Columnist Must Confess: He Still Believes the D.A.’s Alibi

This just in: Dist. Atty. Michael Capizzi has charged an itinerant Anaheim dishwasher with the murder of Jimmy Hoffa. The dishwasher came to Capizzi’s office late one night this week and confessed to killing Hoffa in 1975 because “he looked at me funny.”

Gleeful over cracking the caper, Capizzi called a news conference to declare the Hoffa case closed. He said the dishwasher, who would have been 14 at the time Hoffa disappeared, acted alone and used an “iron-plated spatula he ordered from Soldier of Fortune magazine” in the slaying. “You don’t see many of those,” Capizzi said. Although the man originally referred to his victim as “Johnny Hoffa” and won’t say where he buried the body, Capizzi said he trusts the confession because “I’ve been around a long time and, believe me, I can smell a bad story a mile away.”

Hey, we kid!

Alas, the D.A.’s office doesn’t have Hoffa’s killer any more than it has the Laguna Beach arsonist. After this week’s events, they may never announce charges against anyone, ever.

You just know Capizzi wants to shoot somebody, maybe himself. We hardly ever see the guy, then he surfaces in front of the cameras at a news conference last Friday to announce that the county’s biggest crime ever has been solved, and five days later he’s back in court saying, “ Uh, judge, about those arson charges. . . .”

Some have been eager to blast the D.A.’s office over the case, saying it should never have filed charges against Jose Soto Martinez. Nobody enjoys kicking politicians when they’re down more than I, but this case doesn’t warrant it.

Far from being a cause celebre , this is a case that, had it involved a liquor store holdup on a Saturday night, wouldn’t even make the papers. Stripped to its essentials, it’s about a guy who confessed to starting the Laguna fire and who then allegedly gave authorities enough information to flesh out his story. When an unshakable alibi surfaced, the charges were dropped.

Hey, it happens.

Based on what’s been reported, filing charges wasn’t unreasonable. It can’t be argued that charging the wrong man has made any difference in the investigation of the fires, because that came to a standstill long ago. Nor was Martinez unfairly detained because of the charges, because he’s been jailed without bail since Sept. 16 in connection with allegedly setting other fires.

Prosecutorial misconduct? Nah, that’s too much of a stretch. This borders on “no harm, no foul.” The egg on Capizzi’s face is enough punishment for now.

Capizzi probably didn’t even say “I’m sorry” to Martinez for the mistake, even if it would be rather awkward to apologize for charging someone with a crime to which they confessed. Maybe the apology could go something like, “We’re sorry you couldn’t have been the one to start the fire. We know how important it was to you.”

That isn’t to say we should close the book on this case completely. A time-honored civics lesson lies within.

To wit: Just because the district attorney charges someone doesn’t mean they did it. In this case, it didn’t even mean they were in the country.

Sure, it would streamline our justice system if district attorneys charged only guilty people. We wouldn’t need defense attorneys, judges or juries. Many of our citizens believe that’s how the system works, and those who do should be forced to read the stories about the Martinez case and write a theme paper on it.

So, although my instinct in this case is to give Capizzi the benefit of the doubt, some niggling doubts linger in the recesses of my mind.

In no particular order, they are:

* To what extent was the mistake in charging Martinez driven by the desire to pin the fires on someone?

* To what extent was the decision to file charges against Martinez affected by his obviously muddled state of mind (he said he spoke to demons) and from his statements to authorities that he had no local relatives? In other words, did they think they had a patsy on their hands?

* In that regard--and this gives me the most pause--what if his mother hadn’t lived in Fullerton and contacted police--first to report him missing and then to break the news that he was in a Mexican jail when the fires broke out? What if he had been someone with no local ties at all? Just how far would this case have gone had Martinez stuck with his “confession”? Would a defense attorney necessarily have stumbled on the alibi without a relative’s help?

In Martinez’s case, those questions are academic and thank goodness. One can only wonder, though, how many other inmates have found themselves in his shoes but unable to prove an alibi somewhat less airtight than being in jail.

Come to think of it, I’d rather not wonder about that. If nothing else, we’ve learned why we need those other lines of defense between the district attorney and state prison.

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. Readers may reach Parsons by writing to him at The Times Orange County Edition, 1375 Sunflower Ave., Costa Mesa, Calif. 92626, or calling (714) 966-7821.