Thanks, But No Thanks, George Gascón

By James R. Bozajian, Calabasas City Councilmember

I am in receipt of your recent letter, inviting the Calabasas City Council to meet with you to discuss your vision for the District Attorney’s Office. For the following reasons, I must decline your request.

On the very day you assumed office, you announced a series of “reforms” seemingly designed with precision to turn the District Attorney’s Office upside-down. Your actions since then have only aggravated the negative effects of these ill-conceived measures.

You enacted these draconian policies without soliciting input from law enforcement, public officials, the general public, or even your own (experienced) prosecutors. Instead, you relied exclusively upon a cadre of hostile, extreme partisans whose sole objectives appear to have been to defund, demolish, and destroy our criminal justice system.

The ultimate result of which, simply put, is that Los Angeles County has become a vastly more dangerous place to live since you became its chief prosecutor.

Here in Calabasas, crime has soared to unprecedented heights. From 2020 to 2021, the crime rate jumped 35%. Residential burglaries doubled, leaping from 19 in 2020 to 42 in 2021. In the first two months of 2022, the crime rate has risen yet another 54%, and we have had an additional 10 residential burglaries. If the current patterns hold, then, crime in Calabasas will have doubled between 2020 and 2022, while residential burglaries will have tripled. These are the highest increases, by far, since Calabasas incorporated in 1991.

Your attitude toward serious and violent crime is epitomized by your mishandling of People v. Jeffrey Cooper (BA464633), a matter which originates out of Calabasas and has affected the lives of many in our community.

Defendant Cooper is charged with four serious/violent felonies: one count of Penal Code Section 288.7(b), oral copulation or sexual penetration by an adult of a child 10 years of age or under; and three counts of Penal Code Section 288(a), commission of a lewd or lascivious act by an adult on a child under the age of 14 years. If convicted of all charges, the defendant could be sentenced to a maximum term of 39 years to life in State Prison.

This case has languished for the past four years, having had various proceedings in court on 62 occasions. Meanwhile, Cooper is out of custody and wandering about town. The abject refusal of the District Attorney’s Office to handle this matter in a professional manner is deeply troubling, and undermines public confidence in the criminal justice system.

If the defendant here is guilty, his victims, their families, and the general public have the right to see that an appropriate punishment is exacted. Conversely, if the defendant is not guilty of these crimes, he has the right to be formally exonerated.

When I sent you a letter of inquiry about the status of the Cooper case last year, you neglected to reply. When I subsequently filed two requests pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code 6250, et seq.), you arrogantly ignored them and failed to respond as required by law.

There is nothing “progressive” about endangering the welfare of the public you are sworn to protect. Your policies have jeopardized the safety of my city. You have jeopardized the safety of my city. And I therefore have no confidence in your willingness or ability to serve effectively as District Attorney.

It is abundantly clear that you are only now reaching out to local elected officials because you are in serious trouble. Which is a classic example of too little, too late. Your support has collapsed, as conservatives, liberals, and pretty much everyone in between understand the significant threats you have brought to our communities.

So, no thank you, Mr. Gascon. I will not provide you with any political “cover” to help salvage your position.

Signed,

James R. Bozajian
jrbozajian@earthlink.net
Calabasas City Councilmember (1997 to present)
Deputy District Attorney, Los Angeles County (1990 to 2014)
Past President, Los Angeles County Association of Deputy District Attorneys

COMPETENCE MATTERS: Gascón’s Incompetence and Poor Leadership Are Driving the Recall Against Him

By Eric Siddall

Leadership and competence matter when you are in charge. As George Gascón has been subjecting Los Angeles County residents to his massive social experiment, it has become painfully clear he lacks both those traits (San Francisco mayor, London Breed, tried to warn us about that). It’s this failure in leadership and competence, just as much as his short-sighted blanket policies, that has made him unfit to be Los Angeles County District Attorney.

From day one, Gascón has been more focused on political gamesmanship than on responsible or sustainable reform. His interviews are full of grandiose self-praise, inflammatory rhetoric aimed at his dissenters, and nausea-inducing absurdities (like claiming ending his ban on juveniles being tried as adults was not a “reversal” but him “continuing to evaluate” the situation). He rarely lets his guard down, but he did just that during a particularly illuminating moment in a December 2020 interview.

Fresh off winning one of the most publicized district attorney’s races in the country’s history, but still a few days before taking office, Gascón was clearly relaxed and able to speak more freely about his campaign and his future. Notably, he was on the cusp of issuing the most controversial directives in the history of the office. These directives drastically reduced consequences for virtually every criminal offense in the most populous county in the country. Knowing what he was about to implement, Gascón was questioned about his interest in higher political office. He said:

“If you look at my policy, when you see what’s coming out on Monday, you’ll say, ‘That’s the end of his political career! He’ll be a one-term DA!’”

Amidst nervous laughter, Gascón sheepishly added:

“I’m hoping not, by the way! Because the work will require more than one term, but I can tell you a lot of the people that are really close to me are very nervous [and they’re telling me] ‘Man, you’re pushing the envelope.’”

