David Warney Attempts to Speak Out Against Mike Green

I was downtown today and saw that David Warney was speaking with a reporter from 10NBC. The subject of Warney's interview was his rebuttal of Mike Green's claims that it was solely through his efforts that Douglas Warney was exonerated. For some reason, it does not appear that 10NBC will air his interview. I have managed to obtain a copy of David Warney's statement and will post it here.

I am the brother of the man released after serving
10-1/2 years in prison for a murder he did NOT commit.
Mike Green is having the public believe he is
responsible for ordering the re-testing of the DNA,
and this is a bold face lie! the ordering was done
because of a recent decision handed down in the NY
Court of Appeals on a case from Rochester. My
insistence, as well as that of the Innocence Project,
is what got my brother freed, and NOT Mike Green. He
deserves NO credit for my brother's release, and he
deserves NO 2nd term in the DA's Office. He conspired
with others in the DA's Office to block the
re-testing, and he withheld this from defense counsel;
he even was heard saying with a colleague: "it really
doesn't matter, because he has AIDS, and will probably
die in prison before the results could ever be
found..." this was overheard by myself, as well as
another person who has an interest in this case. Mike
Green is a man for himself, and NOT for the County.
Vote for Cara Briggs...........

David J. Warney

It seems sad that in an alleged free marketplace of ideas the only airing that David Warney will receive is in this lonely blog in the desolation of cyberspace... This is democracy inaction.

Mike Green is Tough on Gun Possession...

On his web page promoting his re-election campaign, incumbent District Attorney Mike Green states that "under his leadership, the office is combating violent crime and homicides by targeting armed violent felons, drug dealers, and those illegally carrying guns."

Today I was reading a blog story on Thomas Tacito. For those of you who do not know this story, Tacito pleaded guilty in 1996 to a felony of leaving the scene of an accident and a misdemeanor of driving while intoxicated in the death of Calvin "Shorty" Franklin on Dec. 5, 1995. Franklin was killed while walking on crutches across East Main Street. Although Tacito could have been imprisoned up to three years, he received five years' probation. Then, in 2003 he fired a .380-caliber pistol into the dashboard of a car where his father was sitting, then led police on a high-speed chase while he was intoxicated. He faced felony charges that could have sent him to prison for up to seven years. The felonies included illegal weapons possession and driving while intoxicated because he had a previous drunken-driving conviction within 10 years. Instead of taking his usual "tough stance," Mike Green allowed this guy to plead guilty to 2 misdemeanors with a sentence promise of probation! That's right, the District Attorney's Office dropped the gun possession charges!

What possible justification warranted such a departure, especially given Mike Green's "tough stance" on violent felonies and illegal gun possession? At the time, Green claimed that Tacito did well in treatment when he was released from jail three months after the incident. Given his stated "tough stance" on gun possession cases, is this rationale credible? This convicted felon used an illegal handgun in an attempt to shoot someone and then, while in an intoxicated condition, led police on a high speed chase. In what world would this result be just?

This County has suffered through 4 years of Mike Green's warped sense of justice, let's not suffer 4 more.

Promises: The Ghosts of Elections Past

As we approach this Tuesday's election for District Attorney in Monroe County, let's take a trip back in time and review a few promises made by Mike Green in the 2003 District Attorney race and see how well he has done to keep those promises.

Back in 2003, Gary Craig of the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle asked Mike Green:

What can you do as district attorney to fight crime and lower the homicide rate in the city of Rochester?

Violent offenders must be swiftly and vigorously prosecuted by experienced prosecutors and given substantial sentences to protect the community. I will ensure that the office continues to achieve a high level of success prosecuting homicides. Since a large percentage of violent crime is drug- related, a comprehensive policy is necessary to address both the supply and demand for drugs. I will aggressively attack the supply of drugs in our community, prosecuting and convicting major drug dealers, seeking forfeiture of assets and long prison sentences, publicly sending a message that this community will not tolerate such behavior.

Are violent felons being prosecuted by experienced prosecutors? As previously discussed in a prior post, most of the experience prosecutors have left the District Attorney's Office under Mike Green's reign. In fact, since 2001 when Mike Green became the First Assistant District Attorney, the office has lost 560 years of legal experience.

