The Association of Deputy District Attorneys is a union for deputy district attorneys in Los Angeles. They “strive to advance a work environment that allows our members to focus on their role as the primary guardians of justice in the courts.” Despite that language, the union has remained mostly silent as DA George Gascon has ordered his deputies to violate the Penal Code and ethical rules.
Today, the ADDA sent a letter to county officials, including Gascon, calling his orders in conflict with both the DA’s Office’s and individual prosecutor’s obligations under California law. They said they would request a temporary restraining order.
Gascon’s spokesman declined to comment and referred questions to his lawyer, the LA County Counsel’s Office.
It appears that Gascon is still working closely with Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of Boalt Hall, UC Berkeley’s law school. NBC4 describes what happened.
Almost simultaneously an unsolicited statement was sent to reporters by the UC Berkeley Law School’s Three Strikes Project that said, “We are confident this attempt to obstruct the will of the voters will be struck down.” The Berkeley statement, quoting law school dean Erwin Chemerinsky and director of the Three Strikes Project Michael Romano, said that DA Association’s action shows it has a “longstanding opposition to reform.”
The union intends to go to court on December 30th. They are seeking “a writ of madate, declaratory relief and injunctive relief” against Gascon and the DA’s office.
Update
The lawsuit has now been filed. You can read the documents here. The LA times published a story about the lawsuit that mostly focused on whether enhancements are good or bad, not whether Gascon’s orders are illegal. At the same time, their editorial board wrote that enhancements were bad. The same board endorsed Gascon a few months ago. Some of the reader’s comments to this piece are insightful.
Gascon wrote a statement commending the court for denying LAADDA’s request for a temporary restraining order.
The Metropolitan News-Enterprise has an excellent article discussing the dramatic changes at the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. The most dramatic revelation is that Gascon ignored warnings that his policies were illegal.
District Attorney George Gascón has been told by his office’s Appellate Division that the appeals courts would find no merit in his contention that a judge is obliged to blot out a strike allegation whenever a prosecutor requests it, and has been warned that his effort to thwart the Three-Strikes Law by ordering that no enhancements be sought based on prior strikes could be subject to a challenge in a taxpayer’s action, internal documents show.
The warnings came almost two weeks ago, and no change has been made. The article details two memos, one on December 9 and 10. They set out the requirement that prosecutors file strikes.
By their plain terms, [two Penal Code provisions—§1170.12(d)(1) and §667(f)(1)] require the prosecution to plead and prove all known strike priors.
The memo cites a Jan. 19, 1996 opinion by then-Acting Presiding Justice Norman Epstein of this district’s Div. Four (later presiding justice, now retired) in People v. Kilborn which holds constitutional the limitations on a district attorney’s charging discretion.
Thus, absent a legislative change or intervening case law, the prosecutor must charge all known strikes, […] The district attorney’s office has no legitimate interest in having a policy directly contrary to law.
Gascon responded by declaring the Three Strikes Law unconstitutional. His appellate department, however, made quick work of that. The December 10 memo discusses the law, and concludes, “the prosecutor’s general belief that the Three Strikes law should not be enforced would probably not provide a valid judicial reason to strike a strike.”
This Advice Was Ignored
Notwithstanding that advice, on December 15, Gascon issued an “amendment” to Special Directive 20-08 containing a script for deputies to read.
The script declares that Three Strikes is unconstitutional. The script omits the overwhelming number of cases that are contrary to this position. That led to another memo from the Appellate Department, reminding Gascon that California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.3 “requires attorneys to cite any known, adverse authority.” The script therefore violates ethics rules.
The memos discuss the consequences of noncompliance with the law. They analyzed several court of appeal cases and conclude, “it is at least plausible that the office would have to defend its policy in a civil case.”
This warning is particularly dire, given the heated criticism LADA has recieved from victim’s rights lawyers. For example, Sam Dordulian has been harshly critical of Gascon’s new policies and is speaking out:
Gascon’s special assistant Mario Trujillo gave a sweetheart offer to the client of Traci Blackburn, who donated to his campaign. The offer was apparently negotiated by Tiffany Blacknell, who is a Gascon official. Here’s how it happened.
