Tag Archives: George Gascon

Murder at the Beach

Dockweiler Beach is a beautiful state park in the Santa Monica Bay. Known for bonfires and barbecues, Dockweiler has plenty of parking and is a short drive from the gang-infested neighborhoods of South Central Los Angeles. On March 17, 1995, two couples got into a car and drove there together. They would not all return alive.

That same day, several members of the Limehood Piru Street Bloods were at the beach. Kenji Howard and Edward Powell, and several others had driven down in a car and spent the day causing trouble. According to witnesses, Powell brought a gun he had obtained by trading away cocaine. He shot at several airplanes landing or departing from nearby Los Angeles International Airport.

At 10:00 p.m., when the beach closes, police officers arrived and ordered everyone to leave. While walking back to the cars, someone heard a voice out of Powell’s car say, “give me the strap,” meaning “give me the gun.”

The entrance to the 105 freeway where murders occurred. Credit: Insterstate-guide.com.

Edward Powell drove his car after the car containing the two couples. As the two cars entered the freeway, Powell pulled the car containing the Bloods up next to the car containing the two couples.

The Bloods in Powell’s car flashed gang signs. None of the two couples were gang members. Then someone in the Blood car started shooting at the two couples. Approximately 10 shots were fired. Witnesses described seeing shots from the back passenger seat. That is where Kenji Howard was sitting. Later, Howard admitted to shooting his gun out of the window.

One of the four friends was killed immediately. That was Arkett Mejia, a young woman on leave from the Air Force to attend her parents’ 25th anniversary. Another one of the four friends, Travon Johnson, was also shot. He did not die immediately. He was paralyzed from the neck down and lived for 18 years, until 2013, in a coma. Then he succumbed to his injuries.

One of the two victims: Arkett Mejia. Credit Santa Monica Observer/Facebook

Powell drove Howard back to the gang’s territory. Howard was arrested the next day in possession of the gun. The gun was confiscated, tested, and determined to be the murder weapon. Officers also impounded Powell’s vehicle and noted that the rear windows did not roll down.

Who Shot?

After Howard was arrested with the gun, he was released, probably because he was a minor. Howard was interviewed nine days after he was caught with the gun. He waived his Miranda rights and said that he saw Powell, “firing seven or eight shots.” In other words, he told the police that someone else was the murderer. “Numerous witnesses” said they saw Powell firing the shots.

Police are understandably suspicious of statements like that. Howard’s other statements did not give the detectives much confidence. He said he was sleeping when the shooting occurred, even though it was only 2 minutes by car from the beach parking lot. He falsely claimed that he had bought the gun from Powell the day after the shooting. He was released after the interview on his promise to return the next day. He broke this promise and fled to Seattle. He remained on the run for six weeks until he was captured.

After he was captured in Seattle, Howard interviewed again. Again, he denied being the shooter. He failed a polygraph. He was interrogated for three hours. Then he changed his story. He said that two other men made him shoot the gun. He said he “had not meant to hurt anyone.” He was not paying attention to where he was “capping” the rounds and had just shot out the window. He did not find out until a couple of days later that he had actually killed someone. He gave details about how he shot. He said he wrested his wrist on top of the open window in the door, pointed the gun downward, and fired several shots.

Howard confessed a second time to different investigators. He explained that Powell handed him the gun and threatened to hurt him if he did not shoot at the other car.

Kenji Howard was charged with murder. At trial, Howard retracted his confession and went back to his original story. He said that he was asleep when he was awakened by gunshots. He saw Powell reach over another man and shoot through the open front passenger window. The jury convicted him of firearm possession and hung on the remaining counts. The district attorney chose to retry the case. The second convicted Howard of murder and a grab-bag of other crimes. He was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole in 35 years, plus seven additional years. Howard appealed, but the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment and sentence.

Kenji Howard on a poster from Change.org

The Forensic Evidence

Investigators found gunshot residue on the front passenger door opposite Powell, who was driving. Howard was in the back passenger seat. GSR was found along the mid-section of the right passenger door along the top of it from from to back. Generally, the GSR was towards the center of the door. There was no GSR on the frame of the right passenger door, outside the car.

The GSR expert discussed Howard’s confession. He said that it was inconsistent with the forensic evidence. If the confession was true, and Howard was holding the gun outside and pointed down, it would not leave gunshot residue inside of the door at all. He did not consider whether the confession might be partially true, whether Howard might have changed the details to minimize his guilt, or any other scenario. He simply said that the portion of Howard’s confession where he described the position of his hands was not true.

Moreover, the shots into the victims’ car were “back to front,” meaning that the shooter’s gun must have been in front of the target car. But this which would seem to rule out Howard firing forward from the back seat through the front passenger window.

The People brought their own firearms expert. This expert disputed the conclusions of the first expert. Instead, he said he could not rule out the rear passenger as the shooter. He also said, however, that the evidence was also consistent with the driver being the shooter.

Lime Hood Piru graffiti. Credit: Unitedgangs.com

How Howard Got His Conviction Overturned

Because he was 16 years old at the time of the crime, Howard was given a “fitness hearing,” to determine if he was fit to be tried in adult court. A judge in juvenile court determined that it was appropriate to try Howard in adult court and transferred him there. He insisted on his trial, which eventually resulted in his conviction.

Powell, an adult, was also convicted of murder as an aider and abetter. Both convictions were either not appealed or upheld on appeal.

Both men went to prison. With no appeals left, both men were out of moves. The only thing they could do was finish their time. But men with access to a law library and time on their hands should not be counted out.

Whether or not this statement is true, it cost Powell nothing. He was already convicted of the crime. The punishment for a shooter and an aider/abetter is the same. In other words, Powell is man with nothing to lose by saying these things. As the court noted, he has not been given anything for his confession. But it has not cost him anything either. And his gang has a lot to gain. Howard could get out.

After Powell confessed, the Court of Appeal granted Howard’s writ of Habeas Corpus and sent it back to the trial court for a retrial. The office that would retry the case was the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office led by DA George Gascon.

LADA George Gascon

What Gascon Did

Since Kenji Howard was 16 at the time of the incident, he was returned to juvenile court for another hearing about whether to transfer him back to adult court. When he got there, the assigned prosecutor had been given a script to read into the record. The script was from Chief Deputy Sharon Woo. It said that Howard “was a minor  at the time of this offense. It is the policy of District Attorney George Gascón not to pursue transfer hearings to adult court. Accordingly, this matter will remain in juvenile court.”

