In September 2006, after the death of Huntington Beach teenager Ashley MacDonald, Orange County Register editorial writer Steven Greenhut wrote a column entitled, Police rush to shoot, but ask us to withhold judgment. In the article, the death of Vicki Avila was mentioned in defense of Greenhut's argument for civilian law enforcement oversight. The most egregious statement is his conclusion:

In California, police decide when to use deadly force, and police agencies get to investigate themselves. They release only the information they want to release when the investigation is complete. The agencies can shield information about "bad apple" cops from the public. And those of us who simply want a little more debate and accountability are told that it's unconscionable to second-guess the authorities. I don't mean to be alarmist here, but the Webster's definition of a police state, i.e., a political system characterized "by an arbitrary exercise of power by police," is starting to cut a little too close to the bone.
 

Greenhut's comments could not be further from the truth, especially in light of the Grand Jury report. The report, An In-Custody Death Reviewed, is available to the general public and states in the summary, "The Grand Jury determined that reports of deputy misconduct were totally unsubstantiated."

After the tragic death of Ms. Avila, reporters, columnists, defense and plaintiff's attorneys, and anyone with an axe to grind had already convicted law enforcement personnel of misuse of force and misconduct. In every instance we did ask the public to withhold judgment until all the facts were brought to light.

To compare the tone of the media coverage at the time of Ms. Avila's death with the media coverage after the release of the Grand Jury Report, I have attached several newspaper articles. Allegations of a cover-up and possible deadly use of force were plentiful. Yet, after the release of the Grand Jury Report, the fact that deputy misconduct was totally unsubstantiated could only garner a single sentence in most articles.

The Orange County Jail System may not enjoy "positive perception" in the media, but we prefer to focus on the reality of the safe and professional jails we operate each and every day. Plaintiffs and defense lawyers along with the inmates and families they represent enjoy great access and cooperation with newspapers and journalists who enjoy peddling the "dark and sinister underbelly" they want so much to believe exists in our jails. It is time for our government leaders to stand up and defend the men and women who provide this essential service, instead of standing side-by-side with those who continually try to undermine our operation.

Last year we booked approximately 66,000 inmates into our jails and, while tragedies can and do take place, our priority is to ensure that our community receives all the facts in a way that does not endanger the integrity of the investigation or the due process of the justice system. Time and patience are essential in such matters. This case provides one more example of the role of the District Attorney's office as well as the independent civilian oversight which, contrary to the opinion of some Board Members, already exists within the role and the scope of the Grand Jury.

A rush to judgment serves no useful and legitimate purpose. The facts of this case have been brought to light and, as I assured the Board in my letter last July, my staff conducted themselves professionally and within policy.