Supervisor Carole Groom's public statement to DA Steve Wagstaffe Around Town, posted by Michael G. Stogner, a resident of another community, on Jul 1, 2012 at 11:52 am
Supervisor Carole Groom at Board of Supervisor Meeting June 21, 2012
"I don't know how many folks in our county know the promise you kept to the Biletnikoff family, after the first case was dismissed or overthrown and you promised that family that you'd come back and re-prosecute and you did, and he was found guilty again and I just think that's just another example of what your office does."
I don't how many folks in our county know (including Supervisor Carole Groom) that Steve Wagstaffe was personally responsible for the murder conviction to be reversed in the first place, Three Judges from the Ninth District Court ruled his behavior was racially motivated, she doesn't mention that.
I supported San Mateo County re-trying him, he was guilty, I did not support the idea of Mr. Wagstaffe being the prosecutor in the second trial, and I am sorry the Biletnikoff family had to go through another trial.
I think Supervisor Carole Groom's public description of this event was less than honest.
Posted by Spin, a resident of another community, on Jul 1, 2012 at 11:26 pm
This is obviously spin control by Groom to apply balm to Wagstaffe's reputation after the blockbuster news event that revealed he would not or could not detect felonies being committed by employees he was directly responsible for (yet the health department detected within days of assuming responsibility for the job Wagstaffe was supposed to be doing).
A funny system we have in San Mateo county. I would have thought a responsible supervisor would have either moved to fire Wagstaffe or demand his resignation after these revelations. I guess when you have career county employees appointing supervisors and/or rotating into the job like Horsley, this is the result.
I do believe the FBI will and should move quickly to determine whether Wagstaffe not catching these felonies was incompetence or actual collusion. Either way he needs to step down in my view. IF (and I qualify this statement since nothing has been proven, but the circumstances indicate this question must be asked) he knew what was going on, I think he is more guilty than the employees who actually stole the money and needs to see the inside of a prison cell. The fact he's part of law enforcement should not afford him any special treatment. I sincerely hope this is not the case and wish to emphasize these is no evidence that it is other than an indication of possibilities based on these truly bizarre circumstances.
Posted by Spin, a resident of another community, on Jul 1, 2012 at 11:46 pm
By the way, the real journalism exercise the Almanac could be doing is pulling the files at the courthouse to see how many times Wagstaffe has authorized criminal prosecutions for vicarious liability (holding a responsible person who knew OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN about the fraudulent criminal activities of persons he was responsible for). Why does this not work for Wagstaffe himself when he's applied the concept to others?
Maybe that's why he doesn't want to give an interview.
Posted by Michael G. Stogner, a resident of another community, on Jul 17, 2012 at 2:16 pm
I recently saw your public statement to Steve Wagstaffe during a budget hearing on June 21st, 2012. I have to say I was caught completely by surprise at your praise of him keeping a promise to the Biletnikoff family, which was to reprosecute Mr. Ali. Now, I fully support the second trial and I am pleased with the results, but I did not support Wagstaffe personally prosecuting the case a second time, for this reason. The 9th district court reversed the conviction based on Wagstaffe's personal behavior.
“The prosecutor’s willingness to make up nonracial reasons for striking [three minority jurors] makes it even harder to believe that his resons for striking [a fourth juror] were race-neutral.”
"§ 2254(d)(2). We therefore reverse the judgment of the district court and remand with directions to issue a conditional writ of habeas corpus requiring Ali’s release from custody"
So, while you are praising a man for keeping a promise he is the sole cause for two trials in SMC. At this time, I am requesting you to find out from the DA's office, how much did both of those trials cost the tax payer's of San Mateo County?
Michael G. Stogner
..they talk about responsiveness in their mission statement but to date, no response from any of them. I just want an e-mail response.