Tag Archives: George Gascon

What Eric Neff Did

Eric Neff was run out of his job as a prosecutor in Los Angeles County after uncovering evidence that pollworker data was leaked to China. His investigation, once touted by liberal DA George Gascon, was dismissed after President Trump indicated his support for it. Neff was put on leave and given a less-prestigious assignment. He was later cleared of any wrongdoing by an outside investigator. Now, Neff has been hired by the federal government, and media are insinuating that he’s an unqualified political hack, not a legitimate prosecutor. What’s the real story?

Neff Uncovered a Crime After Being Tipped Off by a Conservative Advocate

Eric Neff was a deputy district attorney at the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office in 2022. He was assigned to the Public Integrity Division, which investigates corruption, and had been there for two years, when he heard claims that a pollworker data in Los Angeles had been leaked to China.

Neff heard the claims from True the Vote, a conservative vote-monitoring organization whose stated objective is stopping voter fraud. The group has repeatedly falsely claimed that Donald Trump won the 2020 election. Gregg Phillips, a board member of True the Vote, claimed on social media in 2022 that his associates had discovered misconduct by Konnech, a poll worker management software company. Konnech’s software is designed to recruit and train election workers, handle their payroll, and assign them to jobs. This software was used in Los Angeles County in the 2020 elections, including the presidential election. Konnech agreed to securely maintain pollworker data and ensure that access to the data was limited to Americans. Despite this, Phillips alleged that Konnech had stored data on a Chinese server and allowed the Chinese government to access it. Konnech denied the claims and sued True the Vote. Phillips said the discovery had been made by two associates who hacked Konnech’s servers. He was unwilling to identify the “associates” and was jailed for contempt of court. He spent nine days in federal jail until he was ordered released by the Fifth Circuit in November 2022.

Meanwhile Neff, acting on the tip from True the Vote, assigned investigators to determine whether pollworker data had been stolen. Investigators learned that Konnech’s “PollChief” application has its data sources “resolve” to a Chinese IP address. “District Attorney investigators found that in contradiction to the contract, information was stored on servers in the People’s Republic of China,” according to George Gascon, LA County’s liberal district attorney. Investigators executed a search warrant at Konnech’s headquarters, seized evidence, and developed an employee as a cooperating witness. They did not find that the crime had any impact on the tabulation of votes and did not alter election results.

District Attorney George Gascon’s enthusiasm for the case would be short-lived. President Trump retweeted a post from the Washington Examiner about the affair, falsely connecting it to voting fraud, and lauding Gascon, a political liberal and Trump opponent. Trump said, “Go, George, Go!” and that he would become a “National hero on the Right if he got to the bottom of this aspect of the Voting Fraud.”

Meanwhile, Konnech sued True the Vote for defamation, among other things, on September 12, 2022. They denied the claims, saying “[a]ll of Konnech’s U.S. customer data is secured and stored exclusively on protected computers located within the United States.” The complaint provides a detailed recitation of the True the Vote’s claims about Konnech.

But the criminal investigation continued. After the suit, and the President’s posts, Eugene Yu, the CEO of Konnech, was charged on October 13, 2022. Yu immigrated to the U.S. from China in the 1980s and became an American citizen in 1997. The complaint was reviewed and approved by Neff’s “entire chain of command.” Other sources say Gregg Phillips, who had made the controversial claims, testified before the grand jury that indicted Yu.

Criminal Charges Must Be Supported by Evidence

Regardless of whether the case began with a criminal complaint or an indictment, it’s important to provide readers with some basic context. The most important thing to understand here is that criminal charges cannot be filed on the basis of a hunch or suspicion. There must be evidence. Specifically, enough evidence to provide “probable cause” to believe that a crime had occurred and that Eugene Yu was the one who did the crime. Bringing charges without evidence is itself a crime: malicious prosecution. It’s illegal. In fact, the LADA’s own guidelines require more than just probable cause to bring a case: they require that the case can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt: a higher standard. When a prosecutor, like Eric Neff, signs a complaint, they are certifying that evidence exists. High profile cases, like this one, are often reviewed by the filer’s entire chain of command. In other words, filing a criminal case is a more reliable indicator that a crime has been committed than just writing something online or posting on social media.

More context. A prosecutor cannot just “go rogue,” and file charges on whoever he likes for whatever reason he likes and have them arrested. A judge has to review the complaint to ensure that there is probable cause within 48 hours of arrest. This is a second pair of eyes on the complaint to ensure that it is based on evidence. The judge’s review provides an important safeguard for criminal defendants and it is another reason why readers can be sure that if there is a criminal case, there is evidence to support the defendant’s guilt.

The evidence is also given to a defense lawyer, who can also review it. If they believe there is not enough evidence, the defense has several mechanisms to challenge the complaint. The most significant is a preliminary hearing, which takes place within 10 court days of arraignment and during which the prosecution must show the judge the evidence in support of the complaint.

When a defendant is indicted, they have even more procedural safeguards. Indictments are issued not by prosecutors, but by grand juries, made up of random citizens. The grand jury, not the prosecutor, is the one who decides if there is enough evidence for charges.

All this is to say, Neff’s case is based on evidence. It’s more substantial than rumors on the internet.

Gascon Dismisses the Case

Neff was supervised by a more senior DDA during pretrial litigation, which included a demurrer. This DDA, by the way, also believed in the case and wanted to prosecute it. The demurrer was calendared for hearing on November 10, 2022. Prior to the hearing Neff was told by his supervisors that the DA’s office would dismiss the case. A manager, not Neff, made the actual motion for dismissal.

Tiffiny Blacknell, the notoriously political ex-public defender working as George Gascon’s advisor, said that LADA hasn’t ruled out refiling the charges after reviewing the evidence. She said LADA would “assemble a new team, with significant cyber security experience to determine whether any criminal activity occurred.”

On November 14, a few days after the dismissal, Neff made a written complaint alleging that the dismissal was politically motivated. He claimed that LADA George Gascon wanted to avoid the perception that he was supporting President Trump’s claims about the 2020 election. Two days later, Neff was placed on administrative leave. LADA conducted an internal investigation but found no evidence that Mr. Neff committed any misconduct. No disciplinary actions were taken and he was reinstated in April 2024, but moved by Gascon to a less prestigious unit. Going nowhere, Neff eventually left the office.

