D.A.’s Course Needs Correcting

I read where Orange County Dist. Atty. Michael Capizzi plans to spend more millions of taxpayers’ money to retry former county Budget Director Ronald S. Rubino. When nine out of 12 jurors have voted to acquit Rubino (resulting in a hung jury), it appears to me that there may exist a question of one’s political ambition rather than a question of another man’s innocence.

In everything that I’ve read, certainly the D.A. has presented no solid evidence of Rubino’s guilt, and certainly there were no allegations of personal gain.

It will be unfortunate for county taxpayers and the justice system if we must all revisit this phase again.

RICHARD V. SIMON

Newport Beach

* Orange County clearly does things first class.

The bankruptcy was certainly classy: $1.64 billion worth.

Then the Rubino trial, a failed attempt to nail a scapegoat. It cost about $1 million to pay for both the prosecution and defense.

And now the district attorney proposes to retry the case. Another million just to satisfy Capizzi’s ego trip? That’s first class dumb for my money.

Which it is!

JOE JACOBS

Laguna Beach

* I read very carefully your Sept. 11 story on the dismissal of charges against Assemblyman Scott Baugh (R-Huntington Beach).

The action by Judge James L. Smith must be very disappointing to the grand jury members who handed down the indictments. As a former member of the Orange County Grand Jury, I was never comfortable with the procedure wherein the grand jurors know absolutely nothing about the case except what is placed before them by the district attorney. They are instructed that their decision to hand in an indictment shall be based solely upon the evidence presented before them.

The witnesses are forbidden to have counsel in the jury room. The accused is not present at the hearing. No cross examination is allowed. It is a one-sided show with the district attorney in complete charge.

It is painfully evident in the Baugh case that the grand jury was grossly misled by the district attorney and rendered bad decisions on bad or incomplete evidence. The show put on by the district attorney has bombed and the members of the grand jury have every cause to have lost faith in the office of the Orange County district attorney.

CHARLES C. BENNETT

Huntington Beach

* Re “D.A. Admits Stanton Trial Not Probable,” Sept. 14:

I read with contempt and disbelief that the taxpayers of Orange County, who were obligated to pay over $250,000 in legal fees for Stanton, will not have the opportunity to find out if Supervisor Roger Stanton was innocent or guilty of willful misconduct in office.

The $250,000 was used to postpone his trial until after his term of office ends in December. The charges against him are very serious and demand a resolution in court. Because of Stanton’s timely retirement, He will be able to leave office without having had to answer to the people he is accused of misrepresenting.

Unlike the hundreds of employees who lost their jobs and whose futures were destroyed because of the Orange County bankruptcy, Stanton will receive a very handsome retirement with benefits. Were any of the laid-off employees given $250,000 for severance pay? Is this justice for the people of the county? Is this fair to the employees who not only lost their jobs but also their dignity and hope? Perhaps Stanton would like to donate some of the $250,000 to help the others?

GENE P. MORRIS

Dove Canyon