A Postscript to Last Week’s Open Letter

Following up on last week’s post, readers should understand the timeline of events that brought the misconduct to light. Here are the highlights.

1. In January 2013, a defendant in a murder case filed a motion to get some important information from the prosecution. The trial court found good cause for the motion and granted it, but the district attorney’s office did not comply with the order.
2. In January 2014, the defense filed three additional motions, alleging that the district attorney’s office was participating in a large-scale operation by the sheriff’s department to purposely violate the constitutional rights of defendants who were awaiting trial in the Orange County jail system.
3. In February and March 2014, the trial court ordered evidentiary hearings to get to the bottom of these allegations. That is when the district attorney’s office began a campaign to retaliate against the judge.
4. In August 2014, the judge issued his first decision in the matter. He found that law enforcement had committed due-process violations negligently but not maliciously, and he didn’t disqualify the district attorney’s office from the case.
5. In December 2014, the judge reopened the hearings because the defense presented evidence that at least two senior sheriff’s deputies had lied during the initial hearings.
6. In March 2015, the judge issued his second decision in the matter. He found that the two deputies had willfully lied or withheld material evidence during the first set of hearings, and he disqualified the district attorney’s office from the case because of what now appeared to be serious due-process violations:

• “It is now apparent that the discovery situation in this case is far worse than the court previously realized. In fact, a wealth of potentially relevant discovery material … remained secret, despite numerous specific discovery orders issued by this court.”
• “After a period of what can at best be described as benign neglect concerning the actions of his law-enforcement partners, the District Attorney cannot or will not in this case comply with the discovery orders of this court.”
• “In this case, the District Attorney’s conflict of interest is not imaginary. It apparently stems from his loyalty to his law-enforcement partners at the expense of his other constitutional and statutory obligations.”