Pamela Y. Price, Attorney at Law

Tag: Alameda County District Attorney Page 1 of 2

Creating Pathways, Not Roadblocks

Pamela Price for Alameda County District Attorney is endorsed by Oakland-based Community Advocates Sheryl Walton and Cathy Leonard to create pathways to justice, not roadblocks
Community Advocates Sheryl Walton and Cathy Leonard Endorse Pamela Price for District Attorney

Alameda County’s Behavior Health Court is a diversion program designed for people with mental health issues in the criminal justice system. Collaborative Courts, including drug court and Veterans court, provide a pathway for the DA’s office to focus on the root of the problem – not just crime. These Courts use a wrap-around approach that provides assistance instead of incarceration.

According to the DA’s office, in the 8 years from 2009 to 2017, only 229 cases were referred to Behavioral Health Court. That is equivalent to just over two cases per month every year. That’s 24+ cases per year diverted out of about 30,000 cases prosecuted per year. This pathway to solutions for people suffering from mental illness could be so much more effective if we actually used it. The DA’s Office has set the stage for this court to have a trickle of success. The criteria to refer a case is so restrictive that it becomes a roadblock instead of a pathway.

The Alameda County DA’s office receives about 43,000 cases from the police every year. They prosecute about 69% of those cases every year, sometimes higher. The current model pushes most people down the path of conviction and incarceration. In fact, less than 1% of the cases were diverted out of the criminal justice system in 2019. According to the State’s data, 61% of the people incarcerated-almost 2/3-will re-offend within 3 years. Our system is broken.

The DA Creates Roadblocks

Full Service Partnership (FSP) is another pathway out of incarceration that the State of California has found to be effective. FSPs provide a multidisciplinary team to help people with mental illness stay in treatment, manage medication, address crises, secure and maintain housing and employment, and engage in their communities. 

FSPs are community-based services funded by the County. Non-profits and service providers work with the DA’s office inside the criminal justice system to create a system of care that isn’t jail. Mental Health Service Act (MHSA) regulations require that 50% or more of the Community Services and Supports (CSS) funds are used for Full Service Partnership programs (FSPs).

In Alameda County, this pathway is also subject to DA roadblocks. The U.S. Department of Justice recently found that Alameda County fails to effectively connect people with mental illness with FSP services. The DOJ found that although the County identified 290 people eligible for the FSP program, “just 17 appear to have been connected with that service.”

Pamela Price, Candidate for Alameda District Attorney will fight to create pathways to justice, not roadblocks

What we have in the Alameda County DA’s office is a failure to provide pathways to restorative justice. Our DA has fought against or restricted every criminal justice reform the State initiates and provides as a path away from incarceration to the point where the programs barely scratch the surface of real change. As a progressive District Attorney, my charge is to create pathways, not roadblocks to justice.

In Times of Crisis

Worse yet, in times of crisis, our loved ones in crisis are met with a badge and gun. In fact, the only pathway that seems to be roadblock free is the path to the Santa Rita Jail. This was a major theme in our recent Town Hall forum with Families Advocating for the Seriously Mentally Ill (FASMI).

The Alameda County Sheriff’s Office is the largest provider of mental health services in the county. The jail receives an ever-increasing lion’s share of the County budget. Our investment in incarceration has fueled Alameda County’s “51-50 Crisis.”

“We need a collective reckoning for Alameda County when a person with mental health problems can only really find services and support behind bars. stated Cathy Leonard. “We don’t want police involved in non-emergency mental health calls because we’re sick of the death count.” Cathy Leonard has served for 14 years on the City of Oakland’s Community Policing Advisory Board and is the founder of the Oakland Neighborhoods for Equity. She is also a leader in Oakland’s Coalition for Police Accountability. Cathy Leonard endorses Pamela Price for Alameda County District Attorney.

“We need to shift resources to community solutions,” stated Sheryl Walton. “This is a public health crisis – and a jail cell is not going to create better outcomes.” Sheryl Walton is a lifetime East Oakland resident, community organizer and co-chair of Block by Block Organizing Network (BBBON). She holds an MPA and has worked on health issues in our community for decades. Sheryl Walton endorses Pamela Price for Alameda County District Attorney.

Sheryl Walton, Community Organizer endorses Pamela Price to make pathways to justice, not roadblocks
Sheryl Walton, MPH, Community Organizer

We Need New Leadership

Ultimately, we need fundamental reform of our broken criminal justice system. Potentially successful pathways like Full Service Partnerships and Collaborative Courts don’t operate effectively because the system doesn’t know how to work with anything other than incarceration.  This “lock them up” mentality is the real threat to public safety. To think that someone who has practiced, profited and prospered for 30 years in a broken system riddled with racial inequities, who is endorsed by the incumbent and all of the other District Attorneys who have participated in a racist system, is actually going to be the one to fix the problem is ludicrous.

The time for new leadership and collective embrace of compassionate justice is NOW.

“I support Pamela Price for DA because she has shown time-and-time again how to find where the injustice is, bring it to light and fix it,” said Cathy Leonard. “We have seen her fight for what was right all the way to the Supreme Court and win.”

“I endorse Pamela Price for DA, exclaimed Sheryl Walton. “I will work every day to make sure people know the stark differences in these candidates. Pamela’s opponents are all about maintaining the status quo. We deserve so much better than what we have been getting out of OUR District Attorney’s office. They haven’t been fighting for change and success, they have been throwing up roadblocks.”

I thank Cathy and Sheryl for their continued dedication to the campaign and the fight for true criminal justice reform. We are all about creating pathways, not roadblocks to justice.

Stop Mass Incarceration

October 22 Is National Stop Mass Incarceration Day - Dorsey Nunn & Pamela Price for Alameda County DA
October 22 Is National Stop Mass Incarceration Day

The United States has less than 5 percent of the world’s population, yet nearly 25 percent of its prisoners.

Unfortunately, California is still a world leader in mass incarceration. When prisons, jails, immigration detention, and juvenile jail facilities are all accounted for, California has an incarceration rate of 549 per 100,000 people. To be clear, California imprisons a higher percentage of its people than nearly every other democratically lead country on Earth.

The Brennan Center for Justice stated, “Mass incarceration rips apart families and communities, disproportionately hurts people of color, and costs taxpayers $260 billion a year.” 

During my campaign in 2018 my plans to end mass incarceration were twisted and turned into false narratives that I was going to stop prosecuting ALL misdemeanors. What I said, and STILL say is that we need to reduce misdemeanor prosecutions that criminalize poverty, substance use, addiction and mental illness, as well as those based on pretextual racially-biased stops. A 2-year study by the ACLU of Northern California and the Urban Peace Movement, over six in 10 of all charges the Alameda County DA brought against adults were low-level offenses that either should have been directed to diversion programs or not charged at all. Prosecuting these low-level cases actually undermines public safety.

In fact, research out of the National Bureau of Economic Research found that not prosecuting people for these types of misdemeanors significantly reduced the probability of future involvement with the justice system and led to greater public safety.

Dorsey Nunn is Working to Stop Mass Incarceration

Dorsey Nunn, a leading expert with over 40 years of professional experience in criminal justice reform. I am so proud to say that Dorsey is a supporter and has endorsed me and my platform to stop mass incarceration.

Dorsey is Executive Director of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and Co-Founder of All of Us or None. His storied career in justice reform has been key in many of the reforms we have seen in California. His work has led to policy victories including numerous “Ban the Box” laws passed at the local, state, and federal levels, the end of shackling of pregnant women, and the biggest drug sentencing reform passed by the California legislature in recent history (SB 180).

Dorsey Nunn, Co-Founder of All of Us or None, endorses Pamela Price for Alameda County District Attorney
Dorsey Nunn, Co-Founder of All of Us or None

“Pamela Price has been pushing for reforms for decades and having her at the helm of the DA’s office would lead to important changes in prosecutions that would lead to not only safer communities but dismantle the system that profits and benefits from placing black and brown bodies behind bars,” said Nunn. “Pamela’s well-researched and compassionate plan to stop prosecuting misdemeanors that criminalize poverty, mental illness and substance abuse will bolster public safety.”

Mass incarceration rips apart families and communities, disproportionately hurts people of color, and costs taxpayers $260 billion a year.
Mass Incarceration Devastates Communities

Mass Incarceration Devastates Communities

Mass incarceration devastates entire communities. It disproportionately worsens health and economic inequality in communities of color in the US. The same amount of money used to prosecute low-level, non-violent misdemeanors could be used to strengthen reentry programs. We can increase job training programs and create greater housing options for those who are families or victims of crimes or those who find themselves in the criminal justice system.

So much is at stake in the June 2022 primary for DA. As we look to the end of DA O’Malley’s tenure, it is vitally important we take an honest look at the culture in the DA’s office that fed mass incarceration. I am running for District Attorney as a panacea to the heavily entrenched and dogmatic mindset of a DA’s office that saw residents, (particularly people of color), as a statistic. To truly value human life and end the blight on California’s reputation as the leader in mass incarceration, we must uproot those who perpetuated unethical practices for personal and monetary gain.

Meaningful reforms to ending mass incarceration will not progress by maintaining the status quo in the DA’s office. In fact, the incumbent has actively been fighting key criminal justice reforms that benefited community safety of the last decade. Instead we need meaningful leadership that sides with data, research and compassion for the people she serves. #NationalStopMassIncarcerationDay  #AlamedaDA22 #JusticewithCompassion #JusticeDoneRight #NoMoreDoubleStandard #StepForward2022

A Double Survivor

October Is Domestic Violence Awareness Month and Pamela Price will be the first domestic violence survivor elected to serve as Alameda County District Attorney
October Is Domestic VIolence Awareness Month

October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month. (#WeAreResilient) Gabby Petito’s disappearance, search and painful death has captured the national spotlight. Domestic violence cuts across all cultural, economic, racial and gender divisions. One in three women worldwide experience physical or sexual violence, mostly by an intimate partner.

The body cam footage of the police response to a report of domestic violence involving Gabby was very revealing. Instead of approaching Gabby as a victim of domestic violence, the police threatened her with jail time. She went from victim to criminal in an instant. Their rush to dismiss her as a victim of domestic violence and criminalize her apparently cost Gabby her life. I too understand how surviving domestic violence can be criminalized because I am what I call “a double survivor.”

A Double Survivor

In 1981, I found myself in an abusive relationship with the father of my only child. My baby was only 2 months old when our situation imploded. I was living alone with our child, and the father kept threatening me and my baby. Often he showed up unannounced at the Albany Village where I lived. Despite my multiple calls to the police, he kept showing up. They never arrested him. He broke into my house; they cited and released him. On August 20, 1981, when he showed up and threatened me, I called the police again. This time, the police decided to give my 2 month-old still nursing baby to her father and let him take her away. When I objected, I was arrested in my own home for “fighting in public” and interfering with a police officer or “resisting arrest.”

I was fortunate because I knew lawyers who supported me on my journey. My boss defended me “pro bono.” When I refused to “take a deal”, I went to trial and was acquitted by the jury. It was a frightening and humiliating experience. I survived both the domestic violence in my home and the overzealous Alameda County prosecutors who wanted to destroy my life. Obviously I was a Black woman who did not know her place. I am a double survivor.

A Lens of Life Experience

That experience certainly informs and shapes the lens through which I view domestic violence and the administration of justice in this kind of case. When I am elected in June 2022, I will be the first domestic violence survivor to ever serve as Alameda County District Attorney. As a survivor of domestic violence, I am deeply aware of and sensitive to the needs of survivors. I take these issues very seriously. When dealing with such cases, I will always prioritize the safety, needs, and desires of survivors (and children, if they are involved) and seek long term solutions that will keep families and communities safe.

I am fully committed to addressing violence in our community, including the literally hundreds of crimes labeled as “domestic violence.” Intimate violence cases that result in bodily harm or injury, which include elder abuse, family violence and intimate partner violence, will be prosecuted as appropriate. I will use the full force of the law and the resources of the DA’s office to protect everyone subjected to intimate partner violence, and hold those who engage in unlawful acts of violence and intimidation accountable to their loved ones and the community.

In New York City and other jurisdictions, practitioners, courts, district attorneys and advocates have developed a comprehensive approach for abusive partner intervention. They provide services for people who cause harm as a central part of their work to support survivors, foster healthy relationships and communities, and end violence. We know that “hurt people hurt people.” A restorative justice approach may be more effective in holding offenders accountable while increasing survivor satisfaction and keeping communities safer. This approach is what we hope to bring to Alameda County.

A New Vision for Justice

Alameda County also needs to prioritize spending to protect survivors and not treat them like criminals. I recognize that a woman has a right to defend herself and her children. We need to completely re-focus peace officers in their response to survivors and witnesses of violence in our community. We need to address gang and gun violence and their role in domestic violence in our communities. I will work with the Court and our public health services and other stakeholders to establish a specialized domestic violence court that uses a holistic strategy to both address and prevent domestic violence. We must be vigilant to not make anyone else “a double survivor” of our criminal justice system.

Since COVID-19, violence against women and girls, particularly domestic violence, has intensified. COVID-19 has forced survivors of domestic violence to choose between staying with an abuser or living on the streets. In Alameda County, 26% of homeless families with children said domestic violence was the primary reason they lost their housing. And during this pandemic, there has been a wide-spread shortage of beds in homes and shelters. Oakland’s Serenity House provides housing and services for women fleeing domestic violence. Its Director reports a six-fold increase since COVID-19.

Meanwhile, despite the glare of the media attention for Gabby, thousands of “missing” women and girls of color go without media attention. In 2019, a staggering 5,590 Native American women were reported missing. And instead of actually covering these missing cases – the conversation has shifted to the inequity of media coverage. That is an important point to make. Still we cannot lost sight of the fundamental problem: too many women are subjected to violence in the world. Black, Brown and indigenous women are especially vulnerable to being criminalized if they try to protect themselves or their children. Women are too often not believed, or not “deemed worthy” of time or services.

“It’s a long time coming” – 40 years for me – but change is coming to Alameda County.

Back to School in A Pandemic

Pamela Price for Alameda County District Attorney - Back to School: Ending the Pipeline to Prison
Pamela Price, Ending the School to Prison Pipeline

This week, across Alameda County, students are going back to school in the midst of a pandemic. Parents everywhere are at least concerned, if not fearful of what it means to go back to school in a pandemic. Student safety is a primary issue as COVID-19 and the Delta variant continue to ravage the human race. Trying to balance the consequences of learning loss with the health risks created by the pandemic has been extremely challenging for anyone trying to raise a child. The disproportionate impact that COVID has on communities of color is also amplified as decisions are made about safe learning environments and the available resources to protect children.

I am extremely sympathetic to the plight of parents and educators having to make hard choices and decisions in this season. My birth Mom and two of my foster Moms were educators, and they instilled in me the value of education. As the descendants of slaves who were prohibited from learning or knowing how to read or write, Black Americans have a “special relationship” with “getting an education.”

I know from my own life journey that “education is a game-changer.” We owe it to our children to give them the best possible education.

What Can the District Attorney Do?

As Alameda County District Attorney, I can support educators’ efforts to repair the harm caused by the pandemic by promoting restorative justice in our schools. Studies show that restorative justice provides students the chance to be productive, instead of violent – replacing harm by engaging everyone involved. Restorative justice gives students the tools necessary to become responsible residents, and address conflict with conversation instead of behaviors that could lead to interaction with law enforcement. Violence against women in adulthood often stems from our failure to address violence in our schools and on our playgrounds.

I am very proud of the support my law firm provided to Attorney Fania Davis, the founding Executive Director of Restorative Justice for Oakland Youth (RJOY). Fania founded RJOY in 2005. In the fall of 2008, we helped her make her final transition from law to RJOY. RJOY works to interrupt cycles of youth violence and incarceration by promoting institutional shifts toward restorative approaches. It actively engages families, communities, and systems to repair harm and prevent re-offending. RJOY also focuses on reducing racial disparities and punitive school discipline policies.

