A key member of the committee overseeing the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office was that county lawyers were to submit legal briefs to the then counsel in a criminal case that was politically charged against the then counsel. He resigned on Monday after trying to stop him.
Sean Kennedy has been a member of the Private Surveillance Committee since its inception – spoke at the time of his decision after the latest twist in the indictment of Diana Terran.
Last year, Atty in California. General Rob Bonta sent public court records to colleagues from lawsuits relating to alleged misconduct by sheriff’s deputies as part of a efforts to track down the officer in question, the state hacking lawsuit in 2021. claimed he had violated the
State prosecutors argued that Terran only knew about court records because he had access to confidential disciplinary files when he worked in the sheriff’s department three years ago. They said she later broke the law by sharing them with fellow prosecutors.
Terran pleaded not guilty last summer. In December, a California Court of Appeals took the issue and asked Bonta’s office to come to the April hearing and show why the judiciary would continue as requested by the defense team to close it. did.
Last week, the Private Oversight Committee held a special meeting to discuss the weighting of the case by submitting a legal application known as Amicus Brief.
Over the past few months, the sheriff’s department has withheld documents that include records of shootings, assaults, deputy gang activity and false statements by deputies, using the case “as an excuse” He said.
“We’ve heard from department leaders that we can’t provide confidential documents to the COC Ad Hoc Committee,” Kennedy said at a special meeting Thursday. “They fear that employees will be charged by the California Attorney General, as Terran is being charged.”
During the meeting, the county attorney told the committee they had no authority to submit it briefly without permission from the LA County Board of Supervisors. But former federal judge Robert Bonner, who chaired the committee, disputed it, saying the oversight committee did it once without pushback.
After the animated discussion, the committee voted unanimously to allow Kennedy to submit a brief.
But on Sunday, the county lawyers fought back with a four-page letter saying they were the official counsel for the committee, not Kennedy. If he filed a brief, they said it was “misrepresentation” and they told the Court of Appeal that he did not have the power to represent the COC in the filing. I threatened.
“That being said, Commissioner Kennedy believes that submitting Amicals briefs in individual capabilities will help him achieve the same valuable goals,” the letter states.
Apparently he was distrustful, a day later, both Kennedy and Bonner submitted their briefs anyway.
Kennedy then resigned and told The Times Tuesday morning.
“It is not appropriate for county lawyers to manage independent monitoring decisions for COC,” Kennedy said.
Bonner, who has not resigned, said he was unable to accept Kennedy’s resignation letter as he did not appoint him to the committee and did not want to resign.
“I need to speak to Sean Kennedy then,” he told The Times Tuesday, adding that the efforts of county advisers to block brief submissions “is not a deadly hill.”
The county advisory office declined to comment. The California Department of Justice did not immediately provide comment. The District Attorney’s Office said it had not commented on pending lawsuits or personnel issues.
Meanwhile, the Sheriff’s Office was asked to ask Bonta’s office Tuesday afternoon for legal opinions on whether it is legal to share records of confidential assistants with ad hoc committees that are not subject to the same public meeting requirements. demonstrated that they are working to solve the problem. As a complete oversight committee.
“In my direction, LASD has created hundreds of pages of unconfident related information, but creating a record of requested confidential peace officers that ensures that it is legal to do so. I refused,” Sheriff Robert Luna wrote on two pages and shared letters. “We are informed and independently understood that the law is simply not clear.”
In a 17-page memo associated with the letter, the county’s attorney added that there are several legal reasons to believe it is permissible, but the law does not expressly allow it.
The allegations at the heart of the lawsuit against Terran date back to early 2018 when she worked as a constitutional police advisor to then-sherif Jim McDonnell. Her usual duties included access to confidential secondary records and internal affairs investigations. When Alex Villanueva took office in December of that year, the sheriff’s department stopped hiring Terran and immediately began investigating her.
The investigation began after Villanueva’s transition team reviewed personnel records to decide which Ex Deputies to rehire, and noticed “anomaly,” and Teran noticed a confidential personnel record of Villanueva and his top associates. led to allegations that it had downloaded.
At one point, the investigation expanded beyond the original investigation line to Teran’s download, opening an investigation into several other suspects, including other questions and former Times reporters.
As reported by The Times last year, the department brought the findings of the investigation to the U.S. Lawyers’ Office, the FBI and the state Attorney General’s Office. Federal and state officials concluded that no crime was committed in the case and told sheriff’s officials they were not being investigated.
Despite the lack of initial interest, in early 2022, Bonta’s office agreed to consider the case. Two years later, state prosecutors refused to formally continue with it, as the Times previously reported.
Instead, they file criminal charges based on allegations that she accessed or learned confidential personnel records while at the Sheriff’s Office and illegally shared that information when she worked at Gascon three years later. did.
In April 2021, Terran relate to about 30 lawmakers to assess the likelihood of inclusion in an internal database used by prosecutors to track officers accused of fraud and other misconduct. He said he sent court records related to about 30 lawmakers to the bottom. One is known as the Brady database. This is a reference to the 1963 US Supreme Court decision Brady vs. Maryland. This states that prosecutors are constitutionally required to take over evidence in favour of the defendant, including evidence of police misconduct.
Testimony during the August preliminary hearing was mostly when a colleague emailed a copy of court records from a lawsuit filed from a lawsuit in which his colleagues wanted to overturn departmental discipline. , indicating that he learned of alleged misconduct.
“There’s a real irony there,” Kennedy said at a meeting Thursday. “The department actually lobbys and organizes a highly problematic prosecution of the district attorney,” and then “”cites the prosecution” to deny the request for information from the committee.
Inspector General Max Huntsman – the county watchdog, who has been the target of an investigation into the same sheriff’s department for several years, called the case a “false prosecution” and told the committee “advice of the county attorney.” Ignore it,” urged him to vote to submit an overview. .
” [U.S.] The Supreme Court has already stated that the DA knows the evidence of expartment and that no matter how they know it, they have an absolute obligation to provide it,” he told the committee. .
When Bonner gets in, the original, normally straightforward Jurist openly explicitly asks the supervisory board for permission to submit it, and the county attorney should have the county attorney submit it. I laughed.
He said, “Before the Tuesday deadline for filing was “surprising” by the Court of Appeals, considering how long it took the county to deal with concerns from other committees, the committee said. “The idea that it can move quickly enough to provide an outline for the committee for the committee.”
The Oversight Board brief is one of a series of submissions raising concerns about Terran’s prosecution. Recently, as well as public defense attorneys in Los Angeles County, a group of law professors have submitted simple things. Previously, the Prosecutors’ Union and the Fair and Fair Prosecutors’ Project had equally focused on the case.
“It’s rare for a unified chorus of prosecutors, defense attorneys, surveillance personnel and academics to express the same message that this prosecutor is all against the public interest,” says James, one of Terran’s lawyers. -Spertus told The Times this week. “All short writers are united in one message. The Attorney General’s decision to indict this case threatens every aspect of criminal justice administration.”
In response to Kennedy’s resignation, Huntsman compared the situation to the federal government Tuesday morning.
“Sadly, Los Angeles reflects Washington by dismantling the source of independent analysis when it should defend constitutional assurances,” he told The Times. “The public will suffer from it.”
Source link