Has his office continued to achieve a high level of success prosecuting homicides? This year, Mike Green's office had 6 outright homicide acquittals. In no universe can this be considered a "high rate of success." Take a look for yourself:

• Kevin Lipford - Acquitted of Murder (convicted of Robbery)
  
• Keon Anderson - Acquitted of Murder
• Samuel Haile - Acquitted of Murder
• Brian Smith - Acquitted of Murder (convicted of Manslaughter)
  
• Brandon Daymon - Acquitted of Murder
• James Stanford - Acquitted of Murder (convicted of Manslaughter)
  
• Rosa Resto - Acquitted of Murder (convicted of Manslaughter)
  
• Joshua Rivera - Acquitted of Murder
• Charlie Scott - Acquitted of Murder (convicted of Manslaughter)
  
• Frantina Smith - Acquitted of Manslaughter
• Karen Greene - Acquitted of Vehicular Manslaughter (convicted of a misdemeanor)
  
• James Telban - Acquitted of Vehicular Manslaughter (convicted of a misdemeanor)
  
• Vincent Bermudez - Acquitted of Murder (convicted of Manslaughter)
  
• Pierre Harris - Acquitted of Murder (convicted of Manslaughter)
  
• Chazaray Green - Acquitted of Murder (convicted of Manslaughter)
  
• Earl Nesmith - Acquitted of Murder

Let's not forget that this list does not include the debacle of Edward Rodriguez, the convicted murderer who is now a free man after his murder conviction was reversed on appeal.

Has he succeeded in sending a message that this community will not tolerate violent felons? According to the Division of Criminal Justice Services ("DCJS") report entitled Crime in New York State: 2006 Final Data there was a 19.6% increase in the number of incidents of violent crime in Monroe County between 2005 and 2006. In fact according to DCJS, in the years 2004-2006, there has been an increase in the number of violent crimes committed in Monroe County each year.

Mike Green preaches holding violent criminals accountable and yet, as the above demonstrates, he has progressively become ineffective in prosecuting those criminals and the incidents of violent felonies has only increased over the past 3 years.

Now it is time for the people of Monroe County to hold him accountable for his broken promises.

Fran Strazzeri Shudders

In the book The Life of Reason the philosopher George Santayana observed that "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

One of the issues for the 2007 Monroe County District Attorney Election has been prosecutor attrition. As it turns out, prosecutor attrition was also an issue in the 2003 Monroe County District Attorney Election between Mike Green and Ann Marie Taddeo.

In 2003, the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle ran a series of articles profiling the race for District Attorney. One of those articles, "The Race for District Attorney" by Jeffrey Blackwell revealed this nugget of truth:

"If Mike has contributed to the avalanche of people leaving before he becomes (district attorney), I shudder to think what will happen if he becomes (district attorney)," says Francis Strazzeri, a lawyer who entered private practice in 2000 after working under Green.

In an office of 75 prosecutors and at the time Fran Strazzeri was quoted in the paper "34 or 35" prosecutors (according to Mike Green) left the office since he became the First Assistant District Attorney. In the nearly 4 years in which Mike Green has been the District Attorney that number has swelled to 85.

In 2003, Jeffrey Blackwell asked Mike Green why there was so much turnover in the office. Green's response then was:

Green said 34 or 35 prosecutors left the office for a variety of reasons, including a three-year salary freeze and job opportunities in private law firms, judgeships and clerkships.

He denies that the attrition is having an effect on the office's prosecution of cases. But he admits that some lawyers left because of changes he made.

"I'm sure a few people decided to leave the office rather than work under the situation where you have to follow the policies," Green said. "I don't feel bad about that because my job is to make sure the office gets the job done."

In 2007 in response to a story by R-News report Cristina Dominguez, Mike Green had this to say:

"Where we have turnover is at the bottom of the office,” said Green. “The newer attorneys coming out of law school face staggering student loan debts, on average $100,000 - $125,000 of student loans. For three out of five years we've had salary freezes."

And in response to a story to WHEC reporter Nikki Rudd, Mike Green had this to say:

"They've been elected judge. They've gone to the US Attorney's Office. They've gone to high paying jobs in the private sector," explained Green. "Other people have left because they didn't want to do the work or because I asked them to leave."

Sound familiar? The past comes to haunt us again...

In 2003, Mike Green stated that one of the reasons that prosecutors have left the office was a 3 year wage freeze. In 2007, Mike Green states that there has been a wage freeze in three out of the last five years. Now for the crux of this post.

Are Mike Green's explanations for prosecutor attrition plausible? Let's take a look at a table depicting the the experience drain in the DA's Office:

Let's start with Mike Green's fiscal explanation for prosecutor attrition. We will begin by looking at the years 2001-2004 (the years in which a wage freeze had been in effect). Look at the staggering number of experience lost over those three years:

• In 2001, 14 prosecutors left the office taking an average of 7.9 years experience with them
• In 2002, 12 prosecutors left the office taking an average of 8.8 years of experience with them
• In 2003, 11 prosecutors left the office taking an average of 2.7 years of experience with them
• In 2004, 11 prosecutors left the office taking an average of 10.9 years of experience with them.

It is not entirely inconceivable that the wage freeze had something to do with all of these prosecutors leaving.

Now what about the last three years in which prosecutors have enjoyed salary increases?

• In 2005, 12 prosecutors left the office taking 6.7 years of experience with them
• In 2006, 11 prosecutors left the office taking 7.1 years of experience with them
• In 2007, 14 prosecutors left the office taking 3.6 years of experience with them

If wage freezes explain the departures between 2001 and 2004, how does Mike Green explain the fact that the same number of prosecutors have left the office when there was no wage freeze?

Okay, so maybe Mike Green falls back on his other explanation for the years 2005-2007 - that new attorneys have a great deal of student loan debt. The average starting salary for an Assistant District Attorney in Monroe County is about $50,000. It's a good thing Mike Green is not the Chief Prosecutor in Florida where the average starting salary for a prosecutor is $38,000!

What about Mike Green's contention that under his regime as District Attorney, the turnover rate has been "at the bottom of the office?" Well, based upon the table of experience above, it would appear that his claim is somewhat "true." True in that all the people at the "top" left between the years 2001-2004 and all that were left were the people at the "bottom."

No, I do not find Mike Green's explanations plausible. The explanation I find most plausible came from former Assistant District Attorney Robert Kammer in Jeffrey Blackwell's 2003 article:

"My concern was that he seemed to be second-guessing some of the district attorneys. I didn't mind criticism. I didn't mind direction. But I did mind being micromanaged."

After Mike Green's four years of micro mis-management, I cannot believe this County is actually considering electing him for another 4 year term. If Fran Strazzeri shuddered in 2003, I can only imagine how he feels now.

Remember the words of George Santayana and elect Cara Briggs.

Did Mike Green Comply with the Freedom of Information Law?

I listened to the debate between Mike Green and Cara Briggs on 1180 Wham news. Towards the end of the debate, Mike Green cited examples in which Cara Briggs offered plea bargains on sex offender cases. Cara Briggs responded by asking whether he obtained those cases while using Monroe County time and resources.

That was a legitimate question and a question which (obviously) came off the cuff. A candidate for public office cannot use government resources to further his campaign - meaning he cannot make calls from his office phone and solicit contributions and/or he cannot use government purchases papers to print out campaign fliers and/or he cannot obtain government documents for campaign use while he is supposed to be working. The question of whether Mike Green obtained these files while working as the District Attorney is a good and legitimate question but it may also be a question which may be difficult to answer (unless, of course, Mike Green offers to answer it).

Far more serious though is whether Mike Green complied with the requirements of New York's Freedom of Information Law.

Mike Green stated he reviewed some files in which Cara Briggs offered a reduction from a felony sex offense to a misdemeanor sex offense. The District Attorney's Office, as a government agency has a duty to maintain and store its files. For example, it is the duty of the District Attorney's Office to maintain and store all the files (opened and closed) ever prosecuted by Mike Green and Cara Briggs. Frequently, a prosecutor may have to order a closed case file in order to do his job as a prosecutor. Examples of this include

1. A Defendant appeals his conviction
2. A prosecutor wants to introduce evidence of the Defendant's prior crimes as evidence.
3. A prosecutor wants to write a letter stating his position on parole.
4. etc.

Under certain circumstances, a private citizen could view the non-privileged contents of a closed file maintained by the District Attorney's Office. In order to do this, that person would have to file what is called a Freedom of Information Law request (a "FOIL request') specifying exactly what government document that person wanted to review.

As previously stated, prosecutors routinely request closed case files when it has something to do with their prosecutorial function. Mike Green is the County's Chief Prosecutor and I am reasonably certain that he has requested a closed case every now and again.

However, as stated above, when someone is a candidate for office, that person cannot use government resources for campaign purposes. As a corollary, if Mike Green the candidate, wanted to review closed case files, he (or someone on his behalf) would have to file a FOIL request with a designated FOIL compliance officer. I do not know whether Mike Green filed a FOIL request in order to obtain those files or not but it is imperative that we find out.

You may ask, "so what?" Well, here is the "so what paragraph." There are (at least) 2 reasons why this is important:

1. If Mike Green the candidate did not file a FOIL request and, instead, requested these closed files like he would any other closed file, it would be an abuse of his elected office.
2. The three files that Mike Green "reviewed" were three sex crimes files. When it comes to sex crimes, under Civil Rights Law Section 50-b, there is some information pertaining to the victim which is deemed confidential. As a prosecutor, Mike Green would be privy to any information which falls under the confidentiality requirements of Civil Rights Law Section 50-b. As a candidate, though, he is like any other private citizen and must not allowed to see that confidential information. It would then be incumbent upon the FOIL compliance officer to make sure any confidential information was redacted or otherwise not made available. Now, if Mike Green the candidate did not file a FOIL request and, instead, requested these closed files containing confidential information under Civil Rights Law Section 50-b, then Mike Green would have violated the law - a law designed to protect victims of sex offenses.

"So what?" If Mike Green the candidate did not comply with the proper legal channels to obtain this information about Cara Briggs, he would have compromised the integrity of his elected office AND he would have done so for his own personal gain (winning the election).

I have to reserve judgment on "if" a FOIL request was filed because I do not know. I do know though that if a FOIL request was not filed, that would be an unconscionable act especially given the privileged information involved.

If Mike Green were to have said, "I filed a FOIL request and, as a result, I reviewed some of Cara Briggs' files..." his actions would enjoy the presumption of legality. He did not say that and, moreover, given the tenor and tone of his voice when he said it, it gave me the strong feeling that he, in fact, did not file a FOIL request. As I said, I have to reserve judgment because I do not have the requisite evidence to be certain, but based on his tenor and tone of voice when he said it, I have grave suspicions...

... and I hope I am not the only one.

The Answers You Are Looking for This November

Today's Rochester Democrat and Chronicle features an excellent article by Gary Craig on the District Attorney's race.

Craig sets up three salient questions that the voters should seriously consider before going into the voting both and making what may amount to be the only important county-wide decision to be made this November:

1. Has turnover hindered the office's effectiveness?

2. Are trials being lost that should have been won or resolved with a plea bargain?

3. Can the policies of a district attorney's office be a crucial crime-fighting tool for a community?

Presumably, Craig then allowed Mike Green the ability to answer these three questions. What were Mike Green's answers to these questions?

QUESTION 1 - Has turnover hindered the office's effectiveness?

Mike Green's Answer: "Green said pay freezes during three of the past five years made it tough to keep prosecutors and to recruit new ones. Now, he said, even some public-sector lawyer positions can match or better the pay for assistant district attorneys. Salaries start just under $52,000 for assistant district attorneys."

It seems to me that this sounds like a (highly) qualified "yes." He cannot keep prosecutors or recruit new ones? His predecessor, Howard Relin never had that problem.

QUESTION 2 - Are trials being lost that should have been won or resolved with a plea bargain?

Mike Green's Answer: "According to Green, the office has prosecuted 37 homicides this year: 18 ended in convictions to the highest criminal charge, 13 to lesser charges and six in acquittals... Many cases are tough because witnesses grow fearful of testifying, he said."

So, if you do the math, you see that there were 37 homicide trials this year and 18 ended in a conviction to the highest criminal charge. Of those 18, you must bear in mind that NOT ALL 18 went to trial. That number (as near as I can tell) includes Defendants who accepted a plea of guilty which includes Leroy "Unique" Robinson, Eugene Rush and Eldred Johnson. So now, do the math and subtract the 3 Defendants (that I could find) who were convicted upon a plea from the 18 total convictions and you are left with 15 (or less) Defendants who went to trial this year and were convicted of the highest criminal charge. 15 divided by 37 is 40 percent. Mike Green is winning 40 percent of the time. I want to ask you this simple question, If Jack McCoy only won 40 percent of the time, would Law and Order have been on television for 18 years? The 40 percent number also lines up with the number of convictions of the highest count of a felony from the Public Defender's Office. Do we want a District Attorney who loses 60 percent of the time?

QUESTION 3 - Can the policies of a district attorney's office be a crucial crime-fighting tool for a community?

Mike Green's answer: "With Green's policy, more cases are likely to go to trial because prosecutors refuse to plea bargain. And, if convicted, felons are likely to face stiffer sentences than they would have received with a plea, helping inflate the prison sentences, as the RIT research shows.

The Klofas research shows that the policies are succeeding, Green said. According to the June study, more felonies are being prosecuted as felonies. Since 2003, there has been a 90 percent increase in the likelihood that a person committing a firearm-connected crime will serve state prison time, the study found.

The current research — some of the past RIT research was funded by the DA's office — also showed that there have been "minor reductions in the percentage of cases ending in conviction and in increases in the time it takes to close cases."

This amounts to nothing more than "body count justice." Moreover, there should be some significant concern in that although there has been a 90 percent increase in the likelihood that a person committing a firearm-connected crime will serve state prison, there has been no corresponding reduction in the amount of violent crime the community has suffered. It is body count justice because it focuses on raw statistical outcomes rather than real, identifiable results. And, most significantly, it is body count justice because it results in the same outcome for all criminals regardless of the facts of the case and the circumstances of the defendant.

When one examines WHO is committing these felonies in which Mike Green is taking a hard stance, it is almost exclusively black and latino defendants. Justice in this case is not color-blind as the majority of people Mike Green sends to state prison are young black males and some black males who have never been arrested before.

Tell me, in what universe is it just to send a black male to state prison who was caught carrying a gun and confesses to carrying a gun saying "my friend was just shot and killed a month ago and I was afraid the guys who did it were coming to kill me," while a rich, white doctor (Doctor Farchione) who confesses to abusing his position of authority and trust repeatedly by molesting little girls and gets probation? How does this serve our community?

I hope Gary Craig gives Mike Green another chance to answer these 3 questions because, as I see it, his answers do not warrant a second term in office.

Mike Green, the Crimefighter Cries "Uncle"

On October 5, 2007, the Rochester Police Department implemented a "zero tolerance" policy on crime went into effect after a violent week in Rochester that included two murders that have outraged the city.

Casey Bortnick of R-News reports that:

In the 20 days of the program, police have been working 12-hour shifts and aggressively patrolling the streets. The RPD reports 254 violations, 333 misdemeanors, and 67 felonies. Eleven people have been arrested for gun violations. Nearly 60 weapons have been taken off the streets. Police have also seized large amounts of drugs.

On Mike Green's website, Mike Green states that "Under his leadership, the office is combating violent crime and homicides by targeting armed violent felons, drug dealers, and those illegally carrying guns."

Curiously, Mike Green told Casey Bortnick of R-News "It doesn't do any good to go out and make arrests if we don't have the resources to prosecute them."

Huh? The Rochester Police Department is turning in 12 hour shifts and making the types of arrests Mike Green deems most important, those being armed violent felonies, drug dealers and illegal guns and, instead of relishing the challenge, Mike Green says the unthinkable - THAT HE IS INCAPABLE OF PROSECUTING THESE CASES.

That's right, Mike Green, the crime fighter that the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle endorsed
as "a tough, no-holds-barred prosecutor" has cried "UNCLE!"

The truth is that Mike Green was having a difficult time prosecuting homicides and violent felonies BEFORE zero tolerance. See for yourself at the New York Division of Criminal Justice:

2006 Violent Felony Conviction Rate of Non-New York City Counties

County 2006 Conviction Rate

1. Schuyler 100%

2. Hamilton 100%

3. Herkimer 97.0%

4. Washington 96.4%

5. Livingston 94.7%

6. Ontario 94.2%

7. Chenango 92.3%

8. Delaware 91.5%

9. Lewis 90.5%

10. Chautauqua 90.0%

11. Schoharie 88.9%

12. Wyoming 88.5%

13. Greene 88.0%

14. Yates 87.5%

15. Nassau (Long Island) 87.4%

16. Columbia 87.2%

17. Saratoga 86.9%

18. Allegany 86.8%

19. Warren 86.7%

20. Fulton 86.5%

21. Seneca 86.4%

22. Oneida 85.7%

23. Oswego 84.6%

24. Montgomery 84.1%

25. Jefferson 83.9%

26. Cattaraugus 83.2%

27. Steuben 82.4%

28. Rensselaer 82.0%

29. Madison 81.7%

30. Chemung 81.7%

31. Tioga 81.6%

32. Orleans 81.4%

33. Sullivan 81.1%

34. Rockland 81.1%

35. Clinton 80.7%

36. Otsego 80.6%

37. Dutchess (Poughkeepsie) 80.4%

38. Putnam 80.3%

39. Essex 80.0%

40. Schenectady 79.0%

41. Broome (Binghamton) 78.0%

42. Genesee 77.6%

43. Albany (Albany) 77.0%

44. Orange 76.9%

45. Franklin 76.2%

46. Cortland 75.9%

47. St. Lawrence 75.7%

48. Wayne 75.4%

49. Suffolk 75.0%

50. Cayuga 75.0%

51. Tompkins 71.8%

52. Westchester (Yonkers) 70.4%

53. Onondaga (Syracuse) 69.4%

54. Monroe County 69.1%

55. Ulster 66.9%

56. Niagara 62.8%

57. Erie (Buffalo) 58.8%

58. Richmond 52.3%

Anyone else alarmed?

The Democrat and Chronicle Endorses Mike Green for District Attorney

In the editorial page of the Democrat and Chronicle on October 22, 2007, the paper endorsed Mike Green for District Attorney.

You say Mike Green should remain the County's Chief Crime Fighter for the next 4 years? Why?

You say "The DA office's conviction rate is solid?" Let's recount Mike Green's year in 2007.

Kevin Lipford - Acquitted of Murder
Keon Anderson - Acquitted of Murder
Samuel Haile - Acquitted of Murder
Brian Smith - Acquitted of Murder
Brandon Daymon - Acquitted of Murder
James Stanford - Acquitted of Murder
Rosa Resto - Acquitted of Murder
Joshua Rivera - Acquitted of Murder
Charlie Scott - Acquitted of Murder
Frantina Smith - Acquitted of Manslaughter
Karen Greene - Acquitted of Vehicular Manslaughter
James Telban - Acquitted of Vehicular Manslaughter
Vincent Bermudez - Acquitted of Murder
Pierre Harris - Acquitted of Murder
Chazaray Green - Acquitted of Murder
Earl Nesmith - Acquitted of Murder

It is hard to say that this was a "solid" year for Mike Green.

You say "the management concerns are significant." I would say so when you consider that 48 DAs have left the office since he became District Attorney and of which 15 of those DAs have left since January 1, 2007. That's 15 DAs in 10 months. How can you possibly minimize the discontent of that office when more than one prosecutor a month leaves the office?

You say that "too much staff dissension can lead to losses in the courtroom." The above list is just a partial list and only represents 30 minutes of time researching homicide acquittals at the public library. That does not even take into account all other trial results. Ask yourself this simple question, if homicide prosecutions are supposed to be so important and yet there were so many acquittals, imagine his record on other crimes? Perhaps 15 prosecutors leaving the office this year may have something to do with it.

How can you turn a blind eye to hard facts in favor of an amorphous "tough on crime" claim? You can't just say you are "tough on crime," you have to be tough on crime and it is hard to be tough on crime when all of your back up (your prosecutors) are bolting for the door. How can you say Green is tough on crime when 13 people were acquitted of homicide charges?

You ask how Cara Briggs "would run the office, how she would deal with gun offenses and violent crime differently from Green?" The fact that you are choosing to not listen to her message does not mean she is not trying to get her message out. Read her campaign literature, review her newspaper and television interviews or, as a concerned voter here's a novel concept, ASK HER.

Let me close by asking you this difficult question, can you say that Mike Green's handling of the office, an office in which 48 prosecutors have left in his 45 months of office and his handling of violent crimes in which there have been 15 homicide acquittals this year REALLY entitle him to another 4 years in office? Please, the readers and the voters need an answer...

Mike Green Tackles Prosecutor Attrition

In response to the criticism of the high turnover rate in his office, Mr. Green stated to Cristina Domingues of R-News "the public does not care who prosecutes the cases as long as we win."

This statement is more telling than it may first appear.

It must be remembered that Mr. Green is a political animal and is completely beholden to what the "public" believes. This is evidenced by the fact that back in 2003, when former District Attorney Howard Relin announced he would not seek re-election, Mr. Green (a lifelong republican married to a lifelong republican) jumped to the democrats to obtain the nomination for the Office of District Attorney.

When Mr. Green says "the public does not care who prosecutes the cases as long as we win," what he is REALLY saying is that "HE does not care who prosecutes the cases." It isn't rocket science and does not take a rocket scientist to understand that there would be a high rate of attrition when your boss is of the opinion that all of his employees are expendable.

When Cara Briggs points out the fact that 85 prosecutors have left the District Attorney's Office since 2001 when Mr. Green became First Assistant, Mr. Green can only counter by saying that the proper starting point of analysis should be the number that have left since he began his tenure as the District Attorney.

Okay. Mr. Green became District Attorney in January 2004. At that time, he oversaw an office which employed 70 prosecutors. As of todays date, Mr. Green has been District Attorney for 45 months. In those 45 months, 48 prosecutors have left the office. Yes, you read that right - 48 prosecutors. Or, put another way FOR EVERY MONTH Mr. Green HAS BEEN DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AT LEAST ONE PROSECUTOR HAS LEFT THE OFFICE. Yes, during his tenure, an astonishing 69% of his prosecutors have left the office.

Mr. Green states that this high attrition rate (which he appears not to be concerned about) has nothing to do with his felony conviction rate of 91 percent. When one discussed statistics, one should always be cognizant of the words of former British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

With respect to prosecutor attrition, the statistic that would be most telling would be the conviction rate after trial of the most serious charge. This statistic is actually the most telling indicator of the quality of prosecutor still in the DA's Office as it indicates the quality of the prosecutor in conducting a trial and obtaining a conviction on the most serious charge. That number is going to be somewhere in the 30 percent range. If that is the case, what that number tells us is that either (a) Mr. Green is significantly over-indicting cases and/or (b) there is a lack of skill and experience in the prosecutors trying those cases.

If Mr. Green is correct in saying "the public does not care who prosecutes the cases as long as we win," THEN THE PUBLIC SHOULD RE-EVALUATE THIS POSITION.

Mike Green Takes Credit For Warney's Exoneration

If you are looking for a whale of a "fish story" you should have Mr. Green tell you how he and his office were solely responsible for the exoneration of Douglas Warney who was wrongfully convicted of Murder 1st - a murder he did not commit:

"An investigation initiated by District Attorney Michael C. Green and led by the Second Assistant District Attorney Larry K. Bernstein, Chief of the Appeals Bureau, Wendy Lehmann, and Investigator Robert Siersma of the District Attorney’s Office, and Investigator Thomas Donovan of the Rochester Police Department resulted in the conviction of Eldred Johnson, Jr. based on DNA evidence and a confession. As a result of the evidence uncovered by our investigation, the People did not oppose an application on behalf of Douglas Warney to vacate his conviction and the dismissal of the indictment against Mr. Warney. Mr. Warney was released from state prison, where he had been incarcerated since his conviction in 1997." - MONROE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ANNUAL REPORT 2006.

This whale of a story completely ignores the fact that Warney's exoneration came after years of tireless work by The Innocence Project and after Green's continued opposition to the re-testing of the DNA evidence that could exonerate Warney by using more sophisticated DNA testing.

Why was Green so obstinate you ask? Well, the answer is easily found. The quality of the case against Warney was recognized even prior to his indictment in 1996 by NY Times writer Bob Herbert:

"Prosecutors tend to salivate over the benefits, political and otherwise, of sending someone to the great beyond. Lethal injections, hangings, firing squads, whatever. Death penalty cases excite them. They know that three-fourths of all poll respondents favor capital punishment and that the population is programmed to applaud killing in the name of justice. A successful capital prosecution can make a prosecutor feel powerful, popular and righteous all at the same time.

But there are problems with the case against Mr. Warney, who, three weeks after his arrest, still has not been indicted. The closer one looks at the case, the more it appears that Douglas Warney did not kill William Beason.

Mr. Warney, 34, is a pathetic individual. He is retarded, delusional, suicidal and in the last stages of AIDS. He has signed a confession but his lawyer, Thomas H. Dunn of the Capital Defenders Office, noted that Mr. Warney "is suffering from AIDS-related dementia." Someone seeking the facts in this case, and not just a notch in a prosecutor's belt, might see that as one reason why much of Mr. Warney's confession is so out of touch with reality.

Example: Mr. Warney said in his confession that he stabbed Mr. Beason many times and "even sliced his throat to make sure" during a struggle in Mr. Beason's kitchen. It turns out that despite the fury of this alleged attack no blood was found in the kitchen. Investigators believe Mr. Beason was murdered while in his bed.

Example: Mr. Warney said he cut his finger during the attack, but a medical examination shortly after his arrest showed no evidence of a cut. Blood was found at the scene that did not match the blood of the victim, but tests have excluded Mr. Warney as the source of that blood.

Example: Mr. Warney said he drove his brother David's brown Chevrolet to Mr. Beason's house and returned it to his brother's residence after the murder. According to Mr. Dunn, David Warney does not own an operable car. He once owned a brown Chevrolet, but it hasn't been registered to him since 1990. No brown Chevrolet has been found.

Example: Mr. Warney said he disposed of his own bloody clothes in a pail outside his apartment. The Rochester Police Department, according to Mr. Dunn, never tried to locate the clothes. Investigators for the Capital Defenders Office conducted a videotaped search of the area in the vicinity of the apartment (there had been no trash pickup in the intervening period), but no clothes were found.

Example: Mr. Warney said that on the day of the murder he shoveled snow at Mr. Beason's residence. "I went outside," the confession states, "and shoveled his driveway." A neighbor of Mr. Beason's who was home all day said no one shoveled Mr. Beason's driveway.

Mr. Warney's confession appears to be the rantings of a man who has only a passing acquaintance with reality. In court hearings thus far, the District Attorney of Monroe County, Howard Relin, has offered no physical evidence linking Mr. Warney to the crime."

- Bob Herbert, "In America; Prosecutor's Prize," NEW YORK TIMES, January 29, 1996.

The fact that our community swallowed this "fish story" hook, line and sinker is sad.

Monroe County District Attorney Election

As part of her campaign for the office of District Attorney, Cara Briggs is promising to bring teamwork and accountability.

Mike Green's idea of teamwork and accountability is amply depicted in the case of Edward Rodriguez, the confessed murderer who is now free. When Mr. Green was questioned about the technicality which resulted in Mr. Rodriguez' freedom, Mr. Green responded that when Rodriguez was indicted he was not yet the District Attorney. This answer ignores the fact that at the time Rodriguez was indicted, he was the First Assistant District Attorney responsible for overseeing homicide investigations and prosecutions (READ: "blame Howard Relin").

Then once the case progressed to trial and it became apparent that there were legal difficulties in proceeding to trial on both intentional and depraved indifference murder, Mr. Green refused to rely on his team of experienced prosecutors who told him of the legal issues that could arise if Rodriguez was convicted of depraved indifference murder based on evidence of intentional murder. Mr. Green's response was that it was the Grand Jury who indicted Rodriguez (read: blame the Grand Jury). This answer ignores the fact that it is the role of the District Attorney to advise the grand jury. It also ignores the fact that the District Attorney has the duty and obligation to secure convictions on proper legal charges.

And there you have it - Mike Green's idea of accountability is to blame everyone else and his idea of teamwork is to ignore the advice of his "highly experienced" senior staff. What is the point of having a "highly experienced" senior staff when their opinion and input counts for nothing?

After this murderer went free, Mr. Green was quoted as saying that he was investigating filing further charges against Rodriguez. My question to Green is this: what charges will you be filing?

Bring back accountability and teamwork to the Office of the District Attorney and vote for Cara Briggs for District Attorney.