Legislation Calling for Independent Police Prosecutor is Unnecessary

By Marc Debbaudt

California Assembly Bill 86, which was introduced this year, seeks to remove District Attorney Offices from reviewing police shootings and deciding if criminal charges should be issued. This bill reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of a prosecutor and the administration of justice.  It is bad public policy and, indeed, would undermine the pursuit of justice and threaten the safety of police officers and residents throughout California.

In the words of famed Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, “a prosecutor should seek justice” when making a decision to file charges.  Seeking justice does not mean filing charges when injustice would result. It does not mean filing charges to satisfy politics, public opinion or make a social statement. And it does not mean a District Attorney’s Office should abandon its role as gatekeeper of justice and pass the buck by filing charges to let the jury decide.

In the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, the Justice System Integrity Division evaluates each civilian death that results from interaction with police.  Their standard for filing charges is whether there is legally sufficient and admissible evidence to prove the defendant is guilty of the charged offenses. The filing prosecutor must conclude that a reasonable fact finder (either a judge or jury) would convict the defendant given the most plausible, reasonably foreseeable defense inherent in the prosecution evidence. This decision is then approved by the District Attorney. It is widely known among participants in the criminal justice system, if not the public, that: “To be reasonable is not to be perfect, and so the Fourth Amendment allows for some mistakes on the part of government officials, giving them fair leeway for enforcing the law in the community’s protection.”  Heien v. North Carolina (2014) 574 US ___ , WL 7010684.

Unfortunately, AB 86 accepts the false notion that local District Attorneys cannot be entrusted with evaluating cases in which a civilian dies after interaction with the police.  Assemblyman Kevin McCarty, who authored the bill, claims “There is skepticism in the current process where local DA’s investigate cops they work most closely with.  To foster better transparency in the process, a common sense reform would be to have an independent review process by the Department of Justice to investigate police shootings where a civilian death occurs.”


In the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office there are nearly 1000 deputy district attorneys. No one is investigating “cops they work most closely with.” That just doesn’t happen in my experience, and this office would not tolerate that kind of obvious bias.

Although the bill’s author claims he only seeks to ensure “the community trusts that fatalities are thoroughly reviewed” and is not seeking the prosecution of more officers, the reality of his goal is different.  The people who mistrust District Attorney reviews will be no more trusting of an independent prosecutor’s reviews unless officers are continually prosecuted.  These critics aren’t upset at the review process; they are upset that more police officers aren’t prosecuted.  One just has to listen to the news to hear countless demands in the aftermath of recent police shootings that the officers should be charged and that it should be left to the “jury to decide” if the action was criminal.

Events in Baltimore illustrate why prosecutions driven by public fervor are terrible public policy.  In announcing her decision to prosecute six officers a scant 24 hours after receiving the case reports,  Baltimore States Attorney Marilyn Mosby made clear she was reacting to perceived public pressure when she stated, “To the people of Baltimore and the demonstrators across America: I heard your call for no justice, no peace.”

Mosby’s decision to prosecute based upon public pressure has created dangerous conditions for law enforcement professionals.  Highly respected  Baltimore Police Commissioner Anthony Batts told the City Council, “If I get out of my car and make a stop for a reasonable suspicion that leads to probable cause but I make a mistake on it, will I be arrested? They pull up to a scene and another officer has done something that they don’t know, it may be illegal, will they be arrested for it? Those are things they are asking.”

As a result, Baltimore police have stopped actively policing.  Arrests in Baltimore have  dropped 50 percent in recent weeks, but not because crime is dropping.  In fact, with 38 homicides, this was the deadliest month in Baltimore in fifteen years.

The  Peace Officers Research Association of California got it right when they stated, “District Attorneys are elected by their counties to handle these types of investigations.  District Attorneys have made decisions for years, and have overseen difficult cases that have been scrutinized heavily by the media and public.  The concern that there would be a conflict of interest between a District Attorney and officers they may work with is unfounded.   District Attorneys routinely prosecute peace officers when they believe there is sufficient evidence to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.  It is a District Attorney’s ethical duty to ensure the fair administration of justice, without regard to who is being investigated.”

AB 86 is bad public policy, plain and simple. It will set in motion a chain of events where police know that their actions will be scrutinized by an “independent” prosecutor, a position created by political pressure to go after the police. This “independent prosecutor” won’t be independent at all but will face public pressure to charge, and instead of making the just decision up front whether to file or not, will instead choose to let a jury decide if an officer’s action was criminal.  The logical response is what we see by Baltimore police officers:  Avoid any situation that may remotely involve the potential of use of force and a potential subsequent prosecution.

Finally, the “skepticism” surrounding police shooting is not a problem that rises to the level of indicting the system and requiring fundamental change. Not to minimize the disturbing nature of legitimate police misconduct when it occurs, it is a statistical anomaly given the number of police officers and crimes they investigate every day, every year, across this nation. That the media sensationalizes the few examples, the actual numbers demonstrate that the system is working at virtual perfection and correcting itself when the anomalies occur. Creating an additional independent prosecutor bureaucracy to address anomalies does not cure the problem, but creates a new one on top of a system that is already operating at a high level of integrity. Nothing is solved, just politics and money thrown at an exaggerated problem creating a whole new opportunity for unexpected consequences and collateral damage.

The Assembly has put aside AB 86 for this year. Let’s hope the bill is killed forever. The proposed law is not just dangerous for police and residents, it’s unnecessary because the Attorney General already has the authority to investigate and prosecute any case in which they believe criminal conduct has occurred.

Marc Debbaudt is President of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys. The view and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of ADDA, which represents nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys.

Fuzzy Math Continues To Drive Public Pension Hysteria

Public employee pension systems are an integral part of recruiting and retaining high-performing public employees. They align the interests of the employer and the employee.  A pension allows attorneys to work for the county District Attorney despite the prospect of a higher income in private practice. Once hired, DDAs have an incentive to stay during the most productive years of their career; and at the end of that career, DDAs can leave the office rather than cling to the job because it is their only source of income.

Pensions are particularly important in public agencies such as Los Angeles County, where employees are not enrolled in Social Security. Instead, a pension is the sole source of guaranteed income during retirement.

A District Attorney’s Office with a 401k plan in lieu of a pension will be an office with short-term and higher-cost employees.  Future DDA’s, with neither Social Security nor a guaranteed pension will undoubtedly demand higher wages to pay bills and fund their retirement-or will leave for  higher or equivalent-paying jobs in which Social Security becomes a backup income stream.

We know from recent media accounts that John Arnold is planning national PR campaign against pensions. While we wait for Chuck Reed and Carl DeMaio to release the initiative details after they finish huddling with the out-of-state handlers who will be funding their pension rollback scheme, we will use this blog to address and debunk some of the dishonest arguments that have been employed against public pensions.

Overstating the costs of public pensions is a staple of pension opponents.  It is sometimes done through outright lies, as seen by Chuck Reed who lied in the run-up to a 2012 pension initiative in San Jose.  When he was mayor of San Jose, Reed repeatedly and falsely claimed the initiative was needed because 2015 pension costs would soar $650 million; a state audit revealed the 2015 projected costs to only be $320 million.   (The actual 2015 costs ended up at $308 million.)  Caught red-handed overstating the pension costs by 100 percent, Reed defended his false and misleading continual use of the $650 million figure by simply proclaiming, “The figure is not overstated, the figure is just a number.”

