Inyo Grand Jury Report leaves questions on DA Maillet

courthouseIn its final report just out, the Inyo County Grand Jury failed to get any answers from District Attorney Art Maillet on allegations that he improperly released confidential documents on his political opponent prior to the June, 2010 election, but they did tell him to start communicating with news reporters.  The Jury Report says that the reason for their investigation into the DA was that according to California Penal Code, “The Grand Jury shall inquire into willful or corrupt misconduct in office of public officers of every description within the County.”

In days before the 2010 election, former Assistant DA Mark Johnson had contacted a reporter at Sierra Wave Media and offered to release unflattering documents from the DA’s office on Maillet’s political opponent, Gerard Harvey. Johnson was placed on administrative leave for releasing the documents. He then admitted under oath in a 2011 murder trial that this document release led to his “early retirement.” He also testified that DA Maillet knew about the document release and “authorized” it. The documents released on DA candidate Gerard Harvey were allegations, in part, which did not lead to any criminal charges or convictions. Some of the documents were deemed confidential.  At the time, DA Maillet refused to comment.

He also apparently refused to comment much to the Grand Jury. The Jury addressed the release of information about Maillet’s political opponent, including Maillet’s knowledge of such a release. The Report says that this issue “has been reviewed and concluded by the State Attorney General and the State Bar Association for ethics violations.”  The Jury Report offered no explanation of these reviews.

The Jury reported that “The District Attorney would not discuss what he expressed was an ‘internal personnel issue’ regarding the release of information by someone in his office (and his advance knowledge of said release) about a DA elections opponent.” It is unknown if the Jury interviewed anyone else on this matter nor why they did not compel the DA to respond to allegations of improper behavior.

The Jury did conclude that there is a lack of communication between Maillet and the news media. They recommended that the DA “make regular press releases, in writing, to end what the DA expressed is a flow of misinformation and misstatements through the press.”

Maillet’s blame-the-press defense remains just that. Maillet has never publicly explained any inaccuracies in news reports about legal cases or about his or his employees’ behavior. We placed a call to Maillet for his comment on the Grand Jury Report, and he was unavailable.

On the statements and reports that Maillet authorized the alleged improper  use of his office for political gain, the Jury responded, “While the District Attorney is to be commended for defending his ‘personnel issue’ confidentiality position, it is the recommendation by this Grand Jury that he be more forthcoming with public information and its release, upon request.”

The Jury apparently gave Maillet a free pass on dissemination of confidential legal documents but pressed him to start talking to the media. They also recommended that the County should conduct  “an ongoing workshop for all County executives on ways to keep and improve media and public relations.” There is more in the Report, and we’ll have that on later posts.


, , , ,

5 Responses to Inyo Grand Jury Report leaves questions on DA Maillet

  1. Trouble July 13, 2012 at 11:19 pm #

    The Inyo County Grand Jury just proved that small town justice is a joke.

  2. john July 15, 2012 at 12:31 pm #

    Maillet”s refusal to divulge public information is typical of how Inyo and Mono Counties operate, and the Grand Juries and Judges in both counties enable this type of reprehensible behavior.

  3. Jeremiah July 16, 2012 at 7:39 am #

    WoW, big surprise right.

  4. AL Grande July 16, 2012 at 9:56 am #

    Sounds like that report is a joke too.

  5. Anonymous July 16, 2012 at 1:17 pm #

    Since the DA is basically the Grand Jury’s mentor and instructor, what do you expect? It is sad however, that the Attorney General’s Office also refuses to do anything. Oh, and don’t expect your complaints to the Grand Jury to remain anonymous either, when I complained to them about Mr. Maillett, it ended up being divulged to Maillett and members of the public.

    When I then in turn complained to the Judge about the Grand Jury’s lack of confidentiality, I got a letter with a bunch of lame excuses, mostly “well, its a small town, and if you complain about someone, that someone will guess who you are”. Yeah, Right! I don’t believe it for a second.

    Also, do not think that the DA divulging confidential records was limited to Gerard Harvey. Others have been victimized.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.