The New York Times, The Bay Citizen, July 10, 2010 by Shoshana Walter and Richard Parks
http://nyti.ms/cpc9s0

“One advantage that Oakland had is the ability to learn from past mistakes.”

Contra Costa Times, March 26, 2010 by Roman Gokhman
http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_14766030?source=most_emailed&nclick_check=1

Civilian oversight serves a bigger purpose than officer discipline — a job that statistics show has been done better by internal police investigations, said David A. Sklansky, a professor at UC Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law. “It can increase community trust by convincing people … that someone will be watching and (complaints) will be taken seriously,” Sklansky said. “It can also give police another perspective … in terms of policy recommendations.”

KQED-FM, November 23, 2009 Host Cy Musiker
http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R911231730

“I think that the shooting by a BART police officer of an unarmed man would have gotten a lot of community attention even without a video. But it seems likely that the fact that there was video made the story spread more quickly, allowed people to see it more quickly. It may have helped outrage spread more quickly that otherwise it would have. And we may see more cases like that.”

San Francisco Examiner, October 26, 2009 by Tamara Barak Aparton and Mike Aldax
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/Security-cameras-failed-at-bad-time-65962007.html

“The video doesn’t give all the answers, but you’d rather have it than not,” Sklansky said.

The Oakland Tribune, October 19, 2009 by Paul T. Rosynsky
http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_13597069

“If there is ever a case you would expect a change of venue, it would be a case like this,” said David Sklansky, a professor at UC Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law. “I don’t think it was a shock.”

The Oakland Tribune, August 19, 2009 by Paul T. Rosynsky
http://www.insidebayarea.com/search/ci_13163669?IADID

David Sklansky, a UC Berkeley law professor, said the report could help Mehserle with his central argument that he was, in part, a victim of organizational mismanagement and made a mistake during a chaotic situation. “On the one hand, it makes what happened look even more horrible,” Sklansky said. “On the other hand, it strengthens the argument by the officer that it was not entirely his fault.”

The Oakland Tribune, June 13, 2009 by Paul T. Rosynsky
http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_12584866

“It seems to me the judge’s comments will be relevant in carrying out that assessment but they will not be by themselves dispositive,” said David Sklansky, a professor of law at UC Berkeley. “Whether a statement by a judge will weigh particularly heavier with potential jurors will be something that will be open to debate by the lawyers on both sides.”

The New York Times, May 8, 2009 by Charlie Savage
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/us/politics/08justice.html?_r=1&ref=us&pagewanted=print\

“What you are having is a kind of organizational failure,” said David A. Sklansky, a Berkeley law professor and former federal prosecutor. Mr. Sklansky said the pressure to bring cases coupled with the erosion of “the institutional memory of the unit and the availability of prosecutors with seasoned, detached judgment” had created an ideal environment for mistakes like the disclosure violations.

The New York Times, Room for Debate, April 1, 2009 by David Alan Sklansky
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/when-prosecutors-step-over-the-line/

“These two roles can pull prosecutors in opposite directions. The habits of combat we encourage in prosecutors, and that they need if they are to succeed in hard-fought cases, can tempt them to be less than painstaking about their broader set of obligations—the requirements imposed on them, for example, to disclose all potentially exculpatory information to the defense.”

The New York Times, Dec. 9, 2008 by Adam Nossiter
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/us/10siegelman.html?pagewanted=print

“That’s something that’s always struck me as odd about the Siegelman case,” Mr. Sklansky said. “The absence of strong evidence for quid pro quo, plus no evidence of personal enrichment, made the Siegelman case look kind of odd to me.”