The excuses, the deflections, begin with an irrelevant headline in Sunday’s Post-Journal: “Seeking A Balance”

Baloney is served early when City Editor Eric Tichy writes that our county District Attorney Patrick Swanson “understands the amount of scrutiny his office has come under after a recent string of acquittals at trial.”

“Scrutiny?” “..his office..” No, Mr. District Attorney. It’s “criticism” “of you” “of your many failures.”

In the second paragraph, Swanson does “note” “..that criticism is part of the job…” This he says is why “he doesn’t celebrate wins.” Did Tichy ask, “What wins?” We aren’t told.

Down in paragraph six the DA reveals what he wants P-J readers to believe is the main monkey wrench in Mayville: “There’s an over-arching problem to this particular office that I’ve found and it’s the staffing levels…That drives a lot of what we do here, unfortunately, and it shouldn’t. We should be able to prosecute our cases as we see fit.”

Mr. Swanson, with respect, did “staffing levels” cause your office to not provide key evidence to the defense in the first Justin Haffa trial, and thus bring a mistrial ruling? By your own admission you had that evidence in a file for months and used it as part of your prosecution. It wasn’t overlooked for lack of manpower; it was apparently not properly disclosed because of plain carelessness.

POOR ME

In paragraph eleven Swanson solicits sympathy. “Being a public figure from what I’ve learned is that there are certain people who won’t be happy no matter what you do.”  Awwww. This earning north of three grand a week is really hard…really, really a…dare I use the word?…a trial.

IT’S THOSE DARNED JURORS

About midway in the article Swanson states, “he has noticed an increase in skepticism from jurors toward witnesses and police.” Gosh, Mr. DA, certainly you don’t mean members of juries you helped select from a cross-section of county residents.

IT’S THAT COUNTY JUDGE

Swanson bleats about Chautauqua County Judge David Foley, particularly his honor’s dismissal of a manslaughter charge against Thomas Jadlowski, since re-instated. “I have spoken with, I don’t even know how many, DAs …in the state that expressed to me their concern with that decision and their hope that their judge doesn’t think that’s the right route to go,” said Swanson, who maintains he adequately answered the juror’s question. (Note: Judge David Foley ruled Swanson failed to properly advise a Grand Juror who inquired about indicting on a lesser criminal charge.)

You can read the entire article in the April 15th edition of  The Post-Journal.