Gascón Delivers Another Gut Punch to Victims

By Kathleen Cady

Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón has now taken the indefensible position that victims don’t need to be informed that a parole hearing is schedule for an inmate who brutally raped them or murdered their loved ones. The California Constitution, however, guarantees victims the right “to be informed of all parole procedures, to participate in the parole process, [and] to provide information to the parole authority to be considered before the parole of the offender. . .” Article I, Section 28(b)(15). How victims choose to respond once they are informed is completely up to them.

Defendants who are convicted of murder, attempted murder or some aggravated sexual assault crimes can be sentenced to a “life” sentence. Before these lifer inmates can be released, they go through a hearing in front of the Parole Board who determines whether the inmate poses a current unreasonable risk to public safety or if he or she is “suitable” for release.

Prosecutors Are Prohibited from Attending Parole Hearings

On December 7, 2020, Gascón issued a policy that prohibited prosecutors from attending parole hearings. The result of this policy is that no one is present at parole hearings to represent the interests of the residents of Los Angeles County. Gascón’s written policy did state, “this Office will continue to meet its obligation to notify and advise victims under California law, and is committed to a process of healing and restorative justice for all victims.”

Victims are Provided No Information

In preparation for a parole hearing, the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) provides the inmate’s prison file to the district attorneys office that prosecuted that inmate. Prosecutors then provide information to victims and surviving family members of murder victims to help prepare victims to attend the parole hearing. For instance, victims need to know the inmate’s current risk assessment, whether the inmate has recent violations, if they have expressed remorse, what rehabilitative programming they have done, if any, etc. This helps victims to emotionally and mentally prepare for a possible parole grant, or conversely gives them information on why the inmate continues to pose an unreasonable risk to public safety.

On July 9, 2021, Gascón’s handpicked surrogate, Diana Teran, sent an email to the Executive Officer of BPH which stated, “As you may know, our current policy is not to have our prosecutors attend parole hearings. . . . it would be prudent to stop sending the information to our office and remove permissions to all previously accessed files.”

Victims and their families who contacted the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to obtain the information were directed to Teran. When the victims and their families contacted Teran she responded “[o]ur office does not provide more information than has been determined by CDCR to be appropriate and not subject to confidentiality or other legal concerns.” What she didn’t tell the victims, or their families is that those legal concerns had been raised by her and that she had instructed the prisons to funnel all such information only through her.

Gascón’s Chief of Staff, Joseph Iniguez, has since instructed prosecutors and advocates that they cannot refer victims to Diana Teran nor let victims know that Teran has access to prisoner files.

This means that victims and their families are left alone, with no legal assistance, no information and no one to speak on their behalf at parole hearings.

Gascón is Hiding Free Resources from Victims

Victims’ constitutional rights are also known as Marsy’s Law Rights, named for Marsy Nicholas who was murdered by a former boyfriend. In January 2021, several former prosecutors formed a group called Marsy’s Law Attorneys to provide pro bono representation for victims. This group assists victims and their families at parole hearings.

Gascón, however, is now deliberately hiding the one available resource from victims: free help from qualified and experienced attorneys who stand ready to help them assert their rights through the parole process. On March 22, 2022, Iniguez ordered prosecutors to stop referring victims to Marsy’s Law Attorneys. Subsequently, victim advocates, whose statutory mandate it is to provide resources and referrals to victims (Penal Code 13835.5(a)(3)), were also ordered to stop referring victims to Marsy’s Law attorneys.

Each month there are approximately 200 parole hearings for prisoners convicted of crimes committed in Los Angeles County. Victims, including rape victims or parents of murdered children, can register with CDCR to get notice of parole hearings through BPH. However, only 25% of victims of crimes in Los Angeles have registered to receive notice of parole hearings. Why would victims not register to get notice of a parole hearing? Because they never thought the defendant would come up for parole.

But the laws have changed and Gascón has issued policies that exacerbate the problem and violate victims’ rights.

Prisoners who are over 50 years old and have served 20 years continuous custody are now entitled to an Elder Parole hearing regardless of their sentence. (Penal Code 3055).
Anyone who was 25 years or younger at the time they committed a crime can be eligible for a youthful parole hearing after 15, 20 or 25 years. (Penal Code 3051).
Anyone who was under 18 years old when they committed a crime and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole is eligible for parole hearing after 25 years (Penal Code 3051).
There are several “Re”sentencing statutes where defendants can challenge their murder conviction or ask to have their sentence reduced. (Penal Code 1170, et seq.) Gascón’s Resentencing policy states, “this Office will reevaluate and consider for resentencing people who have already served 15 years in prison. . . . On resentencing, this Office will dismiss enhancements consistent with our current enhancement policies and otherwise not seek a sentence that is inconsistent with this office’s current sentencing policies.” In violation of county rules, Gascón has recently hired several retired deputy public defenders who now staff Resentencing Unit positions in the DA’s office.
Gascón’s handpicked surrogate on habeas corpus claims, Shelan Joseph, is systematically conceding capital (death penalty) habeas claims and/or seeking to resentence all defendants whose case is pending a capital habeas claim.

