Reed Endorses Carr

On the back of the surprising endorsement of Sheriff Laurie Smith’s challenger Richard Calderon, Mayor Chuck Reed made the less shocking decision to back District Attorney Dolores Carr in her bid for re-election.  As he did when endorsing Calderon, he cited her work with the Mayor’s Gang Prevention Task Force. “She’s been personally engaged in the issues. She doesn’t just send someone to the meeting who sits there and does nothing,” he says.

Of her opponent, Deputy District Attorney Jeff Rosen, Reed says they met briefly, but beyond that he did not have a great deal to say—either negative or positive. “He seemed OK to me,” Reed says. “It’s hard to judge somebody’s character on a half-hour meeting. I like to work with people. I just have no history with Jeff Rosen.”

Carr and Reed have also worked together on the DA’s Parent Project, which targets the parents of at-risk teens for parenting classes, and stood together against the expansion of access to police reports, a highly criticized move at the time. “It was a principled position for her to be in and I appreciate the effort she made on that,” says Reed.

Carr says she received the news late Wednesday. “I really appreciate his recognition of the need for community leaders to collaborate. If we don’t work together, we just can’t get things done especially in these tough budgetary times,” she says.

24 Comments

  1. Typical Reed.  Shouldn’t he take a little more time to vet the candidate than a 1/2 hour meeting.  “He seemed ok to me.”  He says he likes to work with people, but really should put more effort into knowing candidates before giving out his endorsement.

    • The Mayor has worked with DA Carr for years now. He knows her hard work first hand and most certainly made the right choice in endorsing her.

      • Your opinion on it being the right choice. 

        I hear lots of crime victims are calling into question Carr’s judgement in her handling of cases.  The conflict of interest in that murder case last year meant a delay in justice (as the DA’s office had to recuse itself and send the case to the state).  The elimination of the cold case unit means no more investigations of unsolved crimes in Santa Clara County.  There are other reasons why those who support law and order (and many police organizations plus the bar association) support Rosen for DA.

        • “The elimination of the cold case unit means no more investigations of unsolved crimes in Santa Clara County.”

          That was not an easy decision for her I’m sure. The budget is really bad right now. No matter who was in that job they’d be forced to do the same thing.

          “The conflict of interest in that murder case last year meant a delay in justice (as the DA’s office had to rescue itself and send the case to the state).”

          The man murdered in this case was my friend and his family is very happy with the way this case is being handled by the State.

          ” There are other reasons why those who support law and order (and many police organizations plus the bar association) support Rosen for DA.”

          That isn’t 100% true. Many in law enforcement support Carr. She got the SJPOA endorsement. Rosen didn’t. Go read both of their statements on Protect San Jose. Many in law enforcement made negative comments on Rosen’s positions. 

          “I hear lots of crime victims are calling into question Carr’s judgment in her handling of cases.”

          Like whom? The lack of arrests and prosecution of the rapists in the De Anza rape case that Rosen keeps touting is DA Carr’s fault isn’t true. According to two of the candidates for Sheriff and others in law enforcement, the Sheriff’s department screwed up the investigation so badly that the case couldn’t be prosecuted. If you’re going to come out against DA Carr on a public blog under an anonymous name, at least back it up with facts~

        • “Carr botched the case against Kathleen’s friend’s killer.”

          I couldn’t disagree with you more. DA Carr did no such thing. This case is and has been handled professionally. Justice is in the Judge’s hands now.

          “I guess it goes to show that Kathleen will follow the POA’s lead every single time.”

          Now that is funny. I’ve been called a lot of things in my lifetime but a follower isn’t one of them. Thanks for the chuckle! I don’t follow anyone’s lead but the good Lord’s!

          I fully and proudly support the men and women of the SJPD, and any other officer who puts their life on the line for us each day.

          “To Kathleen:  Is there a candidate that the POA is supporting that you are opposing?”

          I don’t oppose any candidate who runs for office. Running for office takes a lot guts, time, commitment, and money. Now if you are asking would I vote for ALL the candidates the SJPOA endorsed, my answer is NO.

        • Kathleen,

          How quickly you forget.  You do oppose candidates running for office.  Remember this (your words) about Pam Foley?:

          Who is this Pam Foley person? I’ve lived in D9 for 11 years now, I’m an active member of my community, and I’ve NEVER even heard of her! What has she contributed to this district, and besides being yet another school board member, what does she do here in D9 to better our City?

          I feel like this older, wiser, TEACHER/School Board member, and sexism thing is getting really old. Just because women want to support one another doesn’t necessarily mean they are qualified enough to beat a younger, more experienced male. For once, I’d like to see someone YOUNG AND experienced in D9’s Council seat.
           
          http://www.sanjoseinside.com/sji/blog/entries/dando_former_aide_what_former_aide/

        • “How quickly you forget.  You do oppose candidates running for office.  Remember this (your words) about Pam Foley?”

          So questioning who someone is and what his or her qualifications are is opposing someone? Hum. I guess your definitions of oppose and mine differs. Asking whom an unknown candidate is and discussing age/gender bias doesn’t fall into opposing someone for me. We can agree to disagree on this.

          Like I said before, vote your conscience and I’ll vote mine. In the end at the end of the day, may the best man/woman win!

      • I’ll bet you thought Karyn Sinunu was going to win, too.

        Anyhoo, I was going to vote to re-elect Carr anyway,  but its nice to see Reed’s on board.

    • No, Reed spent seven minutes with Hon getting down to the bare essentials. Check Irving Wallace’s booK, The Seven Minutes.  Given Reed’s quirkiness, we think reading The Manchurian Candidate is good, since he is passing the time playing a lot of solitaire.

  2. Kathleen,

    I am curious to know why you are willing to give Carr a pass on her well documented conflict of interest in the Hosseini case? In the end even Carr tacitly acknowledged the wrongdoing by having her husband repay the money.

    The fact that, as you say, the Hosseini family supports Carr is irrelevant. Their judgment is not at issue here. The DA works for all the people. She botched this case so badly that it now must be handled by the state Attorney General’s Office.

    I would like to know how our DA failed to see the obvious conflict of interest when her husband ended up working as an investigator on a civil case that grew out of a pending high-profile murder case being handled by her office? Any 1st year law student would see the huge problem with the DA’s husband’s involvement in any aspect of the case! There’s simply no excuse for John Carr going anywhere near the Hosseini case!

    If any of the murderers go free because of this ethical screw-up, it will be an outrage. An avoidable outrage, but a outrage nonetheless.

    If you follow my posts you know that I tend to be pro-law enforcement on most issues. But in the case of the Hosseini family, the conflict of interest was obvious and egregious.

    If you’ll recall, one of her first acts as DA was to close the departments Cold Case Unit, and use the money to hire not one, but TWO PR people! Is her image more important than the lives of the victims?

    Add to that the deal she made not to prosecute a thief, at the behest a large campaign contributor, and in clear violation of well-established office policy, and there seems to be no reason to return this corrupt DA to office.  But when she ordered her prosecutors to boycott a Judge who criticized her office’s well documented mishandling of evidence that, for me, was the last straw.

    I’ve been following Rosen’s campaign and, so far, for the most part I like what I see. I think he is right to bring up Carr’s ethical lapses, just as she brings up the case the Merc nailed him on. That’s politics, and a candidate’s record is fair game.

    Rosen has a very good record as a prosecutor, and has picked up an impressive list of law enforcement endorsements, which is not easy for a non-incumbent, and a clear indication that despite the SJPOA’s endorsement Santa Clara county’s cops are not united behind Carr.

    So again, as someone who seems to support good law enforcement practices, why are you willing to give Carr a pass?

    • Reader,
      You and I have often been on the same side. I respect many of the things you say. I think you, above most on this blog, will respect my response and take it for what it is and not twist what I say around to win an argument. I’ll do my best to address your questions.

      First let me clear something up, I DID NOT give DA Carr “a pass” on the issue regarding her husband. I feel that she has taken full and total responsibility for that screw up. She met with me, and the family, and has fully owned up to her mistake. I respect her for that. It is because she showed so much integrity and remorse that she has my full support.  Period.

      Secondly, DA Carr did not and has not botched this case. Any justice this family does or does not receive in this case falls solely into the lap of the sitting Judge. She has not been in charge of trying this case, so let’s be fair here.

      The State is doing an excellent job of prosecuting those involved in my friend’s murder. Unlike all of you reading the Merc for your information, I sit in court, and speak to the family. I know first hand that justice is in the Judge’s hands now. I was at the sentencing hearing of the man who helped hide the murderer from the Police. The State gave documentation that this co-conspirator was taped while conducting criminal activities far beyond just hiding his nephew from the Police. Despite all the hard evidence presented, the Judge gave him a pass because after months of hiding his murdering nephew, he finally admited doing it! According to the Judge, this admission entitled him to ‘mercy.” (This Judge is one that I will definitively vote against!)

      The light sentence this creep received brought all of us to tears. So, don’t be so quick to fall into the web of deceit Rosen and his endorsers, the Merc, are weaving for this campaign.

      Next, I am not DA Carr’s spokes person, so I’m not going to address all your questions about why she did this or that. I’m not her campaign manager either. I will be voting for her because I do believe she is the RIGHT person for the job.

      The Cold Case Unit was cut due to budget constraints. I was at the BOS Meeting and I know that many vital programs, including but not limited to Domestic Violence Programs went to the axe too. I think those of you who take your right to vote seriously owe her the respect of speaking to her directly instead of buying into all this hype. She is very open and honest and will answer your questions as best she can.

      As to Rosen, I had a one on one conversation with him about his behavior toward the family of my murdered friend. While I will not go into detail about it, his response was enough to make me sure he is NOT the right person for the job. I have watched him exploit victims of violent crime in the media and on his website to win. He makes statements about DA Carr that are not completely true, twist facts, etc. and it sickens me. So vote your conscience and I’ll vote mine. My vote is for DA Carr.

      • Kathleen,

        You are obviously entitled to your interpretation of the situation.  Nobody is claiming that justice won’t be served in the Hosseini case.  The state’s prosecutors are obviously qualified and will do their best to convict.  But why should the state have had to step in?  There was clearly a *delay* of justice by having to transfer the case.  Also, the start/stop/start of the case unneccessarily cost taxpayer money.

        You miss the point on the cold case unit.  $200,000 on two PR people that never existed before could have been used to preserve the cold case unit.  But Carr made a priority choice.  My first reaction to the cut also was to believe it was for budgetary reasons, but when I learned that they money was used to hire PR staff, I realized that was not the case.  In the past, the attorneys in the office handled public relations themselves.

        I’m interested in this: “his response was enough to make me sure he is NOT the right person for the job.”  Sounds like you are not just supporting Carr, but opposing Rosen.  Didn’t you say that you “don’t oppose any candidate who runs for office?”

        • I don’t see things the way you do but that’s cool. As to Rosen, I don’t oppose him. It goes way beyond oppose. I find him and his behavior completely repulsive. His exploitation of victims is sickening to me. The rest of you can give him a pass on that I won’t.

          In fairness David, if you notice I never mentioned his name or brought him up until several of you asked me directly to respond to questions you had. I’m going to split hairs here because I think opposing someone requires a lot of attention and effort. I have given his run for office as little attention as possible because I know he’ll lose. I only have to tolerate hearing his name for a few short months and then he’ll be yesterday’s news. wink

          His campaign and the Merc have done an awesome job of doing one thing perfectly, deflecting his flaws and bashing Carr. I say Bravo to them for being so good at that one and only thing.

      • Kathleen,
          Thanks for the response. I agree that many here seem to confuse political discourse with the online equivalent of the Jerry Springer Show. Such is life in these times.
          While the AG’s office has done a good job prosecuting the Hosseini murder case, the larger question for me is the obvious conflict of interest that lead to the case landing in the AG’s lab instead of being handled locally. That is what I meant by “botched.” Clearly the county’s top law enforcement official should recognize the inherent conflict when her husband is employed by an attorney representing the Hosseini family in a civil case that ties to the criminal case prosecuted by her office. When this first came up, long before the campaign, my first thought was “What the #@*% was she thinking?” 
            You mention the Cold Case Unit being cut because of budget constraints. So why did she have money for TWO P.R. people? Prior to Carr the media relations job was handled by a prosecutor who was well versed in what could, and could, not be said during an ongoing case. I question the need for two P.R. people, but I’d like to see old rapes and homicides solved.
            Like you, I have had conversations with both candidates. I have also attended candidate’s forums and followed this race in the local media. It’s a pretty lively campaign!
            While I doubt that I will vote for Carr I don’t buy into all the anti-Carr stuff. I think Carr is blamed unfairly for not prosecuting the De Anza baseball players for rape. Cop friends tell me there were problems with the Sheriff Departments handling of the case. And I thought the Merc’s Scott Herhold did a classic Merc cheap shot when he wrote a column about Carr having a, gasp, WOODEN SHIFT KNOB, on her county car. But, at the end of the day, does anybody really care what Scott Herhold thinks, besides Scott Herhold?
            I voted for Carr in the last election, but the repeated ethical lapses, plus the lack of sound judgment, make it unlikely I will vote for her in June. 
            Again, thanks for the response.

        PS: Christian, to your first point I would argue that the civil case had EVERYTHING to do with the criminal case. Had the murder not happened, there would be no civil case questioning the bank’s security.

        To your second point I think you sidestepped the main issue. The guy McManis represented was originally charged with felony grand theft. After McManis intervened with Carr, the charge got knocked down to a misdemeanor. But you are correct that the thief was convicted of the lesser crime. Carr says this was done so he (the thief) could avoid deportation. I don’t like any aspect of that.

    • Reader,
      A few facts to consider:

      1) John was not an investigator. He was helping the civil attorney figure out whether the bank where Mr. Hosseini was killed had adequate security.  It had nothing to do with the murder.

      2) McManis’ client was prosecuted and convicted of theft.

      Kathleen’s right you should contact Dolores Carr’s campaign and talk to her yourself.

  3. Metro, I want to thank you for putting the Mayor’s endorsement of Carr on this blog. I find it curious that the Mercury News has not printed one single word about it. I have to question why that is given that they constantly tout the importance of openness and sunshine to the Council and to the public! Hypocrisy seems to be the Merc’s middle name.

    • I haven’t seen mention of any endorsements in the Mercury News.  Should there be a story every time Reed supports somebody?  Should there be a column somewhere that lists all endorsements as they are made.  Who has Senator Alquist endorsed?  Who has Assemblymember Fong endorsed?  Is Reed’s endorsement news, moreso than all the others?

      • Endorsements, especially in San Jose, really aren’t news. They don’t mean much, particularly Reed’s endorsements. His track record of endorsements is more like the kiss of death than a boost to a campaign.
        He endorses who he is told to endorse, even if they are foolish choices. He and the candidates he endorses are better off the fewer people who know about it the better.

      • Endorsement list, if the lack of our local paper’s reporting on ALL elections fairly and completely in an unbias way is okay with you well then more power to you! wink