Another way to overstate costs is to inflate the cost of employer contributions.  Pensions are funded by a combination of investment income and yearly mandatory contributions from employees and employers.  Since annual investment returns cannot be known in advance, pension funds use “assumed rates of return” to estimate investment income for each year, with the balance needed each year coming from contributions. Pension opponents routinely generate headline-grabbing pension contribution costs by using assumed rates of return that are drastically lower than the pension systems’ assumptions because  a lower assumed rate dramatically increases the employer contribution.

Yet another misleading tactic is to compare employer pension costs with prior years where the costs were unusually low. This is done by using as the comparison point a year in which the employer contribution was reduced or eliminated due to a “pension contribution holiday.”  Employers often reduce their contribution in years where higher assets are generated by stock market gains.  As outlined in a 2011 Paul Weber op-ed, using these artificially low contribution rates was a particular favorite of former Governor Schwarzenegger and his “special advisor,” David Crane. They often cited rates from the early 2000’s – which were lowered because of “pension holidays” funded by market gains in the late 1990’s as the comparison for then-current contribution rates.

The current controversy over the University of California system and the increase in tuition and costs, partly to fund employee pensions, is a notable example of how pension holidays end up affecting current operating budgets.  In 1990, the UC system began a 20-year contribution holiday and used money that should have been paid into the pension system to fund ongoing operating costs.  The result: funded status plunged from 156 percent in 1990 to 75 percent in 2010, when contributions resumed.  The funded status would have been 120 percent in 2010 had contributions been made, and today’s larger payments would have been unnecessary.

Most recently, pension opponents have invented an argument that ongoing pension costs are “crowding out” other government services.  In this narrative, every dollar spent to fund pensions is a dollar that could be used to hire more employees or provide more services.  The “crowd out” argument, whether using actual or inflated pension costs, ignores several facts, such as:  the municipal budgets are bouncing back from the lows of 2009; the CALPERS and CALSTRS studies have shown every $1 in pension payments generates $10.85 in economic activity; and that as a result of the Legislature’s 2012 pension reform, public employees are paying more for pensions, with new employees paying 50 percent of the costs.

When all else fails, opponents resort to the argument that public employees should not be exempt from the 401k scheme which, as we outlined in our last column, has failed in its goal to provide retirement income for Americans. This “race to the bottom” argument was the mainstay of a recent pension rollback initiative in Ventura County, where the slogan stated: “public employees should receive a retirement benefit that is no better than the citizens that pay for it.”   Or, as an OC Register columnist recently stated, public employees are simply the lucky ones who get a secure retirement; “Folks watching their 401(k) accounts disappear can attest to that.

We will continue to use this column to update you on the attempt to roll back your pensions, and provide factual information to combat the fallacious arguments that will be used to advance the initiative.  Stay tuned.

Please read our previous blog titled “Your Pension is Under Attack” and if you want to learn more about pensions and get the facts, please visit a great website called Let’s Talk Pensions. It is run by Californians for Retirement Security, a coalition of more than 1.6 million Californians representing public employees and retirees.

The Association of Deputy District Attorneys (ADDA) is the collective bargaining agent and represents nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys who work for the County of Los Angeles.

Reaping the Bitter Rewards of Proposition 47

A recent New York Times story suggested it’s time to reform the criminal justice system because according to the Times, in recent decades, the prison population has risen, while crime has fallen.

The story fails to make a connection between an obvious fact suggested by the statement: there’s a direct correlation between a falling crime rate and aggressive incarceration of violent and repeat felons.  Moreover, as a small segment of the population commits a very large percentage of crime, incapacitating them from doing so prevents them from committing more crime.

What is disturbing is the conversation about drug offenses is being used as cover to roll back effective crime fighting laws that incarcerate the repeat offender.  That was the case with Proposition 47.

Proposition 47 was falsely sold to voters as a sensible and compassionate reform of drug laws and sentences. In reality, under the guise of reform of “victimless” drug offenses, crimes that affect real people were made misdemeanors, which in reality means no punishment.  These offenses include purse snatching, check forgery, repeat shoplifting, theft by those with multiple theft convictions, entering businesses with the intent to steal, with intent to steal, and rather unbelievably gun theft and possession of date-rape drugs.  Along with other law enforcement organizations,  we opposed Prop. 47 not because we were opposed to reform, but because we had real concerns with the proposition.

As frontline prosecutors, we know that the reality is that the primary focus of criminals being prosecuted is twofold: “when am I getting out,” and “how much time do I have to do.”  Any seasoned prosecutor or defense attorney will confirm this.  In fact, countless times, criminals will accept plea deals subjecting them to much longer punishment in the future, just so they can be released today.

More than 115,000 criminals have asked the courts to reduce their sentences from felonies to misdemeanors, according to a recent report by San Francisco NPR station KQED. More than 3,200 – many with violent crime histories -have been released so far from state prisons.

Earlier anecdotal evidence of the law’s effect is troubling. According to a recent  Los Angeles Times report, local narcotics arrests have plunged because it’s not worth officers’ time to process misdemeanor cases.  A Times analysis of crime data shows property crimes, including burglary, theft and motor vehicle theft, surged in much of the county since Proposition 47 passed. Of the nearly 4,500 people that L.A. County sheriff’s deputies arrested on Proposition 47 crimes since early November, more than 460 have been arrested again.

Among other things, the measure provided no incentive for rehabilitation.  As we predicted, the initiative impacted Drug Courts since there is no incentive to do an 18 month to 2 year intensive treatment program when the maximum consequences for a drug conviction is a six month misdemeanor term in county jail. And we know with overcrowding a six month county jail sentence means only a few days or in some cases hours in LA County Jail.  In addition to removing effective sanctions for criminal offenses, the removal of incarceration as a viable consequence has decimated programs the previously successful Drug Courts program.  A key part of ensuring that convicted drug users entered and completed the program was the ability to hold incarceration as a consequence of not following conditions from previous cases.  That effective “stick” has been removed.

The truth is that people who commit crimes change their ways when they want to, on their own timetable. The sad reality is that most criminals haven’t been waiting for the day that numerous community programs could be enacted so they could change their criminal ways.   As the old saying goes, they reform their ways when they are “sick and tired of being sick and tired.”  All the well intentioned “interventions” in the world will not succeed unless the person who is the subject of the “intervention” wants to change.  In the interim, until they reach that state, keeping them locked up and unable to harm society benefits society.

Proposition 47’s legacy will continue to reverberate well into the future. For example, thousands fewer DNA samples are being taken from suspects every month because state law allows police to collect DNA only from felony suspects. Fewer DNA collections will make it much harder – if not impossible – to solve old violent crimes such as murder and rape.

There is a small glimmer of hope. Some state legislators have taken action to address Proposition 47’s most egregious flaws.   Assembly Bill 390 would require anyone convicted of the crimes reduced from felonies to misdemeanors by Proposition 47 to still have to submit their DNA to the state database.  Assembled Bill 150, introduced by Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez, would reinstate the felony grand theft charge for gun theft. “Those who oppose making gun theft a felony must want to keep the punishment consistent with the leniency they are giving sexual predators,” Melendez told us. “I’ll give them this – at least they’re consistent.”

But even if AB 150 passes and Gov. Brown signs it, state voters would still have to amend Proposition 47 to include the bill’s provisions.