In September 2023, Yu sued LADA alleging civil rights violations and negligence. On January 27, 2024, Los Angeles County agreed to pay Yu and Konnech $5 million to settle a lawsuit arising out of the prosecution. Neff spoke during the Board of Supervisors meeting and questioned whether the timing of the settlement was intended to support Gascon’s re-election campaign, which ultimately failed. The Board approved the settlement without discussion.

On April 17, 2024, Neff began the process of suing the County of Los Angeles over the whole affair by filing a Governmental Tort Claim. The case is set for trial in early 2026.

Neff landed on his feet. In 2025 he was made acting head of the voting section of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division.

Local Coverage Has Been Misleading

The Los Angeles Times recently ran an article with the headline, “Trump’s DOJ hires voting rights lawyer behind L.A. case cited by conspiracy theorists.” The author of the article was reporter James Queally, who also publishes fiction about social justice activists fighting racist cops. Queally heavily implies that Neff brought false charges against Konnech and Yu. This conclusion seems to be based on the idea that the case would have proceeded if there had been reliable evidence. Queally does not consider what might seem obvious to a regular person: that the case was dismissed when the liberal DA realized he was helping the conservative president. Queally’s implication that the charges were false is also made without anyone having seen the evidence that the prosecution was based on. And it ignores the fact that the D.A.’s office paid for an outside law firm to investigate the matter. The outside firm cleared Neff.

Queally frames Neff’s new job in the federal Department of Justice as a reward for the prosecution against Konnech, and characterizes Neff as unqualified, despite over a decade of experience and time spent in LADA’s public integrity division, where he handled prosecutions related to elections.

Finally, Queally repeats allegations that Neff “withheld information about potential biases in the case from a grand jury, according to the two officials” that he does not name, and that many speculate to be Gascon loyalists who are out of power. According to the Ethics & Journalism Initiative, “journalists should use anonymous sources only when essential.” It’s hard to understand how repeating a smear against Neff is essential. It’s also hard to square this allegation with the undisputed fact that Neff was cleared of any wrongdoing by an outside firm. At minimum, this use of anonymous sources was not essential. Withholding the source names deprives the reader of the ability to consider the motives of, say, allies of George Gascon vs. allies of Donald Trump.

A better reporter might have written that Neff stepped into a politically charged case and paid for it with his job. We don’t know what evidence Neff had to support his prosecution, only that it was reviewed by his chain of command and several judges who all agreed there was probable cause to believe the charges were true. If you want your prosecutors to be fearless in their pursuit of the truth, wherever it might lead, Neff’s story suggests that this is a myth. Dragging Neff’s name through the ringer because he is working for a president who is unpopular in Los Angeles teaches us that the LA Times has also failed to fearlessly pursue the truth, wherever it might lead.

Failing DA Attempts to Bolster Reelection Campaign by Freeing Menendez Brothers

The Daily Mail has the story of George Gascon’s attempt to use the notoriety generated by a Netflix documentary about the Menendez brothers to bolster his failing reelection campaign. Specifically, the attorney for the brothers claims to have found a letter corroborating the Menendez is claim that they were sexually abused by their father.

It’s worth stopping and noting here that being the victim of sexual abuse does not allow you to murder your abuser in cold blood. But that hasn’t stopped Gascón and others from claiming that this letter exonerates the Mendez brothers.

That claim is ludicrous to anyone who even takes a slightest look at the facts of the case. First of all the letter is not reliable evidence. The letter now mysteriously appears after years of having been overlooked, and only the defense lawyer can authenticate it. Second, the recipient of the letter already testified in court, and it’s not clear how this would add to the testimony in any way. Third, the judge in the case many years ago correctly ruled that allegations of sexual abuse by the murder victims in this case were not relevant, since they did not give any support to the far-fetched claim at the brothers acted in self-defense. That’s because, as I mentioned above, you can only kill someone in self-defense if you yourself are in danger of imminent great bodily injury or death. You cannot kill someone in self-defense if you are in imminent danger being sexually abused.

Gascon is looking at releasing the brothers, apparently unaware of the fact that they stood to inherit $14 million upon the murder of their parents and went about spending almost $1,000,000 of it as fast as they could after the murder. Even the newest detective on the beat could put two and two together on those facts. And I believe the George Gascon, in his heart of hearts, also believes that the Menendez brothers are guilty, and simply doesn’t care. He would do anything to continue to keep the job that he has done so poorly at.

Gascon cannily set the hearing on the petition for after the election, probably hoping to please both sides.

Post-Election Update

George Gascon lost his reelection bid to Nathan Hochman.

The two brothers were initially sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. In May 2025 they were resentenced to life with the possibility of parole in 50 years because they were younger than 26 when the crime occurred. However, due to credit reductions applied by the State of California’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, both were eligible for parole immediately.

In August 2025, each brother got a parole hearing. They were both denied release. Both brothers blamed sexual abuse by their victims for the killings, even their mother, who they killed with shotguns they bought for “emotional protection.” They can apply for parole again in 2027.

In September, Judge William C. Ryan denied their petition for a new trial. The judge held that the new evidence “does not negate the finding of premeditation and deliberation and the lying in wait special circumstance.” “The evidence alleged here is not so compelling that it would have produced a reasonable doubt in the mind of at least one juror or supportive of an imperfect self-defense instruction.”

New Details on Gascon’s “Ethics” Czar Charged with Stealing Deputy Data

A Los Angeles judge released an arrest warrant affidavit shedding light on why the California Department of Justice filed a case against Diana Teran, a top deputy of LADA George Gascon. The affidavit revealed that the AG began looking into allegations that another Gascon appointee had drunkenly threatened to blacklist an officer who pulled him over. This investigation led to evidence that Teran had illegally stolen police personnel data to put it on the same blacklist.

It All Started With A Drunken Chief Deputy District Attorney

In February 2022, Joseph Iniguez was pulled over for a DUI traffic stop. He is the Chief Deputy to the Los Angeles County District Attorney, progressive prosecutor George Gascon. Iniguez, who was drunk, got out of the passenger seat of the car to argue with the police. When this did not result in him being let go, he began to threaten the officers, urging them to run his license plate, which would reveal his position as a high-ranking prosecutor.

He also threatened to put the officers on LADA’s Brady list. This is a list of officers that cannot be trusted to testify in court. In other words, Iniguez threatened to end the officer’s career by blacklisting him. Officers who cannot testify cannot be used to investigate cases. Placement on the Brady list can even result in termination. Iniguez’s threat was credible: he is the prosecutor that oversaw that list at the time he was pulled over. Iniguez was arrested, allowed to sober up, and released. He was never charged with a crime.

