D.A. Seeks an Extra $756,000 for Raises and Murder Trials

While other departments are absorbing salary increases as part of county government’s belt-tightening, the district attorney’s office is asking supervisors for an additional $756,000 this year to fund the costly prosecution of several capital murder trials and hefty pay raises granted to employees last fall.

If supervisors agree, the cost overruns would be paid with Proposition 172 funds, a half-cent sales tax that funnels millions of extra dollars to the Sheriff’s Department, district attorney, public defender and probation services.

This fiscal year, the district attorney’s office is budgeted to receive $4 million of the $40 million the county expects to receive from the sales tax.

Supervisor Frank Schillo said he believes the district attorney’s request for additional Proposition 172 money is justified, even though other departments must find the money to pay for their own salary increases.

“It’s tough bananas [for the other departments],” Schillo said. “The money was saved for public safety and that’s what it’s being used for.”

Schillo said other agencies, such as the county Human Services Agency, have received new tobacco tax revenues to help cover program and operating costs within their departments.

The extra money being sought by the district attorney is needed, in large part, to offset the agency’s $1.1 million in salary increases approved in October, officials said. Prosecutors and public defenders will receive a 5% pay raise each year through 2003, an incentive passed to keep local government lawyers from seeking higher-paying jobs in Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties.

“We wouldn’t need that money had our salary increases been funded,” Chief Assistant Dist. Atty. Gregory Totten said. “We’re 90% to 95% salary-driven. Our budget is all about people. We don’t have a lot of non-salary budget issues or flexibility in non-salary areas.”

Salaries represent $20 million of the district attorney’s $24-million budget, Totten said.

More money is also needed to cover the cost of lengthy, more complex trials due in part to tougher sentencing laws for rape, aggravated assault and domestic violence cases, Totten said.

The district attorney’s operating costs are expected to increase even more in the new fiscal year, which begins July 1. The agency is expected to prosecute two costly death penalty cases, including that of Justin Merriman, accused of the rape and slaying of a 20-year-old Santa Monica College student, and Jose Pepe Castillo, charged with the fatal shooting of a Santa Paula store owner.

Other cases under consideration for the death penalty include that of Socorro “Cora” Caro, accused of fatally shooting three sons in November, and Alfredo Freddie Hernandez, accused in Castillo’s murder case.

The additional funding being sought will meet “the costs associated with expert witnesses, travel expenses for homicide [cases] and DNA testing.”

“Homicide cases by their very nature tend to involve more police reports, more witnesses, lengthier hearings and they’re more aggressively litigated by the defense,” Totten said.

Ventura County prosecutors take to trial 8% to 13% of the felony cases they file, contrasted with the statewide average of 3%, he said. Last year, the agency filed 92 felony cases and 86 in 1998.

The 14% drop in serious crime in Ventura County from 1998 to 1999 meant police investigators had more time to resurrect unsolved murder cases, prosecutors said.

Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury and Sheriff Bob Brooks in December agreed to set aside any tax funds above the $40 million the county is estimated to receive this fiscal year in Proposition 172 funds for the proposed $64-million Juvenile Hall. But Totten said Bradbury’s promises were contingent on whether the agency’s basic funding needs were first met.

“The district attorney is still fully prepared to honor that commitment to the extent that his base budget is provided for,” he said.