The ADDA, along with most California prosecutors and law enforcement agencies, vigorously opposed Proposition 47 because it was an ill-conceived and harmful measure that we knew would have unintended consequences.  We haven’t given up the fight to fix the flaws in the initiative. We will continue to do everything possible to fix the most serious problems with the measure by working with elected officials on reforms, by warning people about its disastrous effects, and by informing them when crimes occur because of it.

One has to wonder how many crime victims it will take for state voters to regain their senses and fix the mess they created when they enacted sweeping reforms to our criminal justice system.

The Association of Deputy District Attorneys (ADDA) is the collective bargaining agent and represents nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys who work for the County of Los Angeles. 

Why are victims playing second fiddle to convicted criminals?

By Marc Debbaudt

Given that prison is full of people who have proven incapable of following the law and respecting the rights of others, it is certainly bad to be incarcerated. Yet, in the debate over prison and punishment in California, the one who should be at the front of the line is being thrown to the back; the victims of the criminals.

For most of us, depriving our freedom would be awful. Incarceration is admittedly a bit more than depriving one of freedom. Incarceration as punishment is compounded by forcing criminals to mingle with other criminals; for most of us, we would not sleep too well. Most of us would do anything to avoid that fate.

The reality is that county jails and state prisons are not pleasant places. One of the reasons our society sentences people to prison is to deter people from committing crime and to send a message that we will take away your freedom. The fact is that the indignities of incarceration are not worth the benefits of committing a crime.

Perhaps the lack of jobs available for criminals when they are eventually freed compels them to commit more crimes. Perhaps their untreated mental health issues overcome good judgment. Perhaps their substance abuse problems were not dealt with sufficiently while they were incarcerated. I’m sure these all play some part in why criminals, when released, voluntarily choose once again to re-offend.

Then, again, perhaps some people choose to commit new crimes for other reasons. It could be that they learned some new ways to victimize others in prison academy, or maybe they are philosophically committed in their exercise of freedom of choice and free will to pursue as a preference the romantic outlaw life-style. Or, maybe incarceration isn’t so bad anymore; perhaps it’s tolerable and being caught committing additional crimes is worth the minor down-side risk.

I know I would not like to be incarcerated. It would be a radical change in my experience of daily life. But, then, I work for a living. My single-parent mother insisted I go to school. She insisted I get up and move and be on time because she had to work, too. My mom insisted I not miss school, because she could not miss work. She insisted I get a job and help pay for college. I didn’t get to just hang out and do nothing.  I didn’t realize until after I was done with college that I had a choice to not go to college.

The fact that recidivism is high does not mean that incarceration failed, unless you decide the only reason for incarceration is to prevent crime in the future. Does Punishment work? I think we can say with certainty that prison stops criminals who are incarcerated from committing new crimes while they are in prison. Isn’t that good enough? Well, maybe they commit new crimes against other prisoners.
Is incarceration effective? That is, does it teach the criminal a lesson that changes his or her life and dissuades them from committing future crimes? Maybe not. But is that a reason not to do it? Perhaps it simply does not matter if punishment works.  Perhaps it is enough that it is deserved.

What does our society do for the victims of crime? There is no government program that provides free one-on-one counseling after their lives have been traumatized, their property stolen. The government provides convicted criminals countless services, all devoted to improving the criminal’s life. The victim-a mere afterthought whose name appears merely to be the necessity by which the criminal can obtain those benefits. It reminds me of the old joke: Want to have your country rebuilt? Just declare war on the United States.

Well, prison is one source of restitution for victims. To the victims, whose voices are seldom heard, it does not matter if crime is reduced or eliminated by the use of punishment. What matters is that the criminal is punished for the criminal act they committed. Victims I work with on a regular basis aren’t really concerned that incarceration changes the life of the criminal. In fact, they may not even enjoy hearing about all of these noble efforts by the government to help criminals change their lives, which often times do not work. That is not their first priority.

Are there really methods more effective then incarceration as punishment that truly reduce future crimes and change the pattern of harmful criminal negative behavior?  Are they cheaper than incarceration? How effective are they? Do they serve justice to the victim of crimes? I think the evidence proves that there are no effective alternatives that make a sufficient statistical difference to warrant the expense.

While some people may disagree, punishment by incarceration is valuable if it accomplishes nothing more than making a victim of the crime feel better. And sometimes, it is an incentive that probably helps at least some prisoners reduce their criminal inclinations. As a lifelong prosecutor who has worked with countless victims, I tire of hearing that punishment does not help criminals or that recidivism is a good reason to get rid of our system of jails and prisons and replace them with expensive malarkey.

Why is this debate always focused on what is good for the prisoner, and not the victim?

Marc Debbaudt is President of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys. The view and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of ADDA, which represents nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys.


Punishment, Not Programs

By Marc Debbaudt

The history of criminal rehabilitation is the history of failure. Efforts to reform outlaws by creating programs that encourage them to change their behavior may seem noble. But they just don’t work.

Most of our current rehabilitation programs are enormously expensive wastes of time. Of the diversion, Prop. 36 and drug court models, the latter was the most successful because it carried with it the sting of incarceration as an incentive to abide by the rules. But even the best drug court in Los Angeles County succeeded only around 25 percent of the time. The misguided social experimenters are selling nonsense in the guise of unreflective compassion for the criminal. The few criminals who benefit simply don’t justify the colossal expense we incur for the majority who fail.

The most successful method of rehabilitation should be providing the education that criminals failed to obtain when they were young. More than four-fifths of the people behind bars have a history of absenteeism and dropping out of school. But even education doesn’t work. Why? Because failed parenting has led to a failed education system. But sadly, there is little social will to address anything as sacrosanct as parenting.

Deterrence is another approach to discouraging criminal offenders. It is based on the hope that consequences and accountability will dissuade people from committing crimes. Denying someone’s freedom used to be one of the greatest punishments available. Prison was so bad you never wanted to go there and or return after you were released. But today’s prisons are no longer god-awful places. We give prisoners books, magazines and TVs. We allow them ample opportunities to exercise, smoke, make alcohol, inject drugs and have tattoos etched all over their bodies. They get free medical and dental care. No wonder there so many recidivists who choose to keep going back to jail, prison or the penitentiary.

Rehabilitation, education and deterrence have all proved to be woefully inadequate approaches to deterring crime. That leaves us with one alternative: punishment.

Punishment is the concept that the criminal deserves to suffer for what he or she has done. When defense attorneys inform me that their client needs therapy and a program, I respond: “The greatest therapy is accountability. The greatest program of accountability is state prison.” But now that temple of accountability is failing just as profoundly as deterrence. When one federal judge declares that state prison is overcrowded, that’s all it takes to set hordes of inmates free. As a result, there is no accountability, and what little accountability is left is being undermined as too expensive.

The shrill supporters of rehabilitation shriek that the annual per-inmate cost of imprisonment is $40,000 a year. That’s certainly enormous. But their fiscally based argument is specious. Freeing criminals doesn’t save money; it’s simply a shell game that shifts the money to failed rehabilitation programs. Moreover, we’re never told how much it costs to set a criminal free. How much to place him on parole or probation or in a program that doesn’t work? How much does the next crime he commits cost the individual who is harmed or society in general? How many crimes does he commit before he gets caught? How much does it cost to catch him, arrest him, investigate the new crime, and prosecute him in the courts once again?

We’re not really saving money by setting criminals free. We’re passing the buck. For a few dollars more up front, we could save tons down the road.

Marc Debbaudt is President of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys. The view and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of ADDA, which represents nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys.

Protecting Your Identity & Privacy in the Digital Age

By Michele Hanisee

When considering privacy protection the most important piece of information that can be relayed is: DO NOT WAIT until there is a credible threat to take measures to protect yourself and your family!

In the digital age, personal online information is seemingly endless. Nevertheless, there are multiple ways to proactively protect yourself and your family within the following areas of vulnerability:

  • Public Records
  • USPS
  • Internet Data Vendors
  • Private Businesses / Direct Marketers
  • Social Media

Property Records

The same county that pays your salary will sell your residence address to anyone willing to pay for it. Real estate records are public records and cannot be made confidential. You have one of two options, either don’t own real estate or buy the property under the name of a blind, inter vivos revocable trust.

It is optimal to put your property in the trust when you make the initial purchase. Buying property in your own name and then transferring it to the trust after-the-fact is ineffective as it is obvious in the property records that the property is still owned by you.

The main hurdles to this type of property holding is that many banks will not approve a mortgage if the person assuming the loan does not hold title to the property, and even if you do get a loan, you may not be able to refinance and keep it in the name of the trust. Moreover, due to these difficulties you may end up paying a higher mortgage rate.

Nevertheless, if you are able to place your property in a trust, it’s important to remember not to name the trust after yourself. The “Your Name Trust” doesn’t hide your identity. In fact, avoid using your family name at all and don’t make either yourself or a family member who shares your last name the primary executor as the name of the primary executor vests as part of the title to the property. That said, bank rules change constantly. The bottom line is, when purchasing real property, talk to your bank about your options and then consult an attorney to form the trust to comport with what the bank needs.

Assuming you are successful in purchasing your residence under a blind trust, all it does is prevent someone from getting your address from the registrar recorder. It does not inhibit data vendors who find your address through other means and sell it on the internet.

Marriage Records

If you were married in California and have identifying information on your marriage license, you should consider applying for a confidential license. In order to obtain such a license, you must be living with your spouse at the time you apply and must sign an affidavit on the license attesting to those facts and, as mentioned, you must be married in California.  You must also file the license in the county where it was purchased.

Persons other than the married couple requesting copies of a confidential marriage license may only do so by presenting a court order to the County Clerk in the county where the license is registered.

Department of Motor Vehicles

Under California law, certain occupations, (police officers, DA’s Judges, etc.) allow for confidential of DMV information. Designated persons, their spouses and children may request home address confidentiality on any DMV record for any vehicle, driver license or identification card reflecting the qualified person’s name. The qualified requester must submit a properly completed Request for Confidentiality of Home Address (INV 32) through their employer to the DMV. The INV 32 must contain the driver license number and each vehicle, vessel, or OHV (newly purchased or transferred to) license plate that contains the qualified person’s name as the registered or legal owner. An INV 32 is required every time a qualified person’s name is added to or deleted from a registration record.  To obtain an INV 32, please contact: LADA, Human Resources

Still, none of this keeps your information confidential from people who work at the DMV so use your work address for your vehicle registration and driver’s license.

Confidential Voter Registration

Voter registration information is largely overlooked public record.  However, pursuant to Elections Code 2166.7, public safety officers are eligible for confidentiality in such records. Here are some tips to help you make the switch.

First, you can’t get the form online; you will have to call in. Second, due to voter fraud regulations, you can’t use your office address and will have to use your home or an alternative address. Finally, it’s important to remember that any person granted confidentiality shall be considered an absentee voter.

In theory, the registration lasts 2 years before you need to renew, but, in practice, the L.A. Registrar / Recorder County Clerk leaves you on indefinitely.


Remarkably, when you move and forward your mail, the postal service gives away your new address and sells your new address to data vendors. Whenever you fill out a change of address form with the United States Postal Service, the USPS adds your new details into a database of 160 million previous address changes over the past four years. The USPS has deals with data brokers to sell this data to anyone who pays, provided they have your old address.

There is no opt-out option on the USPS web site to avoid having your data sold to data vendors.  Your best option is not to forward your mail but to contact each company, magazine, etc. on your own, individually.

Finally, one of the simplest ways of preventing data vendors from obtaining your home address is to use a P.O.Box.

Internet Data Vendors and Govt. Code 6254.21

Govt. Code 6254.21 prohibits a person, business, or association from publicly posting display on the Internet the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official if that official has, either directly or through an agent, made a written demand to not disclose his or her home address or telephone number. A written demand must be complied with within 48 hours of delivery, it applies to that internet web site, subsidiary site, or any other internet web site maintained by the recipient of the written demand, and it prohibits the transfer of the information to any other person, business, or association through any other medium.

A written demand is effective for four years, regardless of whether or not the official’s term has expired prior to the end of the four-year period. Your ADDA is now able to make this demand on behalf of members.  If you wish to have the ADDA act as your agent, please fill out the Internet Privacy and Indemnity Agreement here.

Direct Marketing

You know when you order something from Restoration Hardware and almost immediately after you receive catalogs from a number of other companies that you’ve never purchased from? That is due to direct marketing. Vendors sell your private information. However, you’re not without recourse. The Direct Marketing Association (DMA) compiles lists of consumers who prefer not to receive direct-mail solicitations for other products and services. DMA members, including Experian, use the DMA list to remove names from their own mailing lists.  You can register online at: www.dmachoice.org. Or, you can write to: DMA Mail Preference Service, PO  Box 643, Carmel, NY 10512.  You will be removed from DMA-member lists for five years.

You also can have your name removed from telemarketing lists by adding your name to the National Do Not Call Registry. To register your name, visit www.donotcall.gov or call 1 888 382 1222.

The Internet and Social Media

The consequences of this informational medium seem obvious but it’s an area in which you need to talk to both your immediate and your extended family. Ways to stay safer: don’t put information about your valuables on the internet; don’t put information about your vacation on the internet until you are back home; and disable geotagging features that tell people where a photo was taken. Be aware of what your extended family is posting on their social media.  Do they identify you as their relative? Does they provide information about you that you would prefer to keep private?

Basic Home Security

Discuss with your immediate family about how to handle someone calling them or showing up at their door inquiring about you. Additionally, home precautions you should consider include: alarm systems, motion sensor lights, security cameras, locked back yard, dead bolts, guns, car alarms.

Michele Hanisee is Vice President of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys.  The view and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of ADDA, which represents nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys.

The Safety Of Deputy District Attorneys Is A Growing Concern

Since Deputy District Attorneys (DDAs) interact with violent criminals on a daily basis, there is potentially some element of danger in the job. After all, that is why courtrooms have armed bailiffs.

However, recent events have seen the DDAs affected directly by the rise in crime, both in the courthouse and on the way to the courthouse. In recent months, a number of DDAs have been attacked in court: a defendant punched a DDA in open court, a DDA had feces and urine thrown on them during a preliminary hearing; shots were fired at the Compton Courthouse; and, a Deputy DA was stuck by a chair thrown by a defendant.

