State Bar Court Hearing Judge Yvette D. Roland on Oct. 15 granted the former city attorney’s motion for a dismissal of disciplinary proceedings against him based on the length of time—32 years—since the alleged misconduct occurred.

She based her ruling on the unfairness to Trutanich in having to defend himself against charges from that long ago, specifying that dismissal was not required under State Bar Rule 5.21 which ordinarily requires that the Office of Chief Trial Counsel (“OCTC”) bring charges within five years of the violation. Here, a tolling provision applied, she found.

It was not until March 29, 2016, that U.S. District Judge David O. Carter of the Central District of California, following an evidentiary hearing, granted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to Barry Williams, a gang leader whose first degree murder conviction was secured by Trutanich, as a deputy district attorney, in 1986.

“Trutanich’s failure at trial,” Carter found, to provide the true name of a witness and to correct testimony he knew to be false, “was deeply troubling.”

The judge commented if Trutanich had acted “in accordance with his constitutional duty, the jury likely would have had rejected the credibility of the prosecution’s entire case against Petitioner.”

In the aftermath of that decision, the State Bar launched an investigation. The initial notice of charges against Trutanich was dated Feb. 9, 2017, and an amended notice was filed July 10, 2017.

In ordering dismissal, Roland noted that “[m]any potential defense witnesses are now deceased” and that “witnesses that are still alive and available will naturally have difficulty accurately remembering specific details regarding events that transpired over 30 years ago.”

She reported that Trutanich has himself declared he’s hazy as to details. The hearing judge wrote:

“[A]fter thorough consideration, this court concludes that Respondent would be substantially prejudiced by the three-decade delay, particularly with regard to his ability to defend against the charges by the introduction of evidence and his right to examine and cross-examine witnesses. Requiring Respondent to stand trial under these unprecedented circumstances would effectively preclude him from his right to a fair hearing.

“While the court understands that these proceedings were delayed by the habeas and appellate process, it is not clear when OCTC first became aware of the allegations of prosecutorial misconduct against Respondent. OCTC argued that if it had brought the charges at any time before March 29, 2016, the State Bar Court ‘certainly would have ordered the matter abated.’…If, however, OCTC had brought charges in the 1980’s or 1990’s, Respondent would have had an opportunity to obtain and preserve evidence, even if the matter was ultimately abated by the State Bar Court. OCTC asserts that its evidence has been preserved like 3000-year-old honey found in Egyptian tombs….Unfortunately, however, the same cannot be said about the potentially exculpatory evidence that is no longer available to Respondent.”

Proceedings in the matter of Los Angeles’s former city attorney have started and stopped repeatedly, with one trial continuance after another.

The particular allegations were that Trutanich put on a witness who testified that she witnessed the defendant fatally shooting a victim from a van. The witness said she was in a station wagon being driven by one Jean Rivers.

The Office of Chief Trial Counsel alleged that Trutanich “knew, or was grossly negligent in not knowing” that the testimony was false insofar as the identity of the driver, whose actual name is Arlene McKay. In failing to divulge the driver’s true identity, as well as her home address, Trutanich breached his constitutional obligation of making disclosures to the defense of potentially exculpatory evidence, as required by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1963 opinion in Brady v. Maryland, it was asserted.

He was also charged with allowing a police detective to testify falsely at a pretrial hearing in the same murder case. Trutanich has denied all any violations of the rules.

The OCTC charged that Trutanich:

—By committing a Brady violation, ran afoul of Business and Professions Code §6068(a) (duty to “support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state”).

—Suppressed evidence “in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 5-220.”

—Committed “an act(s) of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6106.”

—By “intentionally or with gross negligence” failing to correct the testimony, “committed an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption in willful violation of Business and Professions Code §6106.”

Trutanich was city attorney from 2009-2013. In 2012, he ran in the June 5 primary for the office of Los Angeles County District Attorney—in contravention of a 2009 campaign pledge that, if elected, he would not seek another office during his first term or, if reelected, the second term. He was defeated in that primary, and was denied reelection as city attorney in the May 21, 2013 primary.

He is now at Tucker Ellis LLP in Los Angeles. He was represented by ethics lawyer David C. Carr of San Diego. The Office of Chief Trial Counsel has three lawyers assigned to the case: Senior Trial Counsel Eli D. Morgenstern, co-counsel Edward O. Lear and deputy co-counsel Caitlin Marie Elen.