Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Los Angeles District Attorney Gascon’s “Reforms” Put Criminal Justice In Free Fall

Los Angeles District Attorney Gascon’s “Reforms” Put Criminal Justice In Free Fall

Fallout over “justice reforms” are so bad that LA County prosecutors file lawsuit against their boss.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST7unLIS_yA

I noted that billionaire George Soros is behind the team that helped elect Los Angeles county’s new District Attorney George Gascón this past November. Gascón promptly announced sweeping changes as he was sworn into office, including the end of cash bail.

One month later, let’s check how he’s working out for Los Angeles.

In a strong rebuke to LA’s “reforms,” a judge allowed the San Diego County district attorney’s office to reclaim jurisdiction over several charges filed in Los Angeles connected to a violent crime spree that left two people dead.

In a motion filed last week, San Diego County Dist. Atty. Summer Stephan asked a judge to give her office control over five robbery counts filed against Rhett Nelson, 31, part of a broader slate of charges he faces for his alleged role in a days-long crime spree that spanned across Southern California and left two people dead in 2019, including Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Joseph Solano.

Nelson was charged with two counts of murder, one count of attempted murder and seven robberies committed in or near San Diego, Long Beach and Los Angeles. Under previous Dist. Atty. Jackie Lacey, a slew of sentencing enhancements were also filed against Nelson because he allegedly used a gun in each crime and is charged with multiple murders. If convicted under those terms, he would have been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Stephan had agreed to consolidate all charges in Los Angeles, but changed her mind in response to Gascón’s directive barring prosecutors from using enhancements. According to her filing, Stephan feared Nelson could become eligible for parole after spending 20 years in prison if convicted without enhancements.

A little farther north, Sacramento and Fresno counties district attorneys expressed their anger and frustration at Gascón’s policies.

Last week, Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert characterized many of Gascón’s directives as “illegal and unconstitutional” — a contention repeated again by Fresno County D.A. Lisa A. Smittcamp.

…Smittcamp wrote: “Your special directives are extreme, and they are already wreaking havoc on crime victims and ignoring their constitutional rights. Your lack of concern for victims’ rights and public safety is of great concern to all of us who pride ourselves on protecting those very things. Crime has no boundaries, and these special directives will certainly impact areas outside of Los Angeles County.”

There is very disturbing news that, because of the new rules, Los Angeles deputy district attorneys who successfully prosecuted a case secual assault case will be barred from attending the man’s upcoming parole hearing.

[The victims’ mother] Constance tells FOX 11 she was stunned when she recently received a letter from the state notifying her that Beltran would have his first parole hearing on March 11.

The shock was made even worse when the family learned that under D.A George Gascón’s reforms, their prosecutor won’t be allowed to attend Beltran’s parole hearing, and the family will be left to argue against his release on their own.

“Somehow the responsibility is in our court to protect society, and that’s simply not how it’s supposed to work,” the brother said.

“There’s just every element of protection for him, this violent monster criminal, and very little protection for us,” the sister said.

The fallout from the Gascón reforms has led the union representing Los Angeles County prosecutors to sue their boss.

The Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County argues in the lawsuit that deputy district attorneys cannot follow the directives without violating state penal code.

“The directives violate California law, which imposes a mandatory duty on prosecutors to plead and prove strike priors,” the union said in a statement. “Dismissals of those priors can only be based on individual circumstances, not a blanket policy.”

Let 1000 lawsuits bloom.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

This guy is literally insane. He’s bent on destroying the city, much like di blasio is bent on destroying NYC. He’s a perfect fit for the moron fool of an LA mayor, Garcetti.

More insane: the people in Los Angeles who voted for this freak.

    Let me correct something: IF people of LA voted this freak in, they’re as crazy as he is.

    But I don’t think they did vote this lunatic in: “voting software” voted him in. In other words, I don’t think this guy won any election. I think this election – like we’re finding many others across the nation – was stolen, and the voting “computers” doing the work are completely bogus.

    Looking backwards, it’s likely NONE of the Soros psychos ‘winning’ elections as DA’s across the nation were legitimately voted in. It seems more likely Soros’ money was used in conjunction with fraudulent voting ‘machines’ and ‘software’ that inserting crazy people into high office in our country.

