With 100 percent of precincts reported, McDonnell skated mighty close to the magic 50.1 percent, but did not quite cross over. Tanaka is second, Olmsted third, Hellmold fourth….followed by Gomez, Rogers & Vince
Onward to November!
Update: 3:00 AM
With 100 percent of precincts reported, McDonnell skated mighty close to the magic 50.1 percent, but did not quite cross over. Tanaka is second, Olmsted third, Hellmold fourth….followed by Gomez, Rogers & Vince
Onward to November!
Update: 3:00 AM
WHICH WAY LA? BRIEFLY REVIEWS CANDIDATES FOR SHERIFF
Warren Olney of Which Way LA played brief but interesting debate clips from six of the seven candidates for Los Angeles County Sheriff. (Candidate Patrick Gomez did not attend the debate but is also mentioned.)
You can find them here at minute 13:10.
BEST TWEET THUS FAR OF THE EVENING RE: THE LASD RACE
Robert Faturechi @RobertFaturechi 2h
the moment we’ve all been waiting for: Leonardo DiCaprio’s selection for LA sheriff https://twitter.com/LeoDiCaprio/status/473623837490180096
LA WEEKLY’S CHEAT SHEET ON THE SHERIFF’S RACE
The Weekly’s Gene Maddaus has drawn up a cheat sheet for the five top candidates out of the seven running for LA County Sheriff. (Sadly, Lou Vince is not included, nor is Pat Gomez.)
We don’t agree with absolutely everything Maddaus has written (but then again, we likely know far too much for our own good). All that said, Gene is a very smart, discerning guy, so his take is assuredly worth your time.
Here’s the opening clip:
Never before has L.A. seen such a wide open race for sheriff. But the campaign has been a bit of a muddle. Much of the energy in recent weeks has gone into denunciations of former undersheriff Paul Tanaka, who is running for sheriff even though he is the subject of an FBI investigation into obstruction of justice.
While Tanaka has been fairly well defined, the other candidates are a little harder to differentiate. There’s the handsome one, the guy with the mustache, the Irish guy, and the one who looks like Sam Elliott. Who are these guys? What’s the difference between them?
For Maddaus’ answer, read on.
DAILY NEWS LOOKS AT LAST-MINUTE CAMPAIGNING
Whose robocalls, newspaper inserts, radio ads, door knocking, endorsements and/or last minute media interviews and appearances at pancake breakfast….will matter most?
Thomas Himes at the Daily News takes a look. Here’s a clip:
As Los Angeles County voters prepare to pick a sheriff in the first incumbent-free race in 16 years, the seven contenders have been crisscrossing the county in a last-minute bid for votes in Tuesday’s primary election.
The seven are contending to succeed longtime former Sheriff Lee Baca, who stepped down earlier this year amid numerous accusations of deputy corruption and abuse in the county jails.
With a crowded field and a relatively low turnout expected for the primary vote, the candidates have been relying on door-knocking and targeted campaigning to reach those dedicated voters who are expected to show up Tuesday….
Read on for the details.
WILL LASD TOP SPOT GO TO INSIDER OR OUTSIDER? ASKS NBC 4
Nothing you haven’t heard, but still interesting to watch.
ERIC PREVIN: THE LONG SHOT FOR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
We think there are a couple of genuinely capable and experienced people running for Zev Yaroslavsky’s seat for LA County Board of Supervisors. We are not, however, endorsing anyone, nor would we dream of telling you for whom any of us are voting.
Still and all, we can’t resist posting this last minute ad put out by longest of longshot candidates, Eric Previn, our favorite ad hoc LA County citizen watchdog. Whatever happens with the race, we hope that Previn keeps on paying attention to county business. We need him.
SO WHERE DO YOU GO TO VOTE?
You can find your correct local polling place right here.
LASD NEWS ROUNDUP BEFORE THE JUNE PRIMARY ELECTION (TOMORROW, JUNE 3)
Throughout the campaign season, KPCC’s Frank Stoltze has had good coverage of the sheriff debates and fundraising numbers, along with helpful profiles on (most of) the candidates.
With the June 3 primary nearly upon us, Stoltze asked the sheriff hopefuls three jail-related questions. All but Assistant Sheriff Todd Rogers and Patrick Gomez responded. Here is the first question:
Question: The Citizen’s Commission on Jail Violence said one of the problems with inmate abuse is that deputies trained to patrol the streets are assigned to serve as jail guards in their first few years on the job. The panel recommended that the next Sheriff adopt a “dual track” system whereby deputies are recruited and trained specifically as jail guards for careers inside the jails. Do you support this recommendation – why or why not? How would you overcome objections from the Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, which has vowed to fight the change?
This may have been the easiest question for Long Beach Police Chief Jim McDonnell, who wrote: “Not only do I support the recommendation for a ‘dual track’ system, I helped craft it as a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Jail Violence.”
But as the only person running who’s never served in the department, McDonnell would have to deal with the powerful labor union that represents deputies for the first time. “I have experience working successfully with police unions at the LAPD and in Long Beach and am confident that I could work with the deputy union,” he wrote.
Only former Undersheriff Paul Tanaka refused to commit to the dual track system. “I believe that we must explore the options available to us,” he wrote. “I do believe that we should make sure that those assigned to the jails and want to move on to patrol, should be able to do so – we need those individuals keeping our neighborhoods safe.”
Assistant Sheriff James Hellmold, former Sheriff’s Commander Bob Olmsted and LAPD Sgt. Lou Vince all committed to a dual track system for deputies.
Hellmold said all deputies should receive the same training, however, in case jail guards must also end up working in the field during emergencies. He also said he’d limit street deputies to serving no more than two years in the jails.
“I have already been involved with communicating my vision with [the deputies' union] leadership and members and confident my vision reflects that of our members,” Hellmold wrote.
Olmsted included this in his response: “Although the dual-track is one method to resolving the problems in the jail, however, the primary concern is the lack of good leadership and adequate managerial oversight.” He noted he reduced use of force at Men’s Central Jail by 25 percent when he ran the facility.
Vince, a former Sheriff’s Department reserve officer, said he would convince the deputies’ labor union to accept any changes by offering perks: “I would also ‘sweeten’ the deal by seeking to implement organization-wide compressed work schedules and returning ‘gym time’ (they would get 15-20 minutes for on duty physical fitness),” Vince wrote.
The LA Times Robert Faturechi also has an interesting profile on Paul Tanaka, and what both his supporters and opponents have to say about his tenure at the Sheriff’s Dept. Here are some clips:
A county commission concluded that he helped foster problems with brutality inside the jails. And the FBI is investigating allegations that he played a role in obstructing their investigation into the abuse.
Supporters say his reputation has been unfairly tarred by former subordinates whom Tanaka cracked down on for being lazy or inept. They describe him as hard-working, good at managing budgets and hyper-focused on lowering crime.
“If you’ve worked hard, he liked you…. If you were lazy, didn’t do your job, he didn’t give you the time of day,” said sheriff’s Capt. Louie Duran.
In 2003, Tanaka drew federal scrutiny for helping funnel hundreds of sheriff’s bulletproof vests to Cambodia through Gardena without declaring them to customs officials. The odd transaction, which did not become publicly known until 2013, did not result in charges.
Eventually, Baca’s loyalty to Tanaka eroded.
After a sergeant pointed a gun at another sergeant at the sheriff’s Compton station, Tanaka and other top officials ignored a recommendation to demote the supervisor, instead giving him a 15-day suspension. Baca was upset, stripping Tanaka of his role in making discipline decisions.
Their relationship continued to strain after a blue-ribbon commission created by the county to examine inmate abuse found in 2012 that Tanaka had helped foster a culture of misconduct. The commission recommended that Tanaka be stripped of most of his authorities. Baca listened, and months later took it a step further, pushing his undersheriff to step down.
Tanaka has since gone on the offensive, saying that the sheriff’s officials who spoke out against him were former subordinates he had cracked down on for subpar work.
