LASD

A Deal Is Struck! No Retrial for Two LA Sheriff’s Deputies Accused of Beating Jail Inmate, But Prison Sentences Likely



If all goes as expected,
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputies Joey Aguiar and Mariano Ramirez will solidify a deal with federal prosecutors on Wednesday at a 9 AM hearing in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge Beverly Reid O’Connell. The deal specifies that the government will not retry the two deputies on the charge of assaulting Men’s Central Jail inmate, Bret Phillips, in a 2009 use of force incident.

Last week, the feds announced their intention to retry the twosome for the single charge.

The deal also clears the way for sentencing and the beginning of what is expected to be approximately a two-year-prison sentence for both Aguiar and Ramirez.

The two deputies were each convicted earlier this month of falsifying reports against Phillips, portraying him as the aggressor in a 2009 incident that resulted in the inmate being beaten with fists, sprayed with pepper spray, and struck multiple times with a flashlight, according to the deputies’ own accounts.

In return for the deal, Aguiar and Ramirez, along with their attorneys, Evan Jenness and Vicki Podberesky, have agreed not to appeal the deputies’ convictions, or to in any other way challenge them.

On February 2, the same jury that voted to convict Aguiar and Ramirez of falsifying official reports, also acquitted the deputies on the charge of conspiring to violate inmate Bret Phillips’ civil rights.

Then on the remaining charge, Count 2, which was for the alleged beating of Phillips—who according to the government’s witnesses was nonresistant—ten jurors voted to convict, while two voted to acquit, producing a mistrial on the single count.

Last week, federal prosecutors Jennifer Williams and Mack Jenkins announced they would retry the deputies on Count 2, and Monday there was a status hearing to prepare for the trial.

Then came the deal.

“This is a very good thing,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney Williams, after the deal became public on Tuesday morning, “because it gives both parties finality”

Her co-counsel, U.S. Attorney Mack Jenkins called it “a deal for the defendants but it’s justice for the community,” Williams said.

“It’s also a victory for the victim, and for the witnesses, because they don’t have to go through the trauma of testifying again.” Williams was referring to the prosecutions’ two primary eyewitnesses, a catholic prison chaplain and a prison inmate who had been in Men’s Central Jail at the time the incident in question occurred.

Despite the deal, the prosecutors are still permitted to argue for a sentence for each of the deputies of up to 27 months in prison, although Judge O’Connell could go higher or lower when she hands down sentences in April. The statutory maximum the judge could give the deputies is 20 years, although it is reportedly likely she will stay within the range of federal guidelines, which suggest prison sentences ranging from 21 to 27 months. If she does not, the terms of the newly struck deal allow either side to appeal the sentences.

However, when the prosecutors make their case in the sentencing phase, they can try to persuade the judge to lean to the high side of federal guidelines by bringing in such elements as the jurors’ vote of 10-2 in favor of conviction on Count 2, the assault charge. Akin to verdicts in a civil trial, when considering a sentence in a criminal trial, the judge is only required to evaluate a preponderance of evidence.

“I’m hoping [the deal] provides closure for everybody, while it still allows us to argue what we want to argue to the court,” said Williams.

WLA was unable to reach the defendants’ two attorneys for comment.

(Here’s more on the original two-week-long trial that went to the jury at the end of last month.)

The next of the government’s jail brutality cases involving Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputies is expected to arrive in court in the spring of 2016.

And, of course, the trial of former LASD undersheriff Paul Tanaka is scheduled to begin on March 22.

6 Comments

  • Curious as to why the defendant’s attorney has no comment. There’s goes their right to appeal. Great job ALADS!

  • Celeste, why the exclamation point behind struck? It’s amazing how biased you rag is and you don’t even try to hide it. Shameful

  • ABC Channel 7 11 a.m. News is reporting that Baca is being arraigned right now on a charge of, lying to FBI agents, in his voluntary interview with them. The report also said that he is accepting a deal where he pleads guilty, and he is subject to doing several months in prison. The report did not specify that he has to testify against his little buddy Tanaka or any other Department members who may be caught up in the FBI Obstruction of justice investigation.

    After all this time, and after all the many hundreds and perhaps thousands of lives that were adversely impacted by this moron, it just seems like too little too late.

  • And another deal was struck today, Lee Baca taking a plea bargain and avoid indictment on multiple charges. Six months in jail or less. A joke, but definitely not the “he won’t be touched” mantra that several people kept insisting all along.

  • EDITOR’S NOTE:

    Dear Ownership:

    Oh, please! <—Note punctation.

    To be honest, it is very sad that two deputies will do prison time for a climate inside MCJ, particularly in certain areas of the jail, that was created by those above them, only one of whom has been charged with a crime.

    The deal, while not ideal for either side, is something that both thought was the best solution.

  • I was one of those who thought the feds. were satisfied with Baca stepping down and that he wouldn’t ever be indicted. I was wrong, and I couldn’t be happier to be wrong. He’s getting “touched”, but that’s about it. No more than six months? When others are going to be doing over three years? Not even a stiff left jab. But LATBG, is right, he is getting “touched”. I guess that’s better than nothing.
    Meanwhile, an LAPD reject, an outsider, is the sheriff. Who could’ve predicted that?

Leave a Comment