Mirkarimi's not going anywhere

|
(107)

Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi may be guilty of domestic violence, and if he is -- as I've said repeatedly -- it's a serious crime and he should be held accountable. It will be very hard for him to remain in office with a DV conviction, even if it's just a misdemeanor.

But right now, the charges are just that -- charges. In the eyes of the law, he's innocent until proven guilty. So I don't see how Mayor Ed Lee can suspend him.

Lee's under a lot of pressure, and under the City Charter, he has the sole authority to suspend an office holder for "official misconduct," which is defined as "wrongful behavior by a public officer in relation to the duties of his or her office." If there's a suspension, the Ethics Commission and the Board of Supervisors would both have to vote to remove Mirkarimi permanently.

But here's the thing: Lee has no evidence of official misconduct -- not unless the district attorney decides to turn over to the mayor all of the files in the criminal case, at which point Ethics and the supes would be holding mini trials of their own on evidence that hasn't been adjudicated in court (and a court may rule some of it inadmissable).

That doesn't seem likely (and it would be very odd for the D.A. to join the mayor in what would amount to a second prosecution).

And all of this would be going on at a time when the actual criminal trial is only four weeks away.

The courts have interpreted "official misconduct" fairly narrowly. If Mirkarimi is convicted, then the city attorney can get into the argument over whether domestic violence has any "relation to the duties" of the Sheriff's Office, and since he's a law-enforcement officer, that might not be too hard to argue. Certainly the charge of influencing a witness would be subject to that interpretation. So after a conviction, Lee would be in a position to think seriously about suspension -- if Mirkarmi didn't step down on his own.

But right now, there's no conviction. In terms of the court system (that would have to get involved) Mirkarimi isn't guilty of anything yet.

Mirkarimi could decide to take a leave of absence, although he doesn't seem inclined to do that. But whatever the merits of the case, and whatever the political arguments about whether the sheriff can do his job in the middle of this media circus, I -- admittedly as a nonlawyer -- can't see how Lee could possibly invoke the suspension provisions of the Charter.

Maybe I'm missing something. 

Comments

If Ross cares more about himself and his ego, then he should stay in office.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 5:15 pm

What is it about INNOCENT until proven guilty that you don't understand?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 5:30 pm

And also Ross's other ex who says he is abusive.

Yes, I suppose that is statistically possible, however unlikely it is.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 5:55 pm

Guys, enough is enough.

These comments have become such a ridiculous avalanche of repetition of the same stupid back and forth sniping an any given issue, that there is simply no point whatsoever in reading or participating in them anymore.

Can you please just institute a login system that allows individual readers to screen commenters they don't want to hear from, so that these comments will actually be readable.

Please...........................

Posted by anonymous on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 9:50 pm

Not going to happen (otherwise they would have done it by now). Your repetitious demands are getting on all our nerves. If you don't like certain commenters, don't read them.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 26, 2012 @ 1:58 pm

He doesn't want ANYONE to read them. As always, the hard left loves to censor, if only they can get the power to do so.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 26, 2012 @ 2:25 pm

Ed Lee has no right to overturn the will of the voters in a free and fair election.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 5:17 pm

Ross should be do, and stand down until the trial.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 5:56 pm

The people of San Francisco are his boss.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 6:07 pm

The bucks stops with him.

But he didn't tell Ross to quit - he merely asked him. That shows compassion and integrity. He didn't pull a power trip.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 6:17 pm

The city is not a business, and the mayor is not a CEO. The mayor is accountable to the people, and has no other boss than the people. The sheriff is also accountable to the people, and has no other boss than the people.

Well, at least that's the way it should work. In reality, of course, the mayor is owned by the corporations, and he comes out of an ideology that says a city should be run like a for-profit business, so in that sense he is more like a CEO... but that's a whole other can of worms.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 6:29 pm

But Lee is giving Ross a chance to exit this horrorshow with dignity and what is elft of his reputation.

Ross should take it. He can't beat up everyone who disagrees with him.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 6:39 pm

Huh? I guess that should have applied to Nixon as well, right?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 25, 2012 @ 12:54 pm

Can Ross do his job while he's under indictment? Would he relieve the pressure on himself if he were to temporarily step down and then return to his position if acquitted?

We may never know because, as Tim writes, Ross "isn't inclined" to do so. He seems to be hunkering down and counting on the fact that he can successfully ride this out. But at this point he may actually be doing more harm to himself than good.

Posted by H. Monk-Brown CI on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 5:37 pm

He should step down for his own good.... riiight.

Your concern is noted.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 6:10 pm

huge cloud hanging over him. Can he command any respect or credibility from the rank and file officers? It seems unlikely.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 6:18 pm

I don't give a shit about what the rank and file officers want. The only authority he answers to are the people of San Francisco, and we had our say last November, and we will have our say in November of 2015 again.

Those rank and file officers who don't like him, and live in San Francisco, had their opportunity to vote for someone else. And I'm sure they did. In fact, they noted their concerns when they all endorsed Miyamoto in unison. The voters listened to them and we disagreed. End of story.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 7:59 pm

There's no length you're unwilling to go to defend Ross Mirkarimi. One only needs to look at your 100+ posts here on the subject to understand that.

Posted by H. Monk-Brown CI on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 6:24 pm

He has to support himself, his wife, and his kid. He is going to have significant legal bills. It's not economically rational to step aside unless it'd be paid leave.

Posted by The Commish on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 6:30 pm
Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 6:39 pm

I'm just saying. He could go bankrupt fast paying his own lawyer and a lawyer for his wife.

Posted by The Commish on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 6:57 pm

It's called a disincentive to do wrong in the first place, but not everybody heeds the call.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 7:07 pm

for using the law to attack political opponents?

I think the DA should be liable for malicious prosecutions. If the person is found to be innocent, maybe the DA should have to personally repay all legal costs out of his own pocket. I think there should be a vehicle by which the victim of such a prosecution should be able to sue the DA for the damage done to their reputation, and if evidence of prosecutorial misconduct is found, the DA should be removed and subject to prison.

Without any such recourse, we have... well, the system we have now, where millions of people's lives are ruined in the criminal injustice system, and the law is blatantly used to attack political opposition and as a general method of social control.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 7:40 pm

What a naive little world you live in Ross-lover. It's like arguing with a child! Are you going to hold your breath until Ross is acquitted and the DA says sorry?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 9:27 pm

That is silly. No one would agree to be a prosecutor if they were personally liable. And if the office of the DA were liable, taxpayers would be on the hook. Sorry, Greg, but prosecutorial immunity is entrenched in the system. It's not going to change. Turning your argument around, should ever defendant who is found guilty have to pay all the prosecutor's costs as well as restitution. Usually, only economic crimes and certain crimes that can be tied to economic loss are subject to restitution.

My point regarding RM is that he probably can't afford to resign, so it's illogical to think he will go willingly and he can't be faulted for that choice. He would have no job prospects. He's probably making $200K a year in his current post. He would be unemployable if he left. I think the only jobs he's had in town are DA investigator, Supervisor, and Sheriff. What's he going to do if he leaves the job? No one would hire him now.

Posted by The Commish on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 9:36 pm

I'm not talking about simply losing a case. That's one thing. But when a prosecutor is gratuitously going after someone for political reasons, or falsifying evidence, or not turning over exculpatory evidence to the defense, or obtaining a confession through coersion or trickery -you know, really egregious stuff, which unfortunately, happens all the time...

Like the Central Park jogger case, for example, where all the defendants were recently exonerated. They were tricked into "confessing" crimes they didn't commit, and even when years later it became absolutely clear that they were completely innocent, the DA in the case fought till the very end to prevent their release from prison.

Wouldn't you agree that there should be some recourse in a case like that? And not just financial. The cops and prosecutors responsible for destroying the lives of these unfortunate young men should themselves be subjected to prison for doing what they did.

Not that it will happen anytime soon, you're right about that. But I'm talking about what's right and what's just.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 10:43 pm

Unless his wife is paying.

“I am not a little Indian girl gringo victim''

http://www.mrskin.com/eliana-lopez-nude-c13588.html

Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 8:09 pm

I would be suspicious of Christina Marie Flore's motives. She tried and tried again to be famous. She tried to be an actress. Failed. She tried to be a comedian. Failed. She tried to be a Serious Talk Show host. Failed. She tried to be Mrs. Ross Mirkarimi. Failed.
Hell Hath No Fury indeed.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 6:51 pm

Most normal people hearing about a pattern of violence against women will draw their own, reasonable conclusions.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 6:58 pm

Those serving on a jury should hear the evidence admitted in the court and avoid drawing any conclusions until they enter the deliberation room and discuss that evidence with their fellow jurists.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 7:17 pm
Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 8:18 pm

Agreed...because this is SUCH a great career move for her. Has People Magazine offered her a million dollars for her story yet? 60 Minutes?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 7:31 pm

Is the cultural, media, intellectual, artistic and political center of the world.

This is looking more and more like the Clarence Thomas episode, with the roles reversed, with just one side going ape shit, the defenders of Clarence Thomas.

It's like if Anita Hill had no defenders and all the right wingers were spinning their crazy non sense to attack Anita Hill, while the feminists and whatnot didn't utter a peep.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 7:45 pm

Maybe she won't get her 15 minutes of fame on 60 minutes, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone offered her a substantial sum of money to do this.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 8:06 pm

Insofar as the "tampering with a witness" charge, I saw it averred somewhere today that the witness in question was the wife. I had thought it was the neighbor. My question is if Ross asked his wife not to go public with whatever took place, does that qualify as "tampering"? It seems like the most ordinary thing in the world to me and to be expected of any husband in this situation but I don't have all the facts. And I'm not a lawyer (thank goodness).

Posted by barry eisenberg on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 7:25 pm

I googled "meaning of tampering with a witness" and came up with

lectlaw.com/def2/t004.htm

which seems to indicate that you cannot tamper with a witness unless that person is already scheduled to BE a witness in a court case. In other words, since there was no court case yet it looks like this charge is putting the cart before the horse.

Bizarre, no?