Juvenile court supervision ends at 25, but Howard is older, and cannot be supervised there. In other words, he will get out immediately. Sharon Woo allowed him to be released immediately, without considering the merits of the case. But she went farther, and dismissed the case.

“In weighing the evidentiary challenges of proceeding to an adjudication [juvenile court trial] and the reality that no additional penalties can be imposed, the District Attorney’s Office has concluded that its current resource constraints and overarching policy considerations and broad discretion favor dismissal of this matter.

The District Attorney determines how best to represent society’s interest in prosecuting criminal offenses. Here the interest of justice and society’s interest as represented by District Attorney Gascón are best served by allocating the limited resources of the District Attorney’s Office to more critical needs.”

To summarize, the LADA received the case and dismissed it without even consider whether the defendant was guilty.

How LADA Will Make Kenji Howard a Millionaire

Now that charges are dismissed, Howard is asking for a finding of factual innocence. (Pen. Code, 851.8.) Remember, the appellate court only found that the defendant should be retried. It did not exonerate him. After all, he confessed. The LADA would have to oppose this motion. Given their position on the juvenile adjudication, it is clear that they will not use the same resources required for trial to oppose this motion.

LADA will allow the finding of factual innocence. Once this happens, the defendant is entitled to receive $140 a day from the California Victim Compensation Board. (Gov’t. Code, 4904.) This would result in an award of $1.2 million dollars to Howard that would otherwise go to other victims, like the families of Arkett and Travon.

This finding would also allow Howard to sue the state. This would result in legal fees paid by taxpayers. And of course, any recovery will be paid by taxpayers. Ironically, the victims’ families can’t get any of this money from Howard because the statute of limitations has run on their suits.

What Should Have Happened

Kenji Howard should be retried as an adult. First, it is appropriate to try him as an adult because the crime he confessed to, murder, is not ethically complex. Five-year-olds know that murder is wrong. Certainly, Kenji Howard knew that going to the beach with a bunch of gang members, shooting at airplanes, getting into a fight, and shooting into an occupied vehicle were wrong. It would be farce to claim that his “developing brain” prevented him from seeing this, or that it rendered him unable to resist the urge to murder people. The first judge was correct: this case belongs in adult court.

Second, Howard should be retried. This case is not black and white. The concerns raised by the appellate court, particularly those about the GSR evidence, are real. A jury should hear them and make a decision. Powell’s confession should be tested on cross-examination, which it hasn’t. The GSR experts should each testify to the jury, and the jury should decide which is more credible. All the other witnesses should testify as well. 1.2 million dollars is enough to pay the annual salary of 15 teachers. That’s an entire school. You and your neighbors should not give this money to a confessed killer unless there is a jury determination that he is not guilty.

Notes

I heard about this by reading an excellent article by Kathleen Cady for the Los Angeles Association of Deputy District Attorneys. It was also published in the Antelope Valley Times.

The Superior Court Criminal Memorandum of Decision on Howard’s Petition for Habeas Corpus.

Full version of the poster shown above, created by Mary Sutton.

An interview with a 17-year-old Lime Stree gang member.

Will Reed Hastings Change His Mind?

The Netflix CEO supported changes to the law that may have contributed to a death in the family of his partner. He may have been convinced to support weakening the criminal law by the media, but will this personal tragedy be enough to wake him up?

Reed Hastings and Jacqueline Avant

Reed Hastings’ first name is Wilmot, which means “little Wilhelm” in German. Hastings went to a fancy Boston private school, joined the Marines, washed out, and joined the Peace Corp. His favorite movie is Sophie’s Choice, which is an odd pick, to say the least. Hastings is famous for co-founding Netflix. He came up with the idea after losing a rental copy of Apollo 13.

Hastings is generous with his money. For example, he has donated $1,000,000 to Los Angeles Unified School District to help with COVID relief. In 2020 Hastings donated $1,000,000 to the Center for Policing Equity, a research center founded at UCLA. That group was founded by a professor who also founded the “California-based queer hip hop group Deep Dickollective.” That detail is irrelevant to his work at the CPE, but it does make me wonder if he is a serious person.

Hasting’s wife, Patty Quillin, is also charitable and political. She opposed Proposition 20 which would have toughened some laws against theft. “Issues surrounding social and racial justice animate her,” according to the Hollywood Reporter. She donated to San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin. But that’s not the only District Attorney that Hastings’ family funded. Quillin also donated 1,253,000 to Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascon. Hastings donated $500,000 himself.

Ted Sarandos is co-CEO of Netflix alongside Hastings. His wife is Nicole Avant, and his mother-in-law is Jacqueline Avant. Why is it important to know who Reed Hastings’ partner’s mother-in-law is?

Jacqueline Avant Was Shot and Killed in Her Home

The Beverly Hills Police Department received a call at 2:23 a.m. about a home invasion. Someone came onto her property, shot at her security guard, and smashed a sliding glass door. Apparently the security guard did not return fire. The burglar entered the house and shot Avant in the stomach. Her husband, Clarence Avant, was home at the time. Jacqueline was alert and speaking when paramedics arrived, but later died. She was 81.

Suspect Ariel Maynor

The Beverly Hills Police Department arrested a suspect, Ariel Maynor, and confiscated his AR-15 rifle. The 29-year-old’s vehicle was seen on surveillance videos driving eastbound out of the city after the shooting. Maynor was arrested after he apparently committed a second shooting and burglary just hours later. He invaded the home of a father and his 17-year-old daughter. LAPD’s Hollywood Division was alerted to a shooting and burglary call. They found Maynor in the back yard of the home with a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the foot. The watch commander realized that the the two crimes might be connected and summoned Beverly Hills detectives.

Maynor is a parolee. He was released on September 1 after serving four years for second-degree robbery. He has previous convictions for robbery and grand theft. He is supposed to be under the supervision of the parole department. According to the Beverly Hills police, “it didn’t sound as if he was reporting to his parole agent at all.” Parole violations, such as failure to report to a parole agent, can return a felon to prison.

Jacqueline Avant is Not The Only One

Crime is up in Los Angeles. According to the LA Times:

Homicides are up 46.7% compared with 2019, while shooting victims are up 51.4%, according to police data. As of the end of November, there had been 359 homicides in L.A. in 2021, compared with 355 in all of 2020. There have not been more homicides in one year since 2008, which ended with 384.

That newspaper, whose editorializing on crime is slanted towards “progressive prosecutors,” ran an article titled, “Brazen Crimes Shake LA.” The authors note that “violent crime has jumped sharply in L.A.” The New York Post describes a “violent LA crime wave” and include a quote:

“It’s a s–t show over here,” said LAPD Det. Jamie McBride, a director of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, a police union. “Bad guys are released quicker than we can finish the paper work, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.”

Why Does This Matter?

This matters to the family of Jacqueline Avant, who should not have been murdered in her own home, even at 81. But it also implicates the weakening of the justice system advocated by Hastings. Before Hastings and others poured money into the LADA race last year, the murderer of Mrs. Avant would have faced stiff penalties. But now, thanks in part to Mr. Hastings, he will not have to worry about these stiff penalties. Tragically, Mrs. Avant’s family will also not have the benefit of the laws our legislature put in place to prevent this type of murder from happening.

Prosecutors will have several charges to choose from. Before Hastings’ money got involved, prosecutors would have filed murder in the first degree, with the special circumstance of murder in the course of burglary. This would make Maynor eligible for death or life without parole. They could also choose leniency, although it’s not clear why they would. If they choose not to seek the special circumstance, Maynor would be eligible for parole in 25 years. This could be doubled due to his prior strikes to 50 years. Prosecutors could also extend his sentence for using an AR-15 by an additional life sentence with parole eligibility in 25 years. In other words, prosecutors could choose between death, life with no parole, or life with parole in 75 years.

The District Attorney’s Office files the charges and enhancements. If Maynor is convicted, the judge will sentence him, and can decide which of these to use. The important point is that the DA has to use these tools just to give the judge the option to take parole off the table. If the DA doesn’t file these charges, the judge cannot file them on her own, and Maynor may parole one day.

The problem is, LADA George Gascon is refusing to apply the special circumstance law in any case. And ironically this is exactly what Hastings wanted. Under Gascon, everybody is eligible for parole, including repeat violent felons, like Maynor. He believes that it is his right, not the legislature’s, to decide which laws get applied in Los Angeles County. For example, Gascon recently failed to apply the special circumstance enhancement to a man who shot and killed his four children and mother in law in Lancaster.

Maynor already got a break from the DA’s office under Gascon’s predecessor, Jackie Lacey. In 2018 he was convicted of robbery. Because of his record, he was ineligible for probation. The minimum he should have been eligible to receive was 2 years, the low term for robbery. This should have been doubled due to his prior strike. He also had a prior “serious felony” conviction, which adds an additional 5 years, bringing his total minimum exposure to 9 years. However, the DA’s office appears to have “struck” the serious felony conviction that would have added 5 years. Jacqueline Avant would be alive today if that 5 years had been imposed.

Reed Hastings and his wife support policies that enable killings of this type. Clearly, Maynor needed to do more time. Hastings, who seems like a man who means well, was sold a scam labeled “reform.” Many others are in the same boat. Compassion for our communities, especially communities of color, sometimes means being tough on crime. As long as some focus exclusively on compassion for convicted criminals, victims will continue to suffer. But our media diet, our income-segregated neighborhoods, and our politics mean that some people will never know how crime works in real life. It takes a tragedy among their friends and neighbors before they wake up. Hopefully Reed Hastings and his wife will wake up.

Notes

A columnist in the LA Times says, “Don’t Turn Jacqueline Avant’s Shooting Into a Political Football.” They interviewed a family friend of Jacqueline Avant’s, who said they were “cringing,” and continued, “we don’t want this to become a battle cry of the left or the right.” They did not explain why voters weren’t entitled to a vivid example of the consequences of their choices.

Nicole Avant, the daughter of the victim, hired an armed security guard. That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of the ability of local police to keep her safe.

A careful read of the LA Times coverage mentioned above shows the reporters did not keep their politics out of the article. Shootings and murders are up about 50% this year, but the authors did not describe the violence as a “crime wave.” Instead, they are quick to point out that crime has also jumped in other cities, and that maybe the pandemic is to blame, or “COVID-19 angst” or “a new holiday season upon which brick-and-mortar retailers are relying to stay afloat.” They do not speculate about whether recent dramatic changes to the criminal law are to blame. Instead, they speculate about “pandemic related policies that have allowed many nonviolent arrestees to be released without bail” instead of pointing out that the DA George Gascon’s policy is to never request bail. This is is almost shockingly dishonest. The DA has ordered his prosecutors not to request bail in virtually all cases. How can the reporters describe that as a “pandemic related policy?” This exactly the kind of bias that misleads people, because it not likely to be noticed by the general reader. The reporters also decided to describe the approach of Gascon as a “strong reform agenda,” instead of using a neutral term. They quote a business owner who wants the laws to be enforced in two paragraphs but give five paragraphs to BLM leader Melina Abdullah.

What Happened to the Killer?

Ariel Maynor pled guilty and was given a life sentence with the possibility of parole in 150 years. Facebook commenter Lillie Dew said,

Such a Tragedy [sic] and a cruel manner in how he is being handled. I believe I heard or read he has been in trouble since about (15). Doesn’t that say something is NOT right with him? He sure received a LONG LONG SENTENCE and then there are others in this country who just get a slap on the WRIST for the crimes they committed.

Although 150 years to life may sound like a stiff sentence to people on Facebook, it is not his actual sentence. It’s nowhere near it. Maynor arrived in prison in 2022 at the age of 30. He will be eligible for parole at age 60, in 2052, despite the court’s “150 years” number, after serving 30 years. That’s because federal courts have ordered the California system to give parole hearings at age 60 to murderers serving life sentences, regardless of the actual sentence. This is just one of the ways that the sentences given by judges in court are whittled down and diminished, giving victims’ families and the public the false impression that their victimizers were given long sentences.

George Gascon’s History of Racist Remarks

George Gascon was recently elected to be Los Angeles County District Attorney. In part, he won by accusing police of racism and vowing to end it. But a long-overlooked declaration calls into question his sincerity.

