No on Gascón

Tuesday, February 13, 2024

Page 1

EDITORIAL

No on Gascón

eorge Gascón is not the worst district attorney in Los Angeles County’s history. That distinction goes to Asa Keyes, a Prohibition-era chief prosecutor who was corrupt. He left office in 1928 and in 1930 entered San Quentin Prison, having been convicted of accepting bribes while district attorney.

And, arguably, there were others who were worse than Gascón.

Fred N. Howser, who was appointed district attorney by the Board of Supervisors in a closed-door session on Feb. 1, 1943, was tied to gambling interests and was widely suspected of criminal wrongdoing. He sued columnist/radio commentator Drew Pearson for accusing him of accepting bribes, and lost.

Suspicions also loomed as to the honorableness of District Attorney Buron Fitts—though, on Feb. 10, 1936, he did win an acquittal by a jury on a charge of perjury.

Between 2006 and 2011, this newspaper ran a series of columns chronicling the feats, defeats, and stances of those who served as district attorney for this county (and at the outset, also, for San Diego County) during the period from 1850-2000. The conclusion was reached that Stephen Mallory White, who later became a U.S. senator and was widely regarded as being presidential timber, was the most illustrious figure to serve as district attorney; Evelle J. Younger and Steve Cooley were tops for effectiveness.

s for Gascón, he is undoubtedly the most bullheaded and arrogant person ever to serve as district attorney for this county. None has been so acutely attuned to, and supportive of, the interests of criminals, none has been so heedless of the accepted purposes and customs of a prosecutorial office.

On his first day at the helm—Dec. 7, 2020—he issued nine special directives aimed at lessening penalties for felons—directives that included forbidding deputies to allege any priors for sentence-enhancing purposes, in violation of two Penal Code sections requiring that all strikes be “pled and proved.”

He commanded that deputies move for an order vacating any enhancements that had been alleged under the previous district attorney, Jackie Lacey, even where a requisite under Penal Code §1385—that such an order be in “furtherance of justice” or that the strike can’t be proven—was absent.

A judge declared some of the edicts to be “unlawful,” issuing a preliminary injunction against enforcing them, and was largely upheld by the Court of Appeal. The matter is now before the California Supreme Court.

hen one Los Angeles Superior Court judge—Shellie Samuels, who sits in the Van Nuys-West Courthouse—declined to strike an enhancement allegation shortly after the special directives were promulgated, Gascón’s then-Interim Chief Deputy Joseph F. Iniguez advised the head deputy at that courthouse, by email:

“Please ensure that no other matters are assigned to her court and follow the procedures outlined in CCP 170.6.”

Although commonly referred to as a “peremptory challenge” statute, §170.6 does require a statement under penalty of perjury that the judge is biased. What was contemplated was that any deputy who had a case assigned to Samuels’s court would be required to make a statement under oath as to a perception of bias even if that deputy believed such a statement to be false.

If Gascón planned to institute a practice of attempting to keep judges in line by blacklisting them if they attempted to thwart implementation of his directives, the immediate backlash deterred him from doing so.

That he did have such a plan may be inferred not only from the swift action taken with respect to Samuels but from a December 2020 boast by then-Deputy Public Defender Tiffiny (AKA Tiffany) Blacknell who had been a member of Gascón’s transition team, was soon to be laterally transferred to his office as a deputy, and was recently appointed as his chief of staff. She warned that judges would be in peril of losing their seats in the 2022 election if they defied the D.A.’s policies.

hile Gascón has not sought to bully judges, as it’s turned out, he has tried to intimidate, if not subjugate, deputies, retaliating against those who won’t do what they perceive to be unlawful or unethical or who otherwise question Gascón’s policies.

Flexing his muscles and apparently intending to make an example of a deputy who balked at his unconventional approach, Gascón, less than a week after entering office, demoted Richard Doyle, a 34-year veteran of the office, who had been head deputy district attorney in the Compton office. Doyle had balked at seeking dismissal of a sustainable charge against protesters who allegedly attempted to cause a train wreck.

The Board of Supervisors approved an $800,000 cash settlement with Doyle, that sum payable in addition to about $300,000 in severance pay.

Eric Siddall—then vice president of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys (“ADDA”) and now one of four worthy challengers to Gascón in the March 5 primary (out of the 11 competing with him)—commented, aptly, at the time:

“Unfortunately, this is not the first time that the taxpayer has foot the bill for George Gascón’s retaliatory behavior. San Francisco taxpayers paid $400,000 due to retaliation against a whistleblower concerned about Gascón violating federal law by carrying a gun on a plane.”

He queried:

“How many more times will the taxpayers have to pay for Gascón’s calculated indiscretions?”

That isn’t known. It is known that there are approximately 17 retaliation suits pending against the county based on Gascón’s allegedly improper actions against non-submissive deputies—meaning legal expense to the county and a strong prospect of liability for damages and orders to pay the plaintiffs’ attorney fees.

And yet, the Los Angeles Times, in endorsing Gascón, blithely maintains that his policies are “benefiting all of us.” From a fiscal standpoint, and even more significantly, considering the peril to public safety where a district attorney seeks to establish lax prosecutorial policies—even mandating the avoidance of duties that are statutorily mandated—the view expressed by the county’s major newspaper is plainly mistaken.

here has been, so far, one judgment against the county based on Gascón’s employment-discrimination. Deputy District Attorney Shawn Randolph gained that judgment. She had headed the office’s Juvenile Division where she supervised about 50 lawyers and 50 others, and was transferred—punitively, the jury found—to an undesirable assignment. That occurred after she raised concerns about a special directive relating to juvenile cases.

One sentence in the directive reads, “Filings will consist of the lowest potential code section that corresponds to the alleged conduct and mandate one count per incident.” (The bold face is in the original.)

Randolph had questioned the policy of charging the lowest possible offense. Her Los Angeles Superior Court complaint explains:

“For instance, if a 16 or 17-year-old juvenile robbed a victim by putting a gun to the victim’s head, Plaintiff could not prosecute the juvenile for robbery because robbery is a Strike offense. Plaintiff was directed to file against the juvenile for a lesser crime such as assault by using force that is likely to cause great bodily injury. The ability of a prosecutor to file a charge of robbery, which is a correct charge for the crime, had a deterrent effect because if the juvenile committed another serious or violent felony as an adult his or her sentence could be doubled. Further, filing a charge for the true crime that was committed meant that the juvenile would receive the appropriate amount of time and counseling relative to the crime committed, and there would be an accurate and appropriate record of the juvenile’s conduct, so that if their criminal behavior continued, the justice system could respond appropriately. Gascon’s policy, effectively required prosecutors to unlawfully hide the truth from the courts by mischaracterizing many violent offenses.”

Randolph also balked at the new “one count per incident” rule. Her pleading says:

“For instance, if a juvenile robbed three people at gunpoint, Gascon’s policy prohibited Plaintiff from filing three robbery charges. Plaintiff was forced to randomly select only one victim and charge one crime pertaining to that chosen victim. Plaintiff raised concerns that at trial, if the randomly chosen victim was not available and the case not therefore provable, the case could be dismissed, and the juvenile would have no accountability. All these filings would constitute fraud on the court and, among other things, violate Plaintiff’s ethical and prosecutorial obligations under the law.”

Randolph raised other points, including an assertion that a Gascón policy contravenes Marsy’s Law (permitting in-court input from victims).

We quote the pleading at length because we believe its contentions make sense, Gascón’s policies don’t, space does not permit a discussion of all of the D.A.’s various edicts, and this can serve as a representative example.

Allegations in Randolph’s complaint are mirrored by those in a pleading filed on behalf of Deputy District Attorney Maria Ramirez by the same lawyers who represent Randolph. Ramirez, like Siddall, is a well-qualified challenger to Gascón in the March 5 primary.

n March 6 of last year, a jury awarded Randolph $1.5 million in damages.

Siddall publicly stated at the time:

“We all know what George Gascón thinks about public service. He has called lifelong public servants ‘internal terrorists.’ And he has treated them as such. He silenced their voices, he engaged in petty and vindictive acts of retaliation and rewarded political loyalty instead of competency and professionalism. Far worse, he did so at the expense of public safety.

“Today jurors spoke out against Gascón’s incompetence and condemned his illegal machinations. He sat in front of them and testified. They listened. And they saw right through him.”

The jury’s award was widely reported. Not reported, to our knowledge, is that last June 9, then-Judge Terry Green (now retired) granted Randolph attorney fees in the amount of $810,371.25 and, in response to a supplemental motion, Judge Jill Feeney on Dec. 1 awarded an additional $139,799.38 for later work—totaling $950,170.63 in fees.

The county is appealing the judgment as to the assessment of liability and damages and the subsequent fee awards; Randolph is appealing a reduction from the fees requested. Taking into account the county’s own legal costs, interest, and the prospect of an award of attorney fees on appeal, Gascón’s reprisal against Randolph could well cost the county upwards of $8 million—and this is only one of the numerous retaliation cases that have been brought.

Yet, the Times assures us that what Gascón is doing is “benefitting all of us.”

he rewarding of political loyalty (the spoils system), alluded to by Siddall, has marked the Gascón regime.

In April 2019, Iniguez announced his candidacy for district attorney; in November of that year, he withdrew from the race and, at a press conference, accompanied by Gascón, endorsed Gascón. When Gascón took office, he named Iniguez acting chief deputy—chief deputy being the number two position in the office—an action that infuriated rank-and-file prosecutors given that Iniguez was, at the time, a mere Grade II deputy.

Iniguez was appointed in 2021 as Gascón’s chief of staff. While in that role, he was arrested by Azusa police for public intoxication; he allegedly threatened the arresting officer that in light of his position, he could have him placed on the “Brady” list of derelict law enforcement officers.

Last June 3, in response to an informed rumor that Iniguez was about to be promoted from Grade III to Grade V (management level), ADDA Executive Director John Rees sent a letter to the senior manager in the county’s Employee Relations Division, saying:

“To paraphrase Winston Churchill, Mr. Iniguez is a modest little man with much to be modest about.”

He asserted that Iniguez, prior to his initial interim appointment by Gascón, “had amassed a less-than-stellar Office record of having prosecuted a mere four felony cases—two of which he supposedly lost.”

Rees remarked:

“[G]iven that Mr. Gascon has admitted that he, himself, has never tried any cases, this could mean that three of the top four Office executives in the largest prosecutorial agency in the nation may have collectively tried a grand total of four cases.”

Nonetheless, on Dec. 15, Iniguez was appointed by Gascón as his chief deputy and Blacknell was named as Iniguez’s replacement as chief of staff. She had been a supporter of Gascón in his 2020 election campaign and, after he was elected, was quickly brought over by the new D.A. from the Public Defender’s Office as were two of his other adherents in that office, now enjoying high positions he has bestowed. The legality of the lateral transfers has yet to be judicially determined.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Craig Mitchell, a black-horse candidate for district attorney, declared, in response to the appointment of Blacknell:

“If there was ever any doubt as to Gascón’s contempt for law enforcement, for the victims of crime, for the career prosecutors who serve in the District Attorney’s Office, for the well-being of our community, that doubt has been obliterated. Ms. Blacknell’s record is replete with statement after statement vilifying law enforcement as the enemy.

“She stated that LAPD officers are ‘barbarians,’ that they are an ‘occupying army’ and that the ‘police are trained to kill us.’ She also acknowledged participating in looting during the 1992 Los Angeles riots.”

ast Oct. 20, the New York Post reported:

“As of this week, Nancy Theberge, a deputy public defender in LA County for years, was named deputy-in-charge of the Resentencing Unit, according to an internal memo seen by The Post.

“Several sources claimed to The Post that rank-and-file prosecutors in the resentencing unit are prevented from accessing an inmate’s entire file, and are only provided certain information before they have to argue their cases in front of a judge.

“ ‘The bottom line is you’re supposed to advocate professionally and ethically and you should never mislead a court, and what some of these people are doing is just that,’ claimed a…source.

“ ‘It’s misleading, because they’re not giving the pertinent information, and judges are used to DAs being ethical and giving them the right information.’ ”

here has been an exodus of prosecutors. Within the office, spirits are low, frustration is high.

On Feb. 22, 2022, it was announced that 83.3 percent of the ADDA’s membership, comprised of more than 800 deputies, had voted in a plebiscite and 97.9 percent of them favored the recall of Gascón.

The man is an egomaniac. Regularly, photos are posted on the District Attorney’s Office website with Gascón at a podium, flanked by people with their hand folded, obsequiously, in front of them. In press releases announcing convictions, unlike those issued under prior administrations, the names of deputies who tried the cases are not mentioned. Only Gascón’s name appears.

The Los Angeles Times tells us that Gascón is simply doing what he told voters, in running for office, he would do. That malarkey is spread by other apologists for this extremist district attorney. By no means did Gascón reveal the magnitude of changes he would make or, where thwarted, attempt to make.

As we see it, Gascón is unfit to serve as district attorney of Los Angeles County, or to serve in any governmental position entailing the exercise of discretion.

Gascón must go.

Tomorrow: our recommendation for his replacement.