Close to Home: In defense of judge’s decision

As a Sonoma County deputy public defender, I avoid publicly discussing my cases. However, the Aug. 22 Close to Home column (“Troubling decision to free man guilty of savage crime”) by Sonoma County District Attorney Jill Ravitch compels me to comment. Regardless of my reaction to Ravitch’s opinion of my client, John Duport, I was dismayed The Press Democrat published a one-sided commentary on a judicial decision that the court is not allowed to respond to.

I expect both Ravitch and The Press Democrat know that judges are not allowed to comment on public discussions relating to their cases, such as Duport’s habeas petition. Specifically, Judicial Canon 2 precludes a judge from “mak(ing) statements … that commit the judge with respect to cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the courts or that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office.”

First, Ravitch suggests that the judge acted behind the backs of prosecutors in granting Duport’s habeas petition. This is not true. The people of California were ably represented throughout the parole proceedings: first, by one of Ravitch’s senior deputy district attorneys at the parole board hearing; and by the California attorney general in this habeas proceeding.

Second, while a parole grant and the issues raised by Ravitch may be worthy of a news analysis, The Press Democrat instead chose to publish an opinion not subject to journalistic standards of balance and verification. As the paper must have known that the judge would not be able to rebut, it should have also provided its readers the facts that persuaded the parole board, and then this court, to grant Duport parole:

Duport, a juvenile at the time of the offense, was in the company of two adult co-defendants who, from the evidence presented to the parole board, were far more culpable than Duport in every aspect of the crime.

The law requires the parole board, the governor and the courts to give “great weight to the diminished culpability of juveniles as compared to adults.” The parole board acknowledged that a young person’s brain is not fully developed until well into his mid-20s.

Duport not only turned himself in but confessed to his involvement.

He pleaded guilty to both murders, though the evidence was clear he only stabbed one of the two women.

The governor’s finding that Duport “continues to lash out violently in prison” was unsupported. In the 2008 disciplinary report, the hearing officer concluded that. Duport was defending himself and did not instigate the fight.

A 2014 comprehensive risk assessment concluded that. Duport is at low risk of re-offending.

Duport’s prison classification score was the lowest possible, given his offense.

The parole board engaged in a probing discussion with Duport before it concluded he was suitable for release.

The nature of the committed offense cannot, on its own, be the basis of current dangerousness.

The board granted parole after a lengthy hearing in which Ravitch’s deputy stated, “I do want to acknowledge the fact Mr. Duport has taken advantage of the programs that have been offered to him, that his remorse, I believe, is sincere based on what I have seen of him today.”

The absence of evidence to substantiate the governor’s conclusion that Duport constitutes a current threat to public safety is why the court had no choice but to grant Duport’s habeas petition.

Judges are obliged to follow the law. Not popular opinion polls. Not headlines.

Karen Thompson of Santa Rosa is a deputy public?defender for Sonoma County.