Leftists are mentally ill. Gascon will drive more shitbags from CA who will take their votes with them and those shitbags will screw that place.

How does this idiot think he has the right to ignore the laws that the legislature has passed and make up his own rules? DA’s are supposed to enforce the law, not make it up as they go along.

This is a perfect example of the kind of elected official that impeachment is intended to control.

    Milhouse in reply to OldProf2. | January 23, 2021 at 9:11 pm

    Prosecutorial discretion. And he was elected to do this. He announced what he wanted to do, and the people elected him to do it. Now they’re getting it good and hard.

      paralegal in reply to Milhouse. | January 23, 2021 at 11:44 pm

      Your claim of prosecutorial discretion has already been explicitly rejected by the California Court of Appeals.

      The Three Strikes law requires the prosecutor to plead and prove all prior serious and violent felony convictions. (§ 1170.12, subd. (d)(1)(2).) Appellant argues that this statutory command violates the constitutional principle of separation of powers. (Cal. Const., art. III, § 3.) It does so, he argues, because the requirement that the prosecutor plead and prove all qualifying prior convictions usurps the discretion of prosecutors to decide what to prosecute, an executive function that cannot be limited by statute.
      The validity of appellant’s argument is dependent on the proposition that the charging discretion of prosecutors cannot be limited by law. Appellant cites no authority for that proposition, and we have found none. Former article XI, section 1, subdivision (b) of the California Constitution provided that the “Legislature shall provide for … an elected district attorney” and other specified officers. Section 5 of the same article provided that the “Legislature, by general and uniform laws, … shall prescribe their duties.”
      The Legislature has done so, principally in Government Code section 26500 et seq. and its predecessors. The second paragraph of section 26500 provides: “The public prosecutor shall attend the courts, and within his or her discretion shall initiate and conduct on behalf of the people all prosecutions for public offenses.”
      Section 5 of article XI was repealed by Proposition 2, approved by the voters in June 1970 as part of an extensive reduction of constitutional language and transfer of authority to local governments and their electors. It is clear from the ballot arguments **157 supporting *1333 and opposing this measure that no change was envisaged that would prevent legislation on statewide matters from being enacted. (See Ballot Pamp., arguments in favor, against, and in rebuttal to Proposition 2, as presented to the voters, Prim.Elec. (June 2, 1970) pp. 5–8.) The Government Code provisions were not directly affected by this initiative; they were in force before its adoption and, with amendments not germane to this discussion, have remained in force since that time.
      The district attorney acts as a state officer when prosecuting crimes. (See Pitchess v. Superior Court (1969) 2 Cal.App.3d 653, 657, 83 Cal.Rptr. 41; Graham v. Municipal Court (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 1018, 1022, 177 Cal.Rptr. 172.) The authority of the office derives from statute. (See County of Modoc v. Spencer (1894) 103 Cal. 498, 499, 37 P. 483.)
      The provision in the Three Strikes law requiring the prosecutor to allege and prove prior serious felony offenses is not unlike other laws requiring that officer to act (see, e.g., § 969 [“all known previous convictions, whether in this State or elsewhere, must be charged”]; Gov.Code, § 26528 [district attorney may and, when directed by board of supervisors, shall bring actions to abate public nuisance]; Welf. & Inst.Code, § 11481 [district attorney shall prosecute contributing delinquency cases (§ 272) under specified circumstances] ). It also is similar to statutory provisions restricting the discretionary authority of prosecutors (and courts) to enter plea bargains. (See, e.g., § 1192.7, subd. (a) [plea bargaining generally prohibited for serious felonies and other specified offenses].)
      Finally, the prosecutor retains substantial authority and bases for discretion under the Three Strikes law. First, he or she must decide whether the person charged actually has suffered a previous conviction of a serious or violent felony. Second, the prosecutor is specifically authorized to move the court to dismiss or strike a prior felony conviction, either “in the furtherance of justice pursuant to Section 1385,” or if there is insufficient evidence to prove the allegations. (§ 1170.12, subd. (d)(2).) In light of these provisions, the initiative has been held not to effect a change in the primary duties of the office. (People v. Cartwright (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1123, 1133, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 351 [Three Strikes statute, § 667, subds. (b)–(i), valid urgency legislation].)
      We conclude that the enactment of the Three Strikes initiative did not violate the separation of powers provision of the State Constitution.

      People v. Kilborn (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1325, 1332–1333, as modified (Feb. 7, 1996)

      alaskabob in reply to Milhouse. | January 23, 2021 at 11:50 pm

      I was in the LA area after the election and after the present DA… well respected.. Black and female lost to Soros money, BLM and the illegal vote. Making LA function like SF, Portland and Seattle. Crime isn’t like it used to be… walk out of stores with less than $750 of goods and nothing happens… grand theft auto starts at more than $15K. “Petty” theft doesn’t exist anymore.

        Who says this freak actually won the election??

        As we’ve seen, ‘voting machines’ and ‘voting software’ (Software? Software for WHAT??) have destroyed honest election – PERMENANTLY.

        Any voting machine that isn’t an old-time adding machine, is a bad joke, and a tool of oppression. ‘Voting software’ is the mask.

        It is entirely likely Gacon won election like biden won election.

          The Ca Supreme court ruled Newsom’s change of election rules for 2020 was unconstitutional. But instead of tossing election they said they would let results stand but next time no illegslities. How “democrat” of them.

        ConradCA in reply to alaskabob. | January 24, 2021 at 1:56 pm

        That’s because the legislature passed a law that makes shop lifting of up to $960 a misdemeanor.

      amwick in reply to Milhouse. | January 24, 2021 at 6:43 am

      Elected? I don’t thing that is a sure thing any more. Nope.

      MarkS in reply to Milhouse. | January 24, 2021 at 8:17 am

      “Prosecutorial discretion” is a touchy feely euphemism for prosecutorial corruption

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to OldProf2. | January 23, 2021 at 10:38 pm

    C’mon man! We have to end the institutional racism in LA. It’s been under white supremacist oppression for decades now. We have to liberate LA from our domestic Trumpian domestic terrorist enemies.

    We need those guys out of the jails. Do you think all those liberal snowflakes living in their mom’s basements are going to be able to crush the insurrectionist? C’mon man!

The Dems ALWAYS overreach.
Good for the people fighting back against these horrendous policies.

Biden calls Mexico and pretty much tells them he’s opening up the flood gates

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-mexican-trumps-draconian-immigration-policies

JusticeDelivered | January 23, 2021 at 11:41 pm

I think that governments all over the world need to agree to reign in those who profit from disrupting whole economies. The fix should be swift and permanent.

Gascon’s central claim of unlimited prosecutorial discretion has already been considered and rejected by the California Court of Appeals.