After this brief glimpse of significant insecurity, Gascón quickly pivots back to his favored disposition (self-grandiosity), and compares his endeavor to landing on the moon.

Gascón’s momentary acknowledgment of the potential massive political fallout is certainly striking for someone who “rarely expresses doubt” about his policies. What is even more striking, though, is that in this answer Gascón seems to understand the trepidation of those “really close” to him regarding his forthcoming directives. This is in stark contrast to his behavior since: vilifying and disparaging those who publicly criticize those same directives. Then again, Gascón has never really been about intellectual honesty so much as rigorous self-promotion.

Predictably, Gascón’s campaign pledges have become broken promises. You can see them here. Sixteen months into his term and we don’t have a “Crime Strategies Unit,” a “Gun Enforcement Unit,” a “Homelessness and Behavioral Health Unit” or a “Homelessness Advisory Board.” There are promises that appear to only exist as line items on his campaign website, including promising to “advocate” for creating a “Behavioral Health Justice Center,” “expanding” the “Los Angeles County Homeless Court Program,” and being “committed” to diverting money from jails to “parks in environmental deserts.” There are promises that amount to nothing more than a garbled mess of buzzwords, like “reducing eviction filings in order to help stabilize communities through cost-saving early interventions and through leveraging existing systems for support.”

Gascón consistently piles on promises with all the legitimate commitment of a five-minute photo op, displaying one moment as though it is momentum. As though a to-do list is enough to get anything done.

It may be tempting to paint this recall as being about some policy disagreements, but the emptiness of these promises proves otherwise. The recall movement is rooted in Gascón’s pathological devotion to self-glorification. Over the past 16 months, this has been painfully manifesting itself through his inept policies and his incendiary words directed at anyone who disagrees with him.

Gascón’s short-lived ban on sentencing enhancements is a prime example. Sentencing enhancements are used to add custody time to crimes where the perpetrator has acted in a way that either increases the harm caused or the risk of harm, for example using a gun or causing serious physical injury. About 10 days after enacting the ban, he vigorously defended it, saying there would be no exceptions. Gascón even went so far as to say in a video interview that those who disagreed with him (including his own employees) “had a tremendous economic interest” in “continuing their journey of mass incarceration” and that the enhancements they were advocating for were “racist.”

Just two days later, and under intense public pressure, Gascón abruptly retreated, evidently deciding to permit “racist” enhancements to be filed again.

Gascon’s tendency towards pomp over practicality was on display again only a few months later, when his own employees successfully won an injunction against him and his directives in Los Angeles Superior Court. There, a judge ruled that some of the most fundamental parts of his sweeping directives – including one banning his prosecutors from ever pursuing three strikes cases – violated California law. This awarded Gascón a most dubious distinction: his first official acts as district attorney were a series of commands to his own prosecutors to violate the law.

Even with the humiliation of being ordered to stop breaking the law, Gascón continued to stick by what was left of his ill-advised policy directives. And he did so despite a series of high-profile murders, follow-home robberies, and the now-infamous pictures of train tracks littered with delivery boxes. In the wake of all this terrible coverage, Gascón told CNN that those who disagree with his policies would have to wait until the next election, signaling he was going to stay the course. And he did, until Hannah Tubbs.

In that case, Tubbs violently molested a ten-year-old child in a Denny’s bathroom. Tubbs was just a few weeks away from being 18 years old at the time, but evaded capture for another eight years. In the interim, Tubbs continued to accumulate convictions in other states for battery, domestic violence, and drug possession. When Tubbs was finally brought to Los Angeles County in 2021 to face the molestation charges, Tubbs remained in juvenile court because of Gascón’s refusal to use the state law that permits requests to transfer a case from juvenile to adult court. Tubbs was then sentenced, at 26 years old, to custody time in juvenile hall and – perhaps most inexcusably – without any sex offender registration.

Gascón’s subsequent clumsy defense of the sentence was such a catastrophic embarrassment he drew condemnation across the journalistic spectrum, from Fox News to the Los Angeles Times. And, for a political party who is routinely criticized as being “soft on crime,” Gascón’s defense of the juvenile hall sentence was a gift to the opposing party. It’s no wonder that recently, when Democratic candidates for mayor of Los Angeles were asked to name something they supported about Gascón, not a single one of them dared say a positive word about him. Even progressive stalwart Kevin De León attacked one candidate for fundraising for Gascón, and then went after Karen Bass for having even shared the stage with Gascón when she announced her run for mayor, ominously saying, “you can’t run away from who you were with on day one.”

After Tubbs, Gascón was forced to reverse his hallmark ban on sending juveniles to criminal court. And while Gascón has attempted to defend some of his decisions as requiring a nuanced analysis, he can’t be bothered to give the same deference to the positions of those who may disagree with him. Like when he shamefully attempted to draw parallels between the prosecutors in the LADA’s office and officials in the Trump administration who detained children without their parents at the border. In a cheap political sleight of hand, he used the exact same language directed at those officials against his future employees, saying these prosecutors were indiscriminately keeping “kids” in “cages.” It should also come as no surprise that someone who throws around such incendiary language at his prospective employees is prone to retaliation and happily flouts civil service rules to hire political cronies.

No wonder 97.9% of his prosecutors supported his recall in a recent vote.

Remarkably, despite the reversals, the injunction, the terrible press, and his position as a political pariah, Gascón steadfastly maintains that in order to improve his relationship with his employees, it’s their responsibility to rethink things. Not his.

When the San Francisco Chronicle supported the recall of several school board members, it specifically cited competence, national embarrassment (like Gascón and the Tubbs case), and disregard for the law. As the Chronicle put it, “competence matters, even for progressives.” Gascón has been anything but competent. His flagrant disregard for the law, inept policies and his derision directed at his own employees have rendered him totally unfit to lead the office he now holds.

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.

An Expensive Political Insurance Policy

By Michele Hanisee

While running for office, George Gascón attacked Jackie Lacey’s record of declining to prosecute police officers who killed people and promised to go a step further and undo what he saw as her mistakes.

One of his first acts upon taking office was to convince the Board of Supervisors to give him more than $6 million over four years to hire outside counsel to re-examine closed cases where the District Attorney’s Office had previously cleared police officers. Gascón handpicked a criminal defense attorney named Lawrence Middleton for this purpose, deliberately ignoring the multitude of seasoned and ethical prosecutors already employed by the district attorney’s office who could have done this task at no additional expense to taxpayers.

The Middleton contract—while providing no benefit to Angelenos—did provide Gascón with something; political coverage. As Middleton was reviewing and rejecting cases previously examined and declined by prosecutors, Gascón could go back to his supporters and tell them that even Middleton did not recommend a filing. In essence, Middleton provided Gascón with political insurance on this delicate subject.

There was a slight hiccup before Middleton could start, as he was still actively representing criminal defendants. This ethical conflict of interest was resolved not by Middleton resigning from those cases, but by a judge summarily removing Middleton from representing several criminal defendants because of the “appearance of impropriety.” Middleton’s work of reviewing cases where officers in police shootings had been cleared by the highly experienced prosecutors working in the Justice System Integrity Division then commenced.

The standard of proof for any case to be filed is whether the case can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. While George Gascón erased many laws enacted by voters and the California Legislature, he cannot erase the standard of proof in criminal cases. One year and 1.5 million dollars later, Gascón’s handpicked special prosecutor has reviewed four closed cases without filing of any charges.

Gascón has now announced that no charges will be filed in two additional cases. The reason provided by Gascón in his statement was that “the burden of proof for prosecution is high.” In other words, his critique of Lacey’s decision not to file the same cases was wrong. It was a political narrative that had no factual basis. Not surprising since Gascón has never tried a single case and has no practical experience on what it takes to prove charges in court.

The question now is, how much longer will Gascon continue to bill the taxpayers to the tune of $1.5 million per year to keep Middleton on staff as his political insurance policy.

Michele Hanisee is 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.

A Preventable Murder

By Kathleen Cady

On Jan. 8, 41-year-old Alejandro Garcia was working the drive-through at Taco Bell in South Los Angeles. Mr. Garcia was shot to death by Jonathan Madden after Madden tried to pay with a counterfeit $20 bill. Mr. Garcia is survived by his wife and three children.

The tragedy of Mr. Garcia’s murder is compounded by the fact that it was entirely preventable. If we had an elected district attorney who enforced the law, Madden would have been in custody. Not only did Madden have a long criminal history — he had two open felony cases. He should have been in jail.

George Gascón’s bail policy ensured that Madden was on the street on that horrific day. This is because Gascón will not seek pretrial detention unless the current offense is either a “serious” or “violent” offense. There are no exceptions.

Madden’s criminal record demonstrates the absurdity of this policy. He had multiple felony convictions and has been to prison three times. He is the definition of “recidivist.” His first felony conviction was in 2001 for robbery (a violent felony), for which he was given a second chance and put on probation. He then picked up a 2002 burglary and grand theft conviction, a 2006 robbery conviction, a 2009 conviction for possessing drugs while in prison, and a 2018 conviction for felon in possession of ammunition and possessing cocaine for sale. The only reason Madden was out of custody while having two open felony cases pending against him is because of Gascón’s unlawful policy which did not allow allegations to be filed, combined with his blanket policy which does not allow prosecutors to ask for pretrial bail.

First Open Case

On Feb. 4, 2021, Madden was charged with being a felon in possession of a gun (Penal Code 29800(a)(1)). With his record, this charge is a red flag indicating that he is a danger to public safety. The law requires prosecutors to file prior violent/serious felony convictions (PC 667(a) and 1170.12). From Dec. 7, 2020, until Feb. 8, 2021, when a judge gave injunctive relief due to a lawsuit filed by the Association of Deputy District Attorneys, Gascón’s policies prohibited prosecutors from following this law. See ADDA v. Gascón, 20STCP04250 (L.A. Super Ct., filed Dec. 30, 2020). Unfortunately, Madden’s felony gun charge was filed during this two-month window. Further, Gascón’s policies prohibited prosecutors from asking for bail when a defendant is charged with being a convicted felon in possession of a gun. Had the prior convictions been alleged, the bail schedule would have allowed bail to be set at at least $160,000. Without the prior convictions, Madden’s bail was set at $30,000. That amount may seem high to a person unfamiliar with bail, but by paying a bail bondsman less than 10% of that amount — the fee can be charged to a credit card — Madden was able to bail out, only to commit another felony.

Second Open Case

On May 5, 2021, Madden was arrested and charged with felony sales of narcotics. When a person is bailed out on a felony offense and commits a new felony, the law allows an “out-on-bail” enhancement allegation to be charged. Gascón’s policies, however, do not allow for enhancements. The law and bail schedule should have set Madden’s bail at at least $190,000. Because of Gascón, Madden bailed out on only $100,000 bail. Gascón’s policies resulted in Madden being out of custody, where he was able to illegally obtain another gun, attempt to pass a counterfeit $20 bill at Taco Bell on Jan. 8, 2022, and shoot and kill Mr. Garcia.

The Purpose of Bail Is to Protect Public Safety

When a five-time felon who has been to prison three times unlawfully possesses a gun, he is dangerous to public safety. The law states, “In setting, reducing, or denying bail, a judge or magistrate shall take into consideration the protection of the public, the seriousness of the offense charged, the previous criminal record of the defendant, and the probability of his or her appearing at trial or at a hearing of the case. The public safety shall be the primary consideration.” PC 1275(a)(1); Cal. Const. Art. I, Sec. 28(f)(3).

The courts have a bail schedule which sets presumptive bail for each crime and allegation. The bail schedule takes into account the enhancement allegations for additional facts of the crime such as the infliction of great bodily injury (PC 12022.7), use of a deadly weapon (PC 12022(b)(1)), use of a gun (PC 12022.53), or when the crime was committed at the direction of a gang (PC 186.22). The bail schedule also takes into account enhancement allegations based on prior criminal convictions of recidivist offenders. The law requires a judge to consider the following when setting bail: the defendant’s prior record including convictions for serious or violent felonies (PC 667(a)(1) and 1170.12(a)-(d)); prior prison commitments; and the commission of new felony crimes committed while out on bail (PC 12022.1).

Gascón’s blanket policies ignore the law and public safety. Gascón’s elimination of cash bail policy states: “The presumption shall be to release individuals pretrial. All individuals shall receive a presumption of own recognizance release without conditions. … DDAs shall not request cash bail for any misdemeanor, non-serious felony, or nonviolent felony offense.”

Literally, within moments of taking office and an oath to uphold the law, Gascón issued blanket policies that violate the law and the will of the voters. In 2020, California voters overwhelmingly rejected Proposition 25 which would have replaced current bail laws requiring monetary bail by establishing a risk assessment tool designed to ensure the public is protected. Gascón’s policy permits neither. Prosecutors are prohibited from asking for monetary bail. Nor have they been provided with any tool to conduct a meaningful risk assessment to ensure the public is protected.

In the Madden case, but for Gascón’s policies, prosecutors would have filed allegations for Madden’s prior cases and asked for appropriate bail to ensure public safety by keeping Madden in custody. Instead, Madden bailed out on a felon with a gun charge, committed new felony offenses, bailed out again, illegally obtained another gun and, tragically murdered Mr. Garcia.

Madden should have been in custody. Had Madden been in jail. Mr. Garcia would not have been murdered. Mr. Garcia’s wife would still have her husband and his children would still have their father. Instead, Gascón’s policies are responsible for Madden being out of custody which allowed him to again illegally obtain a gun and murder Mr. Garcia.

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

Gascón Admits His ‘Youth Justice’ Policy Was a Mistake

By Kathleen Cady

Los Angeles County District Attorney Gascón is in damage control mode.

On February 20, 2022, in an effort to get ahead of horrific recordings of Hannah Tubbs, a former minor who was prosecuted in juvenile court on Gascón’s orders, Gascón issued the following Press Release: “[O]ur juvenile system in its current iteration does not provide adequate support to help [a former minor]…except through the adult system…The complex issues and facts of [this] particular case were unusual, and I should have treated them that way.”

Gascón’s epiphany that his blanket Youth Justice Policy was a mistake is little solace to the families of murder victims whose cases have been negatively impacted over the last 16 months.

On December 8, 2021, District Attorney Gascón highlighted several “accomplishments” from his first year in office which included: withdrawing 77 previously filed Motions to Transfer, recalling and resentencing 25 defendants who were previously convicted in criminal court and additional cases in which the office did not seek to transfer the minor to criminal court.

Most crimes committed by minors, even violent ones, are not eligible for prosecution in criminal court because the justice system favors rehabilitation for minors. (Welfare and Institutions Code 202).

The law, however, recognizes that the juvenile justice system is not the appropriate place for some 16- and 17-year-olds who commit exceptionally heinous and brutal crimes. This legal procedure for a minor to be prosecuted in criminal court is triggered by the prosecution filing a transfer motion. (Welfare and Institutions Code 707). This procedure provides a judicial safeguard to ensure that only those minors who can’t be rehabilitated in the juvenile system are transferred to criminal jurisdiction.

When Gascón took office he mandated that all transfer motions be withdrawn in cases that had been previously evaluated by experienced prosecutors. One of those horrific cases involved the murders of Jose Flores and Alfredo Carrera.

Gang members, including 16-year-old Dameon E., and 17-year-old Shanice D., gunned down Jose Flores — an astrophysics PhD candidate at UCI who had accepted a job with NASA, and his childhood best-friend, Alfredo Carrera, who was about to become a father for the first time.

The gang members were “doing work” for the gang – hunting for people in a rival gang’s territory. The families of Alfredo and Jose would vehemently disagree with Gascón’s word choice of “accomplishment,” when his policy ensured that the minors who executed their loved ones won’t serve more than 7 years in custody.

“Catastrophe,” “heartbreak” and “abandonment” more appropriately describe Gascon’s actions.

Gascón also boasted of 25 cases in which former minors serving prison sentences for violent crimes they committed were resentenced as juveniles. These former minors, all of whom are now in their 20s or 30s, were charged, convicted and sentenced in criminal court. But due to the change in the law they were sent back to juvenile court by the Court of Appeal, with directions to hold a retroactive transfer hearing. Gascón refused to conduct the hearing ordered by the Court of Appeal. The result is that at least 25 former minors who were convicted of gang murders, sometimes of multiple murders, were released back into our communities having served only a few years in custody. In all of these cases, the former minors were released into our communities without any assurances that they received rehabilitative services, nor any evaluation as to their current dangerousness. Some of these former minors had subsequent convictions for crimes of violence they committed while in custody – a fact known and ignored by District Attorney Gascon.

Also listed as an “accomplishment” were an additional 100 recent cases that were not transferred to criminal court as a result of Gascón’s blanket Youth Justice policy. Five of these 100 cases include the following egregious examples of a 16- or 17-year-old committing crimes that have been or are being prosecuted in juvenile court:

  • On December 1, 2020, 28-year-old mother Ky Alicia Thomas was shot and killed in Venice. One of the assailants is 17.
  • On February 17, 2021, 32-year-old Monique Munoz was killed by a 17-year-old son of wealthy entrepreneur who was driving a Lamborghini on a suspended license at speeds up to 106 mph.  He had been cited for speeding twice in 2020, including once for driving 72 miles per hour on surface streets.
  •  On May 26, 17-year-old Kenia Rivera was shot and killed by two juvenile gang members as she was walking down the street with her twin sister.
  • On August 12, 2021, 26-year-old Jayren Bradford was shot and killed outside the Shoe Palace by a 16-year-old. The entire shooting was caught on tape.
  •  On November 15, 2021, 19-year-old Cody Wilson was shot and killed by a 17-year-old in Pico Rivera.
 
Gascón’s “updated” Youth Justice Policy acknowledges that in exceptional circumstances and egregious cases, criminal jurisdiction may be appropriate for youth offenders. No kidding. This is exactly what the law says (Welfare and Institutions Code 707). Experienced prosecutors have been telling him that since the day he took office. Each case deserves to have the facts and circumstances evaluated independently.
 
Gascón’s updated policy established a “panel” to evaluate juvenile cases. Unfortunately for victims and the public, this panel includes Alisa Blair, Gascón’s handpicked surrogate who transferred over from the public defender’s office. Blair assisted in developing Gascón’s initial Youth Justice Policy, which was written while she was still a deputy public defender.

Blair clearly doesn’t understand a prosecutor’s solemn obligation to uphold the law. On May 29, 2020, Blair tweeted “Burn that shit down. We must destroy in order to rebuild” during the civil unrest after the killing of George Floyd, potentially emboldening rioters and inciting violence. Even as a prosecutor, Blair appears to continue representing the interests of criminal defendants, while ignoring the rights of victims (California Constitution Article I, Section 28(b) and Penal Code 679).

The law clearly states that prosecutors are precluded from assisting in the defense of any person accused of a crime. (Government Code 26540 and 24100). Despite this, Blair had contact with the mother of convicted murderer Andrew Cachu’s. Cachu was just two months shy of his 18th birthday when he shot and killed 41-year-old Louis Amela outside a Palmdale restaurant in March of 2015. Although Cachu was convicted and sentenced in criminal court as the law at that time allowed, he is included in the number of cases that were back for resentencing in juvenile court. During a May 10, 2021 recorded jail phone call between the defendant and his mother, Cachu’s mother tells him, “Hi Mijo. You know who that was? …That’s Gascón’s special advisor…She’s the one I’ve been emailing back and forth… She looked at me like ‘Girl – I got you.”

In keeping with Gascón’s policies that she helped write, Blair requested to keep Cachu in the juvenile system. At the disposition hearing (similar to a criminal sentencing hearing), Blair declined to put on any evidence even after invited to do so by the judge. The court stated he believed Blair’s conduct was intentional, not negligent or inadvertent. Cachu was released after having served only 6 years in jail for a gang motivated armed robbery and murder because of Blair’s deliberate actions.

It was also Blair who was in the middle of the case where former minor Tubbs, represented by the public defender’s office, was sentenced to a juvenile facility for child molestation despite a substantial criminal history and very disturbing jail calls.

The reality of whether Gascón will allow any minors to be prosecuted in criminal court remains to be seen, especially with Blair’s continued involvement. For murder victims families who have personally experienced Gascón’s complete disregard for victims and their rights, his updated policies are too little, too late.

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

Heads in the (Silicon) Sand


Heads in the (Silicon) Sand

Ignoring Frontline Employee Concerns Backfired for Elizabeth Holmes. How is it Working for America’s Most Notorious Progressive Prosecutor?

By Eric Siddall

Elizabeth Holmes convinced wealthy Silicon Valley investors, two former secretaries of state, one former bank CEO, and one former four-star general that she was revolutionizing the entire healthcare industry. She promised that with one drop of blood, her invention could run hundreds of tests. Because of her grandiose promises, she received hundreds of millions of dollars in investments from these celebrated individuals. Some would also serve on her board and repeatedly vouch for her. But there was one problem. She was a fraud.

Notably, it wasn’t any of the rich or powerful who blew the whistle on Holmes. It was frontline lab techs. They saw that the wunderkind’s product was an abysmal, fraudulent failure. When they raised the issue in an email directly to Holmes, she brushed it aside — and forwarded it to the COO. The COO responded to the techs’ valid concerns by belittling their grasp of math and science. Ironically, it was these lab techs who worked with a journalist to expose Holmes. It was these same lab techs who would be vindicated when Holmes was convicted of fraud in federal court.

Like Holmes, George Gascón cultivated support for his campaign for district attorney of Los Angeles with grandiose promises. He claimed that his innovative policies would drastically reduce prison populations, reduce government waste, improve the environment, reduce racial inequality, and make our communities safer. Like Holmes, Gascón’s vision of an industry-wide sea change drew support from celebrated individuals: wealthy Silicon Valley investors, renowned professors, and Hollywood celebrities. However, like the lab techs, frontline prosecutors have been raising serious concerns.

On his first day as district attorney, Gascón reduced the possible consequences for nearly every single criminal offense in the county of Los Angeles, from theft to murder. Shooting victims, rape victims and stalking victims saw their assailants’ possible sentences plummet by dozens of years. Parents of murdered children saw their perpetrators sentences drop from life without parole to parole within 15 years.

To be sure, it wasn’t Gascón or his advisers who saw the immediate devastating impact of these policies. The people who have seen the impact of his policies are his frontline prosecutors. These 800 civil servants, who have dedicated their careers to public safety, are now forced by Gascón’s directives to undermine it. As a result of these directives, they have seen people convicted of heinous crimes released with minimal consequence, they have seen others released without the support they need to successfully reintegrate, and they have seen it time and time again.

Frontline prosecutors in the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office are frustrated and alarmed. They’re frustrated because they’re told by Gascón that their concerns are “anti-science,” much in the same way that the Holmes’ COO dismissed the lab techs. They are alarmed because, in the face of skyrocketing murders and shootings, it appears as though Gascón is locking up the tools to address the problem and throwing away the key.

These feelings aren’t limited to L.A. County prosecutors. Others who work in the justice system – including court reporters, judges, and yes, even defense attorneys – are alarmed by the negative impact of these policies. Like the prosecutors, they are horrified not just at Gascón’s aversion to meaningful accountability, but also his inaction in the face of a desperate need for a major course-correction.

It is this collective frustration and fear that compelled the frontline prosecutors of the LADA’s Office to take the extraordinary step of voting to support the recall and removal from office of George Gascón. In the final vote, 97.9 percent supported his removal. A mere twelve voted against supporting the recall. This vote was not taken lightly. It was taken over a year into Gascón’s tenure in office. Prior to the vote, Gascón was invited to meet with frontline prosecutors to address their concerns. Like Holmes, Gascón brushed off and belittled the request.

Perhaps Gascón should heed the words of the Holmes’ prosecutor – Jina Choi, director of the SEC’s San Francisco regional office. When announcing charges against Holmes, Choi underscored the danger of visionary promises, reminding us, “[i]nnovators who seek to revolutionize and disrupt an industry must tell investors the truth about what their technology can do today, not just what they hope it might do someday.”

Perhaps Gascón should stop talking about how he might make us safer in the future, listen to his frontline deputies, and talk how he can make us safer today.

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 Ignorance on Allegations and Enhancements Leads to Injustice and Endangers Public Safety

By Kathy Cady

Violent criminals hurt individuals and endanger the public. California law allows sentencing enhancements/allegations to be filed when the criminal also inflicts great bodily injury (Penal Code 12022.7), uses a deadly weapon (Penal Code 12022(b)(1)), uses a gun (Penal Code 12022.53), commits the crime for the benefit of a gang (Penal Code 186.22), or when they have prior felony convictions for crimes of violence (Penal Code 667(a)(1) and 1170.12).

Allegations show the gravamen of the offense. Filing an allegation affects the bail that is set and can also affect the sentence a defendant receives upon conviction. Although the law allows allegations and enhancements to be charged, Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón’s misguided policies do not. He believes the “statutory ranges” are sufficient to protect public safety. Many crimes have statutory ranges, which are often called a sentencing triad. Murder, however, does not have “statutory ranges.” Experienced prosecutors know this. Gascón, having never actually prosecuted a case, apparently did not.

Gascón’s ill-advised policies have been wreaking havoc on public safety. He has abandoned murder victims’ families. His blind devotion to “reform” the criminal justice system has been an abject failure because nothing is actually better since he took office. The families of 9-year-old Trinity and 53-year-old Fatima Johnson know firsthand the devastation that Gascón’s policies have created.

Prior Conviction Allegations

On March 1, 2019, Trinity was brutally beaten, tortured, and dumped dead on the side of the road as if she were trash. Trinity’s mother, Taquesta Graham, and her mother’s boyfriend, Emiel Lamar Hunt, are charged with her murder. Hunt has a prior record. In 2005, Hunt physically abused his 3-year-old son who almost died and had to be put on life support. Hunt was convicted and sentenced to 12 years for this crime.

The law requires prosecutors to allege prior convictions, so Hunt’s prior conviction was alleged in Trinity’s case. From December 7, 2020, until February 8, 2021, Gascón’s policies required prosecutors in Los Angeles County to ask judges to dismiss prior conviction allegations. On February 8, 2021, Judge James Chalfant determined Gascón’s blanket policy mandating dismissal of allegations without legal justification was unlawful. Unfortunately, the allegation of Hunt’s prior conviction was dismissed one week after Gascón took office, before his policy was determined to be unlawful.

After Judge Chalfant issued his ruling, Gascón doubled down and ordered that prosecutors could not ask judges to reinstate allegations that had been dismissed even if the only reason they were dismissed was because of his unlawful policy. Because of that, the trial prosecutor in Trinity’s case is precluded from asking the judge to reinstate Hunt’s prior conviction for abusing his son. If his prior conviction were alleged, his sentence could be longer than Graham’s. As it stands now, both defendants face the same punishment for murdering Trinity, even though the mom’s boyfriend has this prior felony conviction. Trinity deserves to have Hunt’s conviction alleged because the law requires it. Justice demands it, but Gascón’s absurd policies don’t allow it.

Special Circumstance Allegations in Murder Cases

The law allows special circumstance allegations to be filed in murder cases. Penal Code 190.2 Multiple murder is a special circumstance that can be alleged when a defendant has killed more than one person. The effect of a special circumstance is that the defendant can be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Not filing special circumstances means that the defendant will be eligible for parole.

On July 2, 2021, the body of mother and grandmother Fatima Johnson was found bound and gagged in her South Los Angeles home. Her boyfriend, Darryl Collins, is charged with her murder. Collins is the poster child for recidivism. In 1992, he was convicted of attempted robbery, sentenced to prison and given another chance. In 1998, he committed a string of armed robberies during which he killed two people on two separate dates. He was given a plea deal of 50 years to life for two counts of murder. After serving 25 years in custody, he was eligible for Youth Offender Parole (Penal Code 3051). The Parole Board made a disastrous decision and granted him parole, giving him a third chance. Less than one year after being released, Collins brutally bound, gagged and murdered Fatima Johnson. Collins is now 51 years old. In 20 years, he will qualify for Elder Parole (Penal Code 3055) regardless of whether his sentence is 25 to life or 85 to life. Collins is a serial killer. His conduct has earned him a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. The public deserve to be protected from Collins. The law allows for special circumstances to be filed when the defendant has committed multiple murders, and the facts of this case demand it.

On February 18, 2022, after more than one year of requiring prosecutors to dismiss special circumstances that were alleged when he took office and never allowing special circumstance allegations to be filed, Gascón has had an epiphany and now states “I understand there may be the rare occasion where the filing of special circumstance allegations may be necessary … in an extremely limited number of cases where the underlying facts are extraordinary and/or the victims are uniquely vulnerable.”
Not to overstate it, but duh.

That’s why they are called special circumstances. Perhaps Gascón’s complete lack of experience in prosecuting cases gave him the impression that special circumstance allegations were common. Unfortunately, murder victims whose voices have been permanently silenced and their families whose cases have been undermined in the last 14 months have no recourse for Gascón’s ignorance and ill-informed policies. Going forward, murder victim’s families have to hope that Gascón thinks their case is “extraordinary” or that their loved one was “uniquely vulnerable.” Alternatively, Gascón could just follow the law he swore an oath to uphold and allow prosecutors with experience and expertise to file Special Circumstances when the facts and circumstances warrant.

Allegations and Enhancements Affect Bail

The California Constitution (Article I, Section 28(f)(3)) requires that the protection of the public, the safety of the victim, the seriousness of the offense, the prior record of the defendant and the probability of his or her appearing in court be considered in setting bail. The safety of the victim and the victim’s family must be considered in setting bail (Article I, Section 28(b)(3)). The courts have a bail schedule which sets presumptive bail for each crime and allegation.

Enter the insidious interplay of Gascón’s policy regarding allegations and his policy regarding pretrial release. Despite the Constitution, Gascón’s policy is that deputy district attorneys shall not request cash bail for any misdemeanor, non-serious felony, or nonviolent felony offense. Some crimes only become serious or violent when an allegation or enhancement, such as use of a weapon or inflicting great bodily injury is charged. Gascón’s policies, however, precludes filing those allegations. Without the filed allegations, prosecutors cannot ask judges to set bail resulting in dangerous criminals being released.

Los Angeles County residents are endangered because our elected district attorney has enacted policies that violate the laws of California. We need a prosecutor who enforces the laws, protects the public and honors victims’ rights.

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

ADDA Members Overwhelmingly Support George Gascón Recall

Los Angeles, February 22, 2022 – 97.9% percent of the front-line prosecutors tasked with implementing George Gascón’s policies voted to support his recall. The vote came after Gascón refused an invitation to address the prosecutors of his office to explain and defend his policies and provide his arguments why he should not be recalled.

“This vote is by those who are intimately familiar with how Mr. Gascón’s policies actually play out on a day-to-day basis. We believe the vote of our members will resonate with the voters of Los Angeles as they decide whether to recall Gascón from office and restore public safety as the priority of the District Attorney’s office,” commented ADDA President Michele Hanisee.

Mr. Gascón previously participated in a scripted meeting with Public Defenders. Since taking office, the District Attorney has refused to speak directly with deputies to explain his policies.

“Over a year ago, Gascón began a massive social experiment by redirecting prosecutorial resources away from enforcing the law while simultaneously ignoring large portions of the penal code. The result is an emboldened criminal element that knows the DA will not hold criminals accountable. This experiment needs to end,” said ADDA VP Eric Siddall.

With 83.3% participation, voter turnout exceeds all previous ADDA elections.

This ADDA vote occurs after more than 30 cities within the County of Los Angeles have issued votes of no confidence in the District Attorney. In addition, multiple cities have begun the process of seeking to prosecute misdemeanors within their jurisdictions due to the policies of the District Attorney, prosecutions currently handled by ADDA members.

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.

Gascón Refuses to Meet

Los Angeles, February 9, 2022 – The Association of Deputy District Attorneys (ADDA), representing over 800 Deputy District Attorneys of Los Angeles County, invited District Attorney George Gascón to speak to the membership in a virtual town hall event to explain why he should not be recalled. That invitation was declined.

The District Attorney ran on a promise of transparency. It is clear from his actions today that this promise was merely a political platitude. Unfortunately, his refusal to meet with his own deputies is consistent with the secrecy with which he manages his administration.

Not surprising from a man who rarely shows up to his own office.

No competent elected official should be afraid of answering questions. While we are surprised that Mr. Gascón chose to decline our invitation to make his case as to why he should not be recalled, the ADDA will proceed on a vote.

Our call for a membership vote on this nonpartisan question was made out of our respect for the democratic process. Our invitation to the District Attorney was intended to give him an opportunity to defend the wisdom of policies. Our goal was to ensure that our membership’s decision-making process was deliberative and transparent.

This call for a vote was not made in haste. Already, more than 30 cities within Los Angeles County issued votes of no confidence in the District Attorney. In addition, multiple cities are exploring options to avoid Gascón’s no prosecution policy on quality-of-life crimes.

The Deputy District Attorneys of Los Angeles are intimately familiar with how the District Attorney’s policies have impacted our office, our law practices, the victims with whom we work, and the safety of the communities in which we live. We are confident that our upcoming membership vote on the recall will be valuable for the voters of Los Angeles as they decide this issue.

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 Members to Vote on George Gascón Recall

Los Angeles, February 4, 2022 – The Association of Deputy District Attorneys (ADDA), representing over 800 deputy district attorneys of Los Angeles County, will hold a membership vote on whether to endorse the recall of District Attorney George Gascón.

The ADDA believes that this important question must be answered in a fair, transparent, and democratic manner. In that spirit, we have given the District Attorney the opportunity to speak directly to the membership and answer their questions.

We look forward to this important exchange.

Here is the link to our invitation to District Attorney Gascón.

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.