In his interview with federal agents, Tanaka gave an example. He recalled making a surprise visit to a sheriff’s station. There, in the middle of the work day, he found the lieutenant in charge not in uniform, but rather in shorts, T-shirt and sneakers.
According to Tanaka, the lieutenant greeted him, then said: “I was just getting ready to go to softball practice. You need me?”
“He gets in his car like an idiot and drives away,” Tanaka recalled. “I call his chief and I say, ‘I want him gone.’”
That lieutenant later spoke before the jail commission and accused Tanaka of mismanagement.
LASD UNION POLL RESULTS
The Professional Peace Officers Association, one of two LASD unions, polled 1,374 active and retired members on who they thought should be the next sheriff. After considering the results, the PPOA board of directors chose not to endorse any one candidate. Here are the numbers:
Jim McDonnell — 507
Bob Olmsted — 450
Jim Hellmold — 184
Todd Rogers — 170
Paul Tanaka — 54
Lou Vince — 9
(Paul Tanaka and Pat Gomez were not on the ballot because they did not participate in the PPOA debate (which was a requirement). Tanaka’s votes are write-ins.)
LA UNIFIED’S SUSPENSIONS ARE DOWN, BUT SOME SCHOOLS MAY BE USING “WORK-AROUNDS” TO LOWER THEIR NUMBERS
Statewide, and at the LAUSD-level, suspension and expulsion rates are on the decline.
A growing number of Los Angeles schools (Gompers Middle School in Watts, for instance) are lowering their suspension rates by resolving conflicts through “restorative justice” practices. There are reports, however, that some LAUSD schools are sending kids home without officially suspending them, in order to appear in compliance with the local, state, and federal push against harsh school discipline.
The LA Times’ Teresa Watanabe has the story. Here’s a clip:
In the heart of Watts, where violence in nearby housing projects can spill over onto campuses, two of the city’s toughest middle schools have long dealt with fights, drugs and even weapons.
Administrators typically have handled these problems by suspending students. But this year Markham and Gompers middle schools have reported marked reductions in that form of discipline — as has the L.A. Unified School District overall, where the suspension rate dropped to 1.5% last year from 8% in 2008.
The drop came after the Los Angeles Board of Education and L.A. schools chief John Deasy called for fewer suspensions as concern grew nationwide that removing students from school imperils their academic achievement and disproportionately harms minorities, particularly African Americans.
But have suspensions really become rarer?
Several African American parents at Markham recently alleged that administrators were sending their children home without officially suspending them. Markham Principal Paul Hernandez flatly denied that practice, known as “off-the-books” suspending.
Similar charges have been made elsewhere in L.A. Unified. The principal at Manchester Elementary in South Los Angeles was removed earlier this year following allegations that he sent at least 20 students home while directing staff not to mark them absent or suspended, according to two knowledgeable sources who asked for anonymity to avoid retaliation. A district official confirmed Gregory Hooker’s removal “pending the outcome of an investigation” but declined to provide further details.
A confidential report by two community organizations in 2012 found that some principals were using “work-arounds” to district mandates to reduce suspensions. Maisie Chin, executive director of CADRE, a South Los Angeles nonprofit that has long worked on the discipline issue, declined to release the report but said it showed that some students were being sent home, sometimes with no given reason, depriving them of the due process rights in the formal suspension process.
“We do think the pressure to reduce suspensions is probably causing a lot of unintended consequences,” Chin said.
Last year, the L.A. school board became the first in the state to ban defiance as grounds for suspension; legislation would expand that ban statewide.
But those in the trenches say it hasn’t been easy to comply with the mandates — especially since years of tight budgets have left limited funding for the extra staff and training they say are critical.
At Gompers, Principal Traci Gholar said she readily suspended disruptive students in 2011-12, her first year at the helm, to drive home to families that she was intent on building a safe, orderly and positive school climate.
When superiors questioned her high suspension rate, Gholar asked for new resources that would support alternative disciplinary approaches: a conflict resolution specialist, a restorative justice coordinator, more campus aides, performing arts events and other activities.
The extra help appears to have made a difference. According to school data, incidents involving student misbehavior declined from 1,035 in the last school year to 663 as of May of this year. And although most of the misbehavior was serious enough to warrant suspensions, Gompers made a greater effort to address it in alternative ways, reducing the suspension rate to 3% from 30% last year.
POPE FRANCIS’ ANSWER TO 500 LETTERS FROM PEOPLE SERVING JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE IN UNITED STATES
Pope Francis responded to a group of 500 letters written by young people across the US who were sentenced as juveniles to life without parole.
Jody Kent Lavy, director of the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth, coordinated the project and collected the letters, and Father Mike Kennedy, chaplain at Sylmar Juvenile Hall, sent the letters to the pope.
Writing for America Magazine, Kennedy shared Pope Francis’ response, along with his own thoughts on the issue of juvie LWOP. First, here’s a clip from the pope’s letter:
Dear Father Kennedy,
I have read the letters which you kindly sent to me from hundreds of young people throughout the United States sentenced as juveniles to life imprisonment without parole. Their stories and their plea that this form of sentencing be reviewed in the light of justice and the possibility of reform and rehabilitation moved me deeply. I would ask you kindly to assure them that the Lord knows and loves each of them, and that the Pope remembers them with affection in his prayers…
Read the rest here.
Now, a clip from Father Kennedy:
Jody Kent in Washington, D.C., the leader of the national campaign to end LWOP and insure that no children ever get sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole, collected 500 letters in many states from incarcerated youth who received a sentence of LWOP. These letters were addressed to Pope Francis because they had faith that this world leader would advocate for them. Some Jesuits and I helped forward them to the pope three weeks ago.
The pope answered these letters by writing me acknowledging receipt of them and to give hope to those who now have no hope. The pope’s letter is strong and clear. He believes our youth deserve a second chance. Each prisoner who wrote a letter will be receiving a copy of the pope’s letter.
As we know, a youth’s brain has not developed to the level of an adult at the ages when they commit these crimes. They should be tried in juvenile courts not adult courts. It is very clear that Pope Francis understands this and has taken this issue of youth locked up as a personal concern.
GENE MADDAUS ON RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BACA + HELLMOLD
When Lee Baca resigned as LA County Sheriff, he announced his support of either Assistant Sheriff James Hellmold or Assistant Sheriff Todd Rogers to take command of the department.
Since that announcement, however, Baca has shifted away from Rogers, who has made it clear in interviews and debates that he is not afraid to criticize the former sheriff and the condition he left the department in. Baca now supports outsider Long Beach Police Chief Jim McDonnell, if Hellmold doesn’t win.
LA Weekly’s Gene Maddaus takes a refreshingly balanced look at the Baca-Hellmold connection and its implications. Here’s a clip:
Though he is generally cast as an “insider” in the race, Rogers has been vocal in criticizing a culture of cronyism in the department. Among other things, Rogers has accused Baca of giving out concealed weapons permits to his wealthy friends.
At a recent candidates’ forum, Rogers said that when Baca promoted him to assistant sheriff in 2013, “there was a giant bowl of Kool-Aid in the office and people were drinking from that. I took that Kool-Aid and dumped it out.”
Baca now considers Rogers to be a “back-stabber,” according to the source. In fact, Rogers is no longer even Baca’s second choice to be sheriff. If Hellmold does not win, Baca prefers James McDonnell, the Long Beach police chief.
This is not news to Rogers. In an interview, Rogers says it was “common knowledge” among those involved in the race that Baca is supporting Hellmold behind the scenes. Rogers says his own supporters have called him to say that Baca encouraged them to back Hellmold.
Rogers also says he remains “flabbergasted” that Baca ever publicly supported him, in light of how critical Rogers had been of Baca’s management of the department.
Although Hellmold has said he will continue many of Baca’s programs and policies, and still regularly speaks with the former sheriff, he maintains that he is not receiving any help from Baca or his former supporters. (We at WLA would like to know a little more about Hellmold-donor Ryan Kavanaugh, a former big-time supporter of Baca’s Sheriff’s Youth Foundation.)
In a separate interview, Hellmold says that he still talks to Baca regularly, but that Baca has done nothing – even behind the scenes – to back his campaign.
Told of Rogers’ statements, Hellmold says “It’s all in his head.”
Hellmold has raised $439,000, more than double what Rogers has raised.
“Everyone was shocked that within a month we raised $100,000,” Hellmold says. “Not one penny came from any of Baca’s previous supporters.”
AND IN RELATED NEWS…
The LA Times’ Cindy Chang has a new profile of Long Beach Police Chief Jim McDonnell. Here’s a clip:
As the only serious contender without roots in the department, McDonnell has attracted high-profile endorsements and a substantial war chest from those who believe that change can best come from outside. A McDonnell victory would be historic: For a century, L.A. County voters have chosen a sheriff from inside the department.
McDonnell’s opponents in the Tuesday primary, who include two assistant sheriffs and a retired undersheriff, argue that only someone steeped in the department’s unique mix of jail management and street-level policing can turn the place around.
“He’s a very respected law enforcement professional…. To me it’s not about whether he has the knowledge or capability, but it’s the internal knowledge within the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department,” said Assistant Sheriff James Hellmold, a candidate with 25 years in the department.
McDonnell, 54, deflects those criticisms by promising to appoint top aides from within. He cites his service on the Citizens’ Commission on Jail Violence, which issued influential recommendations on how to fix the nation’s largest county jail system.
“I bring a fresh perspective from the outside. I’m not encumbered by internal alliances,” McDonnell said. “I didn’t grow up with people in the organization. I don’t owe anybody anything.”
In Long Beach, McDonnell leads a force diminished by budget cuts to just over 800 sworn officers. He has been criticized for a rise in officer-involved shootings, as well as the 2013 beating of an unarmed man. Last month, Long Beach officers fatally shot a 36-year-old man who was allegedly armed only with a wooden stick as he fled down a set of stairs. The man’s family has filed a $10-million claim against the city.
…McDonnell said the department is always trying to improve.
“We’re looking for red flags: training issues, equipment issues, tactical issues,” McDonnell said. “Are there things we need to do with the individual officer, with the unit or department-wide training?”
NEW CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION TO ADDRESS KIDS’ EXPOSURE TO TRAUMA AND TOXIC STRESS
California Assemblymembers have introduced a promising new resolution urging the state to find evidence-based solutions to minimize kids’ exposure to adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and toxic stress.
The resolution calls for preventative health care and mental health interventions to counteract trauma exposure and help kids have better outcomes and fewer encounters with the justice system. The resolution is co-authored by Assemblymembers Raul Bocanegra (D-Los Angeles), Rob Bonta, (D-Alameda), Bradford, Joan Buchanan (D-San Ramon), and Ian Calderon (D-City of Industry), and co-sponsored by the Center for Youth Wellness, Children Now and Californians for Safety and Justice.
Here are some clips from the announcement:
“Far too often, the impact of trauma in our children’s lives goes unnoticed and unaddressed,” said Asm. Bocanegra. “ACR 155 emphasizes our commitment to ensuring that all kids have a chance to thrive. It is more effective and less costly to positively influence the architecture of a child’s developing brain than to attempt to correct poor learning, health and behavior later on.”
Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are traumatic experiences, such as abuse, neglect and household dysfunction, which can result in toxic stress and have a profound effect on a child’s developing brain and body. Research shows that exposure to childhood trauma is surprisingly common; a study of over 17,000 Californians found that two-thirds reported at least one adverse childhood experience, while 20 percent of participants reported three or more ACEs.
“Every parent, pediatrician and policymaker should be familiar with the words ‘toxic stress’ and ‘adverse childhood experiences,” said Dr. Nadine Burke Harris, founder and CEO of the Center for Youth Wellness. “The data around ACEs and their impact on children’s long-term health exposes the scope of the problem and the opportunity we have to heal. By identifying effective solutions and interventions to prevent ACEs and heal toxic stress, we can make kids healthier and build stronger families and communities.”
Exposure to adverse experiences is linked to increased risk for lifelong health and behavior problems. For example, research shows that an individual with four or more ACEs is more likely to have a stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cancer and diabetes. A person with four or more ACEs is also likely to experience depression, be more suicidal, or be an alcoholic.
“Trauma in its many forms can profoundly affect children’s healthy social, emotional and physical development, and their ability to learn and thrive,” said Ted Lempert, president of Children Now. “California must ensure that every child has access to evidence-based preventive and intervention programs to reduce the impacts of ACEs on individuals and inflated costs to our health care and public health systems.”
“Addressing the impact of trauma on children is not just a response to violence but also a step toward preventing future trauma,” said Lenore Anderson, executive director of Californians for Safety and Justice. “The right interventions can help a vulnerable child avoid future exposures to violence that could otherwise have devastating effects on their ability to stay in school, stay healthy and stay out of trouble.”
CALIFORNIA HIGH COURT SAYS PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW NAMES OF OFFICERS INVOLVED IN SHOOTINGS
In 2010 the city of Long Beach released the names of police officers involved in shooting incidents to the LA Times. The Long Beach Police Officers Association sued the city, arguing that the information would endanger officers.
On Thursday, the California Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that law enforcement agencies have to disclose the names of officers involved in shootings (per the Public Records Act), unless the department could establish that such an action would threaten the officers’ lives.
The Long Beach Press-Telegram’s Greg Yee has the story. Here’s a clip:
In a 6-1 decision, the Supreme Court rejected the arguments of the Long Beach police union, concluding there is a presumption that the public has a right to know the identities of officers involved in shooting incidents. While the justices indicated there may be circumstances that would permit keeping the information secret, particularly if an officer’s safety might be jeopardized, departments do not have a sweeping right to withhold the officers’ identities in the aftermath of shootings.
“We reject that blanket rule,” Justice Joyce Kennard, who retired this spring with the case pending, wrote for the majority.
Long Beach Police Officers Association officials said in a statement it was “unfortunate that the majority of the Court does not recognize the safety concerns created for officers and their families involved in critical incidents when their names are released publicly.”
Union officials went on to say the organization “respectfully disagree(s) with the Court’s majority opinion that the public’s interest in this information outweighs the safety of the involved officers and their families. Police officers and other public safety personnel already face a wide range of risks. It is unfair and unconscionable that we should add the safety of their families and homes to that list as well.”
Justice Ming Chin was the lone dissent, siding with the Long Beach police union, which was joined by some other law enforcement groups in the case. Chin argued that the information is exempt from public records laws because it threatens police rights to privacy.
Long Beach Police Chief Jim McDonnell, who is running for Los Angeles County sheriff, said in a statement Thursday that he is committed to “transparency, openness and public access in regard to the work of law enforcement. Indeed, it is my view that too often law enforcement treats the vast majority of what it does as a secret and dissuades public involvement, when in fact very little need be kept confidential and the engagement of our community should be embraced and welcomed.”
However he said the privacy needs of officers and their families needs to be balanced with this.
“I look forward to the direction from our City Attorney in regard to the implementation of this decision,” McDonnell said.
JAIL VISITOR BEATEN BY LA COUNTY DEPUTIES WINS SEVEN-FIGURE SETTLEMENT
In February 2011, a man visiting his brother at Men’s Central Jail was reportedly violently beaten by deputies, who then covered their tracks by falsely charging the man, Gabriel Carrillo, with assault. Carrillo would have faced 14 years in prison had the District Attorney’s Office not dismissed all charges a week before his trial. The FBI and US Attorney’s Office filed charges against the deputies involved (which are currently pending).
And today, at 9:30a.m., Gabriel Carrillo, his family, and attorneys will announce a seven-figure settlement reached in Carrillo’s lawsuit against LA County.
(For the backstory on the Carrillo beating, go here.) Interestingly, the Carrillo incident occurred seven months before the Anthony Brown incident that has triggered the current trial. The FBI, at that time, was investigating brutality of inmates by Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputies.
SCOTUS EASES FLORIDA’S RIGID IQ REQUIREMENT FOR DEATH ROW INMATES SEEKING EXEMPTION DUE TO INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY
The US Supreme Court struck down Florida’s rule that a person on death row must have an IQ below 70 to be considered intellectually disabled enough to be spared from execution. The 5-4 ruling means that states cannot determine death row inmates’ intellectual capacity using only a fixed number on an imperfect test—that the inmates’ IQ number should instead represent a range with room for error.
The Washington Post’s Robert Barnes and Matt Zapotosky have the story. Here’s a clip:
The court ruled 5 to 4 that state laws that draw a bright line on IQ-test results are unconstitutional. Under those laws, an inmate who scores above 70 on the test does not meet the first step of proving that he or she is intellectually disabled and thus ineligible for the death penalty.
Florida, Virginia and Kentucky have such laws, and a handful of others have similar rules.
It was the court’s first consideration of state laws defining mental retardation in capital cases since its 2002 decision in Atkins v. Virginia that executing the mentally retarded violated the Constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
In that decision, the court left it up to states to define intellectual disability. But those state determinations must meet constitutional requirements respecting “the gravest sentence our society may impose,” wrote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy in the majority opinion released Tuesday. He was joined in the decision by the court’s four liberals.
“Florida seeks to execute a man because he scored a 71 instead of a 70 on an IQ test,” Kennedy wrote, adding that experts agree that any number on an IQ test is an imprecise measurement. “Persons facing that most severe sanction must have a fair opportunity to show that the Constitution prohibits their execution. Florida’s law contravenes our nation’s commitment to dignity and its duty to teach human decency as the mark of a civilized world.”
It is relatively rare for a death row inmate to raise intellectual disability as a bar to execution. Defense lawyers in Virginia, for instance, estimate that the ruling might aid only a couple of the eight death row inmates there.
But the decision again showed the continuing tension among the justices about how to apply the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society,” as the court put it more than 50 years ago, to the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
PROPOSED ADELANTO PRIVATE JAIL FACILITY MEANS TO LEASE BEDS TO LA COUNTY
Amid LA County’s costly plans to rebuild the crumbling Men’s Central Jail and renovate another jail to make room for female inmates, the relatively small city of Adelanto (in San Bernardino County) has proposed building another detention facility. The city aims to capitalize on LA County’s overcrowding crisis by constructing a 3,280-bed jail to lease to LA for $104 million a year.
If the facility is built, LA County plans to be locked into the lease for a whopping 20 years. In addition to the double-decade, multi-million dollar commitment (on top of our $2 billion Men’s Central Jail project). Inmates moved to the Adelanto facility would also be far from their families.
And if the county enters into a new private prison contract, would the $104 million lease create yet another unholy conflict of interest that could put pressure on the county and the entrepreneurs to keep the facility filled so that everyone gets their monies worth? as we have seen in contracts across the nation with CCA and GEO Group? (Backstory here, and here.)
The LA Times’ Abby Sewell has more on the issue. Here’s a clip:
County supervisors recently voted to embark on a $2-billion plan to tear down and rebuild the Men’s Central Jail in downtown Los Angeles. The new facility is intended to improve conditions for inmates with physical and mental health needs, but would not add beds to the county system or address the overcrowding that has led to thousands of inmates being released early each year.
Adelanto, a city of 31,000 in San Bernardino County’s high desert region, is proposing to build a 3,280-bed jail on vacant industrial land next to a federal corrections complex. Then it would lease the beds to Los Angeles County. City Manager Jim Hart said Adelanto — via its public financing authority or another agency to be created for the project — would issue bonds to buy the property and build the jail, at an estimated cost of $332 million.
Under a proposal presented earlier this month by a pair of businessmen who are marketing the deal, Los Angeles County would not pay the upfront costs to build the jail but would agree to lease beds there for 20 years once it’s completed, at a rate of $88 per bed per day, or about $104 million a year.
Proponents say the facility could be completed in about two years and would allow the county to avoid shortening the time served by serious offenders, comply with federal requirements to reduce crowding, and save money they might otherwise spend constructing new jails.
County supervisors have not formally discussed the proposal, but three of the five — Don Knabe, Gloria Molina and Michael D. Antonovich — have said they’re willing to consider it.
Knabe said Friday that he sees the Adelanto facility as “a possible enhancement in the future” to expand the county’s jail capacity — not as an alternative to the Men’s Central Jail project.
“It would not be something I would want to pursue instead of the option we picked,” he said.
Two politically connected businessmen are making the Adelanto pitch: Doctor R. Crants, a Nashville-based businessman who cofounded Corrections Corp. of America, the largest private prison company in the United States, and William Buck Johns, a Newport Beach-based developer and prominent Republican fundraiser who has been involved in other ventures in the Inland Empire. Johns and his company, Inland Group, have contributed to Knabe’s and Antonovich’s campaigns in the past.
REMEMBERING MAYA ANGELOU
On Wednesday, Maya Angelou, author of “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings,” was found dead at her home in North Carolina.
NPR’s Morning Edition does an excellent job of remembering Angelou and her legacy as a poet, author, activist, and so much more. Here are some clips from the transcript, but do go listen to the episode:
“She really believed that life was a banquet,” says Patrik Henry Bass, an editor at Essence Magazine. When he read Angelou’s memoir I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, he saw parallels in his own life in a small town in North Carolina. He says everyone in the African-American community looked up to her; she was a celebrity but she was one of them. He remembers seeing her on television and hearing her speak.
“When we think of her, we often think about her books, of course, and her poems,” he says. “But in the African-American community, certainly, we heard so much of her work recited, so I think about her voice. You would hear that voice, and that voice would capture a humanity, and that voice would calm you in so many ways through some of the most significant challenges.”
Joanne Braxton, a professor at the College of William and Mary, says Angelou’s willingness to reveal the sexual abuse she suffered as a child in I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings was unprecedented at the time. The critical acclaim and popularity of the book opened doors for both African-American and female writers.
“Maya Angelou brought about a paradigm shift in American literature and culture,” Braxton says, “so that the works, the gifts, the talents of women writers, including women writers of color, could be brought to the foreground and appreciated. She created an audience by her stunning example.”
California Attorney General Kamala Harris issued this statement regarding Angelou’s passing:
“Maya Angelou was one of history’s great lyricists whose words and deeds opened windows that allowed the world to see and appreciate the enduring principles of freedom, equality and justice. She had an immeasurable impact on the way I view the world and my place in it. Maya Angelou’s legacy will live on not only through her extraordinary body of work, but in the efforts of all those who fight for freedom, dignity and humanity.”
Take a listen to this very empowering recording of Maya Angelou reading one of her well-known poems, “Still I Rise.”
We also recommend taking a look at Angelou’s Twitter account (trust us, it’s worth it).
ELIMINATING THE POWDER VS. CRACK COCAINE SENTENCING DISCREPANCY IN CALIFORNIA
The California Senate has passed a bill to equalize the punishment for possession (for sale) of powder and crack cocaine. Crack previously held a higher penalty of three to five years, while powder was punishable by two to four years. Both forms of cocaine will now carry a two to four year sentence.
(The cocaine sentencing discrepancy is also an issue dealt with at the federal level.)
The Associated Press has the story.
BY THE WAY…
I am very happy to report that WitnessLA’s editor, Celeste Fremon, is an LA Press Club Award finalist for the “Online Journalist of the Year” category.
The winners will be announced on Sunday, June 29, at the Biltmore Hotel, in downtown LA.
You can find the rest of the categories and finalists here.
“Lock the jail, hide the informant, silence the witnesses, threaten the FBI agent and make it all go away,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney Liz Rhodes as she commenced her opening statement for the prosecution on Tuesday morning.
This is, of course, the second trial pertaining to the group of seven federally indicted members of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s department who are accused of interfering in an FBI investigation into corruption and brutality in the LASD-run LA County jails.
Last week, the trial of one of the seven, Deputy James Sexton, ended with a hung jury.
The trial that began on Tuesday involves the other six department members, who are, like Sexton, accused of hiding federal informant Anthony Brown from his FBI handlers, and more.
Judging from Tuesday’s opening statements, both the prosecutors and the defense attorneys in this second corruption of justice trial have benefited from watching the week-long Sexton trial.
For example, on the prosecution’s end, Rhodes spent more time stressing the context in which the FBI investigation took place, which involved multiple inmates giving what the feds felt were credible accounts of being brutalized by deputies, or observing others being brutalized, to the point that “there appeared to be a pattern,” she said.
But such allegations are tough to prove. “Inmates could be discredited,” Rhodes pointed out. “And the jails were controlled by the very people the FBI wanted to investigate.’
They could have gone to the LASD brass, but surmised that the sheriff “would not take well to such an endeavor.”
So, they launched a number of quiet strategies, one of which was an undercover sting involving informant and inmate Anthony Brown, who said that he knew deputies who would bring in contraband in return for money.
And so it was that deputy Gilbert Michele was paid by a supposed Brown confederate, but in fact an undercover FBI agent, to bring a cell phone to Brown inside Men’s Central Jail.
A week or so later, the cell phone was discovered by a deputy in a routine search, Brown was found to be a federal informant, and all hell broke loose after that.
As to who behaved reasonably and legally in the ensuing weeks, it depends on whether you favor the POV of the prosecution or that of the defense. (Or in the case of this trial, the multiple defenses—since there are six defendants involved.)
While the feds appear to be setting up a more detailed and contextual case for obstruction of justice, the various defense attorneys each built pieces of their collective case, which seemed to be a narrative of good cops following orders as they engaged in various forms of participation in what they depict as a perfectly legal investigation into the actions of Anthony Brown and his FBI handlers.
The trial is expected to last around three weeks.
ABC-7 was also at court today, so Reporter Miriam Hernandez and producer Lisa Hartley, as usual, have their own smart take on the story.
Here’s a clip (but be sure to watch the video of their broadcast):
….Lieutenant Greg Thompson, Lieutenant Steve Leavins, Sergeant Scott Craig, Sergeant Maricela Long, Deputy Mickey Manzo and Deputy Gerard Smith are accused of conspiracy and obstruction of justice for hiding inmate Anthony Brown after they learned he was secretly feeding information to the FBI about possible corruption and abuse by deputies inside the jails.
Sergeants Long and Craig are also accused of making false statements to the FBI. All six defendants have pleaded not guilty.
Prosecutor Liz Rhodes told jurors the FBI took a calculated risk by introducing a cellphone into Men’s Central Jail in the summer of 2011 so that Brown could report back to the FBI in real time. Federal investigators wanted more information about allegations they were hearing from inmates about beatings, assaults and other abuses inside the jails.
As part of an FBI sting, inmate Anthony Brown convinced Deputy Gilbert Michel to bring him a cellphone in return for a bribe of $1,500. Deputy Michel, who has since pleaded guilty to bribery, didn’t know that Brown’s “associate” on the outside was really an undercover FBI agent.
Brown’s phone was found on August 8, 2011, wrapped in a glove and stashed in a bag of Doritos. The investigation was initially low-priority for the Sheriff’s Department, a possible misdemeanor charge for Brown who was already facing 423 years in prison for a string of armed robberies.
But, according to Rhodes, once that phone was linked to the FBI and a widening federal investigation of the LASD and its jails, everything changed. Plans to ship Brown to state prison were suddenly scrapped, Brown was moved, his name was changed, he was guarded around the clock and the FBI was barred from LASD jails without approval from Undersheriff Paul Tanaka.
In an email obtained by Eyewitness News, defendant Gerard Smith described the operation to fellow deputies as “one of the most important investigations involving the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, in its 160 year history.” Smith told his colleagues that Brown was not to be moved, “without the presence of the following people: US Tanaka, ICIB Cpt. Tom Carey, ICIB Lt. Leavins, Lt. G. Thompson, Dep. G. Smith or Dep. M. Manzo.”
Rhodes told jurors the next phase of the operation was to “silence the witnesses,” including Deputy Gilbert Michel and inmate Anthony Brown.
Read and watch as there’s lots more.
JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORMS IN THE PIPELINE
A number of important juvenile justice bills are making their way through California legislature right now.
The first bill, SB 1038 by Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) would seal kids’ juvenile records from the public upon completion of probation.
Another bill by Sen. Leno, SB 1296, would bar judges from locking up kids who, through skipping class, have violated court orders to go to school. (This still happens in four California counties.)
SB 1198 by Sen. Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) would require the Justice Department to gather data on minors charged and locked up as adults in all counties.
The final bill, AB 1756 by Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), would remove the fee associated with sealing juvenile records for anyone under 26-years-old.
The Associated Press has more on the bills and why they are important. Here’s a clip:
Juvenile records would automatically be sealed from public view after the offender has completed probation under SB1038 by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco.
“For young offenders who have paid their debt to society and are moving forward with their young adult lives, we want to ensure that they have every opportunity to succeed,” Leno said.
His bill does not change the part of existing law that prohibits sealing juvenile convictions for 30 crimes, including murder and attempted murder, voluntary manslaughter, arson, various armed assaults, robbery, kidnapping and various sexual crimes.
There are plenty of violent crimes that are not covered under the existing law, including batteries, involuntary and vehicular manslaughter, child abuse, non-forcible sex offenses and residential burglary. All of those would be sealed automatically under Leno’s bill, said Aaron Maguire, a lobbyist for the California State Sheriffs’ Association, and Sean Hoffman, legislative director for the California District Attorneys Association.
Currently, district attorneys or probation officers can object to sealing records, but that opportunity would disappear under Leno’s bill.
“We want compassion on the criminal, but our No. 1 duty is to protect the citizens and keep the citizens, our families and our children, safe,” said Sen. Mike Morrell, R-Rancho Cucamonga, who voted against the bill.
Leno’s bill cleared the Senate on a party-line 23-13 vote in May and is awaiting consideration in the Assembly.
Related legislation, AB1756 by Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, would eliminate the fee for sealing the juvenile files of anyone under age 26.
The fee can be as high as $150, but the East Bay Community Law Center, co-sponsor of the bill, found through public records requests that the average is about $100. Los Angeles County charges no fee and accounts for more than half of the roughly 6,000 such petitions filed each year.
Any fee can be an obstacle for many young people trying to make a new start, Skinner said.
“The record is like an albatross around their neck because it comes up every time they apply for a job, if you run a credit report,” she said.
ELECTRONIC MONITORING SYSTEM DISCRIMINATES AGAINST THE POOR
Electronic monitoring devices are meant to keep those ordered to wear them from having to spend time in jail or prison. But, in nearly every state (save for Hawaii and D.C.), those ordered to wear ankle bracelets can (and most often will) be forced to pay out of pocket for the monitoring service—usually hundreds of dollars per month.
This system is stacked unfairly against the poor. If a person is unable to pay for their own monitoring—which may be stacked on top of lofty court fees, probation fees, and/or public defender fees—they face jail time.
NPR’s Joseph Shapiro has the story. Here’s a clip:
A nationwide survey by NPR found that 49 states — every state except Hawaii, plus the District of Columbia — now allow or require the cost to be passed along to the person ordered to wear [an electronic monitoring device].
Sometimes that means people with money get to go home, while those without go to jail. Like Tom Barrett.
The Augusta, Ga., man was arrested after he stole a can of beer from a refrigerator in a gas station convenience store in 2012. He pleaded “no contest” and a judge sentenced him to 12 months of probation and said Barrett could be released as long as he wore an ankle bracelet. But when he didn’t have the money to pay for it, he was sent to jail.
The bracelet, which is a kind of Breathalyzer strapped to his ankle, was expensive. It cost $12 a day. In addition, there was a $50 set up fee, a $39 a month fee to the private probation company that supervised his release, and the money to install a land-line phone for the system to work. It totaled more than $400 a month.
Barrett had been homeless, until just before he stole that beer. He was living in a subsidized efficiency apartment that cost him $25 a month. To afford even that much, he had to sell his plasma at the blood bank.
As a former pharmacist, Barrett had once lived a comfortable, middle-class life. But he became addicted to the drugs he was supposed to be safeguarding. He lost his job, and his family.
There were years of run-ins with the law, mostly related to public drunkenness.
This time, however, it was for a minor shoplifting charge, which shouldn’t carry any jail time. It “didn’t seem like justice,” Barrett says about being jailed when he couldn’t pay for the electronic monitor.
…More common electronic monitoring devices check a person’s location. So if a judge gives a curfew to someone awaiting trial, the device can tell if they are home on time. Some devices come with a GPS unit and can tell if, for example, a sex offender has been lurking near an elementary school.
Companies that make the devices — in their marketing materials — tell courts, and probation and parole agencies they can charge the users of those electronic monitoring devices.
“It’s very easy for jurisdictions to pass the cost on to the offender,” says George Drake, a consultant to government agencies that want to set up electronic monitoring systems. “No one wants to raise taxes on the public. Politicians — it’s the last thing they want to do.”
Most states face sizable budget deficits. So state legislators — often lobbied by the companies that make the devices — pass legislation to require offenders to pay the fees.
But Drake often advises that government agencies are better off paying the bill for the monitors; rather than chasing after money from the usually indigent offenders.
“More often than not, these offenders don’t have resources,” he says. “They’re paying court fees, they’re paying other fines, they’re paying supervision fees and restitution to the victim and they’re being set up to fail because they just cannot afford all these fees that have been assessed to them.”
LATEST LASD CAMPAIGN DONATION NUMBERS — TANAKA IN THE LEAD
With just a few short days until the June 3 primary election, Paul Tanaka has raised over $900,000 in his campaign for LA County Sheriff, continuing his fundraising lead over the other candidates.
Long Beach Police Chief Jim McDonnell comes in second with approximately $760,000, overtaking Assistant Sheriff James Hellmold who has around $440,000.
Bob Olmsted has raised about $335,000, Assistant Sheriff Todd Rogers brought in around $190,000, and Lou Vince and Patrick Gomez raised $24,000 and $16,400, respectively.
(It should be noted that McDonnell, Hellmold, and Rogers entered the race when former Sheriff Lee Baca announced his retirement in January, months after the other four candidates began raising campaign money.)
The LA Times Cindy Chang has more on the fundraising numbers. Here’s a clip:
“Obviously, we’re very pleased with the amount of money Paul has raised for the primary,” said a Tanaka consultant, Reed Galen. “We believe it’s allowed the candidate and the campaign to do the things we’ve needed to do to get our message out to voters across L.A. County.”
The campaign took an unexpected turn in January when Sheriff Lee Baca retired in the wake of criminal charges against 18 Sheriff’s Department employees. McDonnell was among those who jumped in after Baca’s retirement, becoming the only candidate from outside the department with substantial financial support.
Tanaka’s opponents have tried to link him to the allegations of brutality and obstruction of justice in the jails. At the trial of a sheriff’s deputy last week, a federal prosecutor revealed that Tanaka is the subject of an ongoing federal investigation.
Assistant Sheriff Todd Rogers, whose $190,000 haul put him fifth among the seven candidates, said Tanaka needs “every dime” to overcome that stigma.
“The fact that I’m not at risk of federal indictment is probably worth half a million dollars,” Rogers said.
A spokesman for Bob Olmsted, a retired sheriff’s commander who has raised about $335,000 and characterizes himself as a whistle-blower, echoed Rogers’ comments.
“With the culture of corruption and pay-to-play politics, it’s not surprising that he continues to raise money from the minions and cronies that he has built a relationship with,” the spokesman, Dave Jacobson, said of Tanaka.
Galen, Tanaka’s consultant, countered that the comments were made out of desperation.
“The only thing any of us know for sure is that Todd Rogers isn’t going to be the next sheriff, and nor will Bob Olmsted,” Galen said. “The fact that they’re attacking Paul is because they have nothing else to run on.”
Mark Botnick, a Hellmold consultant, said in a statement: “Paul Tanaka has been campaigning for years, so it is certainly no surprise that he has raised more money given the length of his campaign.”
Three days before Elliot Rodger went on his murderous rampage on May 23 in Isla Vista, a new non-fiction book called The Second Amendment: A Biography was published to generally good reviews.
In it, the book’s author, Michael Waldman, examines the Second Amendment and our nation’s history with this short (27 words) and weirdly punctuated clause in the Constitution that has become freighted with so much acrimonious controversy. (Walman is a former Bill Clinton speechwriter who now heads up NYU Law School’s Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan think tank dedicated to “improving the systems of democracy and justice.”)
The timing of the book’s release turns out be painfully serendipitous, in that the horror of a mass shooting, like the tragedy of a few days ago, inevitably brings up a discussion of guns and what legislation would or would not help prevent a the next Columbine or Sandy Hook or Isla Vista (or—if one is bothering to look at statistics—the everyday shootings that regularly tear irrevocable holes in America’s most violence-haunted communities).
It would be nice to think that Waldman’s scholarly, but lively in tone, “The Second Amendment” could bring some much-needed sanity, and perhaps some facts, into that discussion.
LA Times book reviewer, David Ulin, reviewed Waldman’s book on Sunday. Here’s a clip from what Ulin wrote:
….Guns, after all, represent a microcosm of an America divided between left and right, urban and rural, collective and individual rights. It’s complicated further because it is encoded in the Bill of Rights — one of our foundational documents, to borrow a phrase from Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who famously sparred with Dianne Feinstein at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 2013.
“[W]ould she consider it constitutional,” Cruz asked of Feinstein, “for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights? Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against searches and seizures could properly apply only to the following specified individuals and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?”
Cruz’s showboating aside — Feinstein responded that she was “not a sixth-grader” and didn’t need a lecture on the Constitution — these are important questions, not so much for pro-gun advocates as for supporters of privacy and free speech rights. What happens if we unravel one amendment, regardless of the way we feel about it? What does it mean for those amendments we prefer?
This is the puzzle of the 2nd Amendment, which, Waldman admits, is a problematic text at best. “Let’s be clear,” he writes: “the eloquent men who wrote ‘we the people’ and the First Amendment did us no favors in the drafting of the Second Amendment.”
PAROLING LIFERS IN CALIFORNIA: JERRY BROWN & THE NEW NORMAL
Governors Gray Davis and Arnold Schwarzenegger reversed nearly all of the parole recommendations for lifers that crossed their desks.
Governor Jerry Brown, in contrast, only reverses around 20 percent of the lifer parole approvals that he sees.
(And by lifers, in this case, we’re talking about people who got indeterminate sentences of, say 15-years-to-life, 25-to-life, 40-years-to-life—-or any such indeterminate sentence with with an “L” after it.)
When NPR’s Scott Shaffer asked Brown about the difference in reversal rates between him and his predecessors, Jerry said that his approach to the matter was “”to follow the law and evaluate very carefully each case, which I do every week.”
Although some suggest that Brown’s policy poses a risk to public safety, in fact, lifers have among the lowest recidivism rates of all released prisoners with less than 1 percent of paroled lifers winding up back in jail or prison.
Here’s a clip from Shaffer’s story:
….As for the difference between his rejection rate and those of previous governors, Brown says, “I don’t know what they did and whether they read the record or whether they looked at the law.” And, he points out, the law has changed.
He’s referring to the 2008 decision by the California Supreme Court that ruled that parole denials could not be based on the viciousness of a crime alone. Instead, the justices said, there must also be evidence that an inmate is still a threat.
The case involved Sandra Davis Lawrence, who fatally shot and killed a woman during a jealous rage. The parole board recommended her release four times, but it was reversed by three different governors. The state Supreme Court cited “overwhelming” evidence that Lawrence was rehabilitated and therefore no longer dangerous.
Jennifer Shaffer, executive director of the State Board of Parole Hearings, says that decision changed everything. “As you can imagine, if their crime alone could keep them from being paroled forever then that was really not life with the possibility of parole. So there had to be something else,” she explains.
WELCOME NEWS: THE LA COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT OPENS FIRST COMMUNITY REENTRY CENTER
Last Thursday, the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department formally took a much welcome step in opening the county’s first Community Reentry and Resource Center, or CRRC, that is designed to help inmates make the crucial transition out of lock-up and back into life in their respective communities.
Christina Villacorte at the Daily News has more. Here’s a clip:
For the first time, jail inmates who have served their time can walk out of their cells and go straight into a one-stop shop for finding a place to live, staying sober and getting a job.
The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Thursday opened the first-ever Community Reentry and Resource Center at its jail complex in downtown Los Angeles.
“One of the challenges for newly released inmates is avoiding a return to drug use and crime,” Sheriff John Scott said during the grand opening ceremony. “It can be a difficult road — their families may not accept them, finding a job may be difficult, and old friends may be eager to support bad habits — and that often contributes to an offender’s return to criminal behavior and, ultimately, to jail.”
Scott said the CRRC, located at the lobby of the Twin Towers Correctional Facility across the street from Men’s Central Jail, would give newly released inmates a “better chance for a successful transition.”
“This is designed to give hope to people,” added Assistant Sheriff Terri McDonald.
Read the rest here.
We look forward to giving you additional details once we’ve seen the CRRC for ourselves. But for now we are simply cheering this smart step by the sheriff’s department in helping combat offender recidivism.
A SHERIFF’S RACE LIKE NO OTHER (NO, REALLY!)
The LA Times Rob Greene explains why this particular 7-candidate race for LA County Sheriff is so unique.
Here’s a clip:
….We’re still digging to find a time when voters actually chose a new sheriff, with no incumbent or incumbent’s designee on the ballot.
You’d think this would be easy to nail down. But Los Angeles was so different then — before voters adopted the 1913 “home rule” charter, with its civil service protections and other progressive reforms. Candidates were anointed by political bosses and nominated at county party conventions instead of selected in primary elections. Sheriffs’ tenures were brief, deputies were openly hired and fired based on political support, and the sheriff was paid in part by the fees and fines he collected.
In the 1890s and the first decade of the 20th century, four men wrestled over the office — Cline, Hammel, John Burr and William White — along with their respective factions of job seekers and patrons. When Burr was elected in 1894, he went into hiding to avoid a throng of would-be deputies, and in so doing, he failed to show up at the proper time and place to take office. The job was declared vacant, and the Board of Supervisors ended up appointing him.
So when was the last time the choice was this wide open, with no incumbent and no front-runner, and with voters firmly in charge of who the next sheriff would be? In the era in which county politics were something we’d recognize today?…..
AND SPEAKING OF THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT….THE NEXT ANTHONY BROWN/OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE TRIAL BEGINS TUESDAY
On Tuesday, attorneys for the prosecution and for the defense in the second of two obstruction of justice trials, involving federally indicted members of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, will deliver opening statements at 8 a.m. sharp Tuesday morning in the courtroom of Judge Percy Anderson.
Now that the trial of Deputy James Sexton resulted in a mistrial last week, with the jury split six-six down the middle, it will be interesting to see how Sexton’s case affects the way defense attorneys and prosecutors reposition their arguments, and retool their witness lists.
Just to remind you, this second trial involves six defendants: Lieutenants Gregory Thompson and Stephen Leavins, sergeants Scott Craig and Maricella Long, and deputies Mickey Manzo and Gerard Smith.
We’ll keep you up to date on what happens.
LA COUNTY’S CAMP KILPATRICK’S SHINY, NEW REHABILITATION-CENTERED FUTURE
LA County Probation’s Camp Kilpatrick, an outdated and rundown juvenile detention facility in Malibu, will be torn down this summer and replaced by what is hoped will be a new kind of camp that will help reverse decades of neglect and outdated practices in the nation’s largest juvenile justice system. This transformed Kilpatrick, which will reopen in either 2016 or 2017, is planned as a facility centered on rehabilitation, education, and healing that, ideally, will jump-start meaningful reform throughout LA County’s juvenile system, and beyond.
The Juvenile Justice Information Exchange’s Gary Cohn has more on the future of Kilpatrick. Here are some clips:
Camp Kilpatrick is one of 14 probation camps in Los Angeles County, which has the largest juvenile justice system in the nation. Most of the camps were built during the 1950s and 1960s, and they are characterized by penitentiary-like facilities and strictly enforced routines. In a 2012 letter to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, the county’s chief probation officer Jerry Powers has described the design of the probation camps as “creat(ing) an image of a jail-like environment.”
In the UCLA report on reforming Los Angeles County’s juvenile justice system, Newell and her co-author, Jorja Leap, describe numerous consequences of the outdated design. The barracks-like dormitories do not foster rehabilitation and only serve to foster competition, deepen factions and further gang problems. Youth interaction with staff is inconsistent and often adversarial. Safety problems persist. And educational opportunities are inconsistent.
“Even the newest Los Angeles County probation camp — Challenger Memorial Youth Center, which opened in 1990 in a geographically remote area with a command-and-control program — represents an outdated era of juvenile justice that does not meet the needs of today’s system-involved youth,” the report states.
The new model envisions small dorms of 10-12 youth, with a living room area and private bathrooms, in sharp contrast to the current facilities and their large open dorms with 50-120 beds in military barracks style, open bathrooms and no privacy. It envisions a better staff-to-youth ratio, one where staff have regular schedules that support working with youth, consistency and relationship building rather than 56-hour work schedules with 16-hour shifts, with staff then gone for several days. And it envisions an environment where safety is promoted through strong relationships, and where isolation rooms are eliminated.
“You need an environment that’s conducive to positive youth development, that feels normal, that feels safe, that feels comfortable, that feels homelike,” Newell told JJIE. The rebuilt Camp Kilpatrick facility, she adds, “will really be designed with rehabilitation in mind — what do youth need, and how can the facility design help support this.”
Similar approaches have worked in Missouri, Washington, D.C., and Santa Clara County.
The small group rehabilitation approach has been particularly successful in Missouri, reducing recidivism to one of the lowest rates in the country. The hallmark of Missouri’s system is small, cottage-like facilities at locations that keep juveniles close to their own homes and emphasize rehabilitation. As one indication, in 2011 only 6.9 percent of youth discharged from Missouri’s Division of Youth Services were recommitted for new juvenile offenses within one year. The approach has been so successful that juvenile justice advocates refer to it as the “Missouri Miracle.”
The Camp Kilpatrick transformation will be based on the Missouri model, but it will be tailored to specific needs in Los Angeles County. For example, a project-based learning education model called Road to Success Academy (which has been piloted in other LA County probation camps) is expected to be the educational model, which is intended to complement the other components of the Missouri model.
The project is being funded primarily through a juvenile justice realignment bill passed by the California state Legislature in 2007, which created new funding for counties to improve their facilities. Los Angeles County got the go-ahead to rebuild one of its probation camps based on best practices, and it selected Camp Kilpatrick because it was physically in the worst shape. The county has been working with researchers and juvenile justice advocates on the new design model.
The county is expected to select a design and building firm in the coming months, and the rebuilt Camp Kilpatrick will likely open in 2016 or 2017.
Back in March, we had a series of stories about a push by advocates, parents, and coaches to save LA County Probation’s popular sports program at Camp Kilpatrick, which didn’t quite fit into the camp’s $48 million state-of-the-art rebuild. (The sports program has fortunately found a new home at Challenger Memorial Youth Center camp in the Antelope Valley for the fall 2014 sports season. You can read more about it here, here, here…and here.)
HUGE DOJ POLICY SHIFT CALLS FOR RECORDING OF (ALMOST) ALL SUSPECT INTERROGATIONS
After over 100 years of the FBI operating under a policy prohibiting the recording of nearly all interrogations, the Department of Justice has instated “sweeping” new policy requiring interrogations (with some exceptions) be recorded, preferably with both audio and video. As US Attorney General Eric Holder explains in the above video, the new rule will promote accountability and protect both agents and suspects by creating an “objective account of key investigations.”
The Arizona Republic has the story. Here are some clips:
Since the FBI began under President Theodore Roosevelt in 1908, agents have not only shunned the use of tape recorders, they’ve been prohibited by policy from making audio records of statements by criminal suspects without special approval.
Now, after more than a century, the U.S. Department of Justice quietly has reversed that directive by issuing orders May 12 that audio recording, preferably with video, is presumptively required for interrogations of suspects in custody, with some exceptions.
There was no news release or news conference to announce the radical shift. But a DOJ memorandum obtained by The Arizona Republic spells out the changes that will begin July 11.
“This policy establishes a presumption that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the United States Marshals Service (USMS) will electronically record statements made by individuals in their custody,” says the memo from James M. Cole, deputy attorney general, to all federal prosecutors and criminal chiefs.
“This policy also encourages agents and prosecutors to consider electronic recording in investigative or other circumstances where the presumption does not apply,” such as in the questioning of witnesses.
Attorneys, researchers and critics of the old policy say reform brings federal agencies up to modern policing standards and removes a stigma that has damaged the credibility of America’s criminal-justice system. Put simply, in the absence of recorded interviews, defense lawyers have been able to undermine honest testimony by some FBI agents while, in other cases, agents misremembered, distorted or lied about suspect statements.
The failure to maintain electronic records of interrogations also created gaps in FBI intelligence gathering, especially involving terrorism cases. Instead of maintaining an accurate and largely indisputable record, agents on the witness stand for decades have relied on their memories, interpretations and handwritten notes transcribed into a form known as the 302.
(HuffPost published a copy of the DOJ memo. Read it here.)
THE TOOLS MAX HUNTSMAN NEEDS TO SUCCEED IN REFORMING THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT
In January, Max Huntsman took on the role of Inspector General over the scandal-plagued LASD. But in the current capacity of inspector general over a department with an public-elected sheriff, Huntsman does not have the power to enforce reform, he can only focus a spotlight on the department’s problem areas.
In an op-ed for the LA Times, Katherine Mader, the first LAPD inspector general (1996-1998), calls for legislation that would beef up the authority of an inspector general overseeing a law enforcement agency.
Here are the powers Mader says an IG would need to initiate real change:
• The power to promise confidentiality to those he or she deals with during inquiries. Without such power, an inspector general’s private notes of interviews with complainants may be subpoenaed by the city or county to assist in civil lawsuits.
• A set, tenured term. In both the county and the city, inspectors general are “at will” employees and can be fired without cause. Tenure would enable them to issue critical reports — especially ones likely to generate controversy — without fear of reprisal. Such reports are often applauded in the beginning, when reform is wanted. But once a troubled agency is deemed “fixed” and politicians have taken credit for the reformation, they are likely to be far less receptive to critical reports.
• The power to initiate investigations. A true inspector general should be able to look at any facet of police operations and write a report on shortcomings he finds. The overseeing commission or board should not be able to shut down an inquiry.
• The power to release reports. A true inspector should be able to release the findings of any inquiries. No overseeing board should have the authority to keep a report secret.
• The power of access. There should be no nook or cranny within a police agency that cannot be probed by the inspector general. That means access to all generated internal reports, especially those produced by the internal affairs division, whether or not an investigation is complete. Inspectors general throughout the country, as well as in Los Angeles, have consistently complained that their access is often restricted, and there is no remedy.
IN OTHER LASD RELATED NEWS…
During Wednesday’s debate at the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association, several rival sheriff candidates urged Paul Tanaka to drop out of the race after the former undersheriff acknowledged being a subject in an ongoing federal investigation.
KPCC’s Frank Stoltze has the story. Here’s a clip:
“He needs to step aside,” former Sheriff’s Commander Bob Olmsted said. Olmsted also directly addressed his former colleague, who stood a few feet from Olmsted inside the crowded cafeteria at Notre Dame High School.
“You perpetuated the code of silence for years by hiding the malfeasance and the criminal wrongdoing,” Olmsted said to Tanaka. Olmsted is among a handful of department officials who complained about problems at the agency to the FBI…
Another candidate, Assistant Sheriff Todd Rogers, said Tanaka is “the common denominator with all these scandals” at the department. A federal grand jury has indicted 20 deputies on corruption or civil rights charges. A separate federal probe found deputies engaged in racial profiling in the Antelope Valley. In addition, Sheriff’s Department officials have admitted to hiring dozens of unqualified deputies.
Long Beach Police Chief Jim McDonnell called the FBI investigation into Tanaka “a major distraction to being able to move forward…and begin the healing process” at the department. McDonnell reiterated he is best qualified to make changes at the agency because he has no affiliation with it. Opponents have said his lack of knowledge of the sprawling department is a liability.
During the debate, Tanaka, who has raised the most money among the seven candidates, sought to rise above the criticism.
“Certainly the usual attacks occurred,” Tanaka said. “We are fighting for the top cop job in the county, and this is politics.”
After being sent back for additional deliberation twice by Judge Percy Anderson, a jury of five women and seven men again declared themselves hopelessly deadlocked—with an even split of six to six—in the question of whether or not defendant Deputy James Sexton had obstructed justice in taking part in an LASD operation to hide federal informant Anthony Brown from his FBI handlers, and other federal agents.
At a few minutes after 8 AM on Thursday, Judge Anderson declared a mistrial.
Prosecutors declined to say whether or not they will retry Sexton.
Looking exhausted by the high-intensity trial, but visibly relieved, the Sexton family hugged each other and supporters after the the judge’s announcement. The specter of LASD deputy Sexton going to federal prison was, at least for now, over—and perhaps over for good, if government prosecutors elect not to retry the case.
Lead defense attorney, Tom O’Brien, also looked extremely relieved. “It’s clear to me that the jury saw what this actually is,” he said, “a fight between the FBI and the sheriff’s department.”
Outside the courthouse, juror Marvin Padilla, said that the government’s main evidence against Sexton, which was the defendant’s grand jury testimony, was precisely what got him to vote for acquittal.
“I just did not find it credible,” said Padilla. “I think these are conclusions he reached in hindsight a year later,” not when the actions were actually occurring. “Nearly all of Sexton’s narrative at the grand jury seemed like 20-20 hindsight.”
Padilla also thought it significant that Sexton had talked to the FBI 37 times. “It’s almost as if he had Stockholm syndrome.”
On the question of whether department higher ups should be tried in the Anthony Brown matter, Padilla said he thought it correct that the investigation was continuing.
When asked about the trial testimony of former undersheriff Paul Tanaka, specifically, Padilla said, “Either he didn’t know what was going on at all, or he was lying about nearly everything he said, neither of which is very attractive.”
“Something unsightly happened there,” said Padilla. “Something was going on that people above Sexton knew about. Something didn’t smell right.”
As for the tone of rest of the deliberations by this split jury, Padilla said, “It was all very thoughtful, very passionate.”
The case in which Sexton’s six other LASD members will be tried for similar charges begins on Tuesday of next week.