{"id":4134,"date":"2021-06-29T14:22:09","date_gmt":"2021-06-29T21:22:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=4134"},"modified":"2021-06-29T14:43:16","modified_gmt":"2021-06-29T21:43:16","slug":"a-tale-of-two-district-attorneys","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=4134","title":{"rendered":"A Tale of Two District Attorneys"},"content":{"rendered":"

One of the most devastating changes to California law in recent years was Proposition 57, Jerry Brown’s “Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act,”\u00a0 adopted by voters in 2016.\u00a0 Everything about the initiative was a lie.\u00a0 It was not about public safety and rehabilitation, it was designed to release thousands of hardcore criminals from prison, years and sometimes decades early.\u00a0 Governor Brown claimed it would only allow non-violent criminals qualify for early release, but District Attorneys and the Courts determined that anyone, including criminals convicted of forcible rape and murder would qualify.\u00a0 The initiative also removed all control over who gets released early and how long a sentence they must serve from the legislature and placed it with the Governor and his Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).\u00a0 Weeks ago the CDCR announced that it intended to make up to 76,000 prison inmates, including rapists and murderers serving life terms, eligible for parole and early release.\u00a0 This could not happen without Governor Gavin Newsom’s approval.\u00a0 43 District Attorneys, led by Sacramento DA Anne Marie Schubert, are suing to block this policy.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Because District Attorneys are elected, county voters choose the level of public safety they want and the difference between one county and another can be astonishing.\u00a0\u00a0 Variations on how District Attorneys address Proposition 57 demonstrate how important this choice can be.<\/p>\n

In Los Angeles, District Attorney George Gasc\u00f3n\u2019 has ordered his deputies to seek court review of cases where violent criminals received long sentences, to encourage their eligibility for early release under Proposition 57.\u00a0 Scott Schwebke of the LA Daily News reports<\/a> that among the criminals that Gasc\u00f3n wants to be released early is gang member Andrew Cachu, who in 2015 shot a 41-year-old man in the back outside a Palmdale restaurant, killing him.\u00a0 Cachu, who was two-months shy of his 18th birthday when he committed the murder, was prosecuted in adult court and in 2017, sentenced to 50-years-to-life in prison.\u00a0\u00a0 In a May 10, 2021 hearing, a newly hired prosecutor from Gasc\u00f3n\u2019s office, former public defender and the author of his special directive on early release, Alisa Blair, joined the defense attorney in arguing that under Proposition 57, Cachu should have been prosecuted in juvenile court.\u00a0 If the judge rules in their favor, the state will be required to release him next year.\u00a0 At the hearing, Blair ignored the victim’s family, introduced the defendant’s mother to the judge, and a detective reported that in the hall outside the courtroom she told the mother “Don’t worry, he will get out.”<\/p>\n

A lawyer for the victim’s family is now asking the judge to remove Blair from the case for her demonstrated bias toward the defendant and disinterest in the murder victim and his family.\u00a0 “It is a sad day when the victims of crimes need lawyers to defend their rights against a district attorney,” said prosecutor Eric Siddall, Vice President of the LA Deputy District Attorneys Association.\u00a0 It should also be noted that when criminals receive a parole hearing,\u00a0 Gasc\u00f3n has forbidden the deputies in his office from attending to argue on behalf of the victims and their families.<\/p>\n

Sacramento District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert has taken a different approach.\u00a0 In 2003 Paul Eugene Robinson was convicted on several counts of forcible rape.\u00a0 Melanie Townsend of Fox 40 News reports<\/a> that Robinson, nicknamed the “Second Story Rapist,” had raped several Sacramento-area woman in the mid 1990s.\u00a0 He was identified when Schubert, then a deputy DA, pioneered the use of a John Doe DNA warrant to charge the unknown rapist’s DNA.\u00a0 When Robinson was later arrested, his DNA matched samples taken from the crime scenes and he was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to 65 years in prison.\u00a0 Under Proposition 57, a criminal who reaches the age of 50 and has served 20 years of his sentence, becomes eligible for parole.\u00a0 He is receiving his first parole hearing in July.\u00a0 One of his victims is terrified that he might be set free.\u00a0 “I don’t feel like 50 means that he’s getting out and wouldn’t have the capability to continue his compulsion….and who knows what other woman could be devastated.” \u00a0 Schubert intends to fight against Robinson’s release at the hearing, noting the victims “will have a voice there and obviously our office will have a voice there and strongly oppose his parole.”<\/p>\n

Los Angeles voters may get another chance to decide what sort of District Attorney they want, as a recall campaign is underway to remove Gasc\u00f3n.\u00a0 Californians will also have the opportunity to replace Rob Bonta, a soft-on-crime Gasc\u00f3n supporter just appointed Attorney General by Gavin Newsom.\u00a0 District Attorney Schubert recently announced the she is running against Bonta to be California’s top law enforcement officer.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

One of the most devastating changes to California law in recent years was Proposition 57, Jerry Brown’s “Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act,”\u00a0 adopted by voters in 2016.\u00a0 Everything about the initiative was a lie.\u00a0 It was not about public safety and rehabilitation, it was designed to release thousands of hardcore criminals from prison, years and sometimes decades early.\u00a0 Governor Brown claimed it would only allow non-violent criminals qualify for early release, but District Attorneys and the Courts determined that anyone, including criminals convicted of forcible rape and murder would qualify.\u00a0 The initiative also removed all control over who gets released early and how long a sentence they must serve from the legislature and placed it with the Governor and his Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).\u00a0 Weeks ago the CDCR announced that it intended to make up to 76,000 prison inmates, including rapists and murderers serving life terms, eligible for parole and early release.\u00a0 This could not happen without Governor Gavin Newsom’s approval.\u00a0 43 District Attorneys, led by Sacramento DA Anne Marie Schubert, are suing to block this policy.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[68],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4134","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-prosecutors"],"yoast_head":"\nA Tale of Two District Attorneys - Crime & Consequences<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=4134\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A Tale of Two District Attorneys - Crime & Consequences\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"One of the most devastating changes to California law in recent years was Proposition 57, Jerry Brown’s “Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act,”\u00a0 adopted by voters in 2016.\u00a0 Everything about the initiative was a lie.\u00a0 It was not about public safety and rehabilitation, it was designed to release thousands of hardcore criminals from prison, years and sometimes decades early.\u00a0 Governor Brown claimed it would only allow non-violent criminals qualify for early release, but District Attorneys and the Courts determined that anyone, including criminals convicted of forcible rape and murder would qualify.\u00a0 The initiative also removed all control over who gets released early and how long a sentence they must serve from the legislature and placed it with the Governor and his Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).\u00a0 Weeks ago the CDCR announced that it intended to make up to 76,000 prison inmates, including rapists and murderers serving life terms, eligible for parole and early release.\u00a0 This could not happen without Governor Gavin Newsom’s approval.\u00a0 43 District Attorneys, led by Sacramento DA Anne Marie Schubert, are suing to block this policy.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=4134\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Crime & Consequences\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CriminalJusticeLegalFoundation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-06-29T21:22:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-06-29T21:43:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/FB_DefaultLJ.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"300\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"400\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Michael Rushford\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Michael Rushford\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=4134\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=4134\",\"name\":\"A Tale of Two District Attorneys - Crime & Consequences\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-06-29T21:22:09+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-06-29T21:43:16+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/818db0b54694df828fde443a64c42758\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=4134#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=4134\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=4134#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A Tale of Two District Attorneys\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/\",\"name\":\"Crime & Consequences\",\"description\":\"Crime and criminal law\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/818db0b54694df828fde443a64c42758\",\"name\":\"Michael Rushford\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.cjlf.org\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?author=3\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"A Tale of Two District Attorneys - Crime & Consequences","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=4134","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A Tale of Two District Attorneys - Crime & Consequences","og_description":"One of the most devastating changes to California law in recent years was Proposition 57, Jerry Brown’s “Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act,”\u00a0 adopted by voters in 2016.\u00a0 Everything about the initiative was a lie.\u00a0 It was not about public safety and rehabilitation, it was designed to release thousands of hardcore criminals from prison, years and sometimes decades early.\u00a0 Governor Brown claimed it would only allow non-violent criminals qualify for early release, but District Attorneys and the Courts determined that anyone, including criminals convicted of forcible rape and murder would qualify.\u00a0 The initiative also removed all control over who gets released early and how long a sentence they must serve from the legislature and placed it with the Governor and his Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).\u00a0 Weeks ago the CDCR announced that it intended to make up to 76,000 prison inmates, including rapists and murderers serving life terms, eligible for parole and early release.\u00a0 This could not happen without Governor Gavin Newsom’s approval.\u00a0 43 District Attorneys, led by Sacramento DA Anne Marie Schubert, are suing to block this policy.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=4134","og_site_name":"Crime & Consequences","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CriminalJusticeLegalFoundation\/","article_published_time":"2021-06-29T21:22:09+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-06-29T21:43:16+00:00","og_image":[{"width":300,"height":400,"url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/FB_DefaultLJ.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Michael Rushford","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Michael Rushford","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=4134","url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=4134","name":"A Tale of Two District Attorneys - Crime & Consequences","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-06-29T21:22:09+00:00","dateModified":"2021-06-29T21:43:16+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/818db0b54694df828fde443a64c42758"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=4134#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=4134"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=4134#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A Tale of Two District Attorneys"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/","name":"Crime & Consequences","description":"Crime and criminal law","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/818db0b54694df828fde443a64c42758","name":"Michael Rushford","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.cjlf.org"],"url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?author=3"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4134","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4134"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4134\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4136,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4134\/revisions\/4136"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4134"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4134"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4134"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}