WI: Chuck Chvala charged with two felonies

[Monkeyleg]

For those who may not remember, former Democrat Majority Leader Chuck Chvala was the person who almost single-handedly defeated our concealed carry bill in 2002. Using dubious parliamentary maneuvers, he kept the bill from coming to a vote.

Ever since then, I've been waiting for payback. I thought that payback came in 2003, when he was charged with 19 felonies, including extortion. At one point the FBI was even looking at him for interstate money-laundering.

He struck a plea deal with the prosecutor this week, pleading guilty to having a staff worker do campaign work on state time, and funnelling more than the $1,000 maximum allowed amount to the campaign of former Democrat Senator Mark Meyer.

This means that the court will not get into the most serious charges: extortion.

The maximum penalty that Chvala faces on the two charges is five years. Chances are, he won't even do a year.

Note to criminals: if you want to do the crime but not do the time, get into politics.

 

[Standing Wolf]

The maximum penalty that Chvala faces on the two charges is five years. Chances are, he won't even do a year.

The Democratic (sic) party fix is in.

 

[Jeff White]

Dick,
I hate to break this to you, but Chvala is most likely being treated like every other multiple felony case the states attorney's office handles.

It costs a lot of money to go to trial. Charges are routinely dropped in return for a guilty plea on lesser charges. Like it or not we have the best criminal justice system money can buy. Unfortunately we fund our courts and prosecutors and public defenders at 1970s levels.

I bet if you check, he's getting the same deal a regular criminal will get. A trial like that with all of the extra security for the press and the inevitable motions for change of venue etc. could easily cost a million dollars or more. The prosecutor is often faced with the choice of taking a plea like that and disposing of the case cheaply or spending most of his budget on a high profile case and then having to offer a second degree murder plea to a violent killer because he can't afford to try a capitol crime. The cost of the trial and subsequent appeals will effectively end the death penalty in this country long before the people vote it out or it's ruled unconstitutional in one of the court challenges.

One could make an arguement that this case should be prosecuted to the full extent allowed to set an example to other public officials, but then you may have to tell the family of a raped and murdered woman the best justice you could get for them was a 15 year sentence for 2d degree murder...Some choice....

Jeff

 

[Ryder]

That certainly explains why he didn't want honest people to carry guns.

If we fund the courts and prosecutors at 1970s levels why do trials cost millions of dollars? It's just people sitting in a room flapping their gums. Who gets the millions of dollars the state supposedly spends doing this?

 

[Waitone]

Don't get me started on underfunded DA offices.

A particularly disgusting case in Charlotte (back before I went over the wall) had a kid conduct a premeditated murder of his friend (over a girl). Police had a phone call taped where he admitted he planned and executed the murder. DA takes second degree homicide. Eleven year sentence. He's out in 4. Not bad for premeditated murder. The reason? Costs too much to go to trial.

An investigative honest to goodness journalist looked at murder conversion rates and discovered that over a 2 year period (2001-2003 IIRC) of 163 murder cases in Mecklenburg county, only 3 went to trial. Looks like Mecklenburg county is the promised land if you are a murderer.

:banghead:

 

[Ryder]

So are they just using cost as an excuse for laziness?

 

[Waitone]

Sadly, the reality is the DA's office is grossly underfunded for a city the size of Charlotte. Comparable cities include Austin and Portland. Charlotte stable of attorneys is 1/2 to 2/3 the size of the other two. Administrative help is a small fraction, yet the crime rate is much higher. A county councilman has had enough and has started the campaign to fund the DA's office locally instead of at the state level. He said it would take an immediate $15 million increase in the budget to hire 50% for little DA's and staff. Then he would have to get money for a new building to house the new beagles. Meanwhile the city and county continue to spend money like crack whores but not on things like justice.

Combine underfunding with a blissninny county government, a council form of government, and a social worker for police chief and you've got all the ingredients of a classic soft on crime city. Grunts on the street don't like the game any better than the taxpayer but until the electorate grows a pair this nonsense will only get worse. I have a strong vested interest in what happens so I watch the happenings like a hawk.

Better quit now since I'm getting mad just thinking about the situation.

 

[Coronach]

No.

They are using caseload as a reason why they cut deals. And it is a real reason. Believe me, no one gets more frustrated with the DAs cutting deals or dropping cases than the cops who busted their butt to get a guy in cuffs and charged. But the simple fact of the matter is that it would be physically impossible to try every case sent up to the DA's office by the police. I mean, literally, impossible.

Go to a court house and sit in on a courtroom some day. That stack of file folders, reaching from the palms of the ADA up to her eyeballs is her docket, for that day. As in, every one of those cases is slated for trial, that day.

Obviously, that ain't gonna happen.

Most get continued. Many get plead out. Some get dropped. A (very) few get tried.

Now, that is misdemenor side. Felony-side will not be quite as chaotic, but the general principle is the same.

When politicians "get tough on crime" they always do one of two things:

1. Get funding for more cops.
2. Invoke harsher sentences.

I've long said that what they really need to do is get more realistic staffing at the DA's office, get more court rooms, and more judges. The real bottleneck in the system is there.

Mike

 

[Waitone]

When the system fails to prosecute opting for a bargain the entire scale of justice shifts to the lenient end of the spectrum as evidence by premeditated murder drawing 4 years in the joint. In Charlotte's case the sad fact of reality is you simply do not go to jail for murder. Cases are pled away and so slowly but surely the concept of proportional punishment becomes a distant memory. Meanwhile, gangs set up shop in town at a high rate, violent crime goes up, and the quality of life deteriorates. Classic scenario playing out.

 

[71Commander]

Another thing to keep in mine when a plea is made, is the DA gets a conviction. When the DA runs for a higher office, they get to crow about their high conviction rate.

 

[Monkeyleg]

I understand, albeit sadly, that cases get pled down to lesser charges.

What steams me about this one is that the DA didn't try to bargain on the most serious charges. It's like taking a case of 1st degree murder, dropping the murder charges, and getting a conviction for carrying a concealed weapon.

The DA in this case, E. Michael McCann, is very much a Democrat. When he was assigned the case, I became suspicious.