Teachings Put Prosecutor on the Defensive

In recent years, prosecutor Devallis Rutledge hasn’t always been a happy lawyer.

Defense attorneys from across the country were publicly criticizing him for some of his teachings on the famous “Miranda” police warnings. His wife, also a prosecutor, was suing their boss, Dist. Atty. Mike Capizzi, claiming job discrimination. And Rutledge himself was among those deputies discontent with office management.

Well, look at him now. Rutledge whipped his defense adversaries in court. He’s now chief assistant to new Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas. And if that isn’t kick enough, Rutledge, at 54, is about to become a father for the fourth time.

“He’s a powerful prosecutor and an encyclopedia on criminal law,” Rackauckas said in a recent interview. “I knew I wanted him right by my side.”

Rutledge is a former cop and a wounded Vietnam combat veteran who joined the office in 1976. He gained national stature, although he rarely sets foot in court. For 15 years he has been a recognized training expert for police and prosecutors. He has taught in legal academies in 20 states, written widely used textbooks and produced scores of videotapes used in training sessions.

But Rutledge is an aggressive prosecutor, which spills over to his police teaching. And that led to the first unfavorable publicity of Rutledge’s career.

“The American Civil Liberties Union thinks I’m trampling on people’s rights, and that’s unfair,” Rutledge said. “I defended people’s rights on the streets, and in Vietnam.”

At issue is the “Miranda” warning police give suspected criminals. Most of us know it from books or TV: You, the suspect, have the right to see a lawyer, and anything you say can or will be used against you. You say, “I want a lawyer,” and the police interrogation stops, right?

Not necessarily, according to Rutledge. For years, he has been teaching cops about a concept called “outside Miranda.” It states that police may decide to continue asking questions even after a suspect requests a lawyer.

“The Miranda ruling doesn’t say you can’t go ahead and get a statement; it just says that statement can’t be admitted as part of the prosecutor’s case,” Rutledge said.

So why should police go ahead? For two reasons, Rutledge contends: If the suspect later testifies and lies, you can use his “outside Miranda” statement to show the jury. But also, you often gain important information from further questioning--where property has been hidden, where a body has been buried, the names of co-conspirators. That can lead to gathering evidence that can be used in court.

He gives this example: A stepfather is accused of child molestation and says right away that he wants to see his lawyer. You question him anyway and learn that he did molest his stepdaughter. You can’t convict him of a crime with his admission. But you can use the information in court to take the child out of his custody.

“Our primary job as prosecutors is not to put criminals in jail,” Rutledge said. “It’s to protect victims from criminals.”

Any such tampering with “Miranda,” of course, makes some defense lawyers livid.

In a legal brief, defense attorney Alemayehu Mariam called him “Devils Rutledge” and “the person spearheading the effort to undermine and circumvent ‘Miranda.’ ”

Mariam was representing a robbery defendant in San Bernardino. Also taking shots at Rutledge was the American Civil Liberties Union. It sued Rutledge over a Santa Monica manslaughter case.

Rutledge has never directly taught a class to the police in either Santa Monica or San Bernardino. But police in both places were taught with Rutledge’s videotapes.

Here’s the part that grates on Rutledge: In all his teachings, he always tells police officers to check with their superiors before deciding a course of action on “Miranda.”

It strikes me as pretty silly that you could sue somebody for giving his opinion in a classroom setting. It struck the judge that way too. Rutledge was dropped from the lawsuit, and the ACLU was ordered to pay his court costs.

None of us likes to be defined by what our critics say about us. Rutledge’s distinguished career as a teacher has gained him many friends in the legal community. Though now in management, he still helps make weekly videotapes for all police agencies in Orange County, updating them on the latest changes in the law. And he helps produce monthly tapes for the state Police Officers Standards & Training Commission. (He’s its former chairman.)

Within the office, he’ll be on the sidelines on one issue: the lawsuit by his wife, Victoria Chen, now on maternity leave, against Capizzi and the county. Rackauckas has said he will cooperate fully as that civil case proceeds through the system. But he and Rutledge have agreed that the chief assistant should stay out of it.

Rutledge has plenty of other headaches. Almost from the day the new management took over, Rutledge has been embroiled in preparing Rackauckas’ $75-million budget.

He’s enjoying his job. His main annoyance now is that reporters from across the country are still calling him about “Miranda.”

I’m not a lawyer. But if I were a suspect, I wouldn’t be too happy with police who ignored my demand to see a lawyer. However, if someone in my family was a victim, I’d want the police to keep a suspect talking from sunup to sundown.

This week I read Rutledge’s “California Criminal Procedures,” a text used in training classes throughout the state. It’s not a John Grisham page-turner but included a line he must have written with Orange County in mind:

“As California absorbs new citizens with increasingly diverse political, religious, cultural, racial and ethnic backgrounds, the challenge to accommodate the conflicting guarantees of freedom and security may be substantial.”

That just doesn’t sound to me like somebody out to trample on our rights.

Jerry Hicks’ column appears Monday and Thursday. Readers may reach Hicks by calling (714) 564-1049 or by e-mail at [email protected].