Iniguez’s threats apparently caught the attention of the California Department of Justice. They began to investigate, presumably to see if Iniguez was using his position to retaliate against the officer that pulled him over. But the investigation ended up in a very different place.

The AG’s investigation revealed that another Gascon political appointee named Diana Teran “accessed over 1,600 statutorily-protected peace officer personnel files as well as internal emails and documents concerning internal affairs investigations and confidential civil service proceedings” while overseeing LASD. There’s nothing wrong with doing that while in an oversight role. The problem is that Teran left LASD in 2018. What caught the AG’s eye was evidence that she illegally took those files to LADA in 2021.

After joining LADA in January 2021, TERAN repeatedly used data from those LASD personnel files and internal emails and documents in a surreptitious attempt to add peace officer names into LADA’s Brady and ORWITS databases.

(Affidavit at pp. 2:28-33.)

That is exactly what Iniguez was threatening to do during his drunken DUI stop. Adding those officers to the list would end their careers. And she was stealing their data to do it, which the AG says is a felony.

George Gascon’s Ethics and Integrity Chief is a Criminal Defendant

Attorney General Rob Bonta filed felony charges against Ethics and Integrity Assistant District Attorney Diana Teran on April 24, 2024. After what he called “an extensive investigation,” the California Department of Justice charged Teran with violating Penal Code section 502 subdivision (c)(2), alleging repeated and unauthorized use of data from police personnel files.

“No one is above the law,” he said. “Public officials are called to serve the people and the State of California with integrity and honesty. At the California Department of Justice, we will continue to fight for the people of California and hold those who break the law accountable.”

Even though Teran had accessed 1,600 records, Bonta focused on 11. He accused Diana Teran of downloading the records of 11 Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputies while working as a Constitutional Policing Advisor at the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. Bonta accused her of impermissibly using those records after joining the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office.

On April 27, 2024, Diana Teran turned herself in to the police. She was booked, took a mugshot, and was released after posting a $50,000 bond.

Credit: The Current Report

Last month, the Los Angeles Public Press brought a successful motion to unseal the arrest warrant affidavit in the case against Teran. Their motion was joined by Teran’s defense attorney, James Spertus. Judge Mary Lou Villar granted the motion and unsealed the affidavit on June 25th.

What’s in the Affidavit?

You can read the affidavit here:

diana-teran-warrant-affidavitDownload

The LA Public Press article, written by Emily Elena Dugdale, was overtly critical of Bonta and the AG’s office. The article quotes Susan E. Seager, a law professor, who said, “What this unsealing reveals is that Rob Bonta doesn’t understand public court documents.” She claimed that two of the 11 deputies placed their disciplinary records in the public domain prior to the crimes. She concluded, “What a joke.”

Seager did not explain whether she believed this would be a defense in the case against Teran, nor did Teran’s lawyer, James Spertus, who is quoted at length in the article. Professor Seager also did not address the charges relating to the other nine deputies.

What’s Next?

There may be more to come. The affiant, Special Agent Tony Baca, said “I have not included each and every fact known to me concerning this investigation.” He implied that there was evidence omitted from the affidavit. “Unless specifically indicated otherwise, all conversations and statements described in this affidavit are related in substance and in part only.”

Baca described the investigation as “ongoing.” He mentioned three witnesses who may be cooperating. And crucially, he mentioned that the grand jury is permitted to use materials from his investigation.

Rumors and speculation are flying around the LADA’s office. Prosecutors speculate that Teran raised suspicions when she suggested, out of the blue, that her employees investigate certain deputies that had not been on their radar. LADA had no reason to know anything about these deputies that might put them on the Brady list. It wouldn’t take long for prosecutors to realize that Teran may be using information she had obtained illegally during her former oversight role.

An investigatory grand jury has been convened on the case. That means that the Attorney General’s office is using the grand jury’s powers to continue its investigation. The involvement of the grand jury suggests that an indictment may be coming, either against Teran or against other potential defendants.

Teran is set to be arraigned on the complaint in July. Proceedings in front of the grand jury are secret. There is no way to know if a superceding indictment will come down against Teran, or against anyone else, much less when indictments may be unsealed.

Notes

Teran is also implicated in a whistleblower lawsuit that accuses her of delaying prosecutorial decisions against deputies in high-profile incidents, potentially to influence electoral outcomes.

DDA Ryan Erlich details the long history of scandal and dysfunction at George Gascon’s office.

Prosecutors Alliance, a group of progressive prosecutors, wrote an open letter asking Bonta to dismiss the case.

The LA Times, in a totally objective article, calls the charges “bunk” and only includes quotes from Gascon Allies.

More defense complaining in the LA Times.

USC Professor Jody Armour claims Bonta brought the case because he is afraid of police unions.

Bonta and Gascon in better times:

Veteran Prosecutor Ruins George Gascon’s AMA

DDA John Lewin appeared on Instagram with eight pointed questions for Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascon. Lewin raised some tough questions, especially considering that Gascon awarded Lewin prosecutor of the year and then, in a dramatic turn, banished him to an obscure corner of the office. So take a tour through some of Gascon’s biggest scandals, or sit back and enjoy watching LADA’s cold case expert take on his boss, lawyer who has never tried a case.

The Questions

Here, Lewin is referring to Gascon’s indictment of Torrance Police Department officers Anthony Chavez and Matthew Concannon for the fatal shooting of Christopher Mitchell. The officers shot Mitchell during a traffic stop after he refused to exit his vehicle and reached for a gun in his lap. The gun was an air rifle.

The gun in Christopher Mitchell’s lap. Credit LADA, City News Service

Although LADA had already reviewed the shooting and found it justified, Gascon indicted the two officers in March 2023.

Rumors have been swirling that the indictment was based on a law that was not in effect when the crime was committed. Both officers are charged with voluntary manslaughter. The indictment is based on the argument that the force used on Mitchell was not necessary since the gun was only an air rifle. This theory would work under the current state of the law. (Pen. Code, § 835a.) Today, peace officers may “use deadly force only when necessary in defense of human life.” (Id.) Section 835a also toughened several other standards around the use of force by police officers. For example, the standard is now objective; it no longer matters whether the officers subjectively though that deadly force was necessary. Today, the officers will have a harder time defending themselves by saying they thought the air rifle was a real gun. However, at the time of the crime, the law was less strict. Back then, the standard was subjective. “I thought the gun was real” was a defense when this shooting happened. And back then the force used by police only had to be “reasonable,” not “necessary.”

