, the Attorney General will step in and do so but the Santa Barbara District Attorney should step down. The Court, of course, should not be asked by the prosecution to be an apologist for the prosecutorsÂ’ actions, nor should they ask the Court to turn a blind eye to the obvious. The Court has the duty to “call balls and strikes” without regard to the consequences to who is a bat. The facts, obvious to the most casual observer, demonstrate more than a reasonable possibility of bias. This is not a close case. There is more than sufficient evidence to suspect that the District Attorney has a personal bias against Mr. Jackson. (pg 2)

Leave a Reply