Gascón ideology is not making us any safer

By Eric Siddall

According to District Attorney George Gascón, “The past four decades have not made us any safer.” This recent ahistorical statement is incredible for two reasons. First, it reveals willful ignorance by Los Angeles’s top prosecutor of the historic decline in crime since the 1990s. Second, it reflects an ideological bent that snubs the progress we have made in public safety. Despite his claimed allegiance to data and science, statements like this are devoid of both.

Bill Maher calls this orientation “progressophobia”: the sin of admitting when things do get better. Rather than acknowledge historical trends and gradual progress, the progressophobist will ignore it. Ideologues often employ this willful ignorance to delegitimize past gains and bolster their frequently extreme alternatives.

Notwithstanding Gascón’s ideology, the past four decades have made us safer – a lot safer. Nonpartisan think tanks have gone so far to refer to the past 30 years as a period marked by the “great crime decline:”

Between 1991 and 2019, violent crime rates plummeted across the nation. Los Angeles stands out. In the early 1990s, Los Angeles’ murder rate was 30 per 100,000—one of the highest in the nation. The violent crime rate was 2,500 per 100,000. The 1980s and 1990s earned Los Angeles the undisputed title of “gang capital of the world.” Los Angeles’ pervasive gang violence inexorably spread to other cities, other states, and even other countries, particularly those in Central America.

Gangs and guns were the drivers of these violent decades, and they scourged disadvantaged neighborhoods. A 1994 article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found firearms were used in 95 percent of gang murders. The victims were 93 percent African-American or Latino. Tragically, in one-third of the cases, the victims were non-gang members.

In 1991, Los Angeles’ murder rate was comparable to Chicago’s and double the national average. We have come a long way since. Los Angeles in 2019, was one of the safest cities in America. Homicides were at 5 per 100,000 and violent crime at 560 per 100,000 – mere fractions of what they used to be.

The reasons for this decline are complex and still not fully understood. There are reliable studies that suggests increased police forces and tougher sentences like California’s Three Strikes and “10-20-life – use a gun and you’re done” laws played a role. This is not to suggest that the tough on crime approach was uniformly effective, or came without unintended consequences, but some policies likely had an impact on reducing violent crime.

But our gains are under threat. 2021 could be the year we witness the reversal of the “great crime decline.” Just as marginalized communities were the beneficiaries when violent crime was declining, they are disproportionally feeling the impact. Watts experienced a 140 percent increase in murder when comparing year-to-date figures from 2021 to 2020. This compared to a 25 percent increase city-wide—and a 100 percent decrease in West Los Angeles.

No single study can solidify why these number are edging upwards, and researchers are still looking for answers. However, this does not seem like the ideal moment “to turn our court system upside down,” as Mr. Gascón has advocated. Nor is it the moment to reverse three decades of policies and practices that, despite some flaws, appeared to coincide with significant ]reductions in crime rates. His approach could not come at a worse time.

In addition to Gascón’s abandonment of many prosecutorial tools, the defund the police movement reduced the budgets of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department and the Los Angeles Police Department, the two largest law enforcement agencies in Los Angeles County. Even gun and gang laws are targets of the progressophobia movement.

The state legislature recently attempted to repeal the “10-20-life – use a gun and you’re done” law. Thankfully, sensible members of the legislature put a stop to it. The California Assembly recently passed AB 333, a bill that guts gang enforcement. We are now awaiting its fate in the California Senate. Again, the timing could not be worse. Just when gang murders are rising, our legislature, without any serious study, wants to abandon gang enforcement.

California and Los Angeles saw major public safety benefits in the past four decades. We saw less bloodshed and safer neighborhoods. The greatest beneficiaries lived in the most marginalized neighborhoods. These reductions created other benefits, including more livable neighborhoods, trauma avoidance, and better educational outcomes. These gains cannot be taken for granted; vigilance is required.

Violence is now trending upwards. At the same time, Gascón and progressophobists are leading an uncritical retreat on many aspects of the criminal justice system that may have helped make us safer. It would be a tragedy to see those hard-won gains eviscerated in a matter of years, because of reckless social experiments – especially when they are based on ideology rather than evidence.

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.

Political Scapegoating to Explain Away Rising Homicide Rates

By Michele Hanisee The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has reported a stunning 111 percent increase in homicides from January 1, 2021, to May 21, 2021, versus the same period in 2020.  While current statewide numbers are not yet reported by the Department of Justice, California’s homicide rate in 2020 had a lower but still alarming 31 percent increase. While some politicians have recently attempted to blame increased gun sales for the rise in violent crime, historical studies and data are mixed as to whether increased gun prevalence causes a rise in violent crime, or whether the increase in violent crime causes more people to buy guns. Economist Thomas Sowell said, “One of the first things taught in introductory statistics textbooks is that correlation is not causation. It is also one of the first things forgotten.” In the absence of data that proves that it is the gun purchases causing the violent crime rate rather than the reverse, or that there is no causal relationship at all, it is dishonest to lay blame on increased gun sales. A recent study published July 5, 2021, by the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program found no causation between increased gun sales and a rise in violent crime. The study examined firearm sales over two years beginning in 2018, including the increased sales of millions of firearms during the COVID pandemic in 2020. The study concluded that “[d]espite concomitant increases in firearm purchasing and firearm violence nationally, the magnitude of the increase in purchasing at the state-level did not explain the magnitude of the increase in non-domestic firearm violence.” Yet, as gun violence increases, politicians are calling for the decriminalization of gun use during crimes. The current District Attorney of Los Angeles County refuses to enforce California’s “10-20-life – use a gun and you’re done” law. A bill pending in the Legislature would repeal this law. Governor Newsom signed into law a bill that allows judges to dismiss firearm enhancements even after they have been found true by a jury. These same politicians defend diversion programs that will enable criminals to continue to possess guns. These radical and reckless efforts to decriminalize gun violence are not evidence-based decisions, they are purely ideological. This is classic stage-one thinking by politicians who advocate for policy solutions without considering the long-term costs and consequences. Saving money through reduced incarceration is the stage-one goal. But what happens next? And who pays the cost of what happens next? As local and Sacramento politicians are now learning, what happens next is a public safety crisis. Rather than looking for the true cause of rising homicide rates, they are attempting to deflect accountability away from their own policies and legislation which have reduced accountability for criminal gun use. 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.

Lawyers Dwell On Small Details Part II

By Michele Hanisee

Since the Special Directives of the District Attorney were announced in his first moment in office, they have been the topic of discussion in the public and in the press. But some significant sections of these directives have been overlooked simply because their effect is not apparent to anyone without a detailed knowledge of criminal law. Without commenting on the merits of these policies we will commence a series of articles examining the intricacies of some of the directives.

According to the LADA website, the nearly 1,000 prosecutors in the LADA’s office handle roughly 71,000 felonies and 112,000 misdemeanors every year. The real number of prosecutors actually handling those cases is somewhat less, due to the fact that management level attorneys don’t actually handle cases, and also because the COVID 19 hiring freeze has reduced overall employee numbers. But any way you crunch the numbers, 119,000 criminal cases is simply more than even 1,000 prosecutors can bring to trial. Hence the necessity of the plea bargain. Around 90% of the cases filed by the LADA resolve by way of a plea bargain rather than through a jury trial.

Special Directive 20-08 titled “Sentencing Enhancements/Allegations” prohibits the filing of all sentencing enhancements. While this directive was subsequently modified due to political pressure to permit filing of enhancements for hate crimes, elder abuse, child abuse, human trafficking and some financial crime enhancements, the general prohibition against filing enhancements is still in effect. But a significant section of this directive has been largely overlooked. A bullet point on the second page states, “If the charged offense is probation-eligible, probation shall be the presumptive offer absent extraordinary circumstances warranting a state prison commitment.”

Let’s read that again.  “IF THE CHARGED OFFENSE IS PROBATION-ELIGIBLE, PROBATION SHALL BE THE PRESUMPTIVE OFFER” for a plea bargain.

Here’s the kicker. Nearly every crime is probation eligible, up to and including murder. The following crimes are not probation eligible:

  1. Solicitation of a minor to use or sell drugs.
  2. Sale of PCP.
  3. Offering to manufacture a controlled substance other than PCP.
  4. Possession, or sale, or use of a destructive device, or possession of ingredients to make one.
  5. Possession of a machine gun or silencer.
  6. Possession of a forged instrument with a prior conviction for the same.
  7. Accepting or giving of bribes, or extortion, or embezzlement of public monies by a public official
  8. Residential burglary with a person present.
  9. Arson of inhabited structure.
  10. Intentional murder by shooting from a car.
  11. Violent sex offenses

Nearly all other crimes are probation eligible. Murder is probation eligible. Carjacking is probation eligible. Kidnapping is probation eligible. What typically causes a crime to be ineligible for probation is the addition of a sentencing enhancement, for example, use of a deadly weapon or infliction of great bodily injury. But since filing all but a handful of sentencing enhancements is prohibited, nearly every crime remains probation eligible. Thus – even for murder – the presumptive offer for those roughly 95,000 plus cases for which plea bargains are offered must be probation absent “extraordinary circumstances.”

The directive does not define what qualifies as “extraordinary circumstances.” What does that mean in the context of a murder case, or a carjacking case? But by definition, “extraordinary circumstances” will be a rare exception. The rule is that prosecutors must offer a plea bargain that results in the defendant going home on probation rather than serving time in custody. Even for murder.

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.

Lawyers Dwell On Small Details (Part 1)

By Michele Hanisee

Since the Special Directives of the District Attorney were announced in his first moment in office, they have been the topic of discussion in the public and in the press. But some significant sections of these directives have been overlooked simply because their effect is not apparent to anyone without a detailed knowledge of criminal law. Without commenting on the merits of these policies we will commence a series of articles examining the intricacies of some of the directives.

Special Directive 20-06 – Pretrial Release Policy

In the same election in which the District Attorney was elected, the voters of California rejected Prop 25 which would have eliminated cash bail. Special Directive 20-06 acknowledges that the will of the voters was to continue to use cash bail. Nevertheless, Special Directive 20-06 states, “DDAs shall not request cash bail for any misdemeanor, non-serious felony, or nonviolent felony offense.”

While the directive seems simple enough from a plain-English standpoint, the average member of the public does not understand what crimes fall under the definition of “non-serious” and “nonviolent.” Felonies that qualify as “violent” are listed in PC 667.5(c). Felonies that qualify as “serious” are listed in PC 1192.7. These two sections define what crimes are “strikes” for purposes of the three strikes law. There are many crimes that are arguably serious and violent in the mind of the average citizen that are not included on these lists. Following are examples of crimes that are neither serious nor violent which thus qualify for zero cash bail under this policy:

  • Solicitation to commit murder;
  • Felony assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury in violation of paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 245;
  • False imprisonment to prevent arrest such that it increases the risk of harm to the victim in violation of Section 210.5;
  • Felony domestic violence resulting in a traumatic condition in violation of Penal Code Section 273.5;
  • Felony use of force or threats against a witness or victim of a crime in violation of Penal Code Section 140;
  • Felony resisting a peace officer and causing serious injury in violation of Penal Code Section 148.10;
  • A felony hate crime with present ability to commit violent injury, or which does cause injury pursuant to Penal Code Section 422.7;
  • Felony elder or dependent adult abuse likely to cause great bodily harm or death in violation of subdivision (b)(1) of Penal Code Section 368;
    Molestation of a child aged 15 and older in violation of Penal Code Section 288(c);
  • Sexual penetration of a mentally disabled or developmentally disabled victim, a drugged victim, or an unconscious victim in violation of subdivision (b), (d) or (e) of Penal Code Section 289;
  • Sodomy of a mentally disabled or developmentally disabled victim, a drugged victim, or an unconscious victim in violation of subdivision (f), (g), or (i) of Penal Code Section 286;
  • Oral copulation of a mentally disabled or developmentally disabled victim, a drugged victim, or an unconscious victim in violation of subdivision (f), (g), or (i) of Penal Code Section 287;
  • Human trafficking of a minor for commercial sex acts in violation of subdivision (c)(1) of Penal Code Section 236.1.

This is not an exhaustive list. A Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney may not request bail for the above listed offenses and many others that are not specifically defined under the law as “serious” or “violent.”

Under this policy, a suspect arrested for sodomizing a developmentally disabled adult will not have to post any bail. The same is true for a suspect arrested for sucker punching an elderly Asian woman in a hate crime. At most the prosecutor can request the court to impose the “least restrictive means” which is described as anything from “no conditions” to electronic monitoring or home detention.

There are no exceptions to this 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.

ADDA Applauds District Attorneys Who Stood Up For Victims Of Crime

Los Angeles, May 14, 2021 – The Association of Deputy District Attorneys (ADDA) applauds the 41 elected District Attorneys who stood up for the rule of law and victims of crime in requesting the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to repeal the “emergency” regulations designed to give 76,000 inmates, including violent and repeat felons, early releases from prison.

The “emergency” regulations are yet another in a disturbing series of attempts by certain elected officials and unelected bureaucrats to usurp the legislative and initiative process by unilaterally changing the law to fit their own views. As these 41 elected District Attorneys highlight, the CDCR decision is contrary to the Penal Code, and there is no legitimate legal basis for the enactment of the “emergency” regulations.

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

Ideology, Not Data, Drives DA’s Procriminal Crusade

By Eric Siddall Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón says that “science and data” justify his criminal justice policies, including his decision to eliminate sentencing enhancements and abandon the three strikes law. According to Gascón, scientific evidence unequivocally confirms that longer sentences harm public safety by boosting repeat offenses. “While initial incarceration prevents crime through incapacitation, studies show that each additional sentence year causes a 4 to 7 percent increase in recidivism that eventually outweighs the incapacitation benefit,” Gascon wrote on Dec. 7, 2020, in a de facto stand-down directive to deputy district attorneys. “Therefore, sentence enhancements or other sentencing allegations, including under the Three Strikes law, shall not be filed in any cases and shall be withdrawn in pending matters.” Gascón’s very strong claim about being backed by science has gone virtually unchecked by journalists, many of whom seem content to portray him as an enlightened statesman who battles a draconian system of injustice. Who, then, reasonably could argue against evidence-based reforms? However, merely asserting that the evidence supports one’s position does not make it so. Rather than demonstrate how rigorous research applies to law enforcement, Gascón leans heavily on the buzzwords “science and data” and just one or two journal citations. Is there any truth to Gascón’s provocative statement that longer sentences harm public safety by increasing recidivism rates? Does the study that Gascón and his surrogates frequently cite really prove this counterintuitive notion? Gascón ally Michael Romano of Stanford Law School went so far as to claim in a pro-Gascón amicus brief in the matter of ADDA v. Gascón, “[u]ltimately there is no research that shows sentencing enhancements improve public safety, but there is evidence that excessive sentences increase recidivism and therefore create more victims in the future.” Because academics rarely write so unequivocally, one might expect the evidence to be vast. It is not. Indeed, Gascón and Romano cite one study: “The Criminal And Labor Market Impacts Of Incarceration” by University of Michigan economics professor Michael Mueller-Smith. While this research is robustly executed and thoughtfully presented, it is not yet peer-reviewed. This makes it less-than-fully baked as an authoritative source that merits citation. Even worse, Professor Mueller-Smith never concluded what Gascón and Romano say that he did. He did not find that lengthy sentences increase recidivism among violent offenders, as opposed to drug offenders. Moreover, Gascón and Romano should have noticed that the effectiveness of sentencing enhancements on public safety was not even the subject of Mueller-Smith’s paper. In fact, Professor Mueller-Smith wrote: “This study cannot provide any evidence regarding potential general deterrent effects of incarceration.” However, the paper does cite several other studies that provide direct evidence on incarceration’s deterrent effects. Competent analysts would incorporate these peer-reviewed studies into their assessments. For instance, “Does Three Strikes Deter? A Non-Parametric Estimation,” by Professors Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok, examines over a decade of data on California’s three strikes law. They discovered that three strikes reduced new arrests among second strikers by 20%. Activists should be pleased that, according to this research, three strikes improved public safety and reduced contacts with the criminal justice system. This peer-reviewed work appeared in the Journal of Human Resources, a leading publication in that field, and has been cited nearly 250 times, including in Professor Mueller Smith’s paper. Oddly, Helland and Tabbarok’s scientific research is missing from Gascón’s or Romano’s papers, despite their self-declared belief in evidence-based decision-making. Why exclude this crucial evidence? Worse yet, why lie that “no research … shows sentencing enhancements improve public safety” when one of the topic’s widest-cited studies shows exactly that? In fact, a five-minute Google search revealed five additional academic papers directly contradicting Gascón and Romano’s myth that no research exists that longer sentences deter crime. Gascón and Romano also ignored University of Pennsylvania Professor David Abrams’ paper in American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. . He demonstrates that gun enhancements deter violent crime. Also, in the University of Chicago’s Journal of Law and Economics, Cornell Professor Emily Owens showed that the social benefits of crimes averted are greater than the cost of imposing one-year sentencing enhancements. These studies have been cited 90 and 150 times, respectively. Gascón and Romano are entitled to their opinions about criminal justice. But they are not entitled to masquerade them as air-tight conclusions based on irrefutable evidence. Making misleading statements about evidence is dangerous in two ways: First, it undermines public trust in science, one of society’s most effective tools for social progress. Second, Gascón and Romano’s deception bolsters faulty expectations regarding the link between particular policies (e.g., sentencing enhancements) and public safety. Unfortunately, Gascón is developing a dangerous habit of using “science” to camouflage his personal ideology. He tortures one irrelevant study and disregards crucial others to justify slashing sentences for violent criminals. In the name of “science,” he also trotted out a push-poll that claimed that crime victims supported his criminal justice approach, even though the survey violated the three cardinal rules of scientific public-opinion research. Careful analysts know that economic models are only as reliable as their underlying assumptions. However, Gascón recently employed deeply faulty assumptions to generate a model estimating that his radical policies saved Angelenos $600 million in 100 days. No credible, independent researchers appeared to validate his assumptions, and common sense suggests they were garbage. Careful analysts know that economic models are only as reliable as their underlying assumptions. However, Gascón recently employed deeply faulty assumptions to generate a model estimating that his radical policies saved Angelenos $600 million in 100 days. No credible, independent researchers appeared to validate his assumptions, and common sense suggests they were garbage. Gascón did not weigh fixed versus marginal cost per additional inmate. Nor did he consider the average sentence served or the life expectancies of inmates. Gascón’s accounting scheme makes no sense. It is perplexing that Gascón — who runs America’s largest local prosecutorial agency — has cherrypicked evidence and mischaracterized extensive, complex and rapidly evolving scientific literature on community safety. He should consult “Uneasy Peace.” Princeton sociologist Pat Sharkey’s seminal book meticulously documents how much progress America has made in reducing victimization in its most disadvantaged neighborhoods over the past two decades. Sharkey also proves that these important gains have curbed racial disparities in victimization and mortality, and yet, as he recently told the Atlantic, they remain tenuous. 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.

A Poll To Fit A Narrative

By Association of Deputy District Attorneys

Californians for Safety and Justice, an organization whose mission is to “reform” the criminal justice system, released a push-poll of 724 crime survivors from Los Angeles County. Not surprisingly, the results reflected the desired outcome of the organization.

Good science requires the careful collection of data. Survey best practices state that questions asked to participants should not be confusing, leading, or double-barreled.

This poll violated all three cardinal rules. Instead, it used partisan techniques under the guise of conducting an opinion poll. It is sad to see that those interest groups seeking to conduct reckless experiments on our criminal justice system are also manipulating crime victims to further their cause.

Despite the problems with the survey itself, the most disturbing data from it is the number of Angelenos who had to endure violent crime. The survey contacted 2,000 adults and found that 36 percent of them were victims of violent crime. Los Angeles deserves better.

# # #

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.

Judge Orders District Attorney To Comply With The Law

Los Angeles,  February 8, 2021 –   Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant ruled in favor of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County (ADDA) in a lawsuit against District Attorney George Gascón. The ADDA brought a civil lawsuit against the District Attorney to seek a court ruling to clarify Deputy District Attorneys’ legal obligations in light of the District Attorney’s directives.  It is not about the District Attorney’s beliefs on what criminal laws should be applied or not applied in cases.

The court ruled as we expected in holding that the District Attorney cannot order his prosecutors to ignore laws that protect the public from repeat offenders.  As detailed in our reply brief, the court ruled that the District Attorney’s policy violated the law to benefit criminal defendants and ordered him to comply with the law.  This ruling protects the communities which are disproportionately affected by higher crime rates and those who are victimized.

The District Attorney, as is his right, may choose to appeal the court’s decision, and we respect that. However, as the court ruling makes clear, this decision was based on what the law is and not what an officeholder thinks it should be. We want to thank the many other elected District Attorneys that shared our concerns and strongly supported the litigation that could not be avoided.  We continue to respect the District Attorney, and we look forward to working with him and his Administration in furtherance of the interests of justice and our membership.  

The ADDA continues to support common-sense criminal justice reform. One of the underpinnings of proposed reform assumes that an entirely new social infrastructure—complete with educational programs, vocational training, counseling, and supervision—will take the place of standard-length prison sentences.  However, that infrastructure does not exist.  It is difficult to conclude that letting convicted prisoners out early—without the theoretical support system in place—is likely to do anything but expedite recidivism.

Case Documents

To view documents in the case and previous ADDA press releases on this matter, click here.

The law firm Brown George Ross O’Brien Annaguey & Ellis LLP is representing the ADDA.

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 Statement on Court’s Decision on District Attorney’s Special Orders

Los Angeles,  December 30, 2020 –  We are gratified by today’s action by the Master Calendar department of the Los Angeles Superior Court.  Department 1 ordered the respondent parties (District Attorney George Gascón and the District Attorney’s Office) to show cause why an injunction should not issue enjoining enforcement of the unlawful portions of their Special Directives.  The court specifically set an expedited briefing schedule – and Petitioner voluntarily withdrew its request for a temporary restraint order – so that the matter shall be heard on the following schedule:  the respondent parties (District Attorney George Gascón and the District Attorney’s Office) will file opposition papers by January 15, 2021; Petitioner will reply by January 26, 2021; and hearing before Department 85 shall take place at 1:30 pm on February 2, 2021.

To view the ADDA’s press release, Prosecutors File Lawsuit To Stop District Attorney From Breaking The Law, click here. The law firm Brown George Ross O’Brien Annaguey & Ellis LLP is representing the ADDA.

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

Prosecutors File Lawsuit To Stop District Attorney From Breaking The Law

Los Angeles,  December 30, 2020 –  This morning the Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County (ADDA) filed a civil lawsuit seeking a writ of mandate, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. The suit asks that District Attorney George Gascón follow California state constitutional and statutory law. These laws, enacted by the voters and the state legislature, tested and deemed constitutional by the judiciary, must be respected by the executive. The lawsuit targets four separate directives issued by the District Attorney that ignore or violate state law.  In those directives, the District Attorney ordered deputy district attorneys to dismiss pending strike priors, special circumstance enhancements, gang enhancements, firearm allegations, and certain other “felony prior” enhancements.  The directives prohibited the filing of strike prior enhancements in new cases. “While an elected District Attorney has wide discretion in determining what charges to pursue in an individual case, that discretion does not authorize him or her to violate the law or to direct attorneys representing the district attorney’s office to violate the law,” said Michele Hanisee, President of the ADDA. As detailed in the lawsuit, the directives violate California law, which imposes a mandatory duty on prosecutors to plead and prove strike priors. Dismissals of those priors can only be based on individual circumstances, not a blanket policy.  Similarly, special circumstance allegations that will result in a life without parole sentence cannot be dismissed under the section cited by the directive. “Los Angeles County prosecutors have been placed in an impossible position. Do we follow our legal and ethical responsibilities and risk getting disciplined, even fired, by our new boss?  Or do we follow his policy directives and risk losing our California State Bar Cards and, by extension, our ability to practice law anywhere in the state? We’re asking a court to answer those questions,” stated ADDA Vice President Eric Siddall. The District Attorney of Los Angeles County is a local executive branch official, with a duty to carry out laws enacted by the voters or the legislature. He is not a legislative body unto himself.  The restraining order being sought asks the judiciary to prohibit the elected District Attorney from putting his personally-held views as to which laws are or are not good policy, or which are or are not constitutional above the laws enacted by the state legislature and by the voters— laws which have been upheld as constitutional by our state courts for decades. The law firm Brown George Ross O’Brien Annaguey & Ellis LLP is representing the ADDA. Case Documents To view a copy of the lawsuit, click here.   You can view Exhibit A here, The Application For A Temporary Restraining Order And An Order To Show Cause here, the proposed Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause here, the Table of Exhibits In Support of Petitioner’s Ex Parte Application For Temporary Restraining Order And Order To Show Cause here, and Exhibits here. The Association of Deputy District Attorneys (ADDA) is the collective bargaining agent and represents nearly 800 Deputy District Attorneys who work for the County of Los Angeles.