Why is this a problem for Gascon? He’s trying to use the new law to prosecute the old shooting. You can’t do that. The law that applies to the shooting is the law in place at the time of the shooting, not today’s laws. Trying to use today’s laws to punish yesterday’s crimes is called an “ex post facto” law. These type of laws were banned by the Constitution. This ban is taught as a basic fundamental feature of American criminal law. Observers, especially prosecutors, have been shocked that Gascon made such a basic error.

Questions about the Mitchell shooting continue. Lewin is referring to the rumor that Gascon special prosecutor Lawrence Middleton failed to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. This is required in state court but not in federal court. Many have speculated that Middleton was not aware of the rule requiring him to present exculpatory evidence because he only practiced in federal court where the rule does not apply. The rule requiring exculpatory evidence, called the Johnson rule, is universally known among Gascon’s deputies, making Middleton’s blunder especially embarrassing. (See People v. Johnson (1975) 15 Cal.3d 248.) It has been on the books for 48 years. Even worse, Middleton is being paid 1.5 million dollars a year and still making basic mistakes. Gascon’s office is full of prosecutors making $200,000 a year who have no problem obtaining indictments without violating state law. This bungled indictment is the only criminal charge Middleton has filed in the two years he has been on the payroll.

Lewin is referring to Gascon’s statements during an April 2023 news conference on the Mitchell shooting. “From my own personal review, I question whether the officers were able to see the gun before the shooting.” Gascon said. He continued “we know even the prior review indicated that there was no evidence that [Mitchell] was reaching for a gun.” The statements are significant to Lewin and many others because they seem to violate the State Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically, Rule 5-120 governs “Trial Publicity” and provides:

A member who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the member knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.

In other words, don’t talk about ongoing cases in the press, especially if it a potential juror may hear you. This rule explicitly applies to prosecutors. As with Middleton, it is likely that Gascon, who has never tried a case, much less a media case, simply did not know what his ethical obligations are.

Here, Lewin correctly points out that if the officers shot Mitchell without seeing the gun they would be guilty of first or second degree murder, not manslaughter. The theory of imperfect self-defense (“I thought he had a real gun but I was wrong”) would reduce murder to manslaughter. But only if a jury believes that the officers really thought he had a gun. If Gascon is right, and the officers shot him without seeing a gun, imperfect self-defense is not available and the right charge is murder. Although Lewin focuses his fire on Gascon, this is an equally valid question for Middleton, his special prosecutor.

Gascon demoted Lewin and other experienced prosecutors when he took office. Two of Gascon’s top deputies (both former public defenders) filed equity complaints against Lewin based on his social media posts. The office hired white-shoe law firm Sheppard Mullin to investigate Lewin for equity violations. Many, including Lewin, believe this was done in retaliation for their criticisms of Gascon’s policies. At least 10 high-ranking members of the district attorney’s staff have filed lawsuits alleging they were removed from their positions because they voiced disagreement with Gascon’s policies. Gascon has also weaponized the County’s Equity Policy to suspend prosecutors who have been critical of him. Lewin’s comments could be an indication that Gascon is using the same tactics against him.

Lewin is referring to Gascon’s practice of taking credit for his deputies’ convictions. For example, Eric Holder Jr. murdered rapper Nipsey Hussle. Holder was convicted by DDA John McKinney, a veteran prosecutor who has been critical of Gascon. The press release celebrating the conviction completely omitted McKinney, who did all the work.

Shawn Randolph, who is also mentioned by Lewin, won 1.5 million dollars after Gascon retailed against her. She proved that Gascon demoted her because she pointed out that some of his policies were illegal.

Joseph Iniguez, a four-trial prosecutor, jumped the line to Chief of Staff after endorsing Gascon during his campaign. Iniguez was arrested for being drunk in public at a fast food drive-thru. Although the police did not press charges, Iniguez sued the officer for impeding him as he attempted to videotape the encounter. Iniguez says he captured the entire incident on video. He also claims that the video proves the police officer made an illegal arrest and lied about it. Iniguez has never released the video even as the allegedly dirty officer has continued to do his job and make arrests. This is a problem.

If Iniguez is telling the truth, his failure to release the video has allowed a dirty, dishonest cop to remain on the beat. That’s a violation of his obligation as a prosecutor to provide defendants with evidence they may need. Specifically, if you were arrested by this officer, you could hold up Iniguez’s video and say, “this officer is a liar.” You could do that if you had the video, which you don’t, because Iniguez won’t produce it. If, on the other hand, Iniguez is lying about the officer, who really did nothing wrong, then Iniguez’s actions makes sense. He doesn’t want the world to know he’s lying.

When Gascon came into office, he gave a sweetheart offer to a criminal represented by a campaign donor. Moreover, the offer was negotiated for Gascon by Tiffany Blacknell, a public defender. That means that Blacknell was negotiating for Gascon while working against Gascon on behalf of the defendant in this case. This is an obvious conflict of interest. Although this was a particularly egregious example, prosecutors have noticed many others.

The largest apparent conflict was Gascon’s decision to allow his policies, like his ban on the use of any enhancements, to be written by public defenders. In other words, the criminal defense bar got to write policies that benefited their clients at the expense of the public, who wasn’t even at the table.

Do The Answers Matter?

George Gascon began his career as the District Attorney of San Francisco County. He could easily fire prosecutors he didn’t like in San Francisco. But the rules are different in Los Angeles. It is much harder, if not impossible, to fire John Lewin, which gives Lewin the freedom to ask these hard questions. You can tell that Lewin is angry by the tone of the questions. The most important question of all is whether Los Angeles is angry enough to oust Gascon in 2024.

Revolt at LADA Training

The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office will occasionally do a training on Saturday for its prosecutors. Since the election of George Gascón, topics have been on cultural rather than legal issues, such as Racial Justice and Transgender Awareness. This Saturday, even though LADA has 800 of the countries best prosecutors, Gascón brought in an outside person to train on opening statements and closing arguments. This was a particularly fraught time for the office, since the last Saturday seminar involved a lengthy and pointed question about the district attorney’s political policies which was censored out of a subsequent broadcast. That censored comment was by celebrated cold-case prosecutor John Lewin. This Saturday, Lewin’s skepticism broke out into an all out revolt.

