“Judge Chalfant’s ruling vindicates a lot of what we have been arguing for months in individual cases—that George Gascón’s policies were illegal and wrong,” Sam Dordulian, an attorney who represents several families of crime victims in L.A., told The Epoch Times.
The families Dordulian represents argue that Gascón’s directives prevent justice for the crimes against their loved ones by decreasing penalties for those convicted.
His policies have been criticized by judges, victims, a former district attorney, and deputy district attorneys.
But Gascón maintains that he is carrying out the will of the 2 million people in L.A. County who voted for him to overhaul the justice system. His directives are “based on science and data, not fear and emotion,” he said in a Feb. 8 Twitter post.
While the judge did prohibit some of Gascón’s directives, Chalfant also acknowledged that the DA represents the will of the voters and should not be unduly inhibited.
Three Strikes Law
One policy the judge singled out as “unlawful” was Gascón’s attempt to eliminate the Three Strikes law, which gives defendants a sentence of 25 years to life if convicted of three violent or severe felonies.The ruling noted a point made by the Association of Deputy District Attorneys (ADDA), who filed the lawsuit: “Gascón’s argument about the will of the County voters who elected him ignores the will of the 5.9 million voters—70% of the California electorate—who voted for the Three Strikes law.”
‘Unethical’ Script
The judge also took issue with a script Gascón issued to DDAs. Gascón instructed them to read it out during court proceedings to dismiss or withdraw any enhancements that could add time to a suspect’s sentence.A portion of the script states, “It is the position of this office that [these enhancement laws] are unconstitutional … [they] provide no deterrent effect or public safety benefit of incapacitation—in fact, the opposite may be true, wasting critical financial state and local resources.”
Chalfant said the script is “legally inaccurate and incomplete and reading this statement in court without correction is unethical.”
Attorney David J. Carrol, arguing on behalf of the ADDA, told Judge Chalfant that it was inappropriate to force DDAs to argue something is unconstitutional when they know it is not.
The DDAs were worried about being held in contempt of court for reading it out after some had been chastised by judges for doing so. The DDAs argued that they were forced to choose between following directions from their boss, Gascón, and doing what they believe to be ethical and lawful. They worried not only of facing contempt of court but also discipline by the State Bar.
Attorney Robert E. Dugdale, who represents Gascón and the DA’s Office, said the ADDA’s action is unprecedented. He argued that the law allows Gascón to establish the policies he has chosen.
Gascón’s Appeal
Gascón—who said in a statement that Chalfant’s ruling does not impact “the vast majority of my directives”—has already announced his plan to appeal the court’s decision.The ADDA affirmed their support for “common-sense” criminal justice reform. However, the group argued that Gascón’s approach assumes that a new social infrastructure that includes educational programs, vocational training, counseling, and supervision will comfortably replace lawful prison sentences.
A Possible Recall
Victims’ rights attorney Dordulian praised the court’s decision, but said the fight for victims must continue.“Mr. Gascón’s focus remains on helping those who have victimized our communities (murderers, rapists, child molesters) and he has shown an almost complete disregard for the rights of the victims in such cases,” he said via email. “[He] is deaf to the cries of victims and how his policies are truly harmful and hurtful.”
Dordulian suggested that it will take a recall effort to “help restore justice in our courts.”