Should bad acts have consequences?

If you are Douglas Hoffman, the answer is, “No!”

As we have read recently in the newspaper, Douglas Raymond Hoffman of Sun City Anthem is claiming he is innocent of the serious criminal charges lodged against him. But not to worry. Those who are moderately aware of the facts and circumstances surrounding the late night/early morning apprehension of Mr. Hoffman virtually caught in the act are really quite comfortable in knowing who committed the crime of cutting down hundreds of our trees. Click these Links to see the original capture LVRJ article (29 Nov. '05) and our Vandalism article (1 Dec. 05).

On the other hand, whether a future jury will find Mr. Hoffman guilty of his acts is quite another matter. So as we sit in our homes pondering the fait of Mr. Hoffman, we need not fret nor should we be influenced by the defendant’s claim of innocence or even his presumption of innocence under the law. After all, just like Mr. Hoffman himself, we all know who committed the deed. As we looked further into this matter, we were taken aback and surprised by what we learned.

The problem for our Sun City community rests elsewhere. It rests with our attempt to extract some measure of justice. The interesting thing about seeking justice is that too often the guilty are simply unwilling to accept responsibility for their malicious acts or wrongful deeds. While Mr. Hoffman clearly has a right to claim his innocence and to a jury trial, he has to calculate whether his decision in preferring a trial by a jury will result in what he considers to be a favorable outcome. I gather that Mr. Hoffman has already made that delicate calculation against the odds of entering into a plea agreement.

Personally, though, I happen to believe the community will be far better served if the case goes to trial than if it is settled out of court. Understandably, others may look at this somewhat differently. Rolling the dice on a circumstantial evidence case that must rely on plain old common sense is something on which I would not relish taking a chance. Not only is the initial outcome of guilty or not guilty a toss up, but there far greater unknowns to be concerned about, such as the financial cost associated with a potential outcome of being found guilty, or the uncertainty of being found guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, or both. Factored against a plea agreement, that’s an awful lot of uncertainty weighing on someone who we assume is not all that innocent of the deed in the first place.

We must assume that Mr. Hoffman has taken all necessary precautions to make himself judgment proof from a financial award, like putting his assets in trust and the like. Just how secure those revocable trusts are in these situations would be an interesting topic for someone more knowledgeable than me. Actually, I believe he has recently done just that. Soon, I expect, it seems likely that Mr. Hoffman will look to be so poor that he may be eligible for financial assistance from our Minuteman Foundation and Community Service Club.

Fortunately for the prosecution, there will be no dispute over DNA, no race card to counter, nor any allegations of evidence planting to cloud the jury’s mind. No, all the jury will have to go with in this case will be to exercise plain common sense. That’s a terrible burden when one realizes that it was not that long ago when a killer’s conviction of murder depended on being able to produce a dead body to demonstrate that a possible crime had been committed. Today’s justice system has moved far beyond that former legal standard to where prosecutors and juries, even in the most heinous of capital murder cases, are now looking to extract justice based on mere common sense and circumstantial evidence.

In the likely or unlikely event Mr. Hoffman is found not guilty, will he be able to rely on the community turning the other cheek with an outpouring of forgiveness and outstretched arms to welcome him back? Perhaps some will want to, while the overwhelming majority will not. The real and unanswered question for Mr. Hoffman will be the response from Del Webb/Pulte. Will Del Webb/Pulte want to make an example of Mr. Hoffman in order to dissuade others here and elsewhere from engaging in the type of malicious behavior and destruction of community owned property? As we learned from the O. J. Simpson trial, a non guilty verdict in the criminal trial was no assurance of real freedom nor was it any relief from a far less demanding and more costly civil action and a multi-million dollar award, which follows him wherever he goes.

          But enough speculation. What’s happening today? Well, as reported by our LVRJ weekly for the area, The South Valley News, Mr. Hoffman was given the opportunity to opt out of all of this uncertainty by entering into a plea agreement, some might view as being far too generous. Here is what the Clark County District Attorney’s office has offered to settle the matter, according to Hoffman’s attorney, Leavitt, either accept a charge shown below in column A or the charge in column B:

One tree!          Hoffman is looking for a better deal!

Both charges stem from seven felony counts and three misdemeanor counts for the damage and destruction of 557 trees on 10 occasions, causing $246,000 in damage to trees along Eastern Avenue, Sun City Anthem Drive and Anthem Parkway. The charges carry prison sentences, but may also receive probation, according to Mr. Hoffman’s attorney, as reported The South Valley News, August 31-September 6, 2006.

A further and real kicker in all of this is Mr. Hoffman’s dismissal of his attorney and his request for representation by the public defender’s office. Adding insult to injury, we may be asked to pay for his defense. As reported in The South Valley News, “[Hoffman's attorney] Leavitt said Hoffman may rehire him in late October or November, after his Sept. 20 appointment to request a public defender.” See the full story from The South Valley News by clicking Here.

We contacted the district court to learn more about how one becomes eligible for public defender status, as in indigent or truly needy status. One might think the court’s “investigation” of the applicant to determine indigent status might include an examination of relevant tax documents, property records showing how many homes one owns, home equity information, investment portfolio reports to name a few. Incredibly, the court will see none of these documents. One can have multiple homes, hundreds of thousands of dollars in home equity and millions invested and the court not only does not inquire but will not know just how "poor" you really are. Even more incredibly, the only thing the court requests is a statement of “living expenses,” consisting of total monthly income and total monthly expenses for the family. That’s it! And to top it off, the information provided to the court is self reported. Just give the court an “Interview Statement” that does not need to be signed or attested to coupled with the correct figures filled in and if you qualify on paper as “poor,” your neighbor’s tax money will soon be at work paying for legal services provided by the county. Don’t forget, there are no documents to corroborate what the applicant has reported to the court and the court does not conduct an investigation. The court gives full faith and credit to what the applicant reports about their need for legal assistance. For the truly indigent needing assistance, the system is designed to work as it was intended.

We asked the court’s administrative clerk what if the applicant has access to money, or, God forbid, the applicant for indigent status is not fully forthcoming in completing his or her Living Expense statement, what happens then? We were told the court will decide on the information that is made available. If the only information available to the court is the applicant’s Statement, the court will decide based on the information contained in that Statement.

The clerk volunteered that anyone having additional and relevant information pertaining to the person’s application for indigent status can present such information to the court for the judge's consideration. While the timing of that submission was not clear, as reported, Mr. Hoffman has an appointment to request a public defender on September 20th.