Fania Davis, Founder and Executive Director Emeritus, Restorative Justice for Oakland Youth (RJOY) endorses Pamela Price

Fania Davis has endorsed me for Alameda County District Attorney. Fania leads a stellar and growing list of education leaders in Alameda County that have endorsed my campaign for DA.

Educators Across Alameda County Endorse Our Campaign

School Board members Sarabjit Cheema (New Haven Unified), Jamie Yee (Pleasanton Unified) and Melissa Shuen-Mallory (New Haven Unified)

“More and more schools are embracing a restorative justice approach to find the reasons why a student may break rules. We need to address the causes versus resorting to punishment,” said New Haven Unified School Board member Melissa Shuen-Mallory. “It is paramount that we have the top prosecutor leading on the reform in the criminal justice system. Pamela’s model of compassionate justice is the best choice for Alameda County DA.”

Trustees Kevin Jenkins (Peralta District), Van Cedric Williams (Oakland Unified) and Mike Hutchinson (Oakland Unified)

Other educators across Alameda County agree with Shuen-Mallory. Many have endorsed our campaign to create a district attorney’s office that ends the over-criminalization of our youth.

School Board members James Aguilar (San Leandro), Michael Kusiak (Castro Valley) and Sara Prada (Hayward Unified)

“Pamela understands what it is like to be trapped in the pipeline. She knows the importance of restorative justice in our schools and transformative justice in education policy. It’s imperative our schools and criminal justice system work to not criminalize youth lives — particularly Black and Brown youth,” said San Leandro School Board Trustee, James Aguilar. “Having a District Attorney who embraces proven methods of reform will not only improve students’ lives, it will significantly improve community safety.”

We Must Break the School-to-Prison Pipeline

The school-to-prison pipeline has contributed to a reported 11,532 incarcerated youth in California – the highest numbers in the nation.

The school-to-prison pipeline is the culmination of “zero-tolerance” discipline policies, suspensions and school-based arrests. It thrives on the policing of non-violent behaviors like smoking on campus, uniform violations and cell phone use. These practices disproportionately impact Black and Brown students. In fact, the suspension rate for Black males in California schools is 12.8% compared to 3.6% for all students.

It is key that we work to build an education system that replaces punitive disciplinary policies with restorative justice. We need a justice system that stops charging and/or incarcerating youths under the age of 18 as adults. We must support educators and education leaders fighting for these changes. I am committed to reducing the racial disparities which lead to high rates of incarceration, suspension, and expulsion.

We have much work to do to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic in educating our children. I stand ready to work with educators across Alameda County to interrupt tragic cycles of youth violence. Those cycles lead to destructive behavior in adulthood, incarceration and a breakdown in public safety. We must break the school-to-prison pipeline to protect public safety and advance justice for all. We must also do everything possible to ensure that our children can go back to school without risking anyone’s life.

O’Malley Strikes Back

Alameda County Court House
Alameda County Court House

In the midst of a pandemic, Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley “strikes back” against charges that her office has a “troubling and extensive pattern of misconduct.”

In a commendable act of bravery, the public defender’s office took a public stance against the years of misconduct they have witnessed in DA Nancy O’Malley’s office. Their motion to disqualify the entire office from a case states that O’Malley “ignores misconduct in the ranks and in fact covers up that misconduct and, frankly rewards it.  . . .  Over the past decade, there has been a well-documented pattern of misconduct by some attorneys in the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office that has gone uncorrected and unpunished.”

This public condemnation is unprecedented and quite courageous because of the strong possibility that the DA would retaliate. And retaliate she did.  Instead of addressing the issue head-on with transparency, DA O’Malley retaliated by instituting a blanket gag order on all her deputies. She prohibited her deputies from having any informal negotiations with the public defenders.

The people caught in the middle are the residents of Alameda County whose cases will now be delayed. Unfortunately, rewarding and promoting problematic deputies shows the people of Alameda County that O’Malley lacks the compassion and integrity needed to create a safer and more just system of justice. 

Lawyer A in the Motion

Ironically, the deputy DA whose misconduct triggered the motion is one of O’Malley top deputies. He is referred to as “Lawyer A” in the motion. In May 2018, on the eve of the 2018 primary election, Lawyer A (DDA “Butch” Ford) widely circulated a text message. He called me “a threat to community safety” who “must be stopped.” In 2019, DDA Ford received the California District Attorneys Association (CDAA) Prosecutor of the Year Award. O’Malley was the President of the CDAA in 2019. She has since been implicated in the $3 million CDAA scandal of mismanaged funds.

The public defender’s motion alleges multiple cases involving alleged misconduct by DDA Ford. Then, there’s the case where DDA Ford asked for and received an 84-year to life sentence for a 15-year-old boy convicted of murder. In 2016, the sentence was overturned as excessive and unconstitutional. That case always bothers me a lot, especially for the hurt that all the families in that case suffered.

A Call to Action

In a related recent development, a 2-year study funded by the ACLU and the Urban Peace Movement found that policies and practices of the District Attorney’s Office, under the leadership of DA O’Malley, led to overcriminalization, needlessly cost the County money and promoted mass incarceration, and had a devastating impact on Black and Brown communities. We should not be surprised if DA O’Malley strikes back against this devastating report.

Both the public defenders’ motion and the ACLU report are a call-to-action to all who believe in freedom, justice and equality. Now is the time for a change. Now is the time to join the fight to restore public trust in our justice system. Please join us by making a contribution to our campaign today. Every dollar helps! Thank you.

#NoMoreDoubleStandard #AlamedaDA22 #JusticeDoneRight #JusticewithCompassion #StepForward2022

The CDAA Scandal

California District Attorneys Association, Sacramento California Office
California District Attorneys Association, Sacramento Office

This year, the California District Attorneys Association (CDAA) scandal has been under media scrutiny for shady budget dealings under the leadership of Alameda County’s own DA – Nancy O’Malley.

O’Malley was the most recent past president and had leadership roles in the CDAA for the last decade. Recent news reports from the San Francisco Chronicle and Davis Vanguard have shown that the CDAA mismanaged more than 3 million dollars. The CDAA improperly shifted the money toward lobbying and advocacy efforts against progressive criminal justice reforms. The intended purpose was upholding environmental and workplace safety protections. 

The Sierra Club California, NextGen California, and the California League of Conservation Voters (to just name a few) have called the CDAA’s actions a “dereliction of public duty.” San Joaquin District Attorney Tori Salazer has called upon the entire CDAA Board – including DA O’Malley – to resign immediately. The California Attorney General is investigating, based in part on the request of the new executive leader of the CDAA.

This mismanagement hurts smaller and rural counties, where DA’s lack the resources to take on large corporations. In the wake of the CDAA scandal, there are state-wide calls from organizations and leaders to have Counties sever ties with the CDAA. 

The CDAA’s Problematic Record

The work of the CDAA has been troubling for at least a decade. As the State has been passing sweeping reforms in criminal justice through legislation, the CDAA has worked behind the scenes to fight reforms and instead, used its budget to push for harsher crime laws.

The CDAA actively worked to oppose needed modifications to three strikes laws. They poured money and muscle in the election to stop Prop 47 in 2014 which reduced penalties for most drug possession cases and low-level thefts. In 2016, they opposed Prop 57 which shortened prison time for nonviolent offenders and restricted the prosecution of juveniles as adults.

As reported in 2020 in the San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco County DA Chesa Boudin said:

“Law enforcement organizations have been advocating for policies and guided by philosophies that really haven’t changed in 40 years. They don’t rely on data or empirical evidence about what makes us safer.”

In fact, under DA O’Malley’s leadership – for the first time in CDAA’s history – a central California County DA withdrew from the association and called out the organization for working against statewide criminal justice reforms. Last month, in an op-ed in the Orange County Register, bar leaders penned an article titled – “It’s time for the DA associations to stop standing in the way of reform.” 

A Commitment to Change

Even before the CDAA scandal broke, four sitting DA’s created a new prosecutor’s association in California to counter the more conservative values of the CDAA. They join progressive prosecutors across the country who have separated themselves from the oppressive policies of the past. National organizations such as Fair and Just Prosecution are training new prosecutors and providing them with the tools to address the harms of past practices. 

And in a plea for sweeping reforms, Congresswoman Cori Bush (D. Mo.) has been asking voters across the country to bring change to their community by electing new DAs who uphold the values of equity and reform. 

I stand ready to uphold the values of equity, reform and compassion. These values have been missing from the Alameda County criminal justice system for more than a decade. I stand for embracing the reforms that Alameda County voters and the State legislature have passed over the last ten years. As a civil rights lawyer for 30 years in this community, I understand the imperative of constitutional policing and prosecutorial independence.

When elected to be the District Attorney of Alameda County in June 2022, I commit to take aggressive steps to restore public trust in our criminal justice system, ensure public safety, end mass incarceration and root out racial, socioeconomic and gender disparities within Alameda County’s criminal justice system. We deserve nothing less than that kind of leadership. Please go to pamelaprice4da.com to check out my full platform and make a donation.

Justice-By-Geography

My mouth fell open when I read this! Shocking! In Alameda County? It surprised me and not much about our judicial system surprises me.

The Prosecutor’s Power to Charge Children

In 2016, California voters passed Proposition 57. It passed in Alameda County by an overwhelming 77% majority.  One of the main changes in the new law is to eliminate the prosecutor’s discretion to charge children between 14 and 18 as adults. It repealed California Proposition 21, which was passed in March 2000. Proposition 21 gave prosecutors the authority to decide whether to try a child as an adult.

In a “direct file” case, the prosecutor had the sole authority to decide whether to charge a child as an adult. Under the old law, the decision had to be made within the first 48 hours of an arrest. As a result, prosecutors often had minimal information about the circumstances of the crime or the child. In addition, there was almost no opportunity to interview key witnesses before making the decision.

At the same time, placing a child in the adult prosecution track has dire consequences for his or her “rehabilitation.” First of all, children are five times more likely to be sexually assaulted in adult prisons than in juvenile facilities. Furthermore, children are up to 36 times more likely to commit suicide after being housed in an adult jail or prison than those in juvenile facilities.

Disparity Gap in the Rates of Direct File

Fortunately, organizations like the W. Haywood Burns Institute, the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice and the National Center for Youth Law sounded the alarm on this practice.  Based on their research, they concluded that prosecutors were charging kids as adults at alarming rates. The prosecutor’s power to charge kids as young as 14 as adults was completely unregulated in California and most of the nation. Not surprisingly, the practice primarily impacts kids of color who were 90% of all “direct filed” cases.

These youth law advocates conducted a comprehensive survey and comparison of California counties. They found that the type of justice you receive in the juvenile system depends on where you live – hence, justice by geography! Furthermore, since 2003, there has been a growing disparity gap in the rates of direct file prosecutions of children by race in California.

Statewide numbers reveal that in 2014, for every White child charged as an adult, there were 3 Latino and 11 Black kids. What is shocking to me is that in Alameda County, prosecutors did not charge a single White kid as an adult in 2014.  Yet, in the same year, Alameda County prosecutors charged 14 Black or Latino kids as adults. Alameda is one of the nine counties in the State where only Black or Latino youths were subject to direct filing.

The Road to Recovery

Our road to recovery from juvenile injustice in California is likely to be long and difficult. With the passage of Prop. 57, the decision to prosecute a child as an adult is now decided by judges. Those of us who question the wisdom of this approach wonder whether we are going backward instead of forward. We know that in real world, judges have usually supported prosecutors.  Indeed in Alameda County, most of the sitting judges were prosecutors. So, some of us are concerned that “the fox is already in the henhouse.”

The response to our concerns was that the judge must make his decision in public and give a statement of reasons for the decision. Now, the prosecutor must make a motion to transfer a child to adult court. The judge must hold a hearing and evaluate whether the child should be tried as an adult. The hope is that increased transparency will lead to more accountability and better outcomes for kids.

In the meantime, it is unclear whether any of the kids charged, convicted or sentenced under the old law are entitled to relief.  In fact, once they were charged as adults, they were subject to the same pressures to plead guilty as adults. According to the AG’s records, 88% of the kids charged as adults are convicted and sentenced as adults.

Can We Save Children We Already Condemned?

Kurese Bell in San Diego County is a case in point. Kurese was only 17 when he and a friend, 18-year-old Marlon Thomas, robbed two marijuana dispensaries. At the second one, they unintentionally got into a shootout with a security guard inside the building. Eighteen year old Marlon was killed. Because Marlon’s death occurred during a robbery, 17-year old Kurese was charged with murder as an adult. Kurese was convicted in January 2017, after Prop. 57 became effective. If he is sentenced as an adult, he is not likely to have a parole date for 25 years.

Kurese’s case was a “direct file.” Ironically, the District Attorney of San Diego is the only DA in the State who supported Prop. 57. San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis is a former Juvenile Court Judge.  She says that she believes that a judge should hear both sides as to why a juvenile should be treated as an adult.

Earlier this year, Kurese’s lawyer, Patrick Dudley, took the courageous step of asking the Court to apply Prop. 57 retroactively to Kurese’s case.  The motion was granted!  The judge applied Prop. 57 and granted Kurese a transfer/fitness hearing in which the presumption is that Kurese is “fit” for a juvenile court disposition.  The prosecution must prove that he is not. A hearing is scheduled for May 12th.

Whether we will see similar steps to achieve justice in Alameda County by applying Prop. 57 retroactively remains to be seen.  Certainly, given our history of racial disparity in charging children, justice would appear to demand it.

Hypocrisy in Alameda County

Credit: Alameda County Sheriff’s Dept.

Former Livermore Police Officer Daniel Black is on trial.  He is one of dozens of Bay Area police officers who allegedly abused their power to sexually exploit my former client, Jasmine.  Black admits that he had multiple sexual encounters with 19-year-old Jasmine.  He claims the sex was part of “a private relationship” with Jasmine.  Black’s alleged conduct took place in April 2016 while the Oakland Police Department was trying to cover up Jasmine’s sexual exploitation by OPD officers.

In September 2015 OPD Officer Brendan O’Brien committed suicide and left a note “naming names.”  O’Brien’s suicide exposed the commercial sex trafficking of young women by law enforcement throughout the Bay Area.  Daniel Black was not one of the men named in the note.  Apparently he was not aware of the ongoing OPD cover-up and investigation. He is accused of going to Richmond to get Jasmine in April 2016, and using food and alcohol to compensate her for having sex with him.

Felonies and Misdemeanors

Penal Code Section 266i (a)(2) provides that any person who “[b]y promises, threats, violence, or by any device or scheme, causes, induces, persuades, or encourages another person to become a prostitute” is guilty of pandering. Dan Black’s sexual exploitation of 19-year-old Jasmine was “pandering” her under the law.  The fact that someone has previously engaged in prostitution is not a defense to the charge.  Penal Code Section 266 is a felony.

Dan Black is on trial for five (5) misdemeanors.  He is charged with engaging in prostitution, engaging in lewd conduct in public and giving alcohol to a minor (under age 21).  Misdemeanor charges carry far less severe punishment than felony charges.  Misdemeanor convictions can include unsupervised probation or no jail time.  Felonies usually include some type of prison or jail time and significant restrictions of your constitutional rights, including the right to vote.  Dan Black is not charged with any felonies.  He is not charged under California’s human trafficking law.  This is very strange.

Proposition 35 – Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act

In 2012, California voters passed Proposition 35.  The law passed by a huge margin. 81.3% of voters said yes.  Prop. 35 is intended to fight commercial sex trafficking, particularly as it affects minors.  It changed the law to include more crimes in the definition of human trafficking, increase penalties for trafficking, provide more services for victims, change evidence rules in trafficking cases, require law enforcement training in human trafficking, and expand requirements for sex offenders.  As a result of the voters, Prop. 35 includes a violation of Penal Code Section 266.

Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley was a major supporter of Prop. 35.  Yet, none of the Bay Area police officers who sexually exploited Jasmine face charges under Prop. 35.  Not a single one.  This is the worst sex scandal to ever rock Bay area police departments.  This scandal cost Oakland 3 police chiefs in nine days.  These crimes will cost the City of Oakland and the County of Alameda millions of dollars.  Yet, none of the police officers charged in Alameda County are facing sex trafficking charges.  Not a single one.  It is as if Prop. 35 does not even exist.

Prosecutorial Discretion and Overcharging Crimes

What makes this situation even more bizarre is that prosecutors routinely overcharge defendants.  The practice of overcharging has become one of the hallmarks of our criminal justice system – a way to ensure that the system can actually function.  The only way the Courts can handle the number of cases charged by prosecutors is by getting plea bargains.  If every criminal defendant insisted on going to trial and refused to “take a deal”, the system would totally collapse.

In his book Why Innocent People Plead Guilty, Jed S. Rakoff writes that “our criminal justice system is almost exclusively a system of plea bargaining, negotiated behind closed doors and with no judicial oversight. The outcome is very largely determined by the prosecutor alone.”

There are no written regulations controlling the prosecutor’s exercise of his charging power in California or anywhere else in the United States.  There is no established or meaningful process for appealing the prosecutor’s exercise of his charging power. The result is that an estimated 95% of all criminal cases end with a plea bargain.

Credit: New York Review of Books

Jed Rakoff cites the case of Brian Banks from Long Beach, California.  Banks, who had been a high school football star with a scholarship to USC at the time of his arrest, served five years in prison for rape and kidnapping charges.  Brian did not actually commit the crime.

 

Brian Banks accepted a plea bargain under the advisement of his original lawyer.  He was freed in 2012 through the efforts of the Innocence Project.

Comparing Brian Banks’ case to Daniel Black’s case may seem like comparing apples to oranges.  But the real difference is that Brian Banks was charged and convicted of a crime he did not commit, while Dan Black is not charged at all with crimes he admits he committed.  Is this a case of “white privilege” or “badge privilege?”  Something is definitely wrong with this picture.  The artist in Alameda County is our District Attorney.

A Funny Thing Happened on The Way to Justice

A Funny Thing Happened on The Way to Justice

I’m sitting in a small crowded courtroom in the Hayward Hall of Justice.  Lots of reporters and cameras on tripods, court personnel and a few civilians.  I’m thinking about my next blog, “the Politics of Trust.”  Then, a funny thing happened on the way to justice.

An elderly Caucasian man stands on the side of the courtroom looking over the scene.  Most don’t notice him – I realize that he is the judge waiting to take the bench.  Soon he does.  The Judge very quickly goes through the steps of arraignment for former Contra Costa Deputy Sheriff Ricardo Perez.

perez-court-v2Ricardo Perez is charged with felony oral copulation with my client, Jasmine.  It is apparently well known that he was “one of her regulars.”  Since she was still a minor, he was actively engaged in the commercial sexual exploitation of a child (CSEC).  He reportedly worked as a Contra Costa Sheriff’s Deputy for several years.

Who Is the Judge?

Judge Joseph J. Carson was first appointed as a judge by Governor Ronald Reagan in June 1972.  In  April 1984  Governor George Deukmejian elevated him to serve as a Superior Court judge.  Judge Carson was a Deputy District Attorney for Alameda County between 1966 and 1972 before he became a judge.

The district attorney asks Judge Carson to set Perez’ bail at $60,000.  After reading Perez’s probable cause statement, Carson smiles and says, “Fish Ranch Road?  I haven’t been there since high school.”  Carson then let Perez remain out of custody on his own recognizance.

Judge Carson’s decision to let defendant Perez out on his own recognizance (OR) is in stark contrast to the $300,000 bail Jasmine was held on in Florida a month ago.  Judge Carson’s OR  decision was obviously based on his own world view about CSEC and perhaps, his own fond memories of hanging out on Fish Ranch Road.  When he made the comment, he seemed to snicker at the thought of whatever happened to him the last time he was on Fish Ranch Road.

What A Difference Race Makes

Judge Carson’s decision to OR defendant Perez on a felony charge is very different from bail decisions issued for most Black and Brown defendants in our criminal justice system in Alameda County.  The experience of racism is still channeled through the bail system in America. Study after study has documented the disparity by race in bail decisions across the country. 

In her 2013 analysis of bail practices, Washington College of Law Professor Cynthia E. Jones describes how judges “exercise virtually unbridled discretion in making bail determinations, which are too frequently corrupted by the random amount of money bond imposed, the defendant’s lack of financial resources, the implicit bias of the bail official, and the race of the defendant.  These factors combine to create an extreme dysfunction in the bail determination process” resulting in severe over-crowding of jails and racial disparities in bail outcomes between African-Americans and whites.  (Jones, C. E. (2013). “Give Us Free”: Addressing Racial Disparities in Bail Determinations.” New York University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, 16(4), 919–62.)

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, between 2008 and 2011, Alameda County was one of the largest jail jurisdictions in the United States, (in the top 15) with an average daily population of more than 4000 inmates.  Between 2009 and 2014, the percentage of our average daily jail population that was un-sentenced but remained detained was consistently much higher than the state average.  Typical reasons for staying in jail before sentencing are the inability to post bail, public safety or flight risk, or slow criminal justice processing.  The population of detainees “presumed innocent until proven guilty” is overwhelmingly Black and Brown.

The Racial Divide in Alameda County

Justice in Alameda County has historically been racially imbalanced.   In 2002, the rate of felony arrests in California for African Americans was 4.4 times higher than for whites.  Our rate of incarceration in Alameda County was 7.5 times higher; the rate of incarceration for second strikes was 10 times higher.   African Americans were incarcerated at a rate almost 13 times higher than whites under the three-strikes program.

In 2004, in Alameda County, African-Americans were only 14.61% of the population; we were 52.85 of all felony arrests.  In contrast, 41% of the population was White and only represented 22% of all felony arrests.

In 2008, 55.0% of the inmates in Santa Rita Jail were African American, while only 18.1% were White.  At that time, 12.2% of adult residents in the County were African American and 40.5% were White.

There is clearly a legacy of racial injustice in Alameda County.  Yet, we can count the number of police officers criminally charged for criminal misconduct in Alameda County on one hand.  When an officer who clearly abused his position and power and exploited a young girl is actually charged, no bail is his reward.  Judge Carson’s decision adds “insult to injury.”

How do you feel about that?  Feel free to post your comment here or at my Facebook page.

Obstruction of Justice-Does It Matter?

Obstruction of Justice-Does It Matter?

bunion-v2On Friday, September 23, 2016, the first Oakland police officer in our “crisis of corruption” goes to Court.  Brian J. Bunton, who allegedly abused his power as an officer of the law will be arraigned on several charges, including felony obstruction of justice. As we finally move forward in the continuing saga of abuse of power by police officials, the question looms, does obstruction of justice really matter?  Is obstruction of justice a “victimless crime?”

What is Obstruction of Justice?

“Obstruction may consist of any attempt to hinder the discovery, apprehension, conviction or punishment of anyone who has committed a crime. The acts by which justice is obstructed may include bribery, murder, intimidation, and the use of physical force against witnesses, law enforcement officers or court officials.”

For anyone who is tempted to think that obstruction of justice is a “victimless crime,” I offer the story of prosecutorial misconduct in Bakersfield, California.  There, Kern County Deputy District Attorney Robert Murray admits to falsifying a confession transcript that he provided to a defense attorney.  Murray gave it to the defense attorney during plea negotiations when Murray knew defense counsel was trying to persuade the defendant to take a deal.  Murray claims he was joking, but only after he was caught.  Murray still works for the Kern County District Attorney.

The trial judge threw out the charges when the faked confession was exposed.  The case involved alleged sexual abuse of a ten year-old girl.  The defendant could have been sent away for life if convicted.  As a result of Murray’s misconduct and the dismissal of the charges, the defendant, a sexual predator, is freed.  He is later arrested and charged with having sex with a minor under fourteen.  Prosecutors believe he impregnated the girl when she was thirteen.  In effect, because the prosecutor decided to “obstruct justice,” a sexual predator got away with sexual assault of a 10-year-old girl and went free to victimize another 13-year-old girl.  So I ask, the parents of which one of these girls thinks that obstruction of justice is “a victimless crime?”

Closer to Home

Closer to home, in July 2010, the Oakland City Council approved a $6.5 million settlement in a case which exposed the routine use of false or misleading information for search warrants.  There, OPD’s own records allegedly showed that more than 57% of all search warrants in drug cases involving a confidential informant between 2001 and 2008 were based on false information.  Eleven officers are fired.  Most are later reinstated.  None of the officers accused of creating false police reports are ever prosecuted.  Some of them still work for Oakland police.  The number of people sent to jail based on false information remains unknown.

In October 2011, Oakland agreed to pay $1.7 million to the family of Jerry Amaro. Oakland police beat Mr. Amaro while arresting him on suspicion of trying to buy drugs from undercover police officers.  They broke five of his ribs and lacerated one of his lungs.  He died a month later of pneumonia caused by his fractured ribs. None of the officers involved documented the use of force.  OPD told his heartbroken mother that her son “died in the street” following a gang dispute over drugs.  None of the officers accused of filing false police reports to conceal Amaro’s beating were ever prosecuted.  Some of them still work for Oakland police.

The Tip of the Iceberg?

Officer Brian Bunton, facing felony charges for obstruction of justice, appears to be the tip of the iceberg in Oakland.  In our case, it appears that many people went to great lengths to conceal ongoing widespread criminal activity.  We know that OPD investigators received a suicide note from Officer Brendan O’Brien in September 2015.  We know that OPD investigators looked into Jasmine’s cell phone with all of its incriminating text messages and recorded calls.  We also know that access and information to Jasmine’s Facebook page was publicly available.

whent-resignsPolice chiefs in both Richmond and Oakland were allegedly her Facebook friends.  And yet, every one of the local District Attorneys staunchly maintains that she or he did not even know about the suicide note or the OPD investigation until she or he read about it in the East Bay Express Newspaper.

Clearly, higher officials than Brian Bunton obstructed justice in this case.  We are all victims of the obstruction of justice because we have to live with the fallout.  Public safety requires public trust!  Who can we believe – the Mayors, the DAs, the Chiefs?  I’m not sure that any of them has any credibility left.  Where were they for nine months?  Who else should be charged with obstruction of justice?  What do you think? Feel free to post your comment here or at my Facebook page.

Page 1 of 2

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén