Page 1
D.A.’s Office Victorious in Opposing Diversion for Man Accused of Racially-Motivated Attacks
Presiding Justice Rothschild Notes Lack of Requisite Finding That Defendant Would Not Pose ‘Unreasonable Risk to Public Safety’
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Court of Appeal for this district has granted a petition for a writ of mandate blocking the pretrial diversion, for mental health treatment, of a man accused of brutal racially-motivated attacks on Blacks, including an alleged attempted murder, accepting the position of the Office of Los Angeles County District Attorney that a judge erred in determining that the defendant is not so dangerous as to be treatable in a community facility.
Four unrelated attacks in Santa Monica were allegedly committed by Job Uriah Taylor on March 3, 2023.
In an unpublished opinion filed Tuesday, Presiding Justice Frances Rothschild of Div. One faulted the diversion order by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Lana Kim in Taylor’s case. She said that “no expert nor any other evidence suggested that Taylor would not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety”—which, under Penal Code §1001.36 would bar diversion.
Rothschild elaborated that Kim “made no express finding that Taylor would not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if granted diversion (instead concluding witnesses could not ‘predict the future’) and no evidence supported any implied finding to this effect.”
Severe Consequences
The jurist recited that “Taylor attacked individuals for no reason other than the color of their skin,” noting that “[s]everal were traumatized and two were hospitalized” including one victim “who was ambushed with a metal pipe and then stomped on as he lay helpless on the ground, suffering life altering injuries.”
She continued:
“This was not the first time Taylor attacked people with a metal pipe for no reason, and no evidence suggested it would be the last.
“But our reasoning turns not on the horribleness of Taylor’s alleged actions but on the likelihood they will be repeated if he is allowed to abandon his newly efficacious mental health regimen. The People have steadfastly raised this concern at all stages in these proceedings but have received no satisfactory answer.
“Although by its express terms section 1001.36 authorizes diversion to a defendant who agrees to treatment, the requirement that the defendant not pose an unreasonable danger to public safety implicitly obligates the court to determine whether the defendant will likely follow through on this agreement. No evidence here suggests that Taylor will follow through and the court made no finding that he would, instead finding that mental health professionals could not predict the future. Taylor’s history of departing facilities without completing treatment and the temporary effects of his current medication indicate he would pose an unreasonable risk if granted diversion to a voluntary mental health program.”
Rothschild noted that Taylor “was just released from a psychiatric facility when he thereafter failed to take his medications and committed the crimes that are the subject of this appeal.”
Hochman Comments
District Attorney Nathan Hochman said in a press release on Tuesday:
“Today’s decision is a victory for public safety and for the victims whose lives were forever changed by this defendant’s violent and hate-driven actions.”
He gave particular credit for the win to Deputy District Attorney Jeffrey Herring of the office’s Writs and Appeals Division.
The case is People v. Superior Court (Taylor), B346062.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company