The Three Strikes law requires the prosecutor to plead and prove all prior serious and violent felony convictions. (§ 1170.12, subd. (d)(1)(2).) Appellant argues that this statutory command violates the constitutional principle of separation of powers. (Cal. Const., art. III, § 3.) It does so, he argues, because the requirement that the prosecutor plead and prove all qualifying prior convictions usurps the discretion of prosecutors to decide what to prosecute, an executive function that cannot be limited by statute.
The validity of appellant’s argument is dependent on the proposition that the charging discretion of prosecutors cannot be limited by law. Appellant cites no authority for that proposition, and we have found none. Former article XI, section 1, subdivision (b) of the California Constitution provided that the “Legislature shall provide for … an elected district attorney” and other specified officers. Section 5 of the same article provided that the “Legislature, by general and uniform laws, … shall prescribe their duties.”
The Legislature has done so, principally in Government Code section 26500 et seq. and its predecessors. The second paragraph of section 26500 provides: “The public prosecutor shall attend the courts, and within his or her discretion shall initiate and conduct on behalf of the people all prosecutions for public offenses.”
Section 5 of article XI was repealed by Proposition 2, approved by the voters in June 1970 as part of an extensive reduction of constitutional language and transfer of authority to local governments and their electors. It is clear from the ballot arguments **157 supporting *1333 and opposing this measure that no change was envisaged that would prevent legislation on statewide matters from being enacted. (See Ballot Pamp., arguments in favor, against, and in rebuttal to Proposition 2, as presented to the voters, Prim.Elec. (June 2, 1970) pp. 5–8.) The Government Code provisions were not directly affected by this initiative; they were in force before its adoption and, with amendments not germane to this discussion, have remained in force since that time.
The district attorney acts as a state officer when prosecuting crimes. (See Pitchess v. Superior Court (1969) 2 Cal.App.3d 653, 657, 83 Cal.Rptr. 41; Graham v. Municipal Court (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 1018, 1022, 177 Cal.Rptr. 172.) The authority of the office derives from statute. (See County of Modoc v. Spencer (1894) 103 Cal. 498, 499, 37 P. 483.)
The provision in the Three Strikes law requiring the prosecutor to allege and prove prior serious felony offenses is not unlike other laws requiring that officer to act (see, e.g., § 969 [“all known previous convictions, whether in this State or elsewhere, must be charged”]; Gov.Code, § 26528 [district attorney may and, when directed by board of supervisors, shall bring actions to abate public nuisance]; Welf. & Inst.Code, § 11481 [district attorney shall prosecute contributing delinquency cases (§ 272) under specified circumstances] ). It also is similar to statutory provisions restricting the discretionary authority of prosecutors (and courts) to enter plea bargains. (See, e.g., § 1192.7, subd. (a) [plea bargaining generally prohibited for serious felonies and other specified offenses].)
Finally, the prosecutor retains substantial authority and bases for discretion under the Three Strikes law. First, he or she must decide whether the person charged actually has suffered a previous conviction of a serious or violent felony. Second, the prosecutor is specifically authorized to move the court to dismiss or strike a prior felony conviction, either “in the furtherance of justice pursuant to Section 1385,” or if there is insufficient evidence to prove the allegations. (§ 1170.12, subd. (d)(2).) In light of these provisions, the initiative has been held not to effect a change in the primary duties of the office. (People v. Cartwright (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1123, 1133, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 351 [Three Strikes statute, § 667, subds. (b)–(i), valid urgency legislation].)
We conclude that the enactment of the Three Strikes initiative did not violate the separation of powers provision of the State Constitution.

People v. Kilborn (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1325, 1332–1333, as modified (Feb. 7, 1996)

He might have won the election for DA but, as recent events will confirm, that doesn’t necessarily mean he was actually elected.

The number one problem in democrat run cities is the George Soros elected, left-wing, anti-police, pro-criminal district attorneys who refuse to keep repeat criminals locked up.. ~Gingrich..

As Gascons go, he seems likely to be more de Guiche than de Bergerac.

This callous and narcissistic idiot, Gascon, represents contemporary Dhimmi-crats’ prioritizing of criminals as a special interest group who are more deserving of protection and sympathy than law-abiding citizens.

Karmic justice would see Gascon victimized by one of the myriad recidivist sociopaths whom his policies have enabled and treated with kid gloves.

lord–imagine the message these policies are communicating to career criminals let alone immigrants(legal or otherwise)–they no longer really need money(which they can steal anyway)–hungry?–need booze? smokes? clothes? meds from the drugstore? home electronics?–we can just steal them, no problem(long as we’re careful and keep it under $750)–toys for the kids? shoes? tools @ homedepot/walmart? groceries? and lord help those store owners/operators who try and defend their property

truly, the wild, wild west

2smartforlibs | January 24, 2021 at 9:31 am

Just another Soros attack on the American people.

I am out of patience with the people in jurisdictions who vote for left-wing lunatics and are then surprised when the left-wing lunatics behave like left-wing lunatics. See also: WA, Seattle and OR, Portland.

Thanks a lot Angelinos. Portland’s Mayor Wheeler is working very hard to turn Portland into civil version of San Francisco and a criminal version of Chiraq. With your brain dead D A vacuuming up so many parasites, Mayor Wheeler’s goals are going to take longer to achieve.

“Fallout over “justice reforms” are so bad that LA County prosecutors file lawsuit against their boss.”

Good thing that California has been effectively disarmed, or fragging might be coming back into style.

Lucifer Morningstar | January 25, 2021 at 1:07 pm

Whatever. As long as that nonsense doesn’t spread out of California I don’t really give a shit what Los Angeles does or doesn’t do with its criminals. Or for that matter what any other California city does. And that’s the truth.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend