1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Prosecutorial Misconduct in San Mateo County

Discussion in 'The Other Side Of The Hill' started by Michael Stogner, Nov 30, 2014.

  1. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

    July 22, 2008 I asked the Supervisors to join me as citizens and sign my letter demanding the resignation of Sheriff Greg Munks.
    I mention the entire County is suffering.
  2. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

  3. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

  4. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

    Not San Mateo County recent letter from a prosecutor.
    Editor's Note: Attorney A.M. "Marty" Stroud III, of Shreveport, was the lead prosecutor in the December 1984 first-degree murder trial of Glenn Ford, who was sentenced to death for the Nov. 5, 1983 death of Shreveport jeweler Isadore Rozeman. Ford was released from prison March 11, 2014, after the state admitted new evidence proving Ford was not the killer. Stroud is responding to an editorial in the March 6 edition of The Times that urged the state to now give Ford justice by not fighting compensation allowed for those wrongfully convicted.

    RE: "State should give Ford real justice," March 8, 6D

    This is the first, and probably will be the last, time that I have publicly voiced an opinion on any of your editorials. Quite frankly, I believe many of your editorials avoid the hard questions on a current issue in order not to be too controversial. I congratulate you here, though, because you have taken a clear stand on what needs to be done in the name of justice.

    Glenn Ford should be completely compensated to every extent possible because of the flaws of a system that effectively destroyed his life. The audacity of the state's effort to deny Mr. Ford any compensation for the horrors he suffered in the name of Louisiana justice is appalling.

    I know of what I speak.

    thus the state has no responsibility. This is nonsensical. Explain that position to Mr. Ford and his family. Facts are stubborn things, they do not go away.

    At the time this case was tried there was evidence that would have cleared Glenn Ford. The easy and convenient argument is that the prosecutors did not know of such evidence, thus they were absolved of any responsibility for the wrongful conviction.

    RELATED:In apology, ex prosecutor calls for abolishment of death penalty

    TIMES WATCHDOG:First Amendment issues surface in Little Free Library case

    I can take no comfort in such an argument. As a prosecutor and officer of the court, I had the duty to prosecute fairly. While I could properly strike hard blows, ethically I could not strike foul ones.

    Part of my duty was to disclose promptly any exculpatory evidence relating to trial and penalty issues of which I was made aware. My fault was that I was too passive. I did not consider the rumors about the involvement of parties other than Mr. Ford to be credible, especially since the three others who were indicted for the crime were ultimately released for lack of sufficient evidence to proceed to the trial.

    Glenn Ford's compensation fight not unique

    TIMES WATCHDOG: Experts: Sheriff's edict violates free speech

    I did not question the unfairness of Mr. Ford having appointed counsel who had never tried a criminal jury case much less a capital one. It never concerned me that the defense had insufficient funds to hire experts or that defense counsel shut down their firms for substantial periods of time to prepare for trial. These attorneys tried their very best, but they were in the wrong arena. They were excellent attorneys with experience in civil matters. But this did not prepare them for trying to save the life of Mr. Ford.

    The jury was all white, Mr. Ford was African-American. Potential African-American jurors were struck with little thought about potential discrimination because at that time a claim of racial discrimination in the selection of jurors could not be successful unless it could be shown that the office had engaged in a pattern of such conduct in other cases.

    And I knew this was a very burdensome requirement that had never been met in the jurisprudence of which I was aware. I also participated in placing before the jury dubious testimony from a forensic pathologist that the shooter had to be left handed, even though there was no eye witness to the murder. And yes, Glenn Ford was left handed.

    RELATED: Glenn Ford: 'I'm trying to make every day count'

    All too late, I learned that the testimony was pure junk science at its evil worst.

    In 1984, I was 33 years old. I was arrogant, judgmental, narcissistic and very full of myself. I was not as interested in justice as I was in winning. To borrow a phrase from Al Pacino in the movie "And Justice for All," "Winning became everything."

    After the death verdict in the Ford trial, I went out with others and celebrated with a few rounds of drinks. That's sick. I had been entrusted with the duty to seek the death of a fellow human being, a very solemn task that certainly did not warrant any "celebration."

