A federal jury sided with a bail bondsman who had sued after he claimed the D.A. retaliated against him for his political ads in the local newspaper. -DB

The Vacaville Reporter
Commentary
August 28, 2009

A federal jury’s finding that Solano County District Attorney David Paulson and his chief investigator maliciously violated the civil rights of a Fairfield bail bondsman is disturbing, to say the least.

Mr. Paulson’s response to the jury’s decision on Wednesday—that the trial was “an enlightening experience” and that “everybody learned something from it”—is ludicrous.

Mr. Paulson is the second-longest-tenured district attorney in the history of Solano County, having been appointed in 1993 and elected four times. He joined the office in 1978. He’s a past president of the California District Attorneys Association. He chairs the advisory board for the master of law degree in prosecutorial science program at a local university.

What in the world did he not know beforehand about either the legal system or the First Amendment? And was his newfound knowledge worth the tuition that taxpayers have paid by helping to foot his legal bills?

The U.S. Eastern District Court jury this week sided with the plaintiff, bail bondsman Joel “Tom” Toler of Vacaville, who accused Mr. Paulson and investigator Al Garza of using their office to retaliate against him after he placed ads in local newspapers urging candidates to step up and challenge Mr. Paulson for the District Attorney’s seat.

Mr. Toler took out the ads in April 2005 because he was angry with the way the D.A.’s office was handling his complaint against a man who threatened his children. He also was upset that Mr. Paulson, an elected official, would not meet with him personally.

Weeks after the ads appeared, Mr. Toler was accused of making threats and slapped with a restraining order to stay away from the district attorney and his staff, and to keep 100 yards away from the county Government Center. That radius included Mr. Toler’s office on Jefferson Street, effectively shutting down his business.

Precisely why the federal jury sided with Mr. Toler has not been made public, but jurors might well have been as incredulous as the general public at Mr. Paulson’s claims on the witness stand that he did not know about or read the ads until two months after they appeared.

Either he was not being entirely truthful, or Mr. Paulson was not paying attention. Either is inexcusable for a public official.

The jury awarded Mr. Toler $72,000 to compensate him for his attorney fees, and $18,000 in punitive damages. The $72,000—plus the cost of defending Mr. Paulson—will be paid by the county’s insurance policy, minus a deductible of either $10,000 or $25,000, according to County Counsel Dennis Bunting, who was unsure on Thursday which deductible was in effect when the case began.

A decision about who will pay the punitive damages has not been made.

Perhaps the most unusual aspect of this case is that, until now, Mr. Paulson has been considered a straight arrow, even by those who have disagreed with some of his decisions. This ruling, which may be appealed, raises serious questions about his job performance. With his seat up for re-election next year, he should expect to face some tough questions from voters, if he chooses to run again.

Copyright 2009 The Vacaville Reporter The Bay Area News Group