Orange County Grand Jury
• 2016-2017
The Myth of the Orange County Jailhouse Informant Program
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 13 findings
F1
The myriad definitions and nuances of what constitutes an “informant” have caused confusion and may have contributed to the current controversy and unnecessary erosion of trust.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
There is no structured jailhouse informant program operating in the Orange County Jails. The existence of informants in the Orange County jails does not constitute a program. The use of an in-custody informant is generally organic in nature, and narrowly focused.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Violations in discovery and/or Brady disclosure in the Dekraai case are limited to the actions of a few members of the OCDA and a few OCSD personnel. This does not represent a conspiracy between the OCSD and OCDA.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
The OCII is an incomplete repository of informant information and history due to the voluntary discretion of LLE Agencies to contribute to it.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4
The OCDA needs to send a clear message to local law enforcement agencies that successful case prosecution relies on the sharing of information, and agencies should be encouraged to share all informant information with the OCDA for input into the OCII.
R5
Prosecutors within the OCDA need to recognize that the OCII is a tool of limited utility and should not rely solely on the OCII to vet potential witnesses. They should continue to do their due diligence in background checks of all witnesses in their prosecutions.
F5
LLE Agencies are, and continue to be, a weak link on the prosecution team. While OCDA has no authority over these agencies, they can certainly use the bully pulpit to raise awareness of the problem and encourage participation and commitment to proper legal standards.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
The elevation of personnel in the OCDA to supervisory positions is not the result of standardized, objective hiring standards and does not include any required training in management or supervisorial skills training.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The OCDA should implement standardized management hiring and training practices for all supervisory personnel and review employee disciplinary practices to ensure they are sufficient responses to employee actions.
F7
The OCDA needs to continue and expand the existing training programs to include objective standards in place to evaluate the actual effectiveness of OCDA training. Doubts continue as to whether training, in its current format, will make any substantial difference without metrics to measure impact.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The OCDA should continue working to improve and prioritize its training program by designing and implementing follow-up measurements to determine the effectiveness and impact of current training content and methods.
F8
Interoffice communication within the OCDA is often lacking and contributes to the absence of a unifying vision or sense of leadership. This allows for individual prosecutors to drift and create individualized record-keeping systems that could pose a liability for the County. It is an untenable position to argue that poor communication within the OCDA is the culprit to explain away constitutional discovery and Brady obligations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
The OCDA should review their management and communication to improve inter-office communications and break-down the negative effect of silo-ed operations
F9
Hiring an independent monitor to oversee work recommended by IPPEC and already completed by the OCDA is a waste of County money.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
The Board of Supervisors should review and consider canceling, within the next 90 days, the OCDA independent monitor contract implemented on recommendations from the IPPEC and approved by the Board in August 2016.
F10
Mistakes were made by personnel in the OCSD and the OCDA. In response to internal investigations, the OCSD has taken disciplinary action to the extent it is able to do so at this time. There appears to have been minimal consequences for personnel in the OCDA.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
Both the OCSD and the OCDA need updated technology and record keeping systems.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1
The OCDA should prioritize updating the current case management system to better track all constitutional and statutory requirements and better interface with LLE agencies and the OCII.
R6
The OCDA should standardize its discovery record-keeping system for recording and tracking discovery materials and ