Gansler Says Sniper Trial Cost $2000

Apparently, Attorney General Candidate Doug Gansler is getting pressed about the resources used to prosecute John Allen Muhammed, a man already condemned to death in Virginia. The Gazette reports:

Montgomery County State’s Attorney Douglas F. Gansler said the May trial of John Allen Muhammad cost taxpayers less than $2,000, a fraction of the figure his critics claim would be needed for the murder trial arising from the October 2002 sniper attacks that killed six people in the county.

‘‘The actual cost of the trial was $1,760 to the taxpayers of Montgomery County, less than $300 a murder,” Gansler, one of three Democrats running for state attorney general, said July 25 in an interview with The Gazette’s editorial board.

But Gansler’s figures do not include the cost of the courtroom security; the extensive security needed during transportation of Muhammad and his accomplice, Lee Boyd Malvo, from their Virginia prisons; and the incarceration of the two high-profile prisoners in the county detention center.

The cost to the county, including the salaries of detectives and police officers for the time they spent in preparation to testify in the case, has exceeded $743,570, said Sheriff Raymond M. Kight.

. . .

But Gansler said the staff was already on salary. ‘‘It’s not like the judge wasn’t going to come to work that day and we wouldn’t come to work that day,” he said.

And he dismissed the cost of jailing the snipers. ‘‘It cost exactly nothing. We had empty jail cells,” Gansler said. ‘‘The actual marginal cost of taking what is otherwise an empty cell ... and closing the door behind somebody ... is an extra scoop of spinach and a piece of bread.”

Of course, the real cost was in crimes that were not prosecuted or were prosecuted much less vigorously because of the resources were devoted to going after Muhammed. The attorneys in the Montgomery County State's Attorney's Office may already have been on salary but they would not have been twiddling there thumbs without this trial. One should point out that Sheriff Kight, one of Gansler's critics, has endorsed Gansler's rival, Councilman Tom Perez.

I think Gansler was on much firmer ground when he argued that he was following the wishes of the families of the victims and protecting against an overturning of the verdicts in Virginia:

Before he agreed to prosecute them, Gansler said he met with the victims’ families. ‘‘One of the victim’s mothers looked at the picture of my two boys, and she said, ‘How would you like if one of those boys was murdered and someone said to you, ‘Don’t worry about your day in court. Some jury 400 miles away from here convicted the people we think did it of somebody else’s crime. You’re now fine,’” Gansler said.

After that, he said, the decision to prosecute ‘‘was a no-brainer.”

Also factoring into his decision was the ‘‘razor-thin” decision by a Virginia appellate court to let the convictions stand. Muhammad was convicted on a ‘‘triggerman” statute when he didn’t pull the trigger, Gansler said. The two men also were convicted under a terrorism statute passed in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks ‘‘that had nothing to do with a couple guys driving around shooting people.”

Still, it may be tough for Gansler live down his claim that it cost less than $2000 to prosecute this murderer. A surprising gaffe for man who is usually a smart politician and quick on his feat. Some criticize his ambition but I don't fault him for it. I have never figured out why ambition is a sin in political life even though it is considered utterly normal and a good motivator in any other occupation.