I am writing to respond to the letter on June 10, 2008, from my opponent Scott Ballard. In that letter, Ballard attributes some of the prosecutorial errors which I have identified are allegedly attributable to his staff and that somehow, I have criticized his staff by pointing these errors out.

He refuses to respond to the issues I have identified as problematic, claiming that he cannot disclose information about cases. He also goes on to take credit for alleged successes in his office that can in no way be attributable to him.

I submit that we must demand leadership, integrity, aggressive prosecution of crimes, and the truth from our district attorney.

With respect to the numerous prosecutorial errors we have identified (i.e., faulty indictments, failure to prosecute, reversals on appeal, etc.), Ballard asserts that they are not his fault, but rather, are attributable to others in his office.

I find it unfortunate that he tries to hide the reasons for the blunders he has made by bringing his staff into the picture. I have never once faulted his staff. I have, however, faulted his leadership.

He is the district attorney. It is my opinion that the district attorney, much like a coach, has to take the blame and shoulder the responsibility for each and every decision made in the office. Strong and effective leaders accept this responsibility and accountability. My opponent does not.

This may explain why eight out of 11 prosecutors have left the district attorney’s office in the last 3.5 years, taking with them a total of approximately 80 years of prosecutorial experience.

I have identified issues that affect the community that I observed first hand as an employee of the Griffin Judicial Circuit that require the community’s attention and knowledge.

When challenged about his poor decisions, my opponent asserts that he will not be “goaded” into providing explanations about his poor decisions because many decisions that were made regarding cases were “quite personal to the crime victim” and because it “would be wrong to air those matters in a public forum.”

This is a strikingly different Ballard then the media intoxicated Ballard we saw one year ago at the time of the Chris Benoit case. Shortly after pro-wrestler Chris Benoit murdered his wife and son before committing suicide, Ballard did a tell-all interview with ESPN.com where he divulged all kinds of personal information about the victims involved.

Ballard was quoted as saying that the 7-year-old murder victim had needle marks on his arms and that he believed the boy had been given growth hormones because the family considered him underweight. Ballard also revealed the content of two text messages sent by Benoit a couple of days before the incidents. Then, Ballard went into great detail about the state of the wife’s body found in the house revealing that “her feet and wrists were bound and there was blood under her head ... it appeared she had been asphyxiated with some sort of cable.” Finally, Ballard gave actual details on how Chris Benoit used “weights, [a] pulley and cable to choke himself to death.”

It seems that Ballard does not only want, but does not need anyone to “goad” him into divulging personal information about his victims when the cameras are on. He is ready and willing to volunteer the information himself. It was quite wrong to divulge the manner and method in which Ms. Benoit and her son were killed in a public form. However, Ballard repeatedly exposed every grotesque detail about how it happened.

Perhaps he should expand his “Guarding What’s Ours” slogan to his practices with the media, and guard the dignity his victims once claimed as theirs.

Not only is this conduct reprehensible, but had there been an actual crime to prosecute, he would have tainted potential jurors with information about the crime that they should not have known until divulged in a trial.

Ballard has also attempted to avoid responding to questions about his poor prosecutorial decisions because, “some of the factors that led to (his) decisions involve evidentiary issues” and thus, disclosure of this information would allegedly, “just help the criminals.”

The issues which we have cited have not dealt with evidentiary issues; rather, they have dealt with improper prosecutorial procedures.

For example, a death penalty case in Pike County had to be dismissed and then re-indicted, because it was indicted improperly to begin with. Similarly, Internet predator cases in Peachtree City were improperly indicted, and Selfe v. State, one such case, has already been reversed on appeal.

Criminals and their defense attorneys are already quite aware that even if convicted by Ballard, they can likely seek reversal of their convictions based on procedural errors.

This is not news to them. It is however, new information to most of the voters in this circuit to which my opponent does not want to respond.

My opponent next asserted that he has allegedly saved the taxpayers of Fayette County “around $2 million” by clamping down on people who lie on affidavits to get their children into Fayette schools. It costs about $8,200 to educate a child in Fayette County schools. He would have to have prosecuted 244 cases of false affidavits to realize a $2 million savings. He has not prosecuted any.

Finally, my opponent has attempted to imply that my departure from his office was problematic. I voluntarily resigned one year ago, after giving notice, and working through that notice, because I could no longer work for a man who takes the word of child abusers over reliable evidence and children. Simply put, I left because I lost confidence in our district attorney.

The proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back for me was Ballard’s mishandling of and comments about the James Robert House case in Spalding County.

In that instance, Mr. and Mrs. House had a child of approximately 6 weeks of age that was severely burned on a space heater. All the evidence, including medical evidence, showed the burns were intentionally inflicted on the baby. I had indicted both parents for cruelty to children and recommended 20 years to serve on each (See indictment on my website: www.rudjardhayes.com). Ballard wanted to try the case.

After he read the file, he told me that he changed my original plea offer on both parents. Ballard told me that he was reducing the plea on the father and dismissing on the mother because he just did not think people would do this to their own children.

Incidentally, the mother has the child back today and the father was sentenced to only about eight years. (See plea sheets on my website).

I decided to be a part of the solution to this very serious problem. You can be too. I am asking for you to cast your vote for me, Rudjard Hayes, on July 15, 2008.

Rudjard Hayes

candidate for district attorney

www.rudjardhayes.com

Tyrone, Ga.