Sybert Case Sets Bad Precedent

Nearly as startling as the videotape of Assembly candidate Rich Sybert shredding his opponent’s campaign signs was the pronouncement by the Ventura County District Attorney’s office that there isn’t enough evidence to prosecute Sybert for the act.

“No one is saying this conduct is acceptable,” explained Jeff Bennett, the district attorney’s chief deputy in charge of investigations. “However, criminal charges are only filed when we can prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. And in this case, we did not think we could have convinced a jury. Clearly, this is really an issue for voters to decide.”

We agree that in this case the verdict that counts will be rendered not in the jury box but at the ballot box. Yet we can’t help but note that this decision involves a Republican district attorney with a zeal for prosecuting even the tiniest infractions and a Republican candidate running on a platform of zero tolerance for crime.

This decision sets a troubling precedent. If the district attorney won’t prosecute a case in which both the crime and the confession have been televised far and wide, why should anyone think twice before uprooting the signs of any candidate they don’t happen to like?

The district attorney’s office shares the credit for Ventura County’s enviably low crime rate. It makes decisions every day about how to use its substantial but not unlimited resources. The decision to let the Sybert case go unprosecuted--videotape, confession and all--would be less remarkable if not for a few recent instances in which the district attorney has pursued criminal charges in seemingly minor cases.

In one case, a woman who tried to enter the courthouse with a key chain ornament that could conceivably have been used as a weapon was prosecuted. In another, criminal charges were pressed against a man who dropped a quarter into a newspaper sales box and removed more than one paper.

We respect the prosecutors’ efforts to fight crime in Ventura County but we question the decision to use resources on cases such as these while letting an obvious public affront like the Sybert case go unpunished.

An even higher profile decision by the district attorney’s office will be announced Monday, when prosecutors again stand before Superior Court Judge Charles W. Campbell Jr. in the case of Michael Dally.

After a lengthy trial, a jury found Dally guilty of helping to murder his wife, Sherri, two years ago but deadlocked 7 to 5 on whether to sentence him to death. On Monday prosecutors will either request a new penalty-phase trial with a new jury solely to try again for the death penalty or they will agree to let Dally spend the rest of his life in prison without parole.

We see little benefit for the public to justify the time and expense of replaying this complicated case. If life without parole isn’t complete justice in this ugly case, it is close enough.