World's Strangest Judicial Footnote
Tuesday, November 4, 2003 at 10:15AM In People v. Douglas Richard Britt, 104 Cal.App.4th 500 (2002), Britt appealed his sentence of 17 years in state prison for burglary, indecent exposure, and "annoying or molesting a child." On appeal, he claimed insufficiency of the evidence, improper admission of uncharged instances of sexual misconduct, and instructional error. The court of appeal affirmed.
In footnote 1 (which seems to be sort of a non sequitor anyway given its placement in the text) the court wrote as follows:
Britt admitted he was convicted of indecent exposure in the Lynn B. case while represented by counsel, but claimed that he understood the plea "nolo contendere" to mean "not guilty." The sentencing judge did not place him on probation or impose any other punishment, but instead told him to report to spring training camp with the Pittsburgh Pirates.
Id. at 503 n1 (emphasis added). Sentenced to spring training camp for indecent exposure involving a child???!!! (There is no other reference to baseball or anything remotely like it to explain this footnote anywhere else in the opinion.)
If you've registered with Findlaw.com, you should be able to read the opinion here for free (or you can find it here by following the directions to the search screen and entering "104 Cal.App.4th 500").
UPDATE: Bonus points to any reader who can provide me with any information whatsoever about Douglas Richard Britt's baseball career (with the Pirates or anywhere else). I can find neither hide nor hair of it. [UPDATE: The comments below now have information about Mr. Britt's career.]
UPDATE: A gentleman has taken issue with this post in several comments (below) that I'll let speak for themselves. He thinks Mr. Britt was wrongly and unfairly convicted and that I am making light of it while perpetuating several inaccuracies about his case.
Specifically, he contends that Mr. Britt was not "sentenced" to spring training, and that "Lynn B." was not a child.
As for whether he was "sentenced," the footnote quoted above says that the "sentencing judge . . . told him to report to spring training camp . . . ." I suppose technically if a judge "tells you to do something" after you plead nolo contendere to a misdemeanor, it may not be a "sentence." Perhaps I should have said that the judge "ordered him to spring training camp."
As for Lynn B., after carefully re-reading the decision, it is unclear what Lynn's age was at the time of the alleged event, so I should not have characterized it as "indecent exposure involving a child." Here's what the case says about Lynn B. in its entirety:
Two witnesses testified as to Britt's propensity for committing sexual misconduct. Lynn B. testified that in 1978, she was driving her car in Orange County and stopped for a red light. Britt, who was driving a delivery-type truck with a side door, pulled alongside and honked to gain her attention. When she looked over, he opened the door, and appeared completely nude, masturbating in front of her with a full erection. Britt was caught immediately and pleaded guilty [actually it was nolo contendere] to misdemeanor indecent exposure.
Id. at 503. So it is not clear how old Lynn B. was at the time. It appears that she was at least old enough to be driving, and I should not have characterized her as a "child."
However, the published opinion discusses other instances in which Mr. Britt was alleged (I have no way of knowing whether these allegations are true or not, but they're all in the published case) to have exposed himself to or masturbated in front of a 14-year-old named Heather H., a 10-year-old named Sarah H., and a 12-year-old named Sara M. In addition, he had an earlier conviction from 1987 for "violating Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a) (lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under the age of 14.)" Id. at 502-03, 504 n2. So I think my mistake about Lynn B.'s unspecified age is understandable.
To my commentor: It may be that Mr. Britt is the most upstanding individual ever, that all these allegations against him are false, and that he has been wrongfully convicted. I have no idea and no way of knowing. All this started because I noted a peculiar footnote in a random published case. It is not personal.
P.S. I reserve the right to edit or delete any comments that identify other individuals by name (if their names are not public), or any comments that are obscene or threatening. Other than that, I'm happy to allow others to use this weblog to present their views of Mr. Britt and his legal problems in the comments, which appear below.
Reader Comments (3)
This may be a strange footnote. I wouldn't know. But I am concerned to see the errors that you've made that gave rise to your indignation. If you are to become an attorney, or already are an attorney, I hope you consider how grievous your thought process could be for you and your future clients, and for those around them.
I know Mr. Britt well. He married my ex wife and helped raise my son for 14 years. He and I had a good relationship and my son loved him.
I know about his professional baseball career as a left handed pitching prospect for the Pirates on their affiliate AAA team in the Carolina league also named the Pirates. Introduced to the court documents in the above referenced 2001 case were copies of his baseball card.
As for Lynne B., the Sac county DA held the certificate of destruction of the records from that case. I am not aware of any record of the 1979 incident. If you are, let me know.
The decision/footnote in that 1979 case where the judge made the terrible decision of sentencing him to "play ball for a heinous crime against a child" is the source of your public indigniation.
This information could ease your riteous burden.
The Sac County DA called Lynne B. to testify in the 2001 case regarding the 1979 inicident. She testified that she accused Mr. Britt of exposing himself for 40 seconds from his truck as she sat alone in her car waiting at a busy intersection in LA in the middle of the day. She testified that no one else saw and that he drove right in front of her allowing her to get his license plate # in order to report him.
John, your assumption that Lynne B. was a minor was obviously incorrect and completely changes your argument and desire to be indignant.
But you might argue "So what it if she was a woman, its no less a crime and the judge still blew it."
To have her testify in the 2001 case, Lynne B. was reportedly found by the Sac County DA investigators living in a motel, in a new town, in a new state, with a new name. She changed her name after the 1979 incident from Lynne [edited to protect privacy] to Lynne [edited to protect privacy].
Did you get that?
Why would she change her name to the name of the man who committed a crime against her? Allegedly, lewdly exposed himself by masturbating. Why would Lynne [edited to protect privacy] change her name to Lynne [edited to protect privacy], the name of the man guilty of a repulsive, very disturbing act so horrible that its a crime?
How many times a day do you use, write, hear or speak your name in a day? What reasonable person would want to be reminded many times a day of a lurid, disgusting, filthy, even horrifying event?
John, your assumption that Lynne B. was a victim appears to be in question and again changes your argument.
In fact a reasonable person could conclude that:
- She may be running from something, like the law, or crimes and lies committed against people that would harm her;
- She suffered no harm from Mr. Britt;
- She may have been following his AA ball team in her area, heard he was a "can't miss" prospect and wanted his money, or that she simply fell in love with the handsome and athletic 6'4" man;
- At the very least, she's not reasonable/logical.
She also testified in 2001 that she was currently employed as a nurse. My subsequent investigation found no record of a woman with either name having a nursing license in either state, nor specifically, employed as a nurse in any Dr. office, hospital or agency in that small town.
John, your assumption that the judge was absurdly incorrect in his judgment/statement in the footnote is clearly incorrect.
Obviously he simply did not believe her. He had personal knowledge of that intersection and combined with Lynne's gutter language, demeanor and testimony of "no one else saw" was unreasonable for him to believe.
My investigation proved him correct in his judgment that she was lying.
Regarding "his admission to being convicted", Mr. Britt pled Nolo Contendre, which, in its definition specifically includes "not admitting guilt" and "allows denial by contesting in future proceedings".
Mr. Britt's lawyer recommended this plea because he had been invited to Spring training camp by the Pittsburgh Pirates, which began in two weeks. Had he stayed to fight the charges he would have missed this opportunity to pursue his lifeling dream, which the judge knew.
Mr. Britt was called up to "the show" when the rosters were expanded that year, the end of the season and sat on the bench with Willie Stargell during the "we are family" World Series.
Mr. Britt's lawyer's advice made that possible, but would cost Mr. Britt his freedom for 17 years. Mr. Britt never got the call into a game, nor back the big leagues, breaking his hand.
Mr. Britt was NOT "convicted" of, nor admitted guilt to anything.
In the 2001 case, the Sac county DA "overlooked" Lynne's background of inconsistancies, where she was found, what her new name was and still had her testify.
The court appointed defense counsel never challenged her testimony, name change, nothing and never asked Mr. Britt about her on the stand which would enable him to refute her testimony and "forgot" to include into evidence a timed and dated receipt that proved his ablibi.
And now I see what I believe to be a student dangerously assuming a helluva lot of things to cop an attitude, in a public forum, further besmirching the man that I know to be innocent.
Why? Because pervasive in our legal system is the allowed "bending of the rules" on this particular crime, which is contrary to the laws in the constitution that you will hopefully upholding.
John, all you need to face all of this is:
- An apparent street whore and proven liar accusing you of a crime that would cost you your one shot at your lifelong dream and therefore, far too inconvenient and to defend and when the judge, knowing your circumstances, says it will cost you $10 less than a $10 parking ticket if you plead no contest - so you do so;
- Another woman fresh out of an insane asylum who uses that "conviction" to gain the upper hand in a bitterly disputed custody/support payment battle, which leads to another plea bargain out of fear of being murdered in prison;
And you TOO could be the target of a motivated detective and DA who would "bend the rules" to get where they want to go with their careers.
Resulting from the media's public execution of Mr. Britt prior to judge, jury or trial, an angry mob of vigilantes tortured and nearly murdered my 16 year old son, his 95lb. girlfriend and Mr. Britt's 18 year old son. That 18 year old son later attempted suicide the day before his father's trial.
After Mr. Britt was sentenced, his wife, my ex wife and THE MOTHER OF MY SON, nearly died from an aneurysm (blew a vein in her brain from stress induced high blood pressure) and now is left as a single mother with permanent brain damage. Her career as an elementary school teacher is in jeopardy, and therefore her home.
Are you still feeling indignant, John?
Ergo, John, your "publicly stated indignation", based on completely ignorant assumptions that are contrary to the facts, leads me to believe that you too could become the type of person who would perpetuate the pervasive attitude that, given today's attitude toward this subject, its OK to usurp the constitution, hanging innocent people.
I hope not John. I hope you have learned this important lesson and will take this bullshit pronouncement down, and therefore, off the web. Please feel free to share this lesson with the rest of the class.
Most sincerely, Jeff Sayles
Thanks for all the info.
I think you misread my original post. I was not "indignant" about what the judge did. I just thought it was funny (in the sense of "peculiar") that a judge would sentence anyone to spring training camp under any circumstances, and I thought it was even funnier that the Court of Appeal chose to mention such a strange occurrence in a footnote with no other explanation whatsoever.
When I wrote it, I had no idea who Mr. Britt was or what he might ever have done or not done, other than what was contained in the Court's published opinion. So I had nothing to be "indignant" or angry about. I just thought the footnote itself was peculiar.
But thanks again for providing my readers with some insight into what was behind the footnote.
I received your apology for causing anyone anxiety. I then went to your website and saw your hypocrisy. By posting additional, incredibly stressful and eminently refutable information you compounded the anxiety of the completely innocent elementary school teacher, now a single mother with permanent brain damage caused by the stress of this dilemma. My pleas for you to stop causing innocent victims even more pain you ignored.
Why?
At the expense of this sweet lady who never harmed you, you poured on additional pain.
Why?
Of course I realize what a non-player you and this website are, but the mother of my son who I desperately attempt to protect does not. Today, Dec. 4th, I realize I missed her call last night, and I know what it was about. No doubt she has seen your site. The sdaness this causes me is impossible to state in mere words.
I have to find a way to convince her of your admitted inconsequential position. But after all that she has been through, she has good reason to expect the worst.
Only God’s hand could possibly appease her from the pain your hatred has caused.
I ask your readers to pray for her survival.