What does all this mean? In a case where a 30-year-old murderer was sentenced to 60 years to life, victims would reasonably have thought that the murderer would die in prison. Except now, once the inmate turns 50 years old, they are eligible for an elder parole hearing. In a case where a 25-year-old was convicted of multiple kidnap-for-rape and rape counts and sentenced to 300 years to life, the rapist is eligible for a parole hearing after serving 25 years. A 17-year-old who committed multiple gang murders and was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole is eligible for parole after 25 years in custody.

The people of this state, including victims and their families, have no way of knowing that the sentence the judge imposed is essentially meaningless. We have a right to expect elected officials to act in good faith and follow the oath they took to support and defend the constitution (California Constitution Article XX, Section 3). Victims and their families should be able to know that if the defendant does come up for parole that the District Attorney’s Office will represent the People, notify the victims, and help them through the process.

If victims assumed that, however, they would have been wrong – very wrong.

Another ludicrous consequence: Victims or their families are not notified of the parole hearing, they have no way of asking for parole conditions. For instance, sexual assault victims might want to ask that the person who violently raped them not be paroled to their neighborhood.

Gascón Has Decided it is “Not Appropriate” to Keep Victims Informed

Diana Teran, who was recently promoted to Director over Parole Division and all resentencing and habeas cases, has issued an edict that contradicts Gascón’s initial policy which stated, “this Office will continue to meet its obligation to notify and advise victims under California law.” An email sent to prosecutors in the Lifer Hearing unit stated, “Administration has determined that it is “not appropriate” for the LADA to notify victims of crime and victim next of kin of those that were murdered that parole hearings are scheduled for the inmates that harmed them and their loved ones. We will continue to do the work on all cases assigned through October 2022.” Instead, LADA claims that CDCR notifying victims and families in 25% of LA’s cases is sufficient. LADA will no longer make efforts to find those who haven’t registered and advise them of the changes in the law that resulted in an upcoming parole hearing of the criminal who harmed them or their loved one. This new turn of events is outrageous. Victims who thought the person who raped them or murdered their loved one would never get a parole hearing will not be notified that a parole hearing has now been set.

Gascón’s policies summarized:

  • Prosecutors are forbidden from attending parole hearings;
  • Victims and their families are provided no information on the prisoner;
  • Available resources are deliberately hidden from victims and their families; and
  • Victims and their families are not informed by the LADA when a defendant has a parole hearing set. Thus, if they haven’t registered with CDCR, as nearly 75% have not, they will not even know the inmate is up for parole.

This systematic and pervasive violation of victims’ rights appears to be motivated by one goal: to release as many murderers, child molesters and rapists as possible from prison. Keeping victims informed and protecting the people of California and victims’ rights just seems to get in the way.

Kathleen Cady is one of several former prosecutors who are providing pro bono assistance to crime victims in response to Gascón’s policies.

Gascón’s Refusal to Prosecute Leads to More Asian Crime Victims

By Eric Siddall

Gascón’s insistence on not prosecuting and holding fully accountable accused criminals has had repeated deadly consequences for residents of Los Angeles County. For Asian residents, this subversion of the criminal justice system has resulted in tragedies such as the murder of Dal Keun Lee.

Dal Keun Lee is the latest Asian victim of Gascón’s policies, randomly stabbed in the neck and killed on May 5, 2022, while sitting in his work truck in South LA. The defendant, Keonte Woods, was a known violent criminal, having been arrested the previous week for an unprovoked attack of another Asian man near USC. In that case, Woods stabbed the victim in the neck and sliced the victim’s hand when he slapped the stabbing object away from his neck.  Yet, felony charges requested by LAPD were rejected and the case referred to the City Attorney for misdemeanor charges, with the DA belatedly filing felony charges only filed after Mr. Lee was murdered.

Other anti-Asian hate crimes have been rejected pursuant to Gascon policies, forcing other prosecution agencies to file charges for justice to be served. For example, Steve Lee Dominguez was caught on camera driving through protesters at a “Stop Asian Hate” rally. When no charges were filed by the District Attorney, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California secured a federal grand jury indictment against Dominguez on two counts of bias-motivated interference with federally protected activities.

When 67-year-old Paul Lao, a Lyft driver, was beaten and then robbed at gunpoint while sitting in his car at a gas station. During the attack, defendant Dandre Lorenz Powell shouted several times “Go back to China!” Despite this clear evidence of racial bias, no hate crime charges or allegations were filed.