Posted by barry eisenberg on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 7:38 pm

Witness tampering is just one of those bullshit up-charges that are par for the course in the American "justice" system. It's like resisting arrest. If you so much as look at the officer wrong, or ask him what you're being arrested for, they charge you with resisting arrest. If, on the other hand, the officer decides he doesn't like you and he decides to beat the crap out of you, then you also get charged with "battery of an officer."

You throw every charge you can think of and see what sticks.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 8:02 pm

And of course, since I'm not very smart, what I find by googling carries just as much weight as what a respected career DA knows

Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 9:30 pm

The guy was a career cop who got some kind of mail order law degree through an unacredited law school, and Newsom made him DA just before he left. I don't think we've ever had a less qualified DA than Gascon.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 11:30 pm

Gascon is not a career DA. He's had no prosecutorial experience. He's a career cop, that's all, and a political appointee of Gavin Newsom's.

He's out of his depth, going out of his way to pour gasoline on the fire in the Mirkarimi matter, then claiming cherubically that he's just doing his job. I propose a nickname for him: Gas Can

Posted by barry eisenberg on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 11:40 pm

Gascon is not a career DA. He's had no prosecutorial experience. He's a career cop, that's all, and a political appointee of Gavin Newsom's.

He's out of his depth, going out of his way to pour gasoline on the fire in the Mirkarimi matter, then claiming cherubically that he's just doing his job. I propose a nickname for him: Gas Can

Posted by barry eisenberg on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 11:42 pm

Gascon is not a career DA. He's had no prosecutorial experience. He's a career cop, that's all, and a political appointee of Gavin Newsom's.

He's out of his depth, going out of his way to pour gasoline on the fire in the Mirkarimi matter, then claiming cherubically that he's just doing his job. I propose a nickname for him: Gas Can

Posted by Greg on Jan. 25, 2012 @ 10:44 am

The above poster is not me. And I am not barry eisenberg.

Yes, the comments are similar, and I expected the trolls to come out of the woodwork when I saw that posting by barry, whom I don't know, incidentally.

The obvious intention is, again, to marginalize opinions that you don't agree with, but "Guest," you have only yourself to blame for the fact that you elicited similar comments from different people. The comment you made was one of the most inane I've ever seen here. You set yourself up for ridicule and walked right into it, and now you're trying to cover up with the usual tactics.

"Respected career DA" my ass!

Posted by Greg on Jan. 25, 2012 @ 11:11 am

The above poster is not me. And I am not barry eisenberg.

Yes, the comments are similar, and I expected the trolls to come out of the woodwork when I saw that posting by barry, whom I don't know, incidentally.

The obvious intention is, again, to marginalize opinions that you don't agree with, but "Guest," you have only yourself to blame for the fact that you elicited similar comments from different people. The comment you made was one of the most inane I've ever seen here. You set yourself up for ridicule and walked right into it, and now you're trying to cover up with the usual tactics.

"Respected career DA" my ass!

Posted by Greg on Jan. 25, 2012 @ 11:11 am

There is a certain amount of respect in keeping at it no matter how bad it looks, if you think you will be able to be vindicated in the end right on. If Ross thinks at the end of this he will come out smelling like a rose, great. As sheriff he is just an administrator and spokesperson, what this has to do with the ongoing job is probably limited.

I liked Clinton more as the morons obsessed over the doings of his penis. I felt a certain sympathy for Trent Lott when he shot his moronic mouth off about Strom Thurmond. Bob Packwood's biggest sin was being crappy at getting laid while drunk, while it's somewhat celebrated in Kennedy. etc... the morals squad on the right and left and its fluid political biases are comical.

What's more interesting is the way people line up convinced of a politicians guilt or innocence based on the politicians politics. I would guess that some who will not be named were in hysterics over Clarence Thomas being approved. When Clarence's biggest sin was a big mouth attached to a right wing idiot.

The woman have exhibited some classic signs of the abused, while this may all come to naught. Ross's politics are those of his apologists, so it's a family matter or the other woman is out for revenge.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 7:39 pm

And again, I think I'll probably get it from all sides for this... but I kind of thought that the whole Anita Hill thing stank. There were far better reasons not to approve Clarence Thomas than years-old accusations which may or may not have been true. I think the Democrats shot themselves in the foot by making that the main line of attack. It ultimately failed because it was weak. They should have opposed him because he was utterly unqualified.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 7:54 pm

Her accusations were not "weak." And there were accusations by others which never made it to the main stage. Thomas was and for all we know, remains a serial sexual harasser.

You are sounding more and more like an apologist for male objectification of women and of male violence towards women. It's really disgusting to see how low you'll go Greg. With friends and defenders like you Ross needs no enemies.

Posted by H. Monk-Brown CI on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 8:20 pm

I'm getting 90's flashbacks

Posted by Brown-Monk Claptrap on Jan. 25, 2012 @ 11:17 am

And she was black too, you forgot to mention that!

Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 8:34 pm

over cooked.

Thomas was never qualified.

He was just a guy with a big mouth with moronic opinions on the law, he would have been approved no matter what, but the Hill thing was a side bar.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 11:01 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.