Traci Blackburn was representing a defendant who was accused of committing murder and multiple attempted murders. On December 15, 2020 she appeared downtown in front of Judge Mark Arnold. She had a hearing on the case with Deputy District Attorney Jeffrey Herring. Although the case was eligible for the death penalty, Herring followed Gascon’s controversial directives to move to dismiss the enhancements. If granted, this would change the case from a death penalty case all the way down to a second degree murder.
Family Members Cry as LADA Dismisses the Enhancements
Judge Arnold asked if dismissing the enhancements was in the interest of justice. Herring gave his new boss’s position. The victim’s mother, father, sister, and other family were at the hearing. They spoke to the Judge Arnold, who tried to explain what was happening. “If he’s found guilty and those allegations were true, yes. It would reduce his sentence significantly, a lot.”
Judge Arnold asked, “What do you think about eliminating all of these allegations that Mr. Herring’s office is looking to eliminate?” A family member replied, “I’m sorry, I don’t think it’s fair.” The judge said, “Do you understand what I’m asking you?” Apparently the family member began to cry and the judge came down off the bench to console them.
Judge Arnold asked, “Why are you crying?” The victim said, “I just feel that we need justice and he needs — it’s not fair that he — doesn’t get as much years.” The judge asked “So you don’t want to see these things get dismissed?” She replied, “No.” The victim’s mother said, It’s not fair that they would lower many years. To me it doesn’t seem fair because – because somebody who is doing harm to people, they should pay.”
Judge Arnold denied the motion to dismiss. “I don’t believe that your stated reasons justify dismissal in the interest of justice.” At this point, Ms. Blackburn jumped in but Arnold cut her off, citing the law regarding 1385 dismissals. He also correctly pointed out that the gun enhancements may only be stricken at the time of sentencing. Then Arnold gave Ms. Blackburn a chance to argue, even though she did not make the motion. She said that the DA can charge a case however they want, and the court cannot interfere. This is George Gascon’s position. “If the charging agency says that they want to delete the charges, I think that’s within their purview. For the court to step in and say they won’t do it” is illegal. Judge Arnold replied, “Tell me any case that says that if they move to dismiss an allegation or a charge, that that in and of itself justifies dismissal.” Ms. Blackburn did not have a case and the judge’s ruling stood.
The Conflict of Interest
Judge Arnold asked Mr. Herring, the prosecutor, if he’d like to go over the 28th. Then, to everyone’s surprise, Blackburn, the defense attorney, told the judge that Mr. Herring was off the case. This was after Mr. Herring hade made his appearance, made a motion, and discussed the case with the victims.
Blackburn informed the court that she had reached a deal to settle the case. Apparently, no one was more surprised than the prosecutor, Mr. Herring. Blackburn told the court, “Mr. Herring is not the attorney of record on this case, it was Mr. Trujillo.” She’s referring to Mario Trujillo, an early supporter and member of Gascon’s new administration. The assigned DDA, Mr. Herring, who was present, said, “It’s news to me that I’m not the attorney of record on this case.” The judge was also confused.
Blackburn said that Mario Trujillo had conveyed her a new offer of seven years. DDA Herring said, no, his supervisors were not making an offer. He said, “I’ve also been told from a separate set of supervisors there is no offer, and that’s why we are in a conundrum today.” Apparently Herring and his supervisors intended to try the case, not settle it at a discount. Blackburn told the judge that despite what the DDA said, his office was making an offer. It came from Mario Trujillo.
Tiffany Blacknell, who is mentioned in the transcript, is another attorney in Blackburn’s office. Although Tiffany Blacknell is a public defender, she worked hard to get George Gascon elected and was on his Public Policy Committee as far back as January 2020. She came under fire in August for calling LAPD “barbarians” and an “occupying army.” She has advocated defunding the police and abolishing prisons.
Tiffany Blacknell and George Gascon. Photo Credit: @lwyrchc on Twitter.com
It is not yet known what her role was in this seven year offer. On its face, it appears that she discussed settlement of this case with the DA’s office at the highest level. It’s unclear if she merely delivered the offer to her colleague Blackburn or actively negotiated it. Blacknell appears to be working for Gascon on his policy goals while working against Gascon for the defendant in this case. Obviously, this seems to put her in a precarious ethical position.
Another problem appears in the transcript. If Trujillo and Blacknell negotiated a disposition behind closed doors, they may have violated Marsy’s Law, as it appears that no one consulted the victim’s family. Indeed, a family member appears on the record and seems very upset about what’s going on. Mr. Herring is the only one that complied with the law and he had no idea that Trujillo and Blacknell were negotiating behind his back.
Herring is the assigned prosecutor on this case. He and his supervisors did not make an offer to Blackburn and her client. In the criminal courts, a “no offer” case is a case where the prosecutor seeks the maximum sentence after trial. The maximum penalty for murder and multiple attempted murders is obviously higher than 7 years.
By contrast, Trujillo’s offer is a fraction of the defendants’ exposure at trial. To him, this was clearly not a “no offer” case. Still more puzzling is why Trujillo decided to undercut his own colleagues. And finally, why did Trujillo not tell Herring what he was doing?
Is This a Scandal?
Traci Blackburn’s conduct as a defense attorney is problematic. She donated money to Gascon and then asked him for leniency. To most people, this looks like a conflict of interest. Tiffany Blacknell’s conduct may be even worse. She may have been working for the DA while negotiating against him on behalf of a criminal defendant. It looks like she used her access to DA administration to go over the head of the assigned attorney to get a sweetheart offer. Court watchers immediately suspected Trujillo of giving Blacknell and Blackburn a lower offer than the defendant deserved because they worked to elect his boss.
One thing seems clear: high-ranking Gascon officials should not be representing criminal defendants or giving away plea bargains to their donors.
After the Transcript Leaked, None of the Involved Parties Could Be Found
Bill Melugn at Fox 11 reported on the follow up hearing, which took place on December 28. Judge Arnold ordered that hearing to clear up who was the prosecutor and what was the offer. But no one showed up. Trujillo, Blacknell, and Blackburn simply did not come to court.
A supervisor from Mr. Herring’s gang unit did show up. He told the judge that any offer made by Trujillo is invalid because it never went through him nor the proper channels. Judge Arnold asked whether Trujillo called him to talk about the case. He replied, “not once.” When Judge Arnold was told the deal was invalid, FOX 11 reports that he said, “It’s a good thing…because there’s no way I could look at myself in the mirror with a plea bargain of seven years on this case.”
Attorney Sam Dordulian is representing the family pro bono. “That’s the kind of back door underhanded unethical deal that is just completely inappropriate, and yet it was done on this case, or yet they tried to do it.” said Dordulian.
LA DA George Gascon published a letter of support today from the LA County Public Defenders Union and other criminal advocates. The letter was not signed by the prosecutor’s union, nor was it signed by any victim’s group or law enforcement group. You can see the full list below.
Gascon’s alliance with these groups is extraordinary, given that they represent criminal defendants, and the DA is sworn to represent the community against criminal defendants. In our adversarial system, the defense bar, including public defenders, typically try to frustrate the district attorney at every turn. Getting their client off, by technicality or advocacy, is their goal. This opposition is based on their role as aggressive advocates from their clients, who have been arrested and charged with crimes. The idea is that aggressive prosecutors advocate the community’s position, while aggressive defenders argue the criminal’s position. Once both sides have had a fair hearing, the judge or jury determines the truth.
In the past, this advocacy has extended out of the courtroom and into the public sphere. For example, the California District Attorney’s Association advocates for “sentencing reform, the death penalty, victims’ rights, body worn cameras, and public safety funding.” Here are some examples from other California prosecutors:
The DA's Office supports more than 13,000 victims of crime every year with a variety of services. But we know we can do even better. That's why DA @SummerStephan hosted the first-of-its-kind Victim & Survivor Summit, which brought together hundreds of community members virtually. pic.twitter.com/l9braSG84S
OCDA's Gang Reduction Intervention Partnership (GRIP) program is continuing our tradition of providing families in-need with holiday dinners thanks to the generosity of partners Ralphs, Food-4-Less and Saddleback Church.https://t.co/Kiab8gXhws
By contrast, advocates for criminals speak out against these measures.
Prosecutors build their careers by targeting Black communities, driving up mass incarceration, and protecting police. Watch @Common talk about the importance of holding prosecutors accountable to the communities they serve. #WinningJustice
Color of Change signed Gascon’s letter. The CDAA, the OCDA, the SDCDA, and the Amador County DA are not signatories to the letter. Indeed, Gascon’s letter seems to underline the radical difference between his office and others. Specifically, he seems to have lost the support of his own office and gained the support of his professional opponents.
In a tweet, Gascon says “opponents to reform are desperately turning to fear-mongering & scare tactics.” This echoes language in the letter itself, which describes “the open resistance and brazen hostility displayed by some judges, commissioners, and even factions of the DA’s staff who oppose Mr. Gascon’s new directives.”
Here’s the full text.
Just weeks into my term, opponents to reform are desperately turning to fear-mongering & scare tactics.
The fight to end LA's complicity in mass incarceration will be long & hard.
Thank you to the co-signers of this powerful statement for your courage & commitment to reform. https://t.co/GwYXgZZghl
“Justice is not served when the District Attorney assumes the role of defense counsel, it will lead to a criminal justice system out of balance that only serves the needs of offenders.”
L.A. County Sheriff w/ what seems like a shot across the bow to new L.A. DA George Gascon. https://t.co/VtTWhJO8Aj
Five defendants thought that 20-year-old Julian Andrade stole their weed. They beat and stabbed him with a metal chair, a rock, and a glass pipe, leaving a pool of blood on the floor of his home. They dragged his unconscious body in the bed of a truck and drove him up Highway 39 into Angeles National Forest. Andrade began to show signs of life in the back of the pickup truck, so the defendants stomped his head until he stopped moving again. Then they threw him off of a cliff. He fell thirty feet from from the side of the highway. When the defendants heard noises from the bottom of the cliff, they climbed down and stomped on his head more to finish him off. Despite this, detectives believe the victim was still alive when the defendants left him to die. Detectives spent two days trying to locate the corpse. The victim was the father of a nine-month-old boy and was expecting another baby.
The victim.
The five defendants are
Andrew Joseph Michael Williams
Hercules Dimitrio Balaskas
Francisco Amigon
Jacob Hunter Elmendorf
Matthew Luzon Martin-Capiendo
Prosecutors under Jackie Lacey filed the most aggressive charges allowed by the legislature. This included enhancements for the the use of a deadly weapon, lying in wait, and kidnapping. The purpose of filing these enhancements was to take parole off the table for the two defendants.
While the case was pending, LA elected George Gascon as district attorney. He forbid his prosecutors from using enhancements. He ordered them to dismiss the enhancements in Andrade’s case; not because they were unprovable, but because he thought they were too harsh. He told his prosecutors that there was no case, no matter how severe, where enhancements could be used. The prosecutors in this case followed his orders.
Andrade’s mother Desiree was in court to watch the charges get dismissed. She saw the defendants. They were “smirking from ear to ear” as it happened. She told Fox 11, “It’s sick. This is all sick. I feel let down by the justice system.” She continued, “they brutally murdered my son.” “Every day I miss my son. I wake up thinking of him. I have panic attacks thinking about the pain he went through and that I was not there to help.” She saw “one of the lawyers giving one of them a fist bump on his shoulder, like ‘good job, way to go.’ Really? They thought my son was dead three different times, and yet, they continued to beat my son to death.”
With the enhancements dismissed, the defendants will be eligible for parole in 20 to 30 years.
Andrade’s mother appealed to LA DA George Gascon. “I feel let down by this justice system. I just ask you, George Gascon, to please think what you’re doing. This is not right, this is not fair on so many levels.”
“I don’t ever want to stand here and tell my grandkids, ‘you know what? The law changed and I just sat back and watched.’ Absolutely not. I’m going to fight for him.”
Image from a family vigil for the victim.
Desiree Andrade’s fight led to widespread criticism of Gascon. A prominent Black Lives Matter leader rallied to Gascon’s defense, saying, “don’t let the assholes who are dead set on maintaining an unjust system sway you.”
BREAKING: We've obtained video of LA D.A. George Gascon at the Pomona courthouse today where he can be heard saying "It's unfortunate that some people do not have enough education to keep their mouth shut so we can talk" as the family of a murdered victim yells at him. @FOXLApic.twitter.com/IkHVhhp25u
Gascon was speaking outside the Pomona Courthouse when he was interrupted by protesting crime victims. One family insulted by Gascon was the family of Joshua Rodriguez, who was kidnapped, tortured, and murdered in 2015. His mother wrote:
I am his mother and Joshua lives inside my heart and everyone else who knew him will say the same. He will not ever be forgotten . His smile alone is so bright it shines even now at such a dark time. Just to think of The laughter that comes with it makes me cry now. […] The shock of my son being murdered was so unreal. I still find myself somewhat in denial to this day that he is gone.
She was upset about Gascon’s new policies. Specifically, Gascon directed his prosecutors to lighten the charges against her son’s killers. She went to the courthouse to protest, which led Gascon to remark, “”It’s unfortunate that some people do not have enough education to keep their mouth shut so we can talk.” Rodriguez’s mother shouted “don’t do this, I’m begging you!” as Gascon walked away, ignoring her. His mother said, “My son can never speak again because he was murdered. He was kidnapped, tortured, and murdered. My son matters.”
After video of the exchange appeared on social media, Gascon put out the following statement:
“While speaking to colleagues outside of the office there were individuals yelling on opposite sides of the crowd. I did not understand what they were yelling about until later, let alone that they were victims. Regardless, it’s not how I should have reacted. Clearly this family is in pain, and I will be contacting them to speak directly and hear them out. The defendants in this case are all facing life in prison.”
The victim’s mother can clearly be heard yelling about her son. Other victims are also protesting about their loved ones. This seems to contradict Gascon’s press release, where he says that he didn’t understand that they were victims. Gascon did not explain why he walked away instead of immediately apologizing.
Special circumstances allegations. (Pen. Code § 187.)
Bail violations or violations of release on your own recognizance. (Pen. Code § 12022.1.)
Firearm allegations. (Pen. Code § 12022.53.)
Newly-elected DA George Gascon’s first order banned the use of all enhancements, period. Although not specifically enumerated, this ban also includes the following notable enhancements.
Sales of controlled substances within 1,000 feet of schoolyard. (Health & Safety Code § 11353.6.)
Trafficking in controlled substances within drug treatment centers, detox facilities, or homeless shelters. (Health & Safety Code § 11380.7.)
Money laundering. (Penal Code § 186.10.)
Recruiting another person to participate in street gang; additional punishment for recruiting minor. (Penal Code § 186.26.)
Fleeing scene after committing vehicular manslaughter. (Penal Code § 192.5.)
Child abuse in form of female genital mutilation. (Penal Code § 273.4.)
Use of deadly or dangerous weapons, or armed with firearm during specified offenses. (Penal Code § 12022.)
Use of firearm or dangerous or deadly weapon during sex offense; or armed with firearm or dangerous or deadly weapon during sex offense. (Penal Code § 12022.3(a)–(b).)
Use of firearm, assault weapon, or machine gun during felony. (Penal Code § 12022.5.)
Here’s a list of enhancements that the new DA initially ordered his deputies not to use, but changed his mind after a two weeks of criticism.
🚨BREAKING Following consultations with community stakeholders, legislators (💚Asm. Bloom) & others New LA DA 👏🏼@GeorgeGascon (TY!) has revised his directive re: enhancements to sculpt narrow exception that includes hate crime & those against elderly, disabled & kids. pic.twitter.com/jzGLg7OgEe
Newly-elected LA DA George Gascon has caused a firestorm with his orders to ignore conduct enhancements in Los Angeles County. This policy leads to the early release for those who commit the most egregious crimes against the most vulnerable victims. The prosecutors that have to carry out these orders are understandably unhappy about it, especially since compliance with the orders are illegal in some situations. Instead of listening to his prosecutors, Gascon asked the defense bar to report them to him, so that he could discipline them. This DA blacklist has only made the crisis worse. Now, Gascon wants to extend the blacklist to judges that won’t go along.
On December 15, Gascon issued a new special directive to his prosecutors. If a judge refuses to allow the prosecutor to dismiss all the enhancements the prosecutor must report the judge to her head deputy. Why? The case of judge Shellie Samuels explains things. Prosecutors had filed a case against four defendants that included enhancements. The prosecutor, in compliance with Gascon’s policy, moved the court to dismiss the enhancements. The court conducted the analysis required by the Penal Code and found that it was not met. She refused to dismiss the enhancements. Someone reported Judge Samuels to Gascon. He responded by “blanket papering” the judge. This is a criminal procedure where the DA can prevent any criminal case from going to a judge. It effectively removes them from the criminal courts. Two days after she was blanket papered, judge Samuels recanted and began to go along.
This blacklist promoted a firestorm on the bench. No fewer than five judges are quoted in opposition by the Met News. The controversy even reached the California Supreme Court. Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakaueye said, “it appears these issues are pending before the Los Angeles Superior Court and may eventually come before this court.”
Responsible district attorneys don’t issue illegal orders to their own employees. They don’t blacklist their own prosecutors for principled non-compliance. They don’t ask the defense bar to report prosecutors for internal discipline. Many hoped that Gascon’s bad behavior would be limited to his own employees. Sadly, he has extended his bullying to the bench. Will it stop there?
Los Angeles City Councilman Paul Koretz is shining a light on one of the most troubling new developments at the LA DA’s office. Newly-elected district attorney George Gascon eliminated special enhancements for hate crimes on his first day in office. Koretz pointed out that hate crimes of all kinds have increased significantly over recent years across the United States in general and in Los Angeles in particular. After two weeks of outcry, Gascon was forced to reverse himself.
Hate Crimes Are Up
According to the Los Angeles County Commission on Human Relations, violent hate crimes grew roughly 65%, to the highest rate reported since 2008. Black people remain the largest group of victims. Even though they are 9% of the population of LA County, they are 47% of racial hate crime victims. White supremacist crime jumped 38%. Black people are also overrepresented as victims of sexual orientation and anti-transgender crimes. 93% percent of gender-motivated crimes were of a violent nature, followed by sexual orientation (79%), race (75%), and religion (32%). Anti-transgender crimes rose 64% to the largest number ever reported.
Los Angeles is experiencing an increase in hate crimes at a time when California is seeing the opposite. The California State Attorney General reported that the number of hate crime events throughout the state decreased 4.8% from 1,066 in 2018 to 1,015 in 2019. Interestingly, the number of hate crime victims in California grew 0.8% percent from 1,237 to 1,247.
Despite these troubling numbers, officials believe the true number of hate crimes is even higher. The US Justice Department reported in 2017 that more than half of all hate-motivated incidents, including hate crimes, were not reported to law enforcement.
The District Attorney Could Do Something About It
The law gives prosecutors the ability to enhance the punishment for those who commit hate crimes. After all, assaulting someone because of their race is worse than simply assaulting them. That’s why the legislature passed Penal Code section 422.75 “Enhanced penalties for hate crimes.” This law was passed to fight bigotry and support civil rights. It was based on a model bill drafted by the Anti-Defamation League, an international Jewish organization dedicating to fighting antisemitism and other forms of hate. Professor Susan Gellman discussed the problem in 1991, when section 422.75 was passed.
Without question, bigotry-motivated crime, like all bigoted action and expression, causes real and serious harm to its direct victims, to other members of the victims’ groups, to members of other minority groups, and to society as a whole. Whatever policy and constitutional problems ethnic intimidation statutes may have, these statutes are the reflection of legislatures’ recognition that these harms are real and significant.
Susan Gellman, Sticks and Stones Can Put You in Jail, but Can Words Increase Your Sentence? Constitutional and Policy Dilemmas of Ethnic Intimidation Laws (1991) 39 UCLA L. Rev. 333, 340
Gellman concludes with this eloquent appeal for the criminal justice to do something. When the criminal justice system “treat[s] racist attacks as pranks, their actions may be viewed by members of disempowered groups as government tolerance or even approval.”
Penal Code section 422.75 is a powerful tool. If a person is convicted of a felony that is also proven to be a hate crime, he will receive and additional prison sentence of one, two or three years. If the hate crime was done in concert with another person, the punishment is an additional two, three, or four years in state prison. For example, if two men beat up a transgender woman, both men could face felony assault charges carrying a maximum sentence of four years. If the assault is proven to be a hate crime, the maximum sentence jumps to eight years. That additional time sends a strong message: hate crimes are not tolerated in Los Angeles. Or at least they weren’t, until now.
Gascon Is Choosing Not to Fight For Hate Crime Victims
The DA is charged with enforcing these laws. The Commission notes, “the District Attorney’s Office handles the great majority of hate crime prosecutions in Los Angeles County.” Before Gascon got to work, his office filed charges in 94% of the hate crimes brought to them by police. That’s 64 defendants. “Of those, 60 adult defendants and four juveniles were charged with hate crime enhancements.” In other words, the vast majority got the additional time they deserved. Under Gascon’s new orders, that number would fall to zero.
That is astonishing. Councilman Paul Koretz is right to speak out. The LA DA went from aggressively protecting the rights of hate crime victims to doing nothing overnight.
On December 18, Gascon reversed himself and allowed the filing of the hate crimes enhancement. This is the second area he had been forced to retreat since his special directives were issued.
The Los Angeles Police Protective League issues the following statement:
“George Gascon is providing a MasterClass on the dangers of a politician running the D.A.’s office instead of an experienced prosecutor. It took a national outcry for him to understand that child rapists, human traffickers and perpetrators of violent hate crimes should spend some more time behind bars. Yet he’s still willing to go easy on gang members who terrorize our neighborhoods or criminals that shoot cops in the back of the head. He still doesn’t get that crime victims need an authentic voice for justice, not a politician that says one thing and does another — we have enough of those.”
There’s another article this morning about the problems created by newly elected LA DA George Gascon. In it, Gascon says criticism is “not surprising to me” because “people have benefited from a system that has been impacting communities in so many negative ways without necessarily producing good results because they had a monetary interest. I know there are people in the criminal justice system across the board both in the private and public sectors that have greatly benefited from mass incarceration…”
It’s not clear to me who he’s talking about. But the resistance to Gascon’s orders is being led by line prosecutors. They are the regular people that try cases in Los Angeles County. Deputy District Attorneys have no financial interest in mass incarceration. They do not get a bonus for every conviction they obtain. They are not evaluated for promotion on the number of convictions they obtain. Nor do they benefit from trial convictions. They don’t get money or promotions from long sentences over short sentences. They are promoted (or not) because of their knowledge of the law and their skill at trial presentation. If there were zero state prisoners, they would get the exact same paycheck.
Maybe Gascon’s not to blame. Maybe he just doesn’t know these facts. In that case, he’s off the hook for his appalling remarks. But he’s not off the hook for his appalling ignorance of the office he’s supposed to lead. After all, he should know how his employees are paid.
On the other hand, maybe Gascon does know that his prosecutors have no “financial interest” in mass incarceration. In that case, saying something you know is not true is called lying. Obviously, it’s wrong to lie, particularly when you’re an elected official and you’re lying to the public about your own employees to persuade people that your employees are acting in bad faith. There are layers and layers of bad conduct there. If Gascon knows that his prosecutors have no “financial interest” in mass incarceration, why tell people that they do? To undermine their argument? To silence them? Or, as I said, the most obvious conclusion, to persuade the public that his own employees are arguing in bad faith?
DA in CA 