In addition, the streets that DDAs have to traverse to get to the courthouse have become more dangerous. A DDA was stalked by a juror who discovered her home address. There are also ongoing issues at the downtown homeless encampment which included a head deputy witnessing a knife assault, another DDA crossing the street only seconds before a homeless man fired several shots and chased a motorcyclist, not to mention the recent murder by a homeless person next to a parking lot used by DA employees.

We strongly urge all of our members to stay away from the homeless camps in the Civic Center homeless area due to the number of assaults and we remind you to exercise caution while going to and from your vehicles.

We know that the danger to DDA’s is not confined to the workplace. The danger that a vengeful criminal may lash out at the prosecutor on his case, be it shortly after the conviction or years later, is always in the back of our minds-and for good reason. In 2013, a Texas District Attorney and his wife were killed at their home, and the prosecutor on the case was shot dead outside the courthouse-they were all murdered by a criminal convicted the previous year.  Here in California, a former Marin County DDA was shot and killed at his law office in 1986 by a man he had convicted of arson 30 years before.

As an Association, we are taking the necessary steps to protect DDAs. We have informed the Bureau of Investigation about the attacks and incidents and have asked them to issue a warning bulletin. We have had meetings with District Attorney Jackie Lacey’s office to discuss the recent events and ways to increase and improve security for DDAs. In addition, we ask the membership to inform the Association of any threats or attacks on them, so that we can continue to ensure that the Administration and Sheriff’s Department are aware and have knowledge of all incidents and respond appropriately.

In the interim, you can take some simple steps on your own to enhance your safety. These range from not answering your door without looking through a peephole or knowing who is on the other side, to taking different routes to and from work each day, to maintaining a heightened sense of awareness in and around the courthouse. It’s a sad reality that everyone who enters a courthouse these days can pose as a potential threat.

The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s intranet contains a safety manual and a General Office Memorandum (GOM) on safety. You can find it in the “About Us” tab.

In addition, there are two good articles, Taking Precautions: 101 Personal Safety Tips for Judges and Court Staff and Court Security that have a host of helpful safety and security tips; we urge you to read them thoroughly. Next week, we will let provide you with information on how to better protect your privacy.

If you have any ongoing concerns about courthouse safety, please contact an ADDA board member. A complete listing of board members and our emails can be found at www.laadda.com.

The Association of Deputy District Attorneys (ADDA) is the collective bargaining agent and represents nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys who work for the County of Los Angeles. 

Creation of unit to review wrongful-conviction claims the right move

The Association of Deputy District Attorneys (ADDA) applauds Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey’s efforts to ensure the integrity of our convictions. We especially recognize the importance of this new program, because our sacred duties as prosecutors do not end when we convict the guilty. Our goal is to do justice. This requires review of new evidence that may exonerate those previously convicted. It requires us to make sure that proper procedures were observed during the trial process. Yet, the integrity of this review process requires people who have an obligation to seek the truth rather than those who seek to further an agenda or to enrich themselves.

Our hope is that these internal reviews will ensure that witnesses are not pressured to recant their testimony, that evidence is not fabricated, and that the entire record will be reviewed and not simply selected pieces of evidence that are taken out of context. Our hope is based upon the ethical requirements of a prosecutor-which require us to seek the truth rather than simply advocate for one side-that these reviews will be balanced, fair, and accountable.

Who better to conduct these reviews than those whose goal is to seek the truth? The public prosecutor sits in the best position to review these cases, because our job requires impartiality. When defense attorneys are reviewing prior cases, they have an ethical duty to represent their client and gain his release-no matter how lofty sounding the name of the organization. This duty of a defense attorney does not afford the luxury of reviewing evidence in an impartial fashion. It requires a partisan bent.

This is why Ms. Lacey’s desire to create an impartial, independent, fact driven review unit is a worthy project. This is why the ADDA supports such an effort.

The Association of Deputy District Attorneys (ADDA) is the collective bargaining agent and represents nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys who work for the County of Los Angeles. 

Your Pension is Under Attack

What if, two years from now, the County of Los Angeles decreed that you could keep the pension benefits you had accrued, but the level would be frozen for the rest of your career?  Or that you would have to pay 30 percent of your salary to continue to accrue future service time?

For more than 60 years the California Supreme Court has consistently held that, under the contract clause of the state Constitution, public employees are entitled for the duration of their employment to the pension formulas that were in place when they were hired. This is known as the California rule. Any reduction to a pension formula during employment must offer a benefit of equal or greater value.

But this rule, and public pensions, have been under constant attack for the past decade and blamed for every imaginable ill and financial problem in government. The mantra is that we would have the money to fix potholes and keep parks open if not for those awful public employee pensions. A recent Los Angeles Times editorial urged rejection of a miniscule 2 percent annual raise for LAPD officers on the grounds that it would increase pension costs, ignoring the fact that the LAFPP fund is 86.6 percent funded and growing.

The threat to public pensions has never been greater; a trio are seeking to place a measure on the 2016 ballot to change the California Constitution and remove public employees from the protection of the contract clause. They are termed-out San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed; failed mayoral and congressional candidate/ talk show host Carl DeMaio; and the head of the Ventura Taxpayer Association, Dave Grau.

Former Mayor Reed managed to pass a “pension reform” measure in San Jose in a low-turnout election, but major parts of it have been put on hold by court rulings based on the “California rule”.  Nevertheless, fallout from the election saw San Jose police ranks plunge from the authorized 1,400 to just 800, as police officers fled for other departments rather than wait for court rulings.

It seems that Reed, Grau, DeMaio and their ideological cronies want public employees to share the same meager retirement options of most private-sector Americans, who have seen their pensions taken away and replaced with a failed system known as the 401k.  A recent article about what it takes to retire is an eye-opener on the system’s failure.  The median 401k account holds just $18,000; among those aged 55-64 and on the cusp of retirement, the savings was a paltry $76,000.  It’s no wonder that a 2014 Wells Fargo survey found one-third of all Americans, and one-half of Americans in their 50s, intended to work until their 80s because they did not have money for retirement.  Our pension plan, funded by employee and employer contributions and investment returns, has been in existence for almost 80 years.  It is a model for a dignified and secure retirement, as opposed to a 401k.

Pensions are worth fighting for because they provide a dignified and secure retirement while delivering a benefit to the public by ensuring a stable and career work force. Eliminating pensions, by contrast, leads to high employee turnover and the decimation of a career work force.  In Alaska, public safety employees who were hired after the state stopped pensions for new workers in 2006 remain on board an average of just three years. (Never mind that the promised savings from ending pensions did not materialize – we will save that for another blog.)

The good news is that anti-pension measures have been defeated in recent years, notably in Phoenix and Cincinnati. Defeating these measures took public employee groups and elected officials joining together to educate the public about pensions.  We at ADDA are going to engage in this fight – by regularly educating our members so you can educate your family, friends and neighbors and by joining other public safety employee groups to mobilize against this initiative.  We will continue to voice our opinions publicly, both to the media and elected officials.   If you want to learn more now about pensions and get the facts, please visit a great website called Let’s Talk Pensions run by Californians for Retirement Security, a coalition of more than 1.6 million Californians representing public employees and retirees.  Stay tuned.

The Association of Deputy District Attorneys (ADDA) is the collective bargaining agent and represents nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys who work for the County of Los Angeles.

Prosecutorial Misconduct is not an Epidemic!

