Politicization of Supreme Court

Well, here I go again. After reading the two letters signed by Ned Reilly of Santa Ana and Peter Williams of Pomona, in defense of the California Supreme Court reversals of four murder cases, I tried desperately to fight off my need to rebut their arguments, but, being involved in the Memro case myself, I could not hold back any longer.

As to Reilly’s assertion that “it was not the Supreme Court’s fault that overzealous police officers coerced a confession out of a defendant.” I will only say that this was only an allegation made by the defense. The trial court judge didn’t believe it and refused to allow the defense to subpoena police records, which they “hoped” would show complaints of prior coercion on the part of investigating officers, thereby bolstering their allegation on the part of the defendant. I will concede that the trial judge erred by not allowing these records. The omission of these records just gave the supreme “intellectuals” another excuse to throw out a death penalty case.

As for Williams (who identified himself as the lead defense attorney for Memro): He sure couldn’t find any fault with the court’s decision--after all, it was in his favor. After losing out to a preliminary hearing judge, a Superior Court judge and the Appeal Court judge, he finally found a winning combination in the Supreme Court “intellectuals.” I am sure that both of these individuals will not lose any sleep should Memro or the other three defendants escape justice and kill again.

PHILLIP WROBLEWSKI

Springville