Gascón has made clear since taking office that lessening any punishment defendants may face, and reversing punishment for already convicted state prison inmates, are his priorities. His abandonment of victims targeted for their membership in a racial minority, such as the Asian victims whose cases are covered above, is a result of these policies. Los Angeles has become less safe under Gascón, and even when caught, criminals can be sure “Gascon has their back.”

Eric W. Siddall is Vice President of the Association of Los Angeles Deputy District Attorneys, the collective bargaining agent representing nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys who work for the County of Los Angeles.

Gascón’s Recent Statements Are 100% False

By Eric Siddall

Gascón’s refused to hold Victor Bibiano accountable for a 2009 double murder. That decision was based solely on Gascón’s ideological policy. There is no science, no data, and no consideration for public safety supporting his position. It was a policy based upon having the “lightest touch” on all criminals. The same failed reasoning kept Justin Flores on the streets on June 14, 2022, when he murdered two El Monte police officers. It is why Mario Rodriguez was murdered on April 16, 2022.

Yet, today, Gascón denies responsibility for these failed policies. He rewrites history, ignores the consequences of his policies, and claims that facts, not ideology, guided his decisions.

Gascón’s statement is 100 percent false.

On December 7, 2020, Gascón issued an order, Special Directive 20-09. Like 20-08, the order that released Flores, it was a blanket policy that ended holding juveniles accountable for heinous criminal conduct. SD 20-09 stated: “The office will immediately END the practice of sending youth to the adult court system… All pending motions to transfer youth to adult court jurisdiction shall be withdrawn.”

No exceptions or individual factors were considered. No matter how heinous the crime, no matter how irredeemable the criminal, no matter the consequences of the policy, that person would remain in juvenile court.

Bibiano was a direct beneficiary of Gascón’s policy. Rodriguez was a direct victim of the same. Bibiano was a gang member who murdered two people and seriously injured a third. He was convicted by a jury. An appellate court upheld his conviction. Because of a change in the law, the only question now was whether he would serve his time in the juvenile system or state prison.

However, that first option was not feasible. If the court selected the juvenile system because of Bibiano’s age, that meant his immediate release even though he committed a double murder. Bibiano would receive no rehabilitative services, no monitoring, and no further punishment.

The District Attorney’s Office under the prior administration filed a motion asking the court asking to keep Bibiano in prison.

When Gascón took office, he ordered that this motion be withdrawn. This meant that Bibiano—despite murdering two people—would be released back into the public.

This decision was not based on the law or individual facts. Nor was any consideration given that because of Bibiano’s age—the rehabilitative services that Gascón says he believes in—would not be offered to Bibiano.

Nor did Gascón ever analyze the merits of the case (as he now claims). His policy did not allow for it. His decision was based entirely on his blanket-policy never to punish juveniles as criminals. He did this while ignoring the Court of Appeal order, the advice of the assigned trial attorney and other experienced prosecutors, and defying common sense.

Gascón today wants the public to believe that he did all this analysis. He wants the public to ignore his administration’s history of bad decision-making. He wants the public to forget about all the other absurd results caused by his policies.

Eric W. Siddall is Vice President of the Association of Los Angeles Deputy District Attorneys, the collective bargaining agent representing nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys who work for the County of Los Angeles.

Every murder is tragic, preventable ones are inexcusable

[av_section min_height=” min_height_px=’500px’ padding=’default’ shadow=’no-shadow’ bottom_border=’no-border-styling’ bottom_border_diagonal_color=’#333333′ bottom_border_diagonal_direction=” bottom_border_style=” id=’Header_banner’ color=’main_color’ custom_bg=” src=” attachment=” attachment_size=” attach=’scroll’ position=’top left’ repeat=’no-repeat’ video=” video_ratio=’16:9′ overlay_opacity=’0.5′ overlay_color=” overlay_pattern=” overlay_custom_pattern=” av_element_hidden_in_editor=’0′ av_uid=’av-ylg7l’][/av_section]

[av_textblock textblock_styling_align=” textblock_styling=” textblock_styling_gap=” textblock_styling_mobile=” size=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” font_color=” color=” id=” custom_class=” template_class=” av_uid=’av-l4oe6ok8′ sc_version=’1.0′ admin_preview_bg=”]

Every murder is tragic, preventable ones are inexcusable

By Eric Siddall

On June 14, 2022, El Monte Police Officers Santana and Paredes were brutally murdered by Justin Flores. In their final sacrifice, the officers boldly rushed towards danger where others would not. No words will satisfy the debt we owe to these two men, nor will any give comfort to the two families left behind.

Under California law, Flores should have been in a state prison cell on the day he murdered the two officers. Instead, because of George Gascón’s policies, he was in a hotel room in El Monte beating his girlfriend until two officers responded for the call for help. Now two officers are dead.

To the fallen officers, Gascón offered his “thoughts and prayers.”

This hollow expression belies Gascón’s actions. Nineteen months earlier, George Gascón issued an order that all strikes offenses that were charged by the prior district attorney were to be stricken. He ordered that all cases eligible for probation should be given probation. Those were his orders.

On February 10, 2021, Flores – a gang member charged with felon with possession of a firearm, possession of methamphetamine, and illegal possession of ammunition – was the beneficiary of this policy. Under California state law, Flores was ineligible for probation and faced a minimum sentence of 32 months in state prison. Instead, because of Gascón policies, he received probation.

As word spread of Gascón’s role in this killing, Gascón’s press operation attempted to misdirect the media about the consequences of his bad policy. His spokesperson—not an actual prosecutor—stated that “the sentence he received in the firearm case was consistent with case resolutions for this type of offense.” Later, the same spokesperson said, “experienced managers in the office have reviewed the facts of the case and the criminal history of Mr. Flores and determined that this [plea deal] offer was on par with offers in previous administrations.”

I challenge these “experienced managers” to come forward and explain why a career criminal gang member, who under the law is required to serve a state prison sentence, served ten days in county jail. Further, I am curious how they can explain why Flores served less time on illegal possession of a gun, ammunition, and drugs than he did for petty theft or a suspended license violation.

Gascón’s spokesperson continued the misdirection: “The sentencing directive is presumptive. We empower DDAs to rebut that presumption if they believe extraordinary circumstances exist … No such request was made in this case.”
These claims are false. First, Gascón’s policy had no exceptions regarding strikes. In relevant parts, his policy stated: “Any prior-strike enhancements (Penal Code § 667(d), 667(e); 1170.12(a) and 1170.12 (c)) will not be used for sentencing and shall be dismissed or withdrawn from the charging document.”

There was no appeal process nor exceptions to this policy. Another part of the same policy stated, “if the charged offense is probation-eligible, probation shall be the presumptive offer absent extraordinary circumstances warranting a state prison commitment…Extraordinary circumstances must be approved by the appropriate bureau director.” On a practical level, this meant no exception.

A brief analysis of the office makes it clear why this was the case. The Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office is the largest local prosecutorial agency in the nation. It is charged with prosecuting every state felony and almost all misdemeanors within Los Angeles County; with approximately ten million residents, it is the most populous county in the country and more populous than forty U.S. states. Historically, the DA’s office files between 30,000 to 50,000 felonies and 100,000 to 135,000 misdemeanors per year. There are 32 branch and area offices, not including the downtown courts.

Handling an operation of this size requires delegating decision-making at the court level. This is precisely why most offers on cases were made by experienced line-prosecutors or their immediate supervisors. Bureau directors, historically, were rarely involved because they had other duties, including approving more complicated requests, like leniency or immunity, structuring their respective bureaus, and implementing policy. Requiring that five bureau directors manage the individual case settlement of approximately 50,000 cases would be an absurd proposition.

Yet, this is exactly what Gascón did when he required bureau director approval on non-probationary offers. Five bureau directors were now responsible for making offers on all cases if the trial, calendar, deputy-in-charge, or head deputy sought a deviation from the presumptive probationary policy. Effectively, this meant probation was given on many troubling cases—including Flores—because requiring bureau director approval is the same as not giving an exception to the policy.

This absurd requirement was purposeful. In an office with this volume, if deputies made deviation requests, the entire system would collapse. Decisions normally made within an hour would take months.

June 14, 2022 was the end result of this policy. A career criminal who should never have been out murdered two officers who were trying to help a vulnerable victim. Bad policy mixed with bad facts resulted in an unforgivable consequence. We must do better.

Eric Siddall is Vice President of the Association of Los Angeles Deputy District Attorneys, the collective bargaining agent representing nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys who work for the County of Los Angeles.
[/av_textblock]

[av_hr class=’invisible’ height=’50’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’50px’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’30px’ custom_margin_bottom=’30px’ icon_select=’yes’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ font=’entypo-fontello’ admin_preview_bg=” av_uid=’av-7vmn4h’]

[av_social_share title=’Share this post on social media and by email’ style=” buttons=” admin_preview_bg=” av_uid=’av-5qld5t’]

[av_button_big label=’CLICK TO SIGN UP FOR EMAIL BOARD STATEMENTS FROM THE ADDA’ description_pos=’below’ link=’manually,https://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/manage/optin?v=001Hz5j57ao7RNgy5t6Lh3z75jlVxZ4yNNhHQMADQjVusC-Pjv4ARk2QyRguM6A0Gq7BrhET5gEuinp_bjzsWOgdvZ8hNDeVAgC7IWR65sba6g%3D’ link_target=’_blank’ icon_select=’no’ icon=’ue800′ font=’entypo-fontello’ custom_font=’#ffffff’ color=’theme-color’ custom_bg=’#444444′ color_hover=’theme-color’ custom_bg_hover=’#444444′ admin_preview_bg=” av_uid=’av-4ka375′][/av_button_big]

[av_hr class=’invisible’ height=’50’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’50px’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’30px’ custom_margin_bottom=’30px’ icon_select=’yes’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ font=’entypo-fontello’ admin_preview_bg=” av_uid=’av-9jj2p’]

Ominous Signs for George Gascón

By James R. Bozajian

It has been said that the wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine. And so it was with San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin, as he was overwhelmingly and unceremoniously tossed from office courtesy of a recall election held on June 7th.