The revolt took place in an online comment box. It started out gently at first, as prosecutors began to realize that they had more expertise than the trainer hired by the office.

The question was not answered live.

Bafflement over the rudimentary nature of the training and the speaker’s lack of experience continued.

This question was not answered live. Then John Lewin weighed in. He is a famous name in legal circles for convicting real estate tycoon Robert Durst of murder, after other agencies tried and failed for many years. He was the longest serving member of the office’s Major Crimes division. He’s media savvy, occasionally appearing on AM talk radio, and was the subject of an LA magazine cover story. When Gascon came to office, he busted Lewin out of Majors and sent him to Inglewood to file low level felonies. This was widely viewed as retaliation for Lewin’s outspoken criticism of the DA’s weakness towards violent criminals.

Lewin is referring to a recently 1.5 million dollar jury verdict awarded to Shawn Randolph, the former head of LADA’s Juvenile Division. The jury found that Gascón illegally retaliated against Randolph after she warned him that his policies were illegal and required prosecutors to lie in court. These are not private opinions or political statements, these are findings of fact by an impartial jury.

The presenter bumbled on, ignoring Lewin and giving advice about how to argue gang cases, apparently unaware that Gascón banned the filing of gang cases.

This question was not answered live.

This is true. Gascón’s special directives instruct his prosecutors to use the term “justice-involved individual.” The audience had apparently had enough. Political comments continued.

Members of the administration, or maybe one of the 2.5% of prosecutors that support Gascón, weighed in with this:

It is hard to tell if this is a tongue-in-cheek reference to the fact that the “several years” the presenter had been working were much fewer than the years of experience in the audience. Prosecutors passed over that point and responded:

Lewin also weighed in.

By the end of the training, Gascón (who has never tried a case) hadn’t won himself any friends.

This question was not answered live.

How to Screw Up a Successful Recall

The recall campaign appears likely to qualify for the ballot. At the same time, Gascon’s poll numbers are dropping and support for the recall is surging. But the rules of the recall vote mean that Los Angeles may end up right where it started. If too many mainstream candidates run and split the vote, Gascon’s replacement may be just as radical.

The Recall Has Gathered Enough Signatures as Gascon’s Poll Numbers Have Dropped

Leaders of the effort to recall Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon are saying privately that they have gathered over 700,000 signatures in support of a recall. They need 566,857 in order to put the recall on the ballot. The additional signatures will serve as a cushion when some of the signatures are inevitably invalidated by the Registrar. The campaign has exceeded their stated goal of collecting 650,000 – 700,000 signatures.

Both recall supporters and Gascon supporters are privately saying that they do not expect him to survive the recall. Gascon is the political mentor of San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin, who was recalled earlier this summer. The landslide recall of Boudin happened in San Francisco, which is more liberal than Los Angeles County. The implication for Gascon is that the landslide to oust him will be even larger than Boudin’s.

This is backed up by bad polling for Gascon. A July 28, 2021 poll showed that 34% had an unfavorable impression of Gascon, while only 17% had a favorable impression. 40% disapproved of his performance and only 25% approved. Crucially, 55% of those surveyed would vote to recall Gascon while only 23 % would vote to keep him. Only 13 % were unsure. These conclusions have been reinforced by subsequent polls. In June, a poll of liberal Long Beach found that 45% of voters back the recall and 27% oppose it. Repeated polls, such as a poll commissioned by the Los Angeles Police Protective League, show Gascon’s support deteriorating: a plurality of voters now support recalling him.

Credit: Santa Monica Observer

The Winner of a Plurality of Votes, Not a Majority of Votes, Would Replace Gascon

Article II of the California Constitution allows voters to recall and remove elected officials. The process began when the recall campaign filed a Notice of Intent to Recall, which was approved by the County Registrar. Then they began gathering signatures. If the recall effort has gathered enough signatures then the recall will appear on the ballot. After that, according to the University of California’s Institute for Governmental Studies:

The recall ballot has two components: a yes or no vote for recall, and the names of replacement candidates, selected by the nomination process used in regular elections. The recall measure itself is successful if it passes by a majority. In that case, the replacement candidate with a simple plurality of votes wins the office. If the recall measure fails, the replacement candidate votes are ignored.

This is the crucial point: if the recall is successful, the next LA DA will be the winner of the plurality of votes. There is no run off. If there are 10 candidates, the next DA could win with a tiny plurality, say, 20% of the vote.

Many Mainstream Candidates Have Expressed Interest In Running to Replace Gascon

It seems like everyone wants to replace George Gascon. The most visible candidate is Jon Hatami, a veteran prosecutor who successfully prosecuted the killers of Gabriel Fernandez. Hatami appeared in a Netflix special about the Fernandez, an eight-year-old who was tortured and murdered by his mother and her boyfriend. Hatami has actively campaigned against Gascon for months, and was profiled in LA Magazine as a probable replacement, complete with this illustration:

Credit: LA Magazine

John McKinney, another veteran prosecutor, also appears to be running. McKinney is assigned to the LADA’s prestigious Major Crimes Division. He is active on social media and is pushing an alternative to progressive prosecution that he calls “Proportional Justice.” Like Hatami, he frequently appears on television to promote the recall.

Eric Siddall is Vice-President of the union representing Los Angeles Prosecutors. This group, made up of George Gascon’s employees, voted 98% to 2% in favor of the recall. Siddall has also frequently appeared on local media in support of the recall effort. He advocates for “responsible and sustainable reform.”

Other names being floated to replace Gascon are John Lewin and Steve Cooley. Lewin is a legend in the LADA’s office, famous for his successful cold-case prosecutions. Like McKinney, he works at the Major Crimes Division. He recently convicted Robert Durst, subject of HBO’s The Jinx. He was also profiled in Los Angeles Magazine as “The King of Cold Cases.” Steve Cooley has already served as LA DA and is talking about coming out of retirement. He unsuccessfully ran for California Attorney General as a Republican, but could not even win his own county.

The “Progressive Prosecutor” Movement is Still Alive and Well

Although there are many mainstream candidates interested in replacing Gascon, the movement that got Gascon elected his not gone away, even if they have lost momentum. The media’s reaction to the successful recall of SFDA Chesa Boudin made this glaringly obvious. The voter’s repudiation of Boudin, they said, wasn’t what it looked like. He was unfairly blamed for an environment outside of his control, sandbagged by the SFPD, or a victim of voters manipulated by fear-mongering. Meanwhile, progressive prosecutors like Larry Krasner, the District Attorney of Philadelphia, cruised to reelection without a problem.

This movement will put a candidate on the ballot if Gascon is recalled. There are many liberal candidates who have been described as “woke” or “progressive prosecutors” that want the job. For example, Rachel Rossi ran for LADA in 2020. She did not make the runoff, but still received 23% of the vote. There is nothing preventing her from running again as a replacement for Gascon.

The Scenario

Imagine a hypothetical. The voters, in line with recent poll numbers, vote to recall Gascon. The five candidates listed above appear on the ballot as replacements for Gascon. So does Rachel Rossi, repeating her 2020 effort to become LADA. The voters overwhelmingly prefer the mainstream candidates, and give them a total of 60% of the vote. In other words, each receives about 12%. Meanwhile, voters give the progressive prosecutor movement 40%, far less than the votes received by the mainstream. However, there is only one candidate for these votes to go to. Rachel Rossi receives 40% of the vote, trouncing her nearest mainstream rival. The overwhelming desire of the voters is frustrated. LA does not get rid of the radical ideas that led to the recall effort in the first place. Because of vote-splitting, LA ends up right back where it started.

Vote Splitting is Real

This is not a far-fetched prediction. Vote splitting is an electoral effect in which the distribution of votes among multiple similar candidates reduces the chance of winning for any of the similar candidates, and increases the chance of winning for a dissimilar candidate. Vote splitting occurs most easily in plurality voting, the type of voting applicable to Gascon’s recall.

Vote splitting has happened before. The most famous example is the support Ralph Nader took from Al Gore, allowing George W. Bush to win the presidency. But it has also happened in California, when voters recalled Governor Gray Davis. There were 135 replacement candidates, including actor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Concerns about vote splitting caused the Democratic Party to withdraw all but one of their major candidates. The Republicans withdrew most of their candidates as well. 61% of voters wanted the recall. Schwarzenegger and another Republican received 63% of the vote, but split it between themselves. Schwarzenegger was still able to beat the Democrat, who received 31% of the vote.

What should really drive this point home are the results of the March 2020 election for LADA. In that primary election, mainstream candidate Jackie Lacey received 48% of the vote. Progressive candidates George Gascon and Rachel Rossi split the progressive vote 28% to 23% respectively. Had that been a recall, Lacey would have won outright. Because it wasn’t, Rossi’s voters went to Gascon, and Gascon went on to win. Recent experience suggests, therefore, that vote splitting in the LADA race really matters.

If recall supporters are serious about returning the LADA’s office to moderates, they should get serious about vote splitting. Even two candidates may be too many. Otherwise, they will watch all their efforts go down the drain.

Gascon Wants to Pay for Cop-Killers Funeral

Two El Monte police officers were killed yesterday, in what the mayor described as an “ambush.” One was a 22-year veteran and the other was a rookie.

According to CBS News:

The El Monte officers were identified Wednesday as Cpl. Michael Paredes and Officer Joseph Santana. Paredes, the longtime veteran of the department, is survived by his wife, daughter and son, police said. Santana, who previously worked as a public works employee and with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department before joining the police department in his hometown, is survived by his wife, daughter and twin sons.

The shooting happened at 4:45 in the afternoon at a motel. Officers responded to a report of domestic violence between a man named Justin Flores and his wife. The caller reported that Flores was stabbing his wife, Diana Flores. Ofcrs. Paredes and Santana went to the door of the motel room and were shot at immediately. A witness heard five shots. Additional officers arrived and also came under fire. Police were able to shoot and kill the Justin Paredes after he ran into the parking lot. But Ofcrs. Paredes and Santana died after being rushed to the hospital.

Ofcrs. Paredes and Santana. (Credit: NBC Los Angeles.)

After the murders, Diana Flores apologized to the officers. She said they had saved her. “I’m so sorry. They didn’t deserve that. They were trying to help me.”

Justin Flores, the Shooter, Had a Long Criminal History

Flores was a two-time felon who had been to prison. In 2009, he was convicted of vehicle theft and given 16 months prison. He only served two months before being paroled. In 2011, he was convicted of burglary and given two years. This time, he served 10 months.

Flores was prosecuted at least a dozen times for things like driving with a suspended license, being under the influence of a controlled substance, or resisting arrest.

In March 2020, Flores was arrested and convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was also in possession of methamphetamine and ammunition. Instead of being sent back to prison, he was ordered given probation. He only had to serve 20 days in jail. He was on probation when he shot and killed Ofcrs. Paredes and Santana.

Flores Was Out of Custody Because of Gascon’s Policies

According to reporter Bill Melugin, LADA George Gascon did not allow his prosecutors to consider the fact that Flores had a strike on his record when they prosecuted him. A strike would make him ineligible for probation. But the prosecutors were forced to follow Gascon’s policy of ignoring Penal Code section 1170.12. Since then, two separate courts have found that policy to be illegal. Gascon issued a statement:

Mr. Flores was convicted of burglarizing his grandparents’ home more than 10 years ago, resulting in a strike. He was arrested in 2020 and charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm and for possession of narcotics for personal use. Last year, Mr. Flores pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, a felony. The sentence he received in the firearm case was consistent with case resolutions for this type of offense given his criminal history and the nature of the offense. At the time the court sentenced him, Mr. Flores did not have a documented history of violence.

George Gascon’s Policy is to Pay for Flores’s Funeral

Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascon created controversy on his first day in office, when he promised to weaken enforcement of a wide variety of criminal laws.

Another controversial policy, almost overlooked until now, is to pay for the funerals of individuals killed by police. It reads as follows:

[The Bureau of Victim Services] will also contact the families of individuals killed by police and provide support services including funeral, burial and mental health services immediately following the death regardless of the state of the investigation or charging decision.

You can read the policy yourself here.

In light of this killing, many are questioning the wisdom of this policy. LA County residents are justifiably angry that Gascon seems to be siding with a murder and abuser while offering nothing to the families of the murdered police officers. Aside from these moral questions, many are wondering how the District Attorney can justify using public money in this way. Funding for victim services is not unlimited. Gascon would be taking money out of the hands of crime victims to put it into the hands of a cop-killer’s family.

Notes

A video about the murders:

A Tale of Two Recalls, and Maybe a Third

San Francisco voters overwhelming recalled several members of the school board on February 15th. Among those booted out of office was Alison Collins, who described merit-based school admission systems as “racist” and fought to take down a historical mural depicting the life of George Washington. The straw that broke the camel’s back was a series of tweets in which she used a racial slur to describe Asian people.

Alison Collins. Credit: Alisoncollinssf.com

The recall effort was about more than just one woman’s racist tweets. The school board that Collins served on got national attention for a string of controversies. The most important was the board’s decision to keep schools closed longer, and reopen slower, than other similar districts. During this time, the board focused on ending merit-based admissions and renaming schools whose namesakes were no longer considered politically correct. Each eligible school board member was recalled with more than 70% of the vote. Collins was recalled 78% to 22%.

Two Recalls

The successful school board recall is linked in the public mind with another San Francisco recall: that of District Attorney Chesa Boudin. Boudin is the son of two members of the Weather Underground, a radical militant organization active in the 1960s and 1970s. Both parents were sentenced to life in prison for the murder of two police officers and a security guard. In an almost-Shakespearian plot, Boudin grew up to become a criminal defense lawyer. In 2019, Boudin ran for District Attorney and succeeded in what many described as a hostile takeover.

When Boudin took office he changed the way crimes were prosecuted in San Francisco. His supporters described these changes as reforms and his opponents described them as “soft on crime.” In an unusual court hearing, a Superior Court judge described Boudin’s management of his office as disorganized, inadvertent, and marred by constant turnover and managerial reorganization. The rate of property crime began to increase, and has continued to increase during his tenure. Drug use and homelessness in San Francisco have become a cliche in the media.

Does Boudin Need to Worry About the Results of the School Board Recall?

Alison Collins and Chesa Boudin are both polarizing liberal figures in San Francisco politics. Almost immediately after the school board recall, people began to wonder if it would predict the district attorney recall. For example, the San Francisco Chronical ran an article titled, “Should Chesa Boudin Be Worried About the School Board Recall Results?” The Chronicle concluded that the groups that voted for the school board recall are “unlikely to seamlessly transfer” their “recall fervor” to Boudin. The Washington Post’s Henry Olsen wrote that Chesa Boudin, and other national figures, should take notice that they “are not what the voters want.” The Spectator wrote that “Chesa Boudin, facing his own recall election on June 7, might be the next to go.” They noted that San Francisco mayor London Breed and police chief Bill Scott have signaled support for Boudin’s recall.

And of course, Twitter has an opinion:

Whatever the case may be, opponents of the wave of changes to the criminal justice system are hopeful. Many speak of the “pendulum” finally swinging away from progressive changes. Whatever the case may be, on June 7, progressive district attorney George Gascon may be watching Boudin’s recall results the same way that Boudin watched those of Alison Collins.

Notes

Alison Collins’ quote about admissions was “When talking about merit, meritocracy and especially meritocracy based on standardized testing…those are racist systems.… You can’t talk about social justice, and then say you want to have a selective school that keeps certain kids out from the neighborhoods that you think are dangerous.” Meanwhile, Collins’ children attended the Ruth Asawa School of the Arts, which also has merit-based admissions requirements.

Collins is an interesting person. She is half black and married to a white real estate developer. They live in Russian Hill, where houses can sell for more than $10,000,000. Although their two daughters are half white and one quarter black, Collins describes them as black.

After the controversy over Collins’ tweets, she sued her own school board for $87 million dollars. If she had won, that $87 million dollars she asked for would leave the hands of teachers and students and head right to her house on Russian Hill. It’s hard to imagine that someone who cares about local public education would want to do something like that. Fortunately for the students, a judge dismissed her lawsuit, saying it had no merit and there was no need for argument in court. Unfortunately, defending the lawsuit still cost the school district $110,000.

Briefing Complete in Union Lawsuits Against Gascon

The First Lawsuit

The Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County (ADDA) filed a lawsuit on December 30, 2020 to stop several illegal policies put out by newly-elected district attorney George Gascon. The Superior Court agreed with the ADDA and filed a temporary injunction on February 8, 2021. Gascon appealed on March 19, 2021. He filed his opening brief on August 17, 2021. The ADDA responded on November 16, 2021. Briefing was completed when Gascon filed a reply on December 6, 2021.

There were two amicus curiae briefs. The first was from the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. The second was written by Erwin Chemerinsky, law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, writing on behalf of 67 other progressive prosecutors. The ADDA responded on January 3, 2022.

As of today, the parties are awaiting a decision by the Second District Court of Appeal.

Alisa Blair. Credit Voyagela.com.

The Second Lawsuit

On October 14, 2021, the ADDA sought an injunction in Superior Court to prevent District Attorney George Gascon from appointing ineligible political supporters to civil service protected positions in the District Attorney’s Office. Specifically, Gascon appointed former public defenders:

  1. Alisa Blair;
  2. Tiffiny Blacknell; and
  3. Shelan Joseph.

He did this outside of the merit system created by the County Charter to root out political bias in hiring and promotion. None of these public defenders had taken or passed the test required for promotion, nor did they have the required experience as a prosecutor. There were 53 candidates who had followed the rules and had been certified as eligible under the County Charter. All 53 were passed over.  The ADDA also appealed before the Civil Service Commission.

On November 8, 2021, a judge denied the ADDA’s request for a preliminary injunction. He held that the appeal before the Civil Service Commission should be completed before an injunction issued. A day before the court denied the request, Gascon promoted 53 internal candidates. Lawyers said this appeared to be an attempt to moot the lawsuit and the Civil Service proceedings. The parties held a trial setting conference on December 3, 2021, which was continued. Then, Gascon filed a Motion for Stay of Proceedings on December 21, which the ADDA opposed on January 3, 2022. Briefing was completed with Gascon ‘s reply on January 7th. The Court heard the motion on January 14, 2022 and denied it. That same day, the court continued a trial setting conference for a second time.

The next hearing is another trial setting conference on April 20, 2022.

Gascon’s Chief of Staff Arrested Drunk at McDonald’s

What Happened

According to the LA Times, Joseph Iniquez has been arrested for being drunk in public. He was in the passenger seat of a car with his fiance Dale Radford shortly before midnight on December 11. They were driving home from a wedding and had stopped in the drive-thru of a McDonald’s. The fiance made an illegal U-turn. Officers approached the car and asked if the fiance was driving drunk. They smelled the odor of alcohol. As the officers attempted to speak with the fiance, Iniguez inserted himself into the conversation. Iniguez explained that he had been drinking and his fiance was acting as the designated driver. He said that any odor of alcohol is from him. The officer attemped to talk to the driver, Iniguez’s fiance, a second time. Iniguez interrupted again. He was asking questions of the officer and began giving his fiance legal advice. The officer told Iniguez that he was not speaking to Iniguez. But Iniguez continued to question the officer about the stop. The officer asked the fiance to step out of the car so that he could separate himself from Iniguez and speak to the driver without interference. Although they did not ask Iniguez to step out, he did anyway.

Once Iniguez was out of the car, he became belligerent and threatening. He called the officer a “fuck-up.”

Iniguez had bloodshot eyes and was slurring his speech. He was “incapable of following simple directions.” He was not wearing shoes. Officers arrested him for public intoxication, a misdemeanor. He was taken to jail and released the following morning. The police released him from jail once he sobered up. Then, Iniguez threatened to put the arresting officer on something called a “Brady List.” Specifically, he called the officer “Brady” and said that he would see him again. The “Brady List” is a list of dishonest police officers. Being on this list prevents an officer from testifying in court. It renders them essentially useless for anything but desk duty. Officers placed on this list are often fired.

They did not present the case to the District Attorney’s Office, which Iniguez helps lead. Any criminal charges would be referred to the Attorney General’s Office due to the conflict of interest.

Iniguez ran for district attorney of Los Angeles County in 2020. He dropped out and joined the campaign of George Gascon. After Gascon won, Iniguez was moved from his low-ranking job as a DDA Grade 2 all the way past Grade 5 and up to Chief Deputy. The Chief Deputy is the second-in-command of the office. Later, he was moved to Chief of Staff, a job he still has today. Gascon’s spokesperson said he was aware of the incident and that “the district attorney has the utmost confidence in Joseph.”

Iniguez and Gascon. Credit: Twitter

Questions

There is video of the incident. Iniquez recorded video on his cell phone. The Tesla driven by his fiance also has a video system. Iniguez has both of these but has not released them to anyone.

Iniguez also oversees the Justice System Integrity Division at LADA. This is the office that prosecutes polices officers.

The arrest raises multiple questions. The first and most obvious question is whether Iniguez has the judgment necessary for his important public role. Although he is much less experienced than most deputy district attorneys in his office, he has some experience with police. He should know not to step into public if he is drunk. He should know that’s a crime. He should also know there is no exception to this law for people who are suspicious of police. Why would he choose to break the law?

The second question raised by this arrest is whether LA DA George Gascon showed good judgment by making this guy his second-in-command. Was it a good idea to take a low-ranking political rival up to the top of the office? Should the Chief Deputy spot be filled on merit or used as a political reward?

Finally, when our political leaders make such bad choices that they end up getting arrested, people might wonder about what other choices they are making on a day to day basis. What other bad choices haven’t we heard about?

Credit: Twitter
Credit: Twitter

Iniguez Sued the Azusa Police Department

Iniguez did not apologize. Instead, he said he has filed an internal affairs complaint against the arresting officer. Iniguez said the officer arrest him “on a whim” and that it was “a traumatic experience.”

Iniguez sued the Azusa Police Department on January 6. He alleged that the officers acted “with evil motive and intent” to violate his civil rights. He complained that the jail intake officer asked about his sexual orientation. He “declined to answer out of fear for his safety.” He complained that the jail was “dark, extremely cold, and isolated.” Also, “the cold was oppressive and injurious.” He was in jail for only four hours.

He claimed that the police caused him “emotional and psychological distress. He suffers from sleeplessness and anxiety. He did not identify any physical injuries.

Iniguez asked the Azusa taxpayer to pay him unspecified compensatory damages, including general and special damages, and punitive damages assigned to the officers involved.

In 2023, Iniguez settled with Azusa, which paid him $10,000. This was widely regarded as “go away money,” a low settlement amount that would be cheaper than defending and winning the case. He has since been promoted to chief deputy district attorney.

In June 2024, Fox News obtained Iniguez’s cell phone video. He can be heard telling officers, “You’ve pulled over the wrong person, let me tell you!” Iniguez also urged the officers to check his license plates, which could have revealed to them that he worked for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. “Run our plates, and see what you find,” he said. “Honestly, I’m not saying anything, just see what you find.” Additional video shows Iniguez at the jail.

Credit: Azusa Police Department

Iniguez’s implication that he would put his arresting officer on LADA’s Brady List caught the attention of the Attorney’s General’s office. It opened an investigation into the abuse of that list, which eventually led to 11 felony charges against a different Gascon appointee, Diana Teran.

Notes

The arrest report and civil rights complaint are online here. The arrest report lists the location of arrest as a McDonald’s, not a Chick-Fil-A as was originally reported.

The City of Azusa voted no confidence in Gascon on May 18, 2021. Councilman Andrew Mendez said Gascon’s directives create a revolving door for criminals. “If you’re a victim of a violent crime, the last thing you want to hear is that someone who hurt you is back on the streets,” he said.

Azusa PD did a press release:

Credit: Facebook

Azusa’s police union also put out a statement:

It has been made public that Joseph Iniguez was arrested by the Azusa Police Department for violating Penal Code section 647f, public intoxication. This was his only charge. He was booked, processed, and later released, but Iniguez wasn’t happy with that. Iniguez has decided to make a spectacle of his arrest by the Azusa Police Department. The problem is, Mr. Iniguez is refusing to relay ALL of the facts of the incident.

The facts of the case will eventually be released, and when this frivolous and retaliatory complaint is complete, I am most certain the officer will be found to have been in complete compliance with the State law, and Department policy. The officer that arrested Mr. Iniguez did so with full legal authority and without malice.

Mr. Iniguez is attempting to abuse his power as a senior member of the LA County District Attorneys Office, and using it to get him out of trouble. Fortunately for Mr. Iniguez, Azusa PD is currently being led by a Police Chief whom is cowering to Iniguez’ political pressure. The Chief will seek to please Mr. Iniguez and investigate a “by the book” arrest, instead of supporting his officer, who is a seasoned field supervisor, with several awards that he has received throughout his career for being exemplary and brave, including several awards by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) for his outstanding efforts to reduce DUI collisions in our community.

The Azusa Police Officers Association stands behind the officer that made the arrest, and for doing his job, unlike the department administration.

Mr. Iniguez and his office are quick to blame officers for wrong doing, but they refuse to look in the mirror to put any fault on themselves when they get caught so intoxicated in public they can no longer care for their own safety.

Here is Iniguez’s booking information:

Credit: Twitter, @MelG679