AND CURRENT MARIN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE KELLY VIEIRA-SIMMONS
A recent article by this reporter described the grand jury corruption and the cover-up of child abuse that was orchestrated by former Marin County District Attorney Paula Kamena and her then-deputy district attorney Kelly Vieira-Simmons ( Click.). Under Kamena's authority, Vieira-Simmons conducted a "special" criminal grand jury impaneled by then-presiding judge Michael Buck Dufficy.
spent most of her
presentation to the grand jury trying to suppress, explain away or mislead the grand jurors concerning the abuse of Carol Mardeusz' daughter.
: I am not permitted to answer that question.
Juror No.13: Are you going to present any medical evidence?
Has H been examined to see if the charges--
: What I can tell you is that when I say that the police officers have fully investigated the case, it involved and could involve having taken her
to see persons and despite that no evidence was found to substantiate it.
I cannot tell you anything more than that.
reached the point of exasperation at grand jurors' questions and began to deceive the grand jurors about the existence and nature of any medical testimony:
and DA Kamena ordered the evidence of the examination destroyed ( Click.).
Kamena and Vieira-Simmons
then called for a special grand jury to indict Carol Mardeusz who had attempted to get a court order to take her child away from the abuser.
However, the court of appeals lambasted Marin District Attorney Paula Kamena and her deputy district attorney Kelly Vieira-Simmons for asking witnesses improper questions.
Convicting Mardeusz was imperative to the political future of DA Paula Kamena, Family Law Judge Michael Dufficy and, of course, prosecutor Kelly Vieira-Simmons.
They found that Vieira-Simmons
engaged in "clearly improper" questioning of some of the witnesses.
Vieira-Simmons' first target was Registered Nurse Barbara Parrett.
After all, Vieira-Simmons
was cloaked with the authority of the "People of the State of California" and a top member of Kamena's
prosecutorial team and she
urged them to think so.
take a poll of all these judges and district attorneys to obtain some foundation for her
Perhaps the jury would have merely laughed at the Marin County
District Attorney's office if Vieira-Simmons'
had asked Ms. Parrett, "Would you opinion change if the President of the United States
and the Congress shared an opinion that Mardeusz
was not an honest person?
question, akin to that, was rather more cunning and calculating.
If the jury had not heard Vieira-Simmons
"clearly improper" questions would Carol Mardeusz have been convicted?
line of improper questioning to two more witnesses, empowering these questions and responses with even greater weight in the eyes and ears of the jury.
The First District Court of Appeals
noted that Vieira-Simmons
also asked Mardeusz' character witness, her
sister Mary Ann Modick improper questions: "Ms.
plowed on to the next witness.
asked Mardeusz's brother, Lawrence Van Zandt if he
was "aware of a report written by a probation officer in Sonoma County
by the name of Susan Rivett indicating that she
believes that, in fact, your sister is a dishonest person?
Van Zandt replied, "I have no idea."
The First District Court of Appeals
held that Vieira-Simmons'
line of questioning of Modick and Van Zandt was improper in form.
The court said, "Here, the prosecutor offered no foundation to indicate that these witnesses would have any reason to know of Mardeusz' reputation in the courts, the district attorney's office or the probation department."
Finally, the justices opined that it was not reasonably probable that the erroneous and improper questioning by the Marin County
District Attorney's office affected the judgment.
The court stated, "Although the questions allowed on cross examination were improper we cannot say that there is a reasonable probability that they affected the outcome of the trial."
Even though this Appellate Court did not overturn the jury's verdict because of the deputy district attorney's improper questioning, a question will always remain - what would the jury really have decided if this slew of improper questions were not asked by Vieira-Simmons
and allowed in by Judge Adams?
Ironically, the First District Court of Appeal's opinion has also marked the lives of Kamena and Vieira-Simmons
The opinion, at best, depicts Vieira-Simmons
(promoted to Marin Superior Court Judge in 2005) as an amateur who didn't know how to cross-examine fairly and follow the law.
However, the case remains a reminder of who Paula Kamena, Kelly Vieira-Simmons and Judge Verna Adams really are - it is a look into their dark souls.