[pefloresjr]

Let me start by saying that my sincere hope is that Jonathan Martin gets the help he needs to work his way through difficult times. 

As Winflop points out, there is no way for us to know the true details of the decision making process that went into the filing of charges.  I can say as a 22 year California prosecutor at the county and state level that it is not at all unusual for defense attorneys to be in contact with the prosecution prior to the filing of charges.  The defense attorney is typically providing information to the charging deputy about the mental health status of the suspect, the treatment that they are getting, and the ongoing treatment they intend to get.  The prosecutor will consider all the information given but is obviously not solely focused on the best treatment options for the defendant.  The protection of the public and the goal of holding all suspects accountable for their conduct would have higher priority but treatment for the defendant is typically considered in the evaluation of what charges or plea conditions might be needed to protect public safety. 

"Politics" always plays a role in the charging decision because of the responsibility that elected district attorneys have to try to keep the public safe.  The timing of Martin's post is a big factor here because it came within weeks of 17 deaths at the Parkland school shooting in Florida.  Many legitimate questions have been raised about the failure of law enforcement to intervene when they had prior information and contact with the school shooter.  Every prosecutor would be wary of making a decision to do nothing in the face of Martin's post that included a weapon and comments that shut down an LA high school because of the perceived threat. 

When I first saw Martin's post, I assumed that he would be arrested and charged.  The fact that he was not arrested when the police first contacted him because they determined that there was no immediate danger bodes well for him but is only one fact in a complex situation.  When I read that he was charged, my assumption was, and still is, that he will likely be offered a deal that gives him the opportunity to avoid jail time and the possibility of having his charges dismissed or reduced to misdemeanors.  Mental health treatment is often included in the conditions for release on bail, in a pre-plea diversion program, and/or in post plea probation conditions.  Regardless of whether there is a pre or post plea deal, the courts, probation department, and prosecutor, would have regular updates and assurance that Martin is following the program recommended by a mental health professional.  That will satisfy the prosecutor's duty to keep the public safe while also considering the defendant's need for mental health treatment.  Martin should have the resources to pay for private treatment but many California counties offer Mental Health Court for low income defendants that provide the same opportunity. 

It is important to realize that four counts of felony threats under California Penal Code section 422 carry very serious potential consequences for Martin.  A felony 422 is considered a serious felony and is a strike for purposes of any future felony convictions that are serious or violent.  If the defense can get a deal reducing the charges to misdemeanors after successful completion of 3 to 5 years of probation and treatment, Martin should take it.  Any misdo conviction would not count as a strike prior and would not  need to be disclosed in most job applications. 

The defense has some pretty good arguments on their side in this case but a defendant can be found guilty in a criminal threat case in California even if the defendant had no actual intent or ability to carry out the threat.  If the defendant intended to issue the threat of great bodily harm and the target was in actual, reasonable sustained fear that the threat would be carried out, the defendant can be convicted.  We would need to know many more facts to truly go through the elements of the crime to determine if there is sufficient evidence to support a reasonable probability of getting a conviction. 

One final note, as a career prosecutor, I have never sought to break people who are on edge but have tried to find the best balance possible that considers public safety, the specific facts of each alleged crime, and the full background of the defendant.  It is impossible to know and predict the future or the perfect course of action in the criminal context.  I hope Martin gets a fair deal and succeeds in a robust mental health program. 

Cheers,
Pete F. 

[pefloresjr]

Let me start by saying that my sincere hope is that Jonathan Martin gets the help he needs to work his way through difficult times. 

As Winflop points out, there is no way for us to know the true details of the decision making process that went into the filing of charges.  I can say as a 22 year California prosecutor at the county and state level that it is not at all unusual for defense attorneys to be in contact with the prosecution prior to the filing of charges.  The defense attorney is typically providing information to the charging deputy about the mental health status of the suspect, the treatment that they are getting, and the ongoing treatment they intend to get.  The prosecutor will consider all the information given but is obviously not solely focused on the best treatment options for the defendant.  The protection of the public and the goal of holding all suspects accountable for their conduct would have higher priority but treatment for the defendant is typically considered in the evaluation of what charges or plea conditions might be needed to protect public safety. 

"Politics" always plays a role in the charging decision because of the responsibility that elected district attorneys have to try to keep the public safe.  The timing of Martin's post is a big factor here because it came within weeks of 17 deaths at the Parkland school shooting in Florida.  Many legitimate questions have been raised about the failure of law enforcement to intervene when they had prior information and contact with the school shooter.  Every prosecutor would be wary of making a decision to do nothing in the face of Martin's post that included a weapon and comments that shut down an LA high school because of the perceived threat. 

When I first saw Martin's post, I assumed that he would be arrested and charged.  The fact that he was not arrested when the police first contacted him because they determined that there was no immediate danger bodes well for him but is only one fact in a complex situation.  When I read that he was charged, my assumption was, and still is, that he will likely be offered a deal that gives him the opportunity to avoid jail time and the possibility of having his charges dismissed or reduced to misdemeanors.  Mental health treatment is often included in the conditions for release on bail, in a pre-plea diversion program, and/or in post plea probation conditions.  Regardless of whether there is a pre or post plea deal, the courts, probation department, and prosecutor, would have regular updates and assurance that Martin is following the program recommended by a mental health professional.  That will satisfy the prosecutor's duty to keep the public safe while also considering the defendant's need for mental health treatment.  Martin should have the resources to pay for private treatment but many California counties offer Mental Health Court for low income defendants that provide the same opportunity. 

It is important to realize that four counts of felony threats under California Penal Code section 422 carry very serious potential consequences for Martin.  A felony 422 is considered a serious felony and is a strike for purposes of any future felony convictions that are serious or violent.  If the defense can get a deal reducing the charges to misdemeanors after successful completion of 3 to 5 years of probation and treatment, Martin should take it.  Any misdo conviction would not count as a strike prior and would not  need to be disclosed in most job applications. 

The defense has some pretty good arguments on their side in this case but a defendant can be found guilty in a criminal threat case in California even if the defendant had no actual intent or ability to carry out the threat.  If the defendant intended to issue the threat of great bodily harm and the target was in actual, reasonable sustained fear that the threat would be carried out, the defendant can be convicted.  We would need to know many more facts to truly go through the elements of the crime to determine if there is sufficient evidence to support a reasonable probability of getting a conviction. 

One final note, as a career prosecutor, I have never sought to break people who are on edge but have tried to find the best balance possible that considers public safety, the specific facts of each alleged crime, and the full background of the defendant.  It is impossible to know and predict the future or the perfect course of action in the criminal context.  I hope Martin gets a fair deal and succeeds in a robust mental health program. 

Cheers,
Pete F.