Passalacqua or Ravitch

Who will be elected as Sonoma County’s District Attorney on June
8 has become a burning question, fueled by covetous self-interests
inside the criminal justice community and made “white hot” by the
two candidates’ own blowtorch rhetoric and personal-attack
tirades.
The number one job of the county’s district attorney is to serve
as the “people’s lawyer,” administering justice without prejudice
and serving the larger duty of securing the public’s safety against
criminals and other wrongdoing.
Where there is a criminal justice community with the sheriff’s
seat going uncontested for over a decade and there is a very
partisan contest for three Superior Court judge seats, the public
would be best served by a tested and independent district
attorney.
If you believe that candidate to be incumbent Stephan
Passalacqua, you would be disagreeing with the criticisms of
Sheriff Bill Cogbill, the Deputy Sheriff’s Association and over
half of the local cities’ police officers’ labor unions. All these
groups have joined with challenger Jill Ravitch in calling for new
leadership and citing a “loss of confidence” in Passalacqua’s
office. Passalacqua has successfully led the 125-person, $22
million office since 2002, winning the people’s vote twice, but his
bid for a third term is facing a very fierce challenge from Ravitch
who lost a narrow race to him in 2006.
The campaign has been full of half-documented charges and
countercharges that would not stand up to a test of courtroom
evidence. While Passalacqua and Ravitch have traded bitter attacks
on each other’s professional records, the voters have been left
with only “he said, she said” testimony.
On-the-record statements from Sheriff Cogbill carry a certain
weight and authority. “We have a good relationship with the
individuals inside the D.A.’s office, but sometimes we have not
been on the same page with the D.A.,” Cogbill said. The sheriff
also said there are too many inconsistencies and delays in deciding
which cases go to trial. “It would be nice to have firm
guidelines,”  Cogbill said.
Passalacqua admits his “independence” has “ruffled feathers” in
some law enforcement agencies, saying “I’m the people’s lawyer, not
the sheriff’s attorney.”.
The Deputy Sheriff’s Association and other police units have
been vocal about Passalacqua’s long delays in ruling on a series of
officer-involved shootings and deaths. There have been 13 such
incidents over the past five years where the D.A. office is
required to render a third-party review within 90 days. Some of the
cases waited over a year for a D.A. response, although all police
officers were eventually exonerated by the D.A. in all cases.
While Cogbill endorses Ravitch’s “tenacious” courtroom
prosecution record that includes 12 murder convictions, former
Assistant District Attorney Greg Jacobs, who worked with both
Ravitch and Passalacqua, favors the record of work by
Passalacqua.
“It’s one thing to get a murder conviction in court, but it’s
quite another to lead a whole staff and work well in the
community,” said Jacobs. “In my opinion the office has never
performed better than right now.”
Ravitch, 51, and Passalacqua, 47, share similar legal careers,
with both joining the county’s D.A.office as junior prosecutors in
1989 under former D.A. Gene Tunney. Ravitch has impressed both
colleagues and courtroom adversaries with her tough demeanor and
high intelligence. She is known as a “prosecutor’s prosecutor.” She
says being a prosecutor and being in public service is all she’s
ever wanted to do.
Passalacqua has spent much less time in the courtroom and more
time doing community outreach. He leads a staff of prosecutors who
have not lost a murder case in his eight years in office. The staff
includes more women and Latinos than ever before. He has added
elder abuse, victims’ rights, a family justice center and a Truancy
Court to his department.
But even his close supporters say Passalacqua lacks “charisma”
and is “stiff” in his debates with Ravitch. Other newspapers’
endorsement editorials grant him a “C” average grade, at best, for
his demonstrated leadership of the “people’s lawyers” office.
Ravitch or Passalacqua? offers a clear choice of different
personalities and leadership. Too bad the voters (jury) lack enough
clear evidence to offer a precise and confident verdict. But, worse
would be if the self-serving interests inside the hallways of the
Hall of Justice held sway.
Unlike some trials, elections do not end with “hung juries.” We
wish this one could because the evidence on either side lacks full
weight.
— Rollie Atkinson