    In my rebuttal argument during the penalty phase of the trial, I mocked Mr. Ford, stating that this man wanted to stay alive so he could be given the opportunity to prove his innocence. I continued by saying this should be an affront to each of you jurors, for he showed no remorse, only contempt for your verdict.

    How totally wrong was I.

    I speak only for me and no one else.

    I apologize to Glenn Ford for all the misery I have caused him and his family.

    I apologize to the family of Mr. Rozeman for giving them the false hope of some closure.

    I apologize to the members of the jury for not having all of the story that should have been disclosed to them.

    I apologize to the court in not having been more diligent in my duty to ensure that proper disclosures of any exculpatory evidence had been provided to the defense.

    “Looking back at that period of time in my life, I was not a very nice person, and I had no business trying a death case for the state. My unintended victim, Glenn Ford.”

    Glenn Ford deserves every penny owed to him under the compensation statute. This case is another example of the arbitrariness of the death penalty. I now realize, all too painfully, that as a young 33-year-old prosecutor, I was not capable of making a decision that could have led to the killing of another human being.

    No one should be given the ability to impose a sentence of death in any criminal proceeding. We are simply incapable of devising a system that can fairly and impartially impose a sentence of death because we are all fallible human beings.

    The clear reality is that the death penalty is an anathema to any society that purports to call itself civilized. It is an abomination that continues to scar the fibers of this society and it will continue to do so until this barbaric penalty is outlawed. Until then, we will live in a land that condones state assisted revenge and that is not justice in any form or fashion.

    I end with the hope that providence will have more mercy for me than I showed Glenn Ford. But, I am also sobered by the realization that I certainly am not deserving of it.
  5. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

    This is not a SMC case, but it is P.M. They knew the bullets and the gun were not connected. 30 YEARS think about it.

    An Alabama man has been freed after spending nearly 30 years on death row.

    Anthony Ray Hinton, 58, was convicted of murdering two restaurant managers in Birmingham in 1985, but was granted a new trial last year.

    Tests on bullets found at the crime scene could not be connected to a gun found at Mr Hinton's home, prompting prosecutors to drop the case.

    His lawyer, Bryan Stevenson, said his client was convicted because he could not afford better legal counsel.

    Walking out of the Jefferson Country Jail in Birmingham, Mr Hinton hugged family members and said: "Thank you, Jesus."

    "All they had to do was test the gun," Mr Hinton said, explaining why he shouldn't have had to sit on death row for nearly three decades.

    Bullets from the crime scene were the only evidence that linked Mr Hinton to the murders.

    Prosecutors said that modern forensic methods failed to link the bullets to a revolver found in Mr Hinton's home.

    "Every day, every month, every year that the state took from him, they took something that they don't have the power to give back," said Mr Stevenson.

    At his first trial, Mr Hinton's lawyer believed his client only had $1,000 (£670) to hire an expert that could defend against the prosecution's allegations about the bullets.

    The lawyer hired the only expert willing to take the job at that rate, and jurors reportedly laughed as the expert struggled to answer questions during cross-examination.

    The US Supreme Court ruled last year that Mr Hinton did not have adequate legal counsel at the first trial and said the case should be reconsidered at a second trial.
  6. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

    DDA Brian Donnellan

    When I read the statement below I thought to myself, Why is this still happening? I have personally observed DDA Brian Donnellan in action during the Jesse Wilson trial. After it was over I saw and heard a female juror ask Mr. Donnellan how he felt about his witnesses lying under oath? I've said this before and I'll say it again I don't think he should be a San Mateo County Employee.

    "San Mateo County Deputy District Attorney Brian Donnellan conspired to fabricate and cover up evidence that led to his criminal conviction."

  7. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

  8. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

    Uploaded: Fri, Mar 15, 2013, 10:29 am

    Deputy DA 'reproved' by state bar for misconduct

    by Renee Batti / Almanac

    A prosecutor in the San Mateo County District Attorney's Office has been "privately reproved" for misconduct by the California State Bar, according to a letter sent to a victim's advocate who filed a complaint with the agency in 2010.

    Following a state bar investigation into the complaint, Deputy DA Melissa McKowan acknowledged "committing an act of professional misconduct," and the state agency has ordered her to attend a one-day state bar ethics school, according to the letter.

    The victim's advocate who filed the complaint, Victoria Balfour, said she is making the March 6 letter from the state bar public despite the sender's admonition that the correspondence and the information it contains must remain confidential.

    "I did it out of service to the public," she told the Almanac, adding that she believes she isn't violating any laws in releasing it.

    Ms. Balfour's complaint stemmed from Ms. McKowan's handling of the prosecution of Dr. William Ayres, a child psychiatrist accused of molesting boys who were his patients. Dr. Ayres was arrested in 2007 and tried in San Mateo County Superior Court; the case, prosecuted by Ms. McKowan, ended in a mistrial in 2009.

    In her complaint to the state bar, Ms. Balfour accused the prosecutor of a range of unethical and inappropriate behavior, including lying about her contact with potential witnesses who could have successfully challenged Dr. Ayres' defense that, rather than molesting his patients, he was performing appropriate physical examinations.

    Ms. McKowan could not be reached for comment for this story.

    The letter from the state bar cited violation of the Business and Professions Code Section 6106 as cause for the sanction. That section addresses "the commission of any act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption."

    The letter did not specify which of the accusations in Ms. Balfour's complaint were supported in the investigation, and which, if any, were found to have no merit.

    The state bar's website indicates that a private reproval is the most minor of sanctions it issues. According to the webite, "Disciplinary action for violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct or the State Bar Act ranges from private reproval to disbarment."

    County DA Steve Wagstaffe told the Almanac that he was aware the state bar was investigating a complaint against Ms. McKowan, and his office "looked into the matter" on its own.

    "We took appropriate action" as a result of the DA's office investigation, which was concluded last year, but he is legally precluded from saying what the action was, he said. "We don't wait to see what the state bar decides" when there is a complaint against a prosecutor, he added.

    Ms. McKowan is still working for the DA's Office, he said, and is the prosecutor in charge of retrying Dr. Ayres, whose case was to begin this week but has been postponed while his attorney seeks a change in venue.

    Mr. Wagstaffe said Ms. McKowan was the right choice to prosecute the case because she is already familiar with the "massive amounts of documents" already generated by the previous trial and numerous court hearings over the years.
  9. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

    June 26, 2015 Convicted former San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Colin T. Smith was granted a new trial because of Prosecutorial Misconduct. Hon. Judge Leland Davis lll agreed with defense attorney Josh Bentley that the District Attorney's Office withheld critical information from the defense.

    Hon. Judge Leland Davis said "She lied on the witness stand." he is talking about the victim, he went on to say " I can not say Mr. Smith got a fair trial."
  10. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

  11. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

  12. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

  13. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

    Orange County last week.
    Embattled Orange County Prosecutor Linked To Jailhouse Snitch Scandal Is Resigning And Leaving California
    Erik Petersen is accused of mishandling critical evidence affecting several criminal cases.
    Matt FernerNational Reporter, The Huffington Post
    Posted: 09/09/2015 12:12 AM EDT | Edited: 09/09/2015 07:14 PM EDT
    LOS ANGELES -- A deputy district attorney in Orange County who is connected to a controversial jailhouse informant program that allegedly violated the rights of defendants has resigned his position and plans to leave the state of California.

    "I have given my 2 week [sic] notice to end my employment with the Orange County District Attorney's Office and am leaving the state on September 21 to begin employment in another state on October 4, 2015," Erik Petersen says in a declaration and sworn affidavit signed on Sept. 4, obtained by The Huffington Post.

    "Plane tickets have been purchased and moving expenses have been paid," Petersen adds.

    The prosecutor's departure comes after several criminal cases in Orange County unraveled in the wake of allegations that a jailhouse informant program violated inmates' rights and that county prosecutors have been using evidence from that program to obstruct justice for years.

    Asked about Petersen's reasons for ending his 13-year career as an Orange County prosecutor, Susan Schroeder, chief of staff for the OCDA office, said she could not comment on personnel matters.

    Last year, Petersen, a gang prosecutor, was named in an explosive 506-page motion alleging that the OCDA office had been keeping a jailhouse snitch network secret. County prosecutors have used evidence from this network to bolster convictions in a number of cases.

    The revelations from the motion, filed by Deputy Public Defender Scott Sanders, have caused multiple murder cases to fall apart, and some accused murderers have even gone free. Petersen is accused of using evidence obtained from the snitch program, some of which was allegedly procured illegally, and of withholding relevant evidence from defendants in criminal cases.

    It's common for law enforcement authorities to enlist informants to help strengthen a case -- the tactic is perfectly legal, even when the informant receives something in exchange. But Sanders alleged that in some cases, the sheriff’s jailhouse informants held recorded and unrecorded conversations with inmates without their lawyers present, which violates an inmate’s right to counsel. In addition, Sanders accuses prosecutors of selectively presenting damning evidence in court, withholding information that could have been beneficial to the defense -- a violation of a defendant's right to due process.

    The allegations of misconduct culminated earlier this year when Superior Court Judge Thomas Goethals ejected the entire OCDA office -- all 250 prosecutors -- from a high-profile mass murder case.

    Goethals said at the time that the government had committed "significant" violations of due process and called certain aspects of the office's behavior a "comedy of errors."

    The defendant in that case, Scott Dekraai, pleaded guilty last year to shooting and killing his ex-wife and seven other people in a hair salon in 2011, in what remains the largest mass murder in Orange County history.

    In his ruling on the Dekraai case, Goethals specifically named Petersen, who was not prosecuting the case but had been called to testify. Goethals said Petersen had falsely blamed a former federal prosecutor in an effort to explain why he had not handed over all of the evidence obtained through jailhouse informants. While Petersen and an Orange County Sheriff's deputy said the prosecutor had intentionally failed to provide them with the informants' notes, that prosecutor later testified that this allegation was untrue.

    Goethals had previously booted Petersen from another jailhouse assault case, citing the withholding of evidence.

    “There was never an intent to hide information,” Petersen told Goethals in a 2014 hearing. Goethals said at the time that he didn't believe Petersen had acted maliciously and that his recusal was not personal.

    In addition, one of Petersen's own cases, the conviction of Leonel Vega over a 2004 gang-related murder, was vacated last year thanks to Sanders' findings. Vega, who had previously faced life in prison without the chance for parole, will now be free in about four years.

    The Orange County Sheriff’s Department has acknowledged "deficiencies" in the policies and protocols involving jailhouse informants. The department has already taken steps to establish more robust ways of documenting inmate handling.

    The details of Petersen's resignation, as well his pending exit from California, were attached to a motion filed last week in another case that he was prosecuting -- that of Eric Ortiz, a convicted gang member who faces the possibility of life in prison over a 2011 murder.

    But Ortiz's case may also get caught in the crossfire of alleged prosecutorial cheating. Rudy Loewenstein, Ortiz's attorney, requested a new trial after evidence surfaced that Ortiz had shared a room with an informant for months while awaiting trial.

    Loewenstein has called Petersen to testify in a hearing scheduled for October regarding the allegations that prosecutors violated Ortiz's rights.

    "My request is that Petersen testify when everyone else is scheduled." Loewenstein told HuffPost. "He's been ordered back as a witness because of a violation in my case."

    District Attorney Tony Rackauckas has maintained that no one in his office intentionally behaved inappropriately. In an attempt to resolve the controversy, his office has assembled its own commission to investigate claims of prosecutor misconduct. But the size and complexity of the county's tainted informant program problem has prompted some legal experts to call for a sweeping federal investigation into the OCDA's office.
  14. Mark De Paula

    Mark De Paula Active Member

    WE THE PEOPLE of the County of San Mateo, Ca., can not review SAMTRANS/CALTRAIN closed inquiry or investigation --the San Mateo County District Attorney Wagstaffe is using Ca. Code 6254F.
    The below article is about other counties that using the same protections of Ca. Code 6254.
    Please read and see link.

    Court of Appeal Rules:

    Government Documents Inadvertently Released Still Privileged
    Provision of Public Records Act as to Waiver of Privilege is Found Inapplicable
    MetNews Staff Writer, Metropolitan News-Enterprise, Monday, August 3, 2015, Page 1
    The First District Court of Appeal on Friday created an exception to the statute providing that where documents are exempt from release in response to a Public Records Act request, but are nonetheless provided, the exemptions have been waived.
    The statute, Government Code §6254.5, was not intended by the Legislature “to apply to an inadvertent release of privileged documents,” Acting Presiding Justice Sandra Margulies said in an opinion for Div. One. The ruling comes in a case in which documents were supplied which were covered by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product privilege.
    Sec. 6254.5 provides:
    “Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, whenever a state or local agency discloses a public record which is otherwise exempt from this chapter, to any member of the public, this disclosure shall constitute a waiver of the exemptions specified in Sections 6254, 6254.7, or other similar provisions of law.”
    A similar provision of law is §6254 which exempts from release “[r]ecords, the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law, including, but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege.”
    Privileged Documents Released
    Through inadvertence, the Newark Unified School District in Alameda County on Aug. 22, 2014, downloaded onto attorney Jennifer R. Snyder’s thumb drive more than 100 privileged documents, and later that day, released the documents to others on four CD’s and three hard copy sets.
    Realizing its error that evening, it asked that the documents be returned.
    The request was spurned. Snyder—one of two individuals who requested documents and attorney for a citizens’ group—cited §6254.5.
    The district obtained a temporary restraining order to block dissemination of the documents. It was to expire at noon on Sept. 16, 2004, unless the Court of Appeal were to enter a stay.
    Alameda Superior Court Judge Evelio Grillo, who issued the TRO, had second thoughts about it. On Sept. 9, he determined that the privilege had been waived by providing the documents.
    He pointed to various cases that say that once matter is in the public domain, confidentiality is lost.
    “In DVD Copy Control Ass’n Inc. v. Burner (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 241, 254,” he wrote, “the Court of Appeal addressed a similar effort to ‘lock the barn door after the horse is gone’ and reversed the trial court’s grant of a preliminary injunction.”
    Trial Court’s Conclusion
    Grillo declared:
    “The court finds that the School District has not demonstrated that issuance of a temporary restraining order will prevent irreparable harm and has not demonstrated a reasonable probability of success on the merits. The court is aware that the attorney-client privilege is important.
    “….The provision for waiver under Gov. Code 6254.5 does not, however, have an exception for accidental or inadvertent disclosure. The court cannot add to or alter the word of the statute.
    “The orders of August 27, September 2, and September 3, 2014 remain in effect. The TRO remains in effect until Tuesday September 16, 2014 at 12:00 noon.”
    On Sept. 12 of that year, the district filed a petition for a writ of mandate and a request for an immediate stay. Three days later, the appeals court ordered that “pending consideration of this petition for writ of mandate and further order of this Court, the temporary restraining order enjoining real parties in interest from reviewing or distributing the documents as to which the District has asserted a privilege or protection in the log it served on September 2, 2014, shall remain in effect.”
    On Oct. 30, 2014, it issued an order to the Superior Court to show cause why a writ should not be issued. On Friday, it was.
    By then, Snyder and two citizens’ groups were no longer real parties in interest, leaving Elizabeth Brazil as the sole real party. However, several media groups had been granted amicus curiae status and argued that the documents were now in public domain.
    Two Plausible Interpretations
    Margulies wrote:
    “We conclude the language of section 6254.5 is reasonably susceptible to the meanings urged by both parties and examine the legislative history of the statute. That history demonstrates conclusively the Legislature’s intent in enacting section 6254.5 was to prevent public agencies from disclosing documents to some members of the public while asserting confidentiality as to other persons. Waiver as a result of an inadvertent release, while not necessarily inconsistent with the Legislature’s intent, was not within its contemplation. In order to harmonize section 6254.5 with Evidence Code section 912, which has been construed not to effect a waiver of the attorney-client and work product privileges from an inadvertent disclosure, we construe section 6254.5 not to apply to an inadvertent release of privileged documents.”
    Evidence Code §912 provides that a privilege “is waived...if any holder of the privilege, without coercion, has disclosed a significant part of the communication or has consented to disclosure made by anyone.”
    The jurist said that “the statute’s declaration that any uncoerced “disclosure” creates a waiver, courts have consistently held that inadvertent disclosures do not.”
    She declared that the purpose of §6254.5 was to codify the holding in Black Panther Party v. Kehoe (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 645 that governmental agencies may not selectively disclose documents, explaining:
    “The statute, in essence, was intended to require agencies to maintain an applicable exemption as to all members of the public or not at all.
    “While finding a waiver of the privilege exemption as to documents inadvertently released is not inconsistent with this purpose, it is outside the Legislature’s central concern.”
    Margulies rejected the contention that §6254.5 should be read in such a way as to promote the goal of Art. I, §3(b)(1) of the state Constitution which declares: “The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business....”
    She said the need to reconcile §6254.5 with §912 “takes precedence over the interpretive directive of section 3 of article I of the Constitution.”
    The case is Newark Unified School District v. Superior Court, Brazil RPI, 2015 S.O.S. 3907.
    The decision is contrary to that reached on Dec. 10 by Div. Six of this district’s Court of Appeal. There, Acting Justice Jeffrey Burke, a judge of the San Luis Obispo Superior Court, wrote:
    “We hold that disclosures pursuant to the [Public Records Act] that are made inadvertently, by mistake or through excusable neglect are not exempted from the provisions of section 6254.5 that waive any privilege that would otherwise attach to the production.”
    However, on March 11, the California Supreme Court granted review in the case, nullifying the Court of Appeal’s decision. http://www.metnews.com/articles/2015/pra080315.htm
    ------------Forwarded Message------------
    Court of Appeal Rules:
    Can’t Require Return of Privileged Documents Provided Under PRA
    Staff Writer, Metropolitan News-Enterprise, Thursday, December 11, 2014, Page 1
    The City of Los Angeles, in inadvertently supplying privileged documents in response to a Public Records Act (“PRA”) request, waived confidentiality and the documents can be used as evidence in litigation, the Court of Appeal for this district held yesterday.
    The Ventura-based Div. Six decided the appeal, affirming a decision by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Lee Edmon, who is slated to become presiding justice of Div. Three on Jan. 5.
    Edmon denied the city’s motion to force a man who is suing it, in connection with a challenge to a “telephone users tax,” to return the documents and to disqualify his lawyer, San Diego attorney Rachele R. Rickert.
    The city argued that the records that were erroneously delivered pursuant to the PRA should be treated the same as privileged matter that is inadvertently produced in discovery.
    Agrees With Edmon
    Writing for the appeals court, San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge Earle Jeffrey Burke, sitting on assignment, said that Edmon “accurately observed” that “disclosure of documents under the [PRA] is not the same as disclosure in the course of litigation discovery.”
    He quoted her as saying in her order:
    “Unlike litigation discovery, where inadvertent disclosure is expressly protected from waiver by statute (see Evid. Code, § 912; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.285), any privileged document disclosed pursuant to the [PRA] is waived as to the world ‘[n]otwithstanding any other provisions of the law[.]’ (Gov. Code, § 6254.5.)”
    Burke added:
    “Nothing in the PRA gives the entity producing it either the right to recover it or a mechanism to seek its return….ecause the documents were disclosed to Ms. Rickert, the City is precluded from denying disclosure to anyone who asks.”
    Rickert Acted Properly
    The city sought to disqualify Rickert and her law firm, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, on the ground that by asking the city for records by means of improperly communicating with a party that was represented by counsel. Responding, Burke wrote:
    “Judge Edmon concluded that ‘Ms. Rickert used the [PRA] for exactly the purpose the Legislature intended. Nothing in [her] request targeted privileged information. It merely requested generic categories of public records relating to the adoption of a citywide tax ordinance that Ms. Rickert believed to be unlawful. It is difficult to conceive of a request more squarely within the Legislature’s intent in enacting the [PRA].’ We agree.”
    He also quoted Edmon as saying:
    “As the City concedes, Rule 2-lOO(c) expressly permits an attorney to contact a represented public official about the subject matter of the official’s representation in order to preserve the attorney’s right to petition the government….Ms. Rickert’s exercise of her statutory and constitutional rights to petition her government regarding a matter of public importance was entirely within the scope of permitted professional conduct, and there is no basis to disqualify her or any members of her law firm under Rule of Professional Conduct 2-100.”
    The case is Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, 2014 S.O.S. 5587. http://www.metnews.com/articles/2014/pra121114.htm
  15. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

    Colin T. Smith case Finally gets to be retried.
    Steve Wagstaffe and I disagree on the cause for his convictions being overturned. I say it was Prosecutorial Misconduct, The DA had information that Judge Leland Davis III thought the defense had a right to know about.

    You be the Judge, What would you call that.
  16. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

  17. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

  18. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

  19. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

  20. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

Share This Page