The author of this prefers a much less passionate approach to expressing his opinion:

I’d like to apply some logic to what has been a fairly emotional exchange on the Ledger Dispatch website. United States Supreme Court Justice White defined the role of the prosecutor:
Law enforcement officers have the obligation to convict the guilty and to make sure they do not convict the innocent. They must be dedicated to making the criminal trial a procedure for the ascertainment of the true facts surrounding the commission of the crime. To this extent, our so-called adversary system is not adversary at all; nor should it be. The State has the obligation to present the evidence.
United States Supreme Court Justice White defined the role of the criminal defense attorney:
Defense counsel has no comparable obligation to ascertain or present the truth. Our system assigns him a different mission. He must be and is interested in preventing the conviction of the innocent, but, absent a voluntary plea of guilty; we also insist that he defend his client whether he is innocent or guilty. Defense counsel need present nothing, even if he knows what the truth is. He need not furnish any witnesses to the police, or reveal any confidences of his client, or furnish any other information to help the prosecution’s case. If he can confuse a witness, even a truthful one, or make him appear at a disadvantage, unsure or indecisive, that will be his normal course. Our interest in not convicting the innocent permits counsel to put the State to its proof, to put the State’s case in the worst possible light, regardless of what he thinks or knows to be the truth.
In summary, Mr. Hermanson’s position requires him to seek the truth and make that truth available to all concerned, even if it aids the defense attorney’s case. On the other hand, Mr. Seaton’s position is to use any legal means available to him to aid in the defense of the accused, even if he knows that person is guilty as charged. He is allowed to confuse a witness, make him appear unsure or indecisive and do whatever he can to put the prosecution’s case in the worst possible light.
One must also consider how much time Mr. Seaton has spent professionally associating with criminals. Given the length of his career, it would be reasonable to assume that Mr. Seaton has spent many hours in the presence of criminals. There are many references to be found that one can judge a man by the company he keeps. When you choose to spend time with undesirables, you must ask yourself is it worth it?
Judge Richmond’s recent endorsement of Mr. Seaton indicates that he has been quite an effective litigator for nearly twenty years. I take that to mean that Mr. Seaton has become very adept at doing whatever it takes, within the law, to put guilty criminals back on the streets of Amador County. Judge Richmond’s endorsement letter also states that Mr. Seaton has demonstrated twenty years of commitment to Amador County. These two statements are hard for me to reconcile. In what way does putting criminals back on the street assist Amador County?
The justice system needs gentlemen like Mr. Seaton, but not serving as a Judge.
I strongly urge those undecided voters out there to take the high road and vote for Mr. Hermanson. His professional background as a prosecutor makes him the only logical choice.

Jeffrey Oliver