Madden conviction would save taxpayers cash

‘Why on Earth are they going after this case? What a waste of law enforcement resources!” read an email I received from a reader. He was referring to the recent federal indictment of former San Francisco drug lab technician Deborah Madden. At first glance, it might seem like an unnecessary endeavor to prosecute a woman charged with taking small amounts of drugs, but there’s another side to this story.

Last year, then-District Attorney Kamala Harris turned the case over to then-Attorney General Jerry Brown’s office. Despite the fact that Madden admitted to snorting the cocaine she was supposed to be testing for at the drug lab, Brown refused to prosecute Madden at the state level, citing a “lack of evidence.” That’s a lot like saying there’s no proof that a confessed thief is guilty because all the jewelry is missing.

But without a felony conviction, Madden — whose actions resulted in the dismissal of some 600 criminal cases — will receive her full pension and lifetime retiree health care benefits. Since March 1, 2010, when she was allowed to retire in the wake of the scandal, she has been receiving a $5,485-per-month pension. She’ll continue to collect that amount (about $66,000 per year, plus cost-of-living increases) if the feds are unsuccessful, or if she pleads down to a misdemeanor.

Melissa Griffin looks under the surface of corruption in San Francisco city government and follows it to California State government, and finds that both justice systems won't prosecute fellow "Public servants" especially when they can pass taxpayer funds to drug criminals by doing so.

1 posted on 12/14/2011 9:12:05 AM PST by Navy Patriot

Note to all: scroll down one article at the link, this is the second one.

2 posted on 12/14/2011 9:14:24 AM PST by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it. (plagiarized))

about $66,000 per year, plus cost-of-living increases

Why is this woman getting so little, when her medical condition (drug addiction) renders her unable to perform her job (testing drugs)? She needs a better disability lawyer.

3 posted on 12/14/2011 9:21:03 AM PST by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)

She will probably hire a San Fran Legal Eagle who will argue that she was merely testing the unknown substance for the presence of cocaine by using her nose to sniff for evidence.

Regards,
GtG

4 posted on 12/14/2011 9:55:24 AM PST by Gandalf_The_Gray (I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.