s
s
Sections
Sections
Subscribe
You've read 5 of 15 free articles this month.
Support local journalism and get unlimited access to PressDemocrat.com, the eEdition and our mobile app, all starting at 99 cents per month.
Already a subscriber?
You've read 10 of 15 free articles this month.
Support local journalism and get unlimited access to PressDemocrat.com, the eEdition and our mobile app, all starting at 99 cents per month.
Already a subscriber?
You've read all of your free articles this month.
Support local journalism and get unlimited access to PressDemocrat.com, the eEdition and our mobile app, all starting at 99 cents per month.
Already a subscriber?
We've got a special deal for readers like you.
Support local journalism and get unlimited access to PressDemocrat.com, the eEdition and our mobile app, all starting at 99 cents per month.
Already a subscriber?
Thanks for reading! Why not subscribe?
Support local journalism and get unlimited access to PressDemocrat.com, the eEdition and our mobile app, all starting at 99 cents per month.
Already a subscriber?
Want to keep reading? Subscribe today!
Ooops! You're out of free articles. Starting at just 99 cents per month, you can keep reading all of our products and support local journalism.
Already a subscriber?

<b>Invalidating the jury</b>

EDITOR: Paul Gullixson's May 4 column ("A verdict that just raises more questions") regarding Efren Carrillo is both fascinating and disturbing. Gullixson wasn't in court to judge the credibility of the witnesses, nor did he consider the instructions read by the judge and apply them to the facts, nor did he deliberate with other jurors. Of course, all of this is necessary to reach a lawful verdict.

Gullixson is obviously quite disturbed by the outcome. His column demonstrates his bias and ignorance. While Gullixson professes to have "great respect" for the jury process, his column demonstrates just the opposite — he invalidates the jury's decision, which I find quite disturbing.

What I find fascinating is that Gullixson's hit piece is a perfect example of attorney Chris Andrian's opinion about picking a jury: "Women jurors are more reflective while men are more judgmental" ("Juror: Carrillo testimony key to acquittal," April 30).

If anyone disagrees, just compare Gullixson's words with those of Catherine Bartholomei and Anysia Fritz in Sunday's paper ("Putting the trials of Efren Carrillo in perspective," Close to Home).

One thing is certain, call me judgmental, but I would never select Gullixson to sit on any jury. Perhaps I should be more forgiving. After all, he's only a man.

STEPHEN M. GALLENSON

Andrian & Gallenson

Santa Rosa

<b>Special treatment</b>

EDITOR: With regard to Mendocino Supervisor Dan Hamburg's description — "If he was just Efren Carrillo and not Supervisor Carrillo, this whole matter would have slipped away" ("Let Carrillo do his job," Letters, Friday) — I firmly disagree. If the peeker were just Efren Carrillo, he'd be in jail and likely faced with a much more serious charge.

BARBARA HARRIS

Sebastopol

<b>Lowry: Solution-oriented</b>

EDITOR: John Lowry has the ability to draw support from both sides of the aisle. He has many years of experience as the chief executive of Burbank Housing. This role brought him into direct contact with city, county and state government officials in efforts to provide rental- and owner-occupied housing to lower-income seniors and families in and outside Sonoma County. He understands the issues present when the public and private sectors interface, and he appreciates the importance of defining strategies that work for both.

Lowry has proven his ability to successfully navigate the challenges that exist between the private and the public sectors and will be equally successful in dealing with the political challenges inherit in the multi-party system at the state Assembly.

Lowry's honest approach and commitment to finding workable solutions will draw support from all political perspectives. These skills are critical as our elected officials seek solutions to the financial, social and environmental challenges that lay ahead. I urge your vote for John Lowry in the 2nd Assembly District.

RICK E. LEWIS

Santa Rosa

<b>Medical boondoggle</b>

EDITOR: Mary Ely ("Collateral damage," Letters, May 2) bemoaned the sparse crowd at the Sebastopol Starbucks and attributes this to the closing of Palm Drive Hospital. What does Ely suggest? That taxpayers continue to subsidize Palm Drive so that its under-utilized employees can buy more lattes from Starbucks? The sad fact is that Palm Drive is no longer viable in today's medical care environment and its closing will (hopefully) get the taxpayers off the hook for this medical boondoggle.

JOHN SCHWIRTZ

Sebastopol

<b>Thanking cops</b>

EDITOR: I think I have finally heard it all. "I make my living standing in front of juries trying to convince them that police officers, certain police officers, are bad folks." says attorney Arnoldo Casillas ("Lopez attorney says &‘decision has been made,' " Monday). This statement is exactly what is wrong with our community. In my opinion, it is not only wrong but extremely irresponsible.

Instead of convincing people, including our youth, that cops are "bad folks," I would much rather thank them — thank them for their service to our community, the long hours they work, the time away from their families and their willingness to put their lives on the line for us. I happen to appreciate and respect law enforcement, and I will raise my children to do the same.

I believe Deputy Erick Gelhaus would respond to this attorney's call for help if needed. He'd be willing to protect him. He has an admirable job, unlike this attorney. I wonder if he would sue Gelhaus if he saved his life?

KATIE KEEN

Santa Rosa