Back in 2016, Gascon set out to investigate allegations of racism among police officers in San Francisco. He set up a “Blue Ribbon Panel on Transparency, Accountability, and Fairness.” He had apparently forgotten about his own behavior at a dinner in Massachusetts, but others had not. A retired San Francisco police officer named Gary Delagnes was there. He submitted a declaration, under oath, in which he recounted the evening. The relevant portion is worth quoting in full:

One evening in April 2010, Chief Gascon [and others] had dinner in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where we were attending a Police Union Leadership Forum organized by Harvard Law School. I had the forum organizer invite Chief Gascon to speak to the attendees. During that dinner, Chief Gascon, who was drinking heavily, began reminiscing on his time with the Los Angeles Police Department, including his involvement in the Ramparts Unit scandal. He made multiple statements that disparaged minorities. He became so loud and animated that an African-American patron approached Chief Gascon and asked him to restrain himself because his behavior was offending his family.

You can read the declaration for yourself:

Declaration of Gary DelagnesDownload

Although Delagnes gave this declaration under oath, Gascon has never denied it under oath. His spokesman said, “What [Delagnes] lacks in credibility, he makes up for in imagination.” The San Francisco Chronicle followed up with Delagnes. He said that “If called as a witness by Gascon’s blue-ribbon panel, I will testify in more detail about those statements.” Unsurprisingly, Gascon’s panel does not appear to have called Delagnes as a witness. Martin O’Halloran, another former police officer, was also present and did not deny the allegations.

Although Gascon’s remarks have been overlooked during the tumultuous period that followed his election in Los Angeles, they raise many troubling questions, not the least about his hypocrisy. Can someone really lead a racial justice movement who is so open about his racial prejudices that he must be asked by a person of color to quiet down? If the allegations are false, why hasn’t Gascon, under oath, told the public what really happened? Is he claiming that the retired officer committed perjury, risking prosecution by Gascon’s office, just to get at him? These formal allegations seem to be serious enough on their own to require more from Gascon than a throw-away line by his spokesman.

Gascon is Hiding His New Hires

Controversial LA County District Attorney George Gascon told voters that he would be transparent. But his record shows a troubling pattern of cover-ups, both large and small. Now, he refusing to tell voters who he has hired or for what job. Critics see his refusal to answer this simple question as evidence that he will not deliver on his promises. Others speculate that he is hiding the recent hiring of several public defenders as prosecutors.

Gascon’s Promises to Be Transparent

Gascon’s campaign website promises “prosecutorial transparency.” His Ballotpedia article claims that he will “enhance transparency and eliminate conflict of interest.” The article uses the word “transparency” no fewer than five times. The Appeal wrote an article called “A New Wave of Prosecutorial Transparency,” complete with a photo of Gascon. NBC News congratulated him for bringing “more transparency to investigations.” The Future Left wrote “Gascon is the reform candidate, who is running on a platform of ending mass incarceration, police accountability, prison alternatives, and transparency.” Gascon even created a Blue Ribbon Panel on Transparency, after a scandal in San Francisco.

Voters thought they could believe him. The ACLU, after his victory, wrote “now that the election is complete, the coalition is focused on promoting greater transparency and accountability.” Here are some examples of voters who though Gascon would be transparent:

Gascon Has Never Been Transparent

Gascon was notorious during the 2020 campaign for refusing to tell the public what is in his LAPD disciplinary records. Prosecutor Michele Hanisee described it this way: “Gascon, who has publicly advocated for transparency in the criminal justice system, apparently draws the line at authorizing the release of his own disciplinary records.”

But his lack of transparency doesn’t just extend to his past misconduct, it also includes misconduct committed by the SFDA. Gascon covered up exculpatory evidence that his crime lab was using questionable methods. He continued to do so until an appeals court ordered him to provide the evidence.

Hanisee also shines a light on Gascon’s attempt to cover up his own crimes.

As District Attorney, Gascón’s attempt to silence whistleblowers in the SFDA’s office did not stop with burying the exculpatory memo that both the author of the memo, and defense attorneys believed should be publicly disclosed. He also attempted to silence investigators at the SFDA’s office who informed federal authorities of Gascón’s apparent violations of federal law. Gascón’s retaliatory actions against that whistleblower cost the City of San Francisco $400,000.

Now Gascon Is Refusing to Say Who He Has Hired

On February 24th, 2021, the union that represents Gascon’s deputies asked for a list of new hires. They asked again on March 3rd and March 4th. They put their request in writing. They waited until March 12, when the union received a letter from Gascon’s lawyers indicating that they would get an answer by March 26th. That day came and went with no answer.

On March 27th, Gascon’s lawyers said that they were “continuing to conduct a thorough search for responsive documents.” They set a new deadline of April 9th, 2021. It is unclear why it has taken over a month to walk over to the personnel office and simply ask for the names.

The union is equally perplexed. They asked the following questions:

  • What does the Administration have to hide?
  • What is the Administration afraid that we will learn? 
  • Would the request be treated differently if it came from a media outlet, or a member of the public?
  • Does the Administration’s resistance to providing this simple information relate to the ongoing absence of an organizational chart from the Office’s website?

To date, they have received no answer, nor has the public, who are nevertheless paying these new secret employees.

Gascon Has Been Hiring Public Defenders

Some of the new hires have been identified in the press. The Metropolitan News-Enterprise reported that Gascon recently hired Alisa Blair, Tiffiny Blacknell, and Shelan Joseph out of the Public Defender’s Office. Each of these lawyers had previously supported Gascon politically. The public defenders were hired without the required competitive examinations and over the heads of other prosecutors.

Gascon Orders His Prosecutors To Go Soft on Defendants For Virtually Any Conceivable Reason

LA District Attorney George Gascon, on his first day, gave his employees several illegal orders. Judge James Chalfant recognized this, and issued a preliminary injunction against Gascon to prevent him from enforcing these orders. Rather than comply with the injunction, Gascon waited two days and issued new illegal orders, then called it compliance. His prosecutors were left feeling vindicated but still in danger of losing their jobs just for complying with the law.

Specifically, Judge Chalfant ruled that prosecutors must plead and prove strikes. They cannot move to dismiss them unless there are “extraordinary circumstances.” This has been the state of the law for decades.

Gascon did not take this lying down. He decided to ignore three strikes despite the judge’s order. Instead of good faith compliance with the judge’s orders, he decided to try an end run around them. So he issued new orders requiring his prosecutors to dismiss strikes for any of eight “factors.” The problem is that dismissal for any one of these reasons is very different from dismissal for “extraordinary circumstances.”

The eight factors are found in The Committee on Revision of the Penal Code’s proposals.

Gascon Wants His Prosecutors to Go Soft Even Though It’s Illegal

Nowhere in the injunction did judge Chalfant say that Gascon could compel his prosecutors to make a motion to dismiss or withdraw prior strikes if “one factor” applies or if the “presumption of dismissal or withdraw” applies.  The opposite is true.  Unless legal grounds apply, as required by section 1385, prosecutors cannot be compelled to bring these motions.  To do so is a violation of the law and ethical rules.

Ordering all LA prosecutors to dismiss based on section 1385 and an individual case review is appropriate and is the law. But qualifying this review “pursuant to the considerations set forth by The Committee” violates the law and the temporary injunction. Even worse is Gascon’s presumption of dismissal if even one factor applies. This is the opposite of “extraordinary circumstances” demanded by the “ends of justice.” It’s unethical and illegal.

The Eight Reasons to Go Soft on Defendants

Even if the order weren’t illegal, it is impossible to follow. The eight factors listed in the report are so vague as to be nonsensical.

For example, factor two says, “The current offense is connected to mental health issues.”  Prosecutors do not know what “connected to mental health issues” means, nor do they have the necessary materials in some cases that may be otherwise privileged or possessed by defense attorneys and not shared with them.  Is “impulse control issues” a mental health issue? What about psychopathy? Are prosecutors required to go soft on psychopaths because they have mental health issues?

Factor four says, “The current offense is connected to prior victimization or childhood trauma.”  Prosecutors do not know what “connected to prior victimization or childhood trauma” actually means, nor they have ever been trained in “childhood trauma.”  And what does this say about the thousands of victims who have experienced horrible trauma and have been victims of countless crimes, yet are law-abiding, productive members of society? 

Factor six says, “Multiple enhancements are alleged in a single case or the total sentence is over 20 years.”  Prosecutors do not know if the “20 years” is with or without allegations and priors.  And what happens if a court has already denied a motion to dismiss?  

Factor eight says, “application of the enhancement would result in disparate racial impact.”  This is controversial to say the least. Prosecutors do not know what that means, and do not know how to make the appropriate comparisons.  They have received no training on this specific topic.  Do they compare cases and defendants in just their current assignment, in other assignments, in other jurisdictions within and outside Los Angeles County, in California as a whole, or even in the entire United States of America?  What if a defendant is of mixed race?  Prosecutors are confused because they are required, on every single case, to treat each as a unique case based on individual facts, circumstances, context, defendant, victim, and prior criminal history (if any).  The race of a defendant and victim, unless specifically relevant to the crime or allegation (e.g., hate crime) is wholly irrelevant to this analysis.

Gascon Reinstates Illegal Orders Two Days After Judge Struck Them Down

On February 8, 2021, Judge James Chalfant granted a preliminary injunction against LADA George Gascon. The order prevented him from banning strike enhancements. The judge ruled that prosecutors had to “plead and prove” them. He also ruled that prosecutors could not move to dismiss them unless it was in the interests of justice. The ruling was a victory for beleaguered line prosecutors who were being forced to choose between obeying the law or obeying their boss.

Most observers expected Gascon to adjust his policies in good faith to comply with the ruling. This is what typically happens after a government agency is hit with an injunction. But Gascon did not attempt to comply in good faith. Just two days after the judge issued his ruling, Gascon issued a new “special directive.”

Special Directive 21-01 – Revised Policies Pursuant to the Preliminary Injunction.Download

The Special Directive was not good faith compliance, but rather an attempted end run around the injunction.

Specifically, Judge Chalfant enjoined prosecutors from moving “to dismiss strike priors or any existing sentencing enhancement in a pending case without having legal grounds as required by section 1385.” There is a large body of law discussing these legal grounds.

But the new special directive orders prosecutors to do exactly that.

Motions to dismiss alleged strike priors pursuant to Penal Code section 1385 will be based on individual case review pursuant to the considerations set forth by The Committee on Revision of the Penal Code, hereafter “The Committee.” The presumption will be in favor of dismissal or withdrawal when any one of the factors apply.

This new order is directly contrary to the injunction, contrary to the law, including section 1385, and the case law discussing it. Gascon’s problem is that the law makes it very difficult to dismiss under this section, and he would like it to be very easy. If deputies use their law degrees and follow the law, they would not make this motion except in truly extraordinary and rare situations. But Gascon still wants this motion on every case. So he tried to change the requirements to make it easier.

Instead of following the law, deputies must not review factors set forth by a non-elected committee. None of these factors are law. They have not been deliberated on by the legislature. In fact, the report was issued after the injunction, on February 9th, the day before the new special directive. Prosecutors must bring the motion if any one of the factors apply. Again, this is not the law. The law says the opposite, that motions should only be used in “extraordinary” circumstances.

Ordering all prosecutors to seek a dismissal of prior strikes based on section 1385 and on individual case review is appropriate and is the law.  But, adding the requirement “pursuant to the considerations set forth by The Committee” requirement to those dismissal motions, violates the clear and unambiguous holdings of Romero and its progeny, section 1385, and Judge Chalfant’s order.  Even more illegal is the presumption of dismissal if any one of the factors apply.  This is the opposite of “extraordinary” circumstances when the “ends of justice demand it” requirement under the law. 

Gascon’s end run around the injunction is unlawful and unethical. It is a disappointing example of his desire to change our system by any means, including illegal means or disobedience to court orders.

Judge Rules Gascon Gave Illegal Orders

LA prosecutors took George Gascon to court and won. Judge James Chalfant ruled against newly-elected LADA George Gascon, issuing a preliminary injunction blocking some of Gascon’s “special directives.”

Judge Chalfant’s Preliminary InjunctionDownload

Chalfant ruled that the Penal Code requires prosecutors to plead an prove “strike” priors. Gascon’s orders not to plead and prove these priors is illegal. He also ruled that prosecutors cannot move to dismiss these priors without legal cause. Gascon’s order to do so, he held, was not legal cause. He held:

The District Attorney’s disregard of the Three Strikes ‘plead and prove’ requirement is unlawful, as is requiring deputy district attorneys to seek dismissal of pending sentencing enhancements without a lawful basis. An injunction against a public official’s unlawful actions cannot, by definition, interfere with the lawful exercise of the official’s duties.

Chalfant Condemned Gascon in the Strongest Terms and Vindicated His Critics

Chalfant used extraordinary language condemning Gascon.

On December 7, 2020, when Gascón assumed the Office, he attempted to uproot the long-standing system of sentencing enhancements, including the Three Strikes law for prior convictions. Legislating by fiat, Respondent Gascón issued a series of special directives that all but repealed California’s sentencing enhancement laws and commanded his employees—Los Angeles County…prosecutors sworn to uphold and enforce the law—to violate numerous statutory mandates and refrain from performing their duties under the law.

Chalfant’s ruling vindicated prosecutors who had spoken out against Gascon. Chalfant said that Gascon had ordered his prosecutors to violate the law, their oaths of office, and their ethical responsibilities.

Portions of the Special Directives prohibit deputy district attorneys from complying with their ministerial prosecutorial duties in violation of the law, their oaths of office, and their ethical responsibilities as officers of the court [….] The unlawful conduct includes barring deputy district attorneys from charging enhancements they statutorily are obligated to charge, barring deputy district attorneys from complying with their ministerial duty to exercise case-by-case discretion to maintain or move to dismiss charges, mandating that deputy district attorneys move to dismiss special circumstance allegations that cannot be dismissed by law, and mandating that deputy district attorneys attempt to unilaterally abandon a prosecution where a judge denied a motion to dismiss [….] Deputy district attorneys risk contempt of court or discipline by the State Bar each time they undertake this conduct.

Gascon Won An Early Victory on Other Sentence Enhancements

Although prosecutors may now file strikes, other sentencing enhancements remain banned in Los Angeles. Judge Chalfant declined to issue a preliminary injunction preventing Gascon from using a blanket policy to disallow the use of these enhancements. The Metropolitan News-Enterprise has this quote from a prosecutor:

As for new filings, it looks like as of now, Gascon can file cases without the special circ allegations, and without the [great bodily injury], gun, gang and other enhancements. This will decrease the number and types of convictions that will qualify as future strike priors.

For example, if a husband batters his wife, he would be guilty of a felony. If he broke her bones, prosecutors used to be able to add three years to the sentence for the infliction of great bodily injury. This is no longer on the table.

Chalfant Trashed Gascon’s Infamous “Script”

After judges began denying Gascon’s motions to dismiss strike priors, Gascon issued an order requiring his prosecutors to claim the Three Strikes Law was unconstitutional. Specifically, prosecutors would have to read from a script which included this claim. The script omitted law that held the opposite of Gascon’s claim: that Three Strikes was constitutional. Prosecutors cannot mislead the court by omitting law. Chalfant agreed that prosecutors could not be put in this ethical bind.

Local Media Coverage Was Heavily Biased Towards Gascon

The Los Angeles Times covered this story under the headline, “Several of D.A. George Gascon’s reforms blocked by L.A. County judge.” The article does not explain how ordering your deputies to break the law and act unethical is a “reform.” They described the ADDA’s position as an “allegation” even though it has now been validated by Judge Chalfant. They reprinted large parts of Gascon’s arguments to the judge, even though they had been rejected by the judge.

Instead of focusing on the illegality of the orders and their unethical requirements, the LA Times described the dispute as “a broader divide between traditionalist and reform-minded prosecutors.” They describe the union as the “old guard of district attorneys.” Their article concludes with a pro-Gascon quote from one of his allies.

The LA Times, which endorsed Gascon, also ran an editorial titled, “Archaic ‘tough-on-crime’ holdouts are refusing to let George Gascon do his job.” Missing the point entirely, the editorial focuses on the history of policing and the CDCR, and decries mass incarceration. It does not address the disturbing fact that an elected official ordered his subordinates to do illegal and unethical things. The board wrote, “elections mean little if victors are denied the ability to shift direction.” Of course, election victors can’t shift direction by breaking the law. The Metropolitan News-Enterprise was ran a detailed refutation of the LA Times’ position. Finally, an LA Times opinion columnist ran a pro-Gascon piece as well.

LA’s local NPR station followed the LA Times in describing Gascon’s illegal orders as “reforms.” Their article is marginally better than the LA Times article, but still contains inaccurate language and allows Gascon the last word.

Reactions From the Union and Its Allies

The victorious ADDA said:

The court ruled as we expected in holding that the District Attorney cannot order his prosecutors to ignore laws that protect the public from repeat offenders. As detailed in our reply brief, the court ruled that the District Attorney’s policy violated the law to benefit criminal defendants and ordered him to comply with the law. This ruling protects the communities which are disproportionately affected by higher crime rates and those who are victimized. […] This decision was based on what the law is and not what an officeholder thinks it should be.

Gascon critic and LA Deputy District Attorney John Hatami said:

Today’s decision is more than a humiliating rebuke of Gascón. It is a reminder that no one is above the law and the law in Los Angeles is not determined by one man, no matter how much of an opportunist, but by the people of the state of California. It is a victory for the community, victims, survivors, and their families and a reminder to all DDA’s that we are required to follow the law, not the demands of the DA or any elected or unelected official. We swore an oath, we must hold to it. Always do the right thing. Always fight for justice for the most vulnerable in our society. Today is a good day, L.A., justice was done.

One of Gascon’s predecessors, Steve Cooley, told the Met News:

Judge Chalfant’s decision is to be lauded for its great attention to the fine points of the law and his sensitivity to the serious ethical problems created for Deputy DAs by Gascón’s directives. That being said, there is only one ultimate solution to the public safety threat posed by Gascón and that is Gascón’s recall. The website for the recall effort is recallgeorgegascon.com.

Fresno DA Lisa Smittcamp said:

Today Judge Chalfant stood up to George Gascon and his illegal directives that seek to threaten the safety of the people of Los Angeles County, and all residents of California. Gascon is not a criminal justice reformer. He is an anarchist. He is a rogue that is disguising himself as a District Attorney. He isn’t in office to promote public safety, to assist victims of crime, and to help keep children out of gangs. He is there to push an agenda that protects violent gang members, career criminals, and those who have a reckless disregard for human life. Today, I salute Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Chalfant for ordering George Gascon to abide by the law.

Kern County District Attorney Cynthia Zimmer said:

The court’s ruling reinforces what had already become all too clear: that George Gascón has been commanding his deputy district attorneys to violate the law and their ethical duties since he took office, all for the benefit of ensuring that criminals receive the most lenient sentences possible. In all the argument put forward by Gascón, the judge found that ‘there is not a single reference to a concern for victims in the sentencing process,’ and that most of Gascón’s directives fail to consider or even mention victims or their rights. This injunction is a win for everyone who values the rule of law, public safety, and the rights of crime victims.

Reactions from Gascon and His Allies

Gascon said he would appeal the ruling. In the meantime, he said he would follow the ruling, which he claimed did not affect most of his directives.

I never had any illusions as to the difficulty and challenges associated with reforming a dated institution steeped in systemic racism. My directives are a product of the will of the people, including survivors of crime, and a substantial body of research that shows this modern approach will advance community safety.

Gascon was forced to revise his special directives.

Special Directive 21-01 – Revised Policies Pursuant to Preliminary InjunctionDownload

Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School, said that the ruling is a setback for Gascon.

Everything about this is unusual, but it’s not a surprise that it’s happening, given that Gascon is coming in as a progressive or reformer among DAs, many of whom don’t want to reform.

Gascon ally and San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin had similar polices. He was forced to defend them. His spokeswoman said that his Three Strikes policy was “not absolute” and that charging decisions will be made “on a case-by-case basis.”

Notes

Cover Photo Credit (Youtube.com)

Appellate Court Signals Approval of ADDA Lawsuit

The Second District of the California Court of Appeal handed down its decision in People v. Laanui on January 8, 2021, about a week after the ADDA, a union representing Los Angeles prosecutors, sued DA George Gascon. On its face, the case does not appear to be relevant to the lawsuit, but on closer look, the court is clearly signaling approval for the union’s position.

A Parking Lot Murder Led to a Series of Other Crimes

Defendant Elliot Laanui shot victim Edward Emery in a supermarket in Redondo Beach in 1995. There were multiple witnesses and DNA evidence. The DNA was not tested until 2011. It led police to the defendant, who was arrested. Laanui implicated himself during a Perkins operation and communicated with undercover deputies. Somehow, the defendant was released and committed several other crimes, including a shooting and soliciting the murder of an accomplice.

Elliot Laanui

Strikes Were Charged as to Some Counts But Not Others

The information charged a complicated series of crimes and enhancements. There were six total counts. On counts 1, 2, and 3, the information alleged that defendant had suffered serious or violent felony convictions within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law. These enhancements were not charged as to count 6, solicitation of murder of an accomplice.

Defendant was convicted on all counts. The court used the Three Strikes law to double the sentence on count 6, even though it had not been pled as to count 6. This decision was appealed to the Second District of the California Court of Appeal. This is the same court that would hear an appeal in the ADDA lawsuit.

The Court of Appeal Only Published Its Discussion of Strikes

The first clue of the Court of Appeal’s intentions came from what it chose to write about. The defendant in Laanui raised nine contentions on appeal. The court only published its discussion of the issues related to the filing of strikes.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court and held that it properly doubled the sentence on count 6 under the Three Strikes law. After discussing the parties’ contentions, the Second District got right to the point, the same point at the heart of the ADDA lawsuit:

The purpose of the Three Strikes law is “to ensure longer prison sentences and greater punishment for those who commit a felony and have been previously convicted of one or more serious or violent felony offenses.” (§ 667, subd. (b).) By its own terms, it applies “in every case in which a defendant has one or more prior serious or violent felony convictions . . . .” (Id., subd. (f)(1), italics added; see also § 1170.12, subd. (d)(1).)

(People v. Laanui (2021) — Cal.Rptr.3d —, at p. *12.)

By now your ears should have perked up if you are remembering the ADDA lawsuit. After all, the heart of that suit is the contention that prosecutors must file strikes in every case, despite their boss’s order to never file strikes. Here, the Court of Appeal is making a blanket statement that Three Strikes applies in “every case” in which the defendant has a strike prior. By contrast, George Gascon doesn’t want it to apply in any case in Los Angeles.

What the court wrote next seems to apply directly to the ADDA lawsuit.

Indeed, despite the “general rule” that “the selection of criminal charges is a matter subject to prosecutorial discretion,” “the Three Strikes law limits that discretion and requires the prosecutor to plead and prove each prior serious felony conviction.” (People v. Roman (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 141, 145 (Roman); see § 667, subd. (f)(1) [“The prosecuting attorney shall plead and prove each prior serious or violent felony conviction . . . .”], italics added; see also § 1170.12, subd. (d)(1).) The prosecution may move the court to dismiss the prior conviction allegation for insufficient evidence or “in the furtherance of justice” (§§ 667, subd. (f)(2), 1170.12, subd. (d)(2)), but may not “unilaterally strike” the allegation. (Roman, at p. 145.)

(Laanui, supra, at p. *12.)

This statement could form the holding of a ruling in the ADDA case, it is so directly on point. This statement is also the first principle of law that appears in the published opinion. It was given pride of place despite the fact that the actual issue in contention was directly controlled by different precedent. (See People v. Garcia (1999) 20 Cal.4th 490.) Garcia holds that “it is appropriate to allege [defendant’s prior conviction] status only once as to all current counts.” (Id. at p. 502.)

Why would the Court of Appeal discuss the general applicability of Three Strikes first? Especially when they could have skipped right to Garcia, which controls? And this happened not once, but twice. There is a second controlling case, People v. Morales (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 445. This case is also factually analogous but was discussed second.

The opinion is littered with points of law that will apply in the ADDA case. The court quotes Penal Code section 667(f), which provides that Three Strikes “shall be applied in every case in which a defendant has a prior felony conviction. (Morales, supra, 106 Cal.App.4th at p. 455.) In fact, the Court of Appeal quotes this language in no fewer than three different sections of the opinion.

But that isn’t all. The court says that “it would be evident […] on the face of the Three Strikes law that the prior strike would apply to all eligible counts, unless the trial court dismissed the strike either on its own motion or in response to a motion by the prosecution or defense.” (Laanui, supra, at p. *15.) Moreover, “the prosecution expressly cannot make a discretionary choice not to pursue the Three Strikes alternative sentencing regime on all eligible counts.” (Id. [internal quotations and punctuation omitted].) But this is exactly what George Gascon wants to do. And it forms the basis for the dispute in the ADDA’s lawsuit.

The Court of Appeal concluded its opinion by describing Three Strikes as “nondiscretionary.” (Id. at p. *17.)

Why Is Really Happening Here?

The Metropolitan News-Enterprise summarized the opinion this way: “the majority opinion […] recite[s] a proposition that Los Angeles County’s new district attorney, George Gascon, is contesting: that a prosecutorial agency is legally obliged to allege all strikes.” The Met News continues:

The two opinions in Laanui, each reciting that the charging of all priors is mandated by statute, come at a time when Gascón is ordering deputies not to allege any strikes. Although the requirements of the Three Strikes Law have been upheld in the past, the opinions add reinforcement to the position of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys (“ADDA”), which has brought a Los Angeles Superior Court action against Gascón to block some of the “special directives” issued by him on Dec. 7, his first day in office, including his prohibition on alleging strikes.

The Laanui opinion was issued just after the ADDA lawsuit was filed. The ADDA lawsuit was discussed extensively in the legal press. And the Laanui opinion itself contains paragraphs of precedent that seem to control the issues in the ADDA lawsuit. This precedent is given pride of place in the opinion, even before cases that control the outcome.

I believe that the Court of Appeal is trying to signal the correct ruling to the ADDA’s judge. The only other option appears to be that Laanui is an incredible coincidence. But it is hard for me to believe that such a relevant and forceful opinion could have been issued by accident.

What Other DAs are Saying about Gascon

CDAA and El Dorado County

El Dorado County District Attorney Vern Pierson is president of the California District Attorneys Association, a training and advocacy group for prosecutors. In a press release, CDAA “expressed grave concern regarding some of the new Los Angeles County District Attorney’s policies.”

CDAA will file an amicus brief in the lawsuit brought by the ADDA over Gascon’s new policies.

Kern County

Kern County District Attorney Cynthia Zimmer wrote a scathing letter in the Bakersfield Californian. Describing Gascon’s policies as “an exciting opportunity” for criminals, she invited them to leave her county and go to Los Angeles. She said that Gascon had abandoned victims of crime and been an ally to criminals.

Zimmer discussed Gascon’s directive to not file strike offenses. She said, “Ironically, on the day he swore an oath to uphold the laws of California, Gascon immediately vowed to break them.” “For you criminals, that means the new LA DA is literally willing to break the law to ensure you don’t face the punishment you deserve!”

Sacramento County

Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert spoke with the California Globe about Gascon. George Gascón has never been nor will he ever be a real prosecutor,” Schubert said. “The core principle of being a real prosecutor is standing up for victims’ rights. Within two minutes of being sworn in as the District Attorney of Los Angeles County, he made it abundantly clear that crime victims and protecting the public against violent criminals does not matter to him.” She had endorsed Gascon’s opponent, incumbent DA Jackie Lacey.

On January 12, 2021, Schubert wrote a letter informing Gascon that he would no longer have jurisdiction over any cases involving Sacramento County.

Fresno County

Lisa Smittcamp, the District Attorney of Fresno County sent a scathing letter to George Gascon. She said, “Your Special Directives are extreme, and they are already wreaking havoc on crime victims and ignoring their Constitutional rights,” Smittcamp wrote. “Your lack of concern for victim’s rights and public safety is of great concern to all of us who pride ourselves on protecting those very things. Crime has no boundaries, and these Special Directives will certainly impact areas outside of Los Angeles County.” 

“Criminals, like all human beings, need structure, guidance, authority, rules and order to chart a productive path,” Smittcamp wrote. “Your directives encourage a lack of accountability and responsibility for criminal activity. By discounting their responsibility to be productive members of society, you are hurting them too.” 

San Diego County

San Diego District Attorney Summer Stephan said the new special directives were not in the interests of justice, when she revoked her permission to prosecute an accused robber and cop-killer. She revoked permission after learning that Gascon intended to dismiss the enhancements, which would put parole back on the table for the killer. Gascon replied that the killer would still have to serve 70 years before being eligible for parole. Stephan correctly pointed out that this was not true; he would be eligible for elder parole at age 50, in just 20 years. She also pointed out that Gascon banned his deputies from appearing at parole hearings, including in this case. Stephan said, “I can no longer trust that this DA’s policies will abide by the law.”

Orange County

Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer appeared on Fox News and criticized Gascon. He warned his constituents about the “experiment” that LA was running. He pointed out that Gascon authored Prop 47 and previously ran San Francisco into the ground. “Los Angeles is out of control.”

On Twitter, he said, “I cannot allow what’s happening in Los Angeles to spill into Orange County.”

Alameda County

Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley endorsed Nancy Tung in her 2019 bid to unseat Gascon in San Francisco. O’Malley hired Tung after Tung fled Gascon’s office as part of a mass exodus upon his appointment.

Santa Clara County

Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen supported Prop 47, which was authored by Gascon. On October 26, 2020, he signed an amicus brief along with Gascon opposing the death penalty. The brief was authored by Erwin Chemerinsky, who also supported Gascon.

San Francisco County

Chesa Boudin succeeded George Gascon as the District Attorney of San Francisco County. He has been a strong supporter of Gascon’s since the beginning. Boudin was described as Gascon’s ideological successor. They founded Prosecutor’s Alliance of California, a criminal justice advocacy group.

Did we miss any? Email us at thomas.themis@mail.com

Criminals “Aren’t Worried” About Gascon

Another excellent find by LA Courtfidential on Twitter. Here’s an excerpt from a police report. The officer informs the suspect that they found narcotics. The suspect replies, “Yeah but sales is a cite out now anyways right?” He said, “he knew the new district attorney of Los Angeles was no longer prosecuting most crimes so he stated he “wasn’t worried.”

In other Twitter news, Gascon apparently got mad about his coverage in a local Los Angeles legal paper, the Metropolitan News-Enterprise. He canceled the subscription after 24 years.

Twitter also correctly pointed out that the website looks like it hasn’t been updated since 1996. LA prosecutors reading this news has to wonder about how thin-skinned their new boss is. If he’s willing to cancel a newspaper, what will he do to a deputy that gets him angry?

Gascon ally Mario Trujillo is making news with his Facebook and Instagram posts.

Here’s another problematic one:

Mario’s views seems to be evolving rapidly. Here he is advocating for the death penalty: