After a relatively long period of inactivity, the California Court of Appeal gets back into the game today with several published opinions. Every one of them affirms the decision below.
This opinion struck me as interesting not because the Court of Appeal gets it wrong, but rather because the fact that it's somewhat close is fairly surprising. The defendant intercepted mail intended for a local post of the American Legion and cashed some checks that belonged to it. His scheme was fairly sophisticated; he had set up bank accounts in related names, had gotten replacement checks in his fake names sent to him by various entities who paid money to the Legion, and basically operated a neat little scam that netted him a healthy chunk of change.
When he got caught, he hired a psychologist who prepared a report that said that the defendant's mental health -- basically, stress -- was a significant factor in his crimes. On that basis, the defendant requested mental health diversion, which would basically amount to no criminal consequences for his fraud.
What surprised me what that the DA's office (1) didn't hire an expert to refute these claims, and (2) when time came to argue the motion orally, didn't offer any argument in response to the defense, and simply submitted on the papers.
Admittedly, that gambit worked, and the trial court denied diversion. I was nonetheless somewhat surprised at the laissez-faire attitude of the DA's office. I would have perhaps expected the expenditure of a little more effort, particularly given the nature of the crimes at issue.