Campaigning on a platform calling for “criminal justice reform,” Boudin was elected to the position of District Attorney in 2019. While many of his so-called reforms were doomed from the outset, others might have succeeded had they been implemented thoughtfully, incrementally, and moderately. But instead, Boudin attempted to tear down the entire criminal justice system immediately upon taking office, seemingly unconcerned about the adverse consequences of his behavior.

Two years later, confronted with a soaring crime rate and a plummeting quality of life, San Francisco voters successfully petitioned to conduct a special recall election of Boudin. The recall was held in conjunction with the regularly scheduled 2022 California Primary.

Boudin spent much of the recall campaign making highly unpersuasive pitches to an electorate weary of his criminal-friendly policies. He claimed, for instance, that the recall movement was a conspiracy spearheaded by Republicans and Donald Trump partisans. But registered Republicans make up a scant 6.73% of the electorate in San Francisco, and Trump scored an underwhelming 12.7% of the vote there in 2020 — which was actually an improvement on the 9.3% he got in 2016.

Clearly, Boudin did not get removed because of a conservative plot in San Francisco. He lost because a broad and diverse coalition of the public, spanning across the political spectrum, decided that enough was enough. Since Boudin’s soft-on-crime tenure began, San Francisco (where uniquely, the consolidated city and county governments are one and the same) has descended into lawlessness. By every possible measure — public safety, economics, and even aesthetics — the city is a complete mess. In 2021, San Francisco suffered the worst depopulation of any major municipality in the United States, losing an estimated 6.3% of its residents in a single year. And while surging crime is not the only reason for this exodus, it is certainly a heavily contributing factor.

San Francisco’s experience might sound eerily familiar to those of us living here in Los Angeles County, because we are now confronted with a very similar situation. The destructive policies of Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascón are essentially the mirror image of what San Francisco just discarded.

What happened on Election Day symbolizes just how politically toxic the whole “defund the police” movement has become. If San Francisco — by some measures the most liberal county in the nation — could so decisively rid itself of a District Attorney who openly flouted his disdain for public safety, then the signs are ominous indeed for George Gascón. It is only a matter of time.

James R. Bozajian has served as a Calabasas City Councilmember/Mayor since 1997. He was a Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney from 1990 to 2014, and is an ADDA Past President. James can be contacted at jrbozajian@earthlink.net.

Statement Regarding the Recall of SF DA Chesa Boudin

Los Angeles, June 8, 2022 – ADDA Vice President Eric Siddall issued the following statement regarding the vote overwhelmingly to recall San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin.

Last night, San Franciscans had the last word on George Gascón’s failed legacy as San Francisco’s District Attorney. Over the next few weeks, Angelenos will take the first steps to bring his failed term as Los Angeles’ chief prosecutor to a necessarily early end.

Chesa Boudin wasn’t recalled because he was a reformer; he was recalled because San Francisco voters rejected his defendant-centered approach to criminal justice reform. The same approach that his predecessor, George Gascón, has forced upon Los Angeles.

More than 500,000 Los Angeles County residents have already signed petitions to recall Gascón. Approximately 98% of his own deputies voted to support that grassroots effort. And thirty-four cities have voted to express their lack of confidence in Gascón and his leadership abilities. They all agree that we need to reform our criminal justice system. They desperately want a District Attorney who will do the job, protect the public, and follow the law.

Gascón Derails Quality of Life for Angelenos

By Kathleen Cady

There are essentially two types of crimes: felonies and misdemeanors (Penal Codes 18 and 19). Felonies include murder, robbery, rape and other more serious crimes. Misdemeanors are often referred to as “quality of life” crimes. All these crimes are governed by legislation passed by legislators in Sacramento. In December 2020, however, several crimes were effectively legalized in Los Angeles County when District Attorney George Gascón took office. He simultaneously swore an oath to uphold the laws of California and issued a policy that his office would not prosecute 13 misdemeanor crimes. He issued another policy that his office will never prosecute anyone under 18 who commits a misdemeanor.

Many minor violations of law, when kept in check, help ensure public safety, minimize damage to property and protect victims. Gascón’s policy does none of these things and ignores the important misdemeanor violations that improve quality of life issues for the residents of Los Angeles County. With a few narrow exceptions and supervisor approval, Gascón’s policies do not allow prosecution of: Trespass (residential and business districts); disturbing the peace; driving without a license; driving with a suspended license; public intoxication; criminal threats; being under the influence of drugs; possession of drug paraphernalia; minor in possession of alcohol; drinking in public; loitering; loitering to commit prostitution, and resisting arrest.

Generally, police present a case to the District Attorney’s office and prosecutors evaluate whether a crime was committed and if sufficient evidence exists to file criminal charges. Gascón’s policies mandate that even if a misdemeanor is committed, perhaps even caught on camera, and sufficient evidence exists to prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, charges will be declined. The person will receive no consequence for the criminal action.

One recent example of the devastating consequences of Gascón’s misdemeanor policy is the widely publicized cargo thefts at the Union Pacific railroad tracks. In the past, this situation was kept in check because officers could respond to arrest people for trespassing on the tracks. However, under Gascón, thieves know they can trespass on the tracks to wait for the opportunity to break into the cargo containers and steal packages. Union Pacific employees were confronted by these thieves and threatened with crowbars. As if that were not bad enough, dozens of handguns and shotguns were among items stolen from the cargo containers. Had the District Attorney’s Office initially filed trespass charges, those responsible would have been held accountable without the crimes escalating. Union Pacific employees would not have been threatened. Perhaps most importantly, dozens of handguns and shotguns would not now be in the hands of criminals.

In addition to the above crimes that will not be prosecuted, Gascón’s policy requires that pre-plea diversion shall be presumptively given for all other misdemeanor crimes except for driving under the influence, domestic violence or stalking. When a person is diverted, they are not convicted of a crime nor are they sentenced. Instead, once they have completed diversion, the charges are dismissed. So despite Gascón’s public comments about wanting to reduce gun violence – when a person with a mental disorder or illness illegally possesses a gun, or illegally possesses a gun in violation of a domestic violence restraining order, or possesses a ghost gun (which is always illegal) – they get pre-plea diversion. To come full circle, the people who stole the guns from the Union Pacific cargo containers would likely not be held accountable, but rather would get pre-plea diversion and have the criminal charges dismissed.

Gascón’s policy deprives victims of their right to restitution

“It is the intent of the Legislature that a victim of crime who incurs an economic loss as a result of the commission of a crime shall receive restitution directly from a defendant convicted of that crime.” Penal Code 1202.4. When crime victims sustain financial loss because of the crime, for instance hit and run, theft or embezzlement, they have a constitutional right to restitution. California Constitution Article I, Section 28(b)(13). The only way victims can receive restitution, however, is when a defendant is convicted of the crime. Gascón’s policy allows for defendants to be diverted, meaning there is no conviction. If there is no conviction, there is no sentence and without a sentence, victims cannot get restitution.

Essentially, defendants are given no consequences and are provided resources for programs while victims receive nothing.

Not only are victims being left in the lurch by Gascon’s policy, but no one is monitoring the success of these diversion programs. The last time Gascon implemented this social experiment in San Francisco, it failed miserably. A 2020 report out of San Francisco analyzed diversion outcomes between 2008 and 2018, and noted that Gascon’s diversion programs were in deep trouble.

Some independent cities take action

At last count, 34 City Councils have voted “no confidence” in Gascón. Palmdale, Manhattan Beach and Whittier have gone further and asked Gascón for permission to prosecute their own misdemeanors. Inexplicably, although Gascón has abdicated his responsibility to prosecute most misdemeanor crimes, he refuses to relinquish control of misdemeanor prosecution to another agency that stands ready to take over that task.

Several city councils asked their police department to present information on how crime is impacting their communities because of Gascón’s policies. In the three examples below, the person giving the report clarified they were only reporting facts and not taking a position on Gascón. They also made clear that the officers in their department continued to work hard every day to protect the residents in their city:

On Aug. 17, 2021, Glendale Police Captain Robert William gave a presentation at the Glendale City Council meeting on the DA special directives and impacts. He shared that misdemeanors impact quality of life for residents and the business community. When officers make an arrest, they have exhausted all other resources. Ninety percent of the 825 misdemeanor arrests did not result in charges being filed solely because of Gascón’s policies. Reckless driving, speed contest (street racing), petty theft and vandalism were also not filed because Gascón’s policy required the prosecutor to proceed with diversion. Officers still make arrests for possession of illegal drugs, but charges are not filed and there are no treatment programs available. The result of Gascón’s policy is that a basic traffic ticket carries more consequences than an arrest for reckless driving or street racing.

On Oct. 12, 2021, Claremont Police Captain (now Chief) Aaron Fate gave a presentation at the Claremont City Council meeting on the DA’s special directives and enforcement challenges. Captain Fate shared that business owners have called to report trespass when someone repeatedly was sleeping near their business. Business owners are concerned their property will be damaged. Officers responded and took the person away, yet the person kept returning because no charges were filed. The same situation occurs if a person trespasses on a school. People who are under the influence of cocaine, methamphetamine or heroin or who have glass smoking pipes or needles will never be charged with a crime and officers keep coming across the same people committing the same crimes. In one instance, officers responded to a call of a naked man covered in blood, running through the streets. He was under the influence of a controlled substance, yet Gascón’s policies will not allow criminal charges to be filed. These individuals also do not receive treatment because these resources do not exist.

On May 9, 2022 Alhambra Police Chief Kelly Fraser gave a presentation to the Alhambra City Council on crime rates and case filings from 2019 through 2021. She shared that in 2020, of the 235 misdemeanor cases declined for prosecution, 98, or 41%. were declined because of Gascón’s policies. In 2021, of the 762 misdemeanor declined cases, 351, or 46%, were declined because of Gascón’s policies. Chief Fraser highlighted that the time officers spend for each misdemeanor arrest and preparing the case for criminal filing takes about 9-10 hours. The specific statistics she reported included that 19 cases of trespass were declined; 270 drug and paraphernalia possession cases were declined; and 15 resisting arrest cases were declined. Between 2021-2022, one person was arrested 30 times for narcotic violations. He was offered services 24 times, accepted 4 times but absconded all 4 times. Criminal charges were never filed.

Gascón’s continued refusal to prosecute quality of life crimes is negatively impacting Angelenos. Residents and business owners are left with no recourse when misdemeanor crimes are committed. San Francisco stores have recently closed because of retail theft, leaving folks in disadvantaged communities with fewer resources. Hopefully, Los Angeles businesses will not be forced to make similar decisions. Unfortunately, most residents of Los Angeles, who live here because of jobs, children’s schools, places of worship and other social connections, do not have the option of just picking up and moving.

Kathy Cady is one of several former prosecutors who are providing pro bono assistance to crime victims in response to Gascón’s policies.

Gascón Exploits Tragedy To Spout Political Platitudes

Los Angeles,  May 18, 2022  –  ADDA Vice President Eric Siddall issued the following statement in response to comments George Gascón made today regarding gun violence.

Today, George Gascón talked a big game about reducing gun violence but did nothing to stop it. He refuses to hold criminals caught with guns accountable. In Los Angeles, a suspect caught with an assault rifle will be released back on the streets before the arrest report is finished.

In 2021, 859 people were killed in Los Angeles County; 687 of them from gun violence. Yet, Gascón refuses to enforce laws designed to combat gun violence. Because of Gascón’s bail policy, recidivist career criminals caught with guns face a revolving courthouse door. They continue to victimize our residents. No wonder gang members toast Gascón from prison and want to tattoo his name on their forehead.

California’s gun laws are the strictest in the nation. Yet, for some inexplicable reason, Gascón refuses to enforce them. Now he has the audacity to lecture the rest of the country about the danger of gun violence. His exploitation of this tragedy to spout political platitudes is unbecoming of his office. On one thing we agree with Mr. Gascon; thoughts and prayers are not enough. Nor are press conferences.

About The ADDA

The Association of Deputy District Attorneys (ADDA) is the collective bargaining agent and represents over 800 Deputy District Attorneys who work for the County of Los Angeles.

ADDA COMPLETE LIST OF JUNE 2022 ENDORSEMENTS

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA

Anne Marie Schubert

LOS ANGELES COUNTY ASSESSOR

Jeffrey Prang

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

Paul Seo

TORRANCE CITY COUNCIL

David Zygielbaum

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SEAT 60

Abigail Baron

Sharon Ransom

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SEAT 67

Fernanda Barreto

Ryan Dibble

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SEAT 70

Renee Chang

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SEAT 90

Leslie Gutierrez

Melissa Lyons

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SEAT 116

Judge David Gelfound

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SEAT 118

Melissa Hammond

Georgia Huerta

Keith Koyano

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SEAT 151

Karen Brako

ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SEAT 30

Andrea Mader

District Attorney Gascón Deliberately Obstructs Justice for Victims

By Kathy Cady

April 24-30 is National Crime Victims’ Rights Week. This year’s theme is Rights, access, equity, for all victims. It underscores the importance of helping crime victims find justice by enforcing victims’ rights, expanding access to services, and ensuring equity and inclusion for all.

For crime victims in Los Angeles County, rights and access is now a rallying call. Since taking office, their elected District Attorney, George Gascón, has ignored their rights and limited their access. It is because of these actions victims of crime initiated the recall of George Gascón.

Crime Victims Have Constitutional Rights

We all know that criminal defendants have rights – we hear the Miranda admonition every time we watch a crime show.

But crime victims also have rights. (California Constitution Article I, Section 28, and Penal Code §679.02). Victims’ Constitutional Rights are known as Marsy’s Law Rights, named for Marsy Nicholas who was murdered by a former boyfriend.https://www.marsyslaw.us/marsys_story

First and foremost, victims have a right to justice and due process. (California Constitution, Article I, Section (b)). These rights are personal to each victim and apply to each case. The purpose of mandating victims’ rights is to ensure that they have a voicein the criminal justice system. (California Constitution Article I, Section 29(b)).

But rights are meaningless unless they are enforced. State law mandates prosecutors, law enforcement, and judges to faithfully protect these rights. (California Constitution Article XX, Section 3; Penal Code 679).

Over the course of Gascón’s term, he disregarded these rights and mandates. Upon taking his oath to uphold the law, he issued blanket policies ordering prosecutors to dismiss allegations in pending cases with no consideration for notifying victims as is required by law. (Special Directive 20-08). He ordered most conduct enhancements not be filed in new criminal filings. (Special Directive 21-01). He issued policies ordering prosecutors to keep all 16 and 17 year old juveniles charged with murder and other violent crimes in juvenile court, regardless of the nature of the facts of the case or record of the juvenile. (Special Directive 20-09). All of these policies ignored victims.

Victims who were given assurances that prosecutors would attend parole hearings with them, were abandoned because Gascón’s blanket policy prohibited prosecutors to participate in parole hearings. (Special Directive 20-14). Victims traumatized by crime, now must navigate the parole process alone.

Victims Have a Right to Receive Services to Help Them Heal

Victims have a right to receive services to help them heal. (Penal Code 13835(a) and Government Code 13950). For 40 years, Victim Service Representatives in the Bureau of Victim Services have been doing this important work. But “rights” are not “services.” Gascón confuses the two. Victims are traumatized by the crime. When their rights are violated, they are retraumatized by this new violation and by feeling that the criminal justice system has failed them. Gascón’s response to re-traumatizing victims by violating their rights is to offer them services. An analogy would be to deliberately violate a criminal defendants’ rights and then offer to give them therapy, rather than correcting the violation of their rights. The criminal justice system does not and should not work that way for defendants. It is offensive to treat victims that way.

When victims have been hurt by crime, they want justice and resources to help them heal. Justice means holding the offender accountable. Murder victims’ families and victims of forcible sex crimes, gang shootings, and other violent crimes usually want the defendant sent to prison for a long time so that they are safe and society is protected from further violence.

Another concern is Gascón’s appointment of Tiffiny Blacknell – a career public defender who has disparaged law enforcement and has advocated for abolishing all prisons, as the Interim Director of the Bureau of Victim Services in charge of all victim services in Los Angeles County.

Blacknell has said that she believes the entire criminal justice system needs to be dismantled. She has likened incarceration to caging people and expressed support for closing all prisons.

On one of her social media sites, Blacknell posted a picture of herself wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the following words: “THE POLICE ARE TRAINED TO KILL US.” Blacknell has called police “barbarians” and posted on a social media site, “[The police] were never supposed to protect us!!!! It’s not what they do.”

Former Prosecutors Network to Help Victims Assert Their Rights

Crime victims have a Constitutional right to have an attorney enforce their rights. California Constitution Article I, Section 28(c)(1). In January 2021, several former prosecutors started getting requests to represent crime victims whose cases were being negatively impacted by Gascón’s policies. An informal group called Marsy’s Law Attorneys formed to provide pro bono representation for victims. These attorneys can be contacted through marsyslawhelp@gmail.com.

Since January 2021, the Marsy’s Law attorneys have represented close to 300 victims. Most of these victims are next of kin and family of murder victims.

Families of murders victims have expressed that they feel abandoned by Gascón’s policies, and that their voices have been silenced. Gascón’s administration has now issued an edict that prosecutors and advocates are precluded from notifying victims about this group of former prosecutors. Gascón would even deny victims pro bono help from qualified and experienced attorneys who stand ready to help them assert their rights through the parole process.

Crime victims are now standing up against Gascón. It was crime victims who initiated the Recall DA George Gascón campaign. Victims deserve “rights, access, and equity for all victims” every day – not just during National Crime Victims’ Rights Week. To honor victims’ voices and give them a forum to be heard, the Recall campaign is holding events every day during National Crime Victims’ Rights week and invite you to join us:

Monday, April 25 12 – 1 pm Pomona Courthouse

Tuesday, April 26 12 – 1 pm Hall of Justice, Los Angeles

Wednesday, April 27 12 – 1 pm Torrance Courthouse

Thursday, April 28 12 – 1 pm Antelope Valley Courthouse

Friday, April 29 12 – 1 pm Long Beach Courthouse

Saturday, April 30 Signing events throughout the County

Kathy Cady is one of several former prosecutors who are providing pro bono assistance to crime victims in response to Gascón’s policies.