By Marc Debbaudt

There is an old, well-known aphorism in the practice of criminal law: When the facts are against you, argue the law. When the law is against you, argue the facts. When both the facts and law are against you, attack the police, the prosecutor and the judge.

This works, and works well, when it works, which is rare. A guy commits a crime. He gets caught. He goes to court. The evidence is overwhelming. The law grants him no quarter. There is no legitimate defense. Just when you think the gavel is about to pound on the bench and the guy is going to be held accountable and punished, the ugly claim of misconduct rears its mighty head.

Most of the time, like almost every single time, the defense accusations and claims of misconduct are without substance and false and go nowhere, like most of what the defense says. The cops did nothing wrong. The prosecutor did nothing wrong.

If you would believe the defense, everything is an illegal search or seizure. Everything is a failure of proof and everywhere there is insufficient evidence. Everything is a violation of the right to privacy. Cops are running rogue and trampling on the Constitution. Anarchy is more prevalent in the courtroom than on the mean streets. Prosecutors are hiding or withholding or fabricating evidence.

Every single day across the nation a plethora of defense attorneys beg for lesser sentences, spew conceptual garbage in the courtrooms, twist and distort facts, grovel for mercy, and try to sell nonsense about their “unfortunate” clients either to judges and jurors. The only safeguard against their ludicrous requests are diligent prosecutors. Who reports that?

Everyday our time is wasted by this nonsense. Every single day citizens pay taxes to hire defense attorneys to represent criminal defendants and then pay more to man the courtrooms where the defense spews their nonsense. Cops are fabricating and lying. Blah, blah, blah. Prosecutors have done something awful to warrant a mistrial. Blah, blah, blah. These unsubstantiated, exaggerated and outright false claims by defense attorneys are universally forgiven and ignored in some mythology that this is their job and it must be tolerated. An exorbitant amount of courtroom time is consumed by this endless defense garbage where they are granted opportunity after opportunity to convolute and confound the truth.

When Cool Hand Luke’s mother died, they led him to the sweat box, because they wanted to discourage him from getting the idea of escaping from the prison. The guard said: “Sorry, Luke. I’m just doing my job.” Luke responded: “That don’t make it right.” I say, the defense claim that all the nonsense they pull is justified by the fact that they are just doing their job, well, it doesn’t make it right.

When the legal and factual arguments are eliminated by a good prosecutor, the personal attacks increase. Being attacked as a prosecutor is an all-too-frequent occurrence. Defense attorneys make it their job to find imperfections and, more frequently than not, exaggerate the fault they find.

Ironically, accusations of misconduct are generally a good sign that a prosecutor has done an excellent job and pinned down the defendant by marshaling the available facts and the law, shutting down any and all of the many contrived defenses in the guilty person’s effort to avoid accountability and responsibility, all in the pursuit of justice. That’s the job. If the defense is attacking a prosecutor, as a general rule, he or she must be doing something right. But this isn’t the way it is spun in the press or by the defense.

I tell you here and now that claims of prosecutorial misconduct are more often than not proof the prosecutors are doing a great job for the People of this state.

Most of the time, nearly invariably, the personal attacks and allegations of misconduct are fabricated and without grounds and they fail. But on those rare and infrequent occasions when there is a legitimate basis for the attack, well, Boohah! Geronimo! Cowabunga! You would think the earth opened up and swallowed Atlantis! It is like the The Ballad of Jed Clampett, the theme song of the Beverly Hillbillies. The hillbillies were all caught up in the basic business-of-living as usual, but due to the unforeseen consequences of a random act the entire life of a bunch of unsophisticated hillibillies changed overnight.

The Ballad of the Defense Attack on the Prosecutor

Come and listen to a story about a defense attorney named Jed
A poor defender, barely kept his client’s head,
Then one day he was claiming something crude,
Now instead of the defendant, the prosecutor’s being sued.

Misconduct that is, black gold, Brady tea.

Well the first thing you know ol Jed’s yelling: “It ain’t fair”
Press said: “Free his client from that concrete lair”
Said: “Prosecutor delivered to them the rusty key”
So they opened up the gates and set his client free.

Those on the inside know that when the defense resorts to an attack upon a prosecutor it is compelling evidence that the prosecutor is doing a good job! Yet, that doesn’t stop them!

Armed with this tactic, having nowhere else to turn, the defense regularly seeks to ferret out evidence of prosecutorial misconduct. They are like boars that sniff out truffles [a relatively rare subterranean fungus]. Frankly, the failure of the defense to find more examples of prosecutorial misconduct is a testament to the general widespread epidemic of the integrity of prosecutors. It is more proof that prosecutorial misconduct is a rare thing and that the vast majority of prosecutors are good, honest and fair. They look and look for it, yet rarely if ever find it!

Defense attorneys who snort all about trying to uncover these infrequently discovered bad prosecutors, do so, for the most part, because they have learned that they can’t really win by overcoming the evidence that their client is guilty. Further, more likely than not, they are completely unable to provide any compelling evidence that their client is innocent. Like finding a gem the size of the Hope Diamond on the beach, on those few occasions when the defense actually discovers some misconduct we all have to hear endlessly about how outrageous it is. We all must suffer it, though it has nothing to do with the vast majority of us, while the defense and the press milk it until it is dry, celebrate the rare discovery, and blow it all out of proportion.

They may win their case now. They may have managed to free a bad guy not because he is innocent, but because a prosecutor did something he or she should not have done, which probably pales in comparison to what the bad guy did.

Recently in the Daily Journal there was the report on a prosecuting attorney’s fabrication of interrogation testimony. The court held that this behavior was egregious misconduct that prejudiced the defendant’s right to counsel and merited dismissal of the charges. The case was People v. Velasco-Palacios C.A. 5th DAR p. 3297 3/25/15.

In that case the defendant was charged with lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under 14 years of age. He was represented by a deputy public defender. The prosecutor offered a deal which the DPD turned down, and the DDA threatened to withdraw the charges and add more serious ones involving penetration and a possible life sentence. However, apparently unable to find evidence of penetration, the DDA fabricated interrogation testimony implying that the defendant admitted to such acts. Specifically, the prosecutor added these two lines:

Detective: “You’re so guilty you child molester.”
Defendant: “I know. I’m just glad she’s not pregnant like her mother.”

Ouch! That is depraved. When the DPD learned of this fabrication, he moved for a dismissal. In response, an affidavit was offered that the DPD told the DDA that the defendant had no viable defense. As a result, the PD’s office removed the DPD from the case. I assume another DPD was allowed to represent the defendant. Thereafter, the court dismissed the charges.

The court held: “Murray [the DA] deliberately altered an interrogation transcript to include a confession that could be used to justify charges carrying a life sentence….Further, Murray did not reveal the alterations until nine days later, and only then when he was directly confronted…by defense counsel. This is egregious misconduct and…it directly interfered with defendant’s attorney-client relationship.”

The rule of law is that where government misconduct is so egregious that it prejudices a defendant’s constitutionally guaranteed right to counsel, federal and California precedent supports dismissal as an appropriate remedy. A defendant’s right to counsel is prejudiced when government misconduct forces his or her retained or appointed counsel to withdraw.

This case, and the recent and ongoing barrage of editorial hit pieces in the newspapers about prosecutorial misconduct, got me to thinking. This is what I thought:

In People v. Velasco-Palacios basically a DA lied and that lie caused the removal of the defense attorney, and disrupted the prosecution of the case. This is wrong and the DA should be punished. Obviously. No doubt about it. The prosecutor crossed the line.

But, let’s see. Umm…the defendant allegedly molested a child, right? Uh, that seems to me to be a little worse than lying. Well, really, it seems to me to be a lot worse than lying. So, while the DA should be punished and removed from the prosecution of the case, why can’t the case go forwarded with the remaining evidence that is untarnished? Why does this justify permitting the defendant to escape accountability for molesting a child? I don’t think it should.

Why? Because, uh, supposedly this will teach other prosecutors who may consider fabricating evidence not to do that? I don’t think we need to be taught not to do that. I think we already know not to do that. I don’t think dismissing the case teaches us anything. I think punishing us for misconduct teaches that prosecutor something. Probably he should be a prosecutor anymore. But dismissing the case teaches the rest of us prosecutors nothing. It teaches the defense to look for more misconduct when everything else fails.

So, is the just result allowing the defendant to go unpunished for child molestation? Yeah, I really don’t think so.

What isn’t rare at all, but occurs all too frequently, is way too common and, consequently, is of so little interest to the media pundits that they fail to report it, are the criminals who are justly convicted of often horrendous crimes daily by prosecutors with integrity. Every day, every single day, police do a good job of keeping their communities safe, gathering compelling evidence of crime, and arresting obviously and clearly guilty criminals. Every single day across the nation honest prosecutors with an abundance of integrity convince good people called jurors that defendants are guilty and deserve punishment for their crimes. No one reports this. No one celebrates this.

Better Call Saul. S’all good, man.

A corrupt defense attorney is more interesting than a prosecutor with integrity. These simple, daily, indisputable defense attorney horrors perpetrated by masters of obfuscation all on behalf of criminal defendants are all but forgotten in the titillation of that moment when the rare opportunity arises to condemn a prosecutor. There is no better score for a defense attorney. Defense attorneys battle on behalf of the law breakers. They accomplish the release of their client, not because he was the wrong man, but because they scored some dirt on one of those who happen to be on the side of the law keepers. It’s a big, big score!

Criminals do bad things all the time, everyday, everywhere. Prosecutors occasionally, albeit rarely, cross the line trying to convict these bad people. They shouldn’t. Really, they shouldn’t. But let’s be honest. Who is worse? Criminals who do bad things or prosecutors who try to convict them?
While prosecutorial misconduct is undeniably bad, most of the time it isn’t a crime like murder or rape or child molestation or residential burglary or robbery. Fabricating evidence is really as bad as it gets with most of those rare examples of prosecutorial misconduct. Most of the time, on those rare occasions when it does happen, prosecutorial misconduct involves breaking of a procedural rule. Not good, of course. Criminals, on the other hand, are all too frequently engaged in law breaking where all too frequently someone is actually hurt physically. Violations of rules versus violations of law.

There’s a big difference. Am I going out on a limb here when I claim: One is far worse than the other?

What isn’t rare at all are defense attorneys who daily waste time and money arguing nonsense and constructing tall tales, who file frivolous motions, who attack and condemn everything done by the prosecutor the police, the law enforcement agents, or the judges. Are these defense attorneys lambasted by the press? Do judges announce to the world the epidemic of slime by the defense? The gross waste of time while they make preposterous and unsubstantiated claims? Nope. Instead, on those rare occasions when a prosecutor is brought down, now, that is newsworthy.

Yet, everyday it seems, the broadcast news, the newspapers, the reporters and defense attorneys, and others who literally embrace criminals, you can actually come to court and watch some defense attorneys hug their documented tattooed gang member clients, focus on bringing down the extremely rare and few and far between prosecutors who cross the line. Why? They ceaselessly try to bring down the prosecutors, the police and the judges, and relish and cherish and celebrate the few times they succeed, and from that success derive their outlandish claims and assertions. From these extremely rare occurrences they generate a statistic from which they extrapolate that the entire system is ill and in need of radical change. I say enough. I say bullshit.

Make no mistake. Prosecutorial misconduct is bad. It would be wrong to even think I disagree one iota with that undeniable truth. But, let’s put it in perspective.

First, There is a difference between innocence and not guilty. Jurors do not vote “innocent.” They vote “not guilty.” Innocence means that a person is pure and wholesome, untouched, inexperienced and unblemished, untainted. Innocent of the crime means the accused did not do that particular crime. The vote of reflected in a not guilty verdict does not mean that the guy is a saint or a decent man. Not guilty does not mean that the person did not do this particular crime. The defendant may be guilty as sin. Not guilty means that the jury believed that the prosecutor did not present sufficient evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did this particular crime.

Keep in mind that we are talking a criminal justice system that places the highest legal burden of proof that exists in the world on the prosecutor to prove that a person committed a crime. A jury can award lots of money in a civil case to a party who convinces the jury by a mere preponderance of the evidence that the civil defendant is responsible; but a prosecutor must convince a jury that a criminal defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the highest and hardest burden of proof in the law. You would think freedom is more important than money in such a system.

What does innocent mean? Does it mean that a decent law abiding person was falsely accused of a crime? Because that is the rarest of the rare.
Yes, it has happened; and yes it gets a ton of press when it does, but it is meaningless in terms of the system because it happens so infrequently that nothing can be extrapolated from it. Like a whale that swims up a river, it happens, but quite rarely, and it gets a lot of press when it does. Again, more often than not those accused of crimes who are truly innocent are extremely rare.

More often, when the possibility of innocence is claimed in a criminal case, it doesn’t have to do with the character of the person who is accused. Typically, most defendants would not be described as innocents. Most people accused of crimes have lived a life of crime and have criminal histories or priors which are the landmarks of their accomplishments. Rather than witnessing a so-called “innocent” person beat the case, what we witness instead is a criminal who has engaged in a life of crime or who has a history of prior convictions and arrests, and was simply innocent of this particular crime on this particular day. He is innocent, but not an innocent. Oddly, that too is rare in the system. It happens, but not all that frequently.

But, make no mistake, simply because a verdict is returned that the defendant is not guilty does not mean he is either type of innocent. It doesn’t mean his character is one of innocence or that he did not do the crime. It simply means that the jury was not convinced by the available and admissible evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. And, please remember, some damning inculpatory evidence just may have been, which happens all too frequently, excluded under some rule of law.

I’m tired of hearing defense attorneys rant about prosecutorial misconduct. I’m tired of newspapers that devote columns to these lopsided ravings with no rebuttal. I’m tired of the lambasting. I’m tired of the hyperbole, spin, false extrapolations, and the distortion. I’m tired of the Innocent Project trumpeting their latest DNA “exoneration” and extrapolating about all the innocents who are locked up behind bars. It is an unjustifiable exaggeration. It’s a deception.

I’m tired of hearing that prosecutorial misconduct is an epidemic, or egregious. “Epidemic” means a widespread occurrence of a particular undesirable phenomenon, typically an infectious disease, an outbreak, an eruption, a torrent, rampant, pervasive.

Prosecutorial misconduct is not an epidemic! It is nowhere close to that.

Prosecutorial misconduct is not business as usual. It is highly unusual. It occasionally happens. It is not typical or of epidemic proportions.

It is not egregious. In comparison to criminals who do bad things it is not outstandingly horrendous or abhorrent or even shockingly horrible, atrocious or abominable. Yes, it is shameful, unforgivable, intolerable and grievous. But, as a general rule, it is nowhere near as bad as the crimes that criminals commit. Furthermore, if the truth be told, it doesn’t approach the seedy games that some defense attorneys practice every day and which are tolerated as though it is business as usual. But, come on, the misconduct of defense attorneys get no air time.

Prosecutorial misconduct is a statistically insignificant event. It is an anomaly which every system has. It does not define the system. It’s interesting like being hit by lightning or winning the lottery. Just as the odds of winning the lottery are the same whether you play or don’t play, that is, highly unlikely, the presence of misconduct in the Administration of Justice does not demonstrate, does not come anywhere close to proving a plan or design or flaw in the system. Not at all.

Overall prosecutorial misconduct is so rare as to be a meaningless criticism of the system and the prosecutors who work in it. Sure, and it goes without saying, which is why I have to say it repeatedly or suffer the obvious follow-up rant by the extremists, to those affected by misconduct, any misconduct, it is tragic. I’m sorry. It should never have happened. It should not be tolerated. But it is no reason to condemn the system.

Prosecutorial misconduct is an event not unlike those events when patients are mistreated by bad doctors, or children are molested by priests. Yes, obviously, when it happens it should be addressed, corrected and punished. Yes, it is wrong. Yet the fact that it happens doesn’t mean we condemn medicine and redesign the hospital or condemn religion and theology and tear down the church. The fact that prosecutorial misconduct happens does not mean we need to construct more hoops for prosecutors to jump through. The fact that some priests molest children does not mean that we need to invent more chastity belts.

The fact that 5 federal judges claim that there is “an epidemic of Brady violations abroad in the land” is like saying it is time to wipe out all snakes and kill all bugs because a few people got bit. Sure it needs to be dealt with. Nowhere in any field of human endeavor is any system perfect. Prosecutors are, of course, human. Some are, like in every other career known to man, broken, damaged or corrupt. But those who engage is misconduct amount to less than a fraction of a fraction of one percent. In others words, misconduct is nothing that arises to or merits indicting the entire system or overhauling the administration of justice.

So why the onslaught? It is the unrelenting effort of those who relish undermining and condemning law enforcement and those who prosecute crimes in the pursuit of social attention. It is an advertising ploy to get new clients. It is Mad Men. Ironically, they use the very system they criticize to assist them in accomplishing their goal of devaluing the effort to address the problem of crime. It’s never that we did a good job. It’s always that we are flawed and need to re-integrate our character and redesign the entire system.

If you’ve read some of these false news articles, here’s what they claim. 2.5% or 53 cases out of 2,131 claims, made over a 9 year period, which is 6 cases a year, or a case every 2 months, involve prosecutorial misconduct, according to the Northern California Innocence Project. Uh, do you notice any missing information in this major political pronouncement of prosecutorial misconduct?

How many cases were prosecuted from which these 2131 claims of misconduct during this nine year period are derived, with only 53 of those 2131 claims having any apparent validity?

I think the Los Angeles County District Attorney prosecutes about 65,000 felony cases per year, not including misdemeanors, not including L.A. City Attorney prosecutions, not including the cases that other cities in Los Angeles County prosecute. There are 88 cities in Los Angeles County. Some of these have their own prosecutors. How many cases do they prosecute?

Furthermore, this does not include juvenile cases and does not include federal prosecutions in Los Angeles County.

There are 58 counties in the State of California. There are 460 cities and 22 towns in California.

Uh, I don’t know. I’m just guessing, but I think we are talking over a million cases a year, if not millions!
So, the not so innocent Innocence Project is talking, what, 53 cases out of millions? This is a statistic with little significance. It means we are doing a splendid job of policing these rare instances and that the system is running nearly perfectly! Epidemic? Nonsense.

There are 50 constituent states and one district in the United States. How many cases are prosecuted across the entire nation in every state, county, city and town? Tens of millions. Do we have an epidemic of misconduct? Not hardly. Do we have an epidemic of distortion and exaggeration and nonsense by defense attorneys and papers and holier than thou judges and the Innocence Project selling their nonsense? It would seem so.

53 cases are too many, but they don’t amount to a fraction of one percent of anything. Rather, what that number represents is, quite simply, is evidence that the system is running to near perfection and that the system does not deserve the criticism nor warrant the attack of the Innocent Project or these arrogant Judges. Nonsense. They would consume the entire system is their never-ending entropy pursuing an impossible perfection when the system is literally purring at an unbelievable state of virtual purity!

We’ve heard from the Innocent Project, an extremely liberal group of defense attorneys. One can only conclude that these “Innocence Project” pronouncements, because they are so terribly analytically flawed, are designed not to address legitimate concerns, but to taint future jury pools with concocted doubt. The IP scours the nation in the search of extremely rare cases in which later DNA testing excluded some of their clients. They then unjustifiably stitch these unique exceptions into a global indictment of the entire system of eyewitness identifications, and police abuse, etc.

The 300 cited “exonerations” due to DNA by the Innocence Project are derived from the entire nation at large. These 300 cases were mined from 20 or more years of prosecutions. How many cases have been prosecuted over the course of 20 or more years across the entire nation? Probably we are talking multi-millions. These 300 amount to not even a fraction of a fraction of one percent of the cases prosecuted, insufficient for a proper statistical analysis. 300 DNA “exonerations” out of millions of prosecutions is a statistically insignificant, irrelevant anomaly that, rather then condemning the police and prosecution actually demonstrates they function at an exceptionally high level of honesty and integrity! Clearly the IP asserts an unjustifiable conclusion so broad that it is merely cut out of whole cloth. Yet they nevertheless rail that there is a systemic problem. That is a lie! They demand that the established system of justice should be overhauled based upon their reckless extrapolation and speculation when nothing is wrong with the system.

They insist that their subjects were “wrongfully” convicted based upon DNA done long after the crimes and trials. At the time of conviction, jurors, judges and prosecutors made sincere decisions based upon the best available evidence. There was nothing “wrong” with the process. Further, the new DNA evidence does not means that they were innocent, but only that their conviction can no longer be said to meet the legal standard of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There is a big difference between “innocence” and “exoneration.” In an imperfect world, that is, the world in which we live, achieving a “more perfect justice” in light of new evidence does not establish that there was ever an injustice.

The IP never discusses how many of the millions of cases prosecuted over the past 20 years across the entire nation have also had corroboration of eyewitness identification, such as CONFESSIONS. Why? Because it would undermine their theory of eyewitness unreliability since in the vast majority of cases there is corroboration that confirms the accuracy of the identification.

What is remarkable is that the defense bar initially lobbied to exclude DNA, but now it’s their friend. Yes, the end result of their work has supplied new evidence that is extremely important to the involved individual. However, their broader conclusions are neither valid nor justifiable. Have you noticed how we never hear from the IP about how many people they have tried to prove were innocent, but gave up for unstated reasons?

Are we really supposed to take the word of defense attorneys that the system is flawed or that there is an epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct based on an insignificant statistical anomaly that they have extrapolated from extremely rare events? They insist upon an expensive entropy trying to improve a tested system and, along the way, jeopardize public safety in the name of what they declare is fairness.

Marc Debbaudt is President of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys. The view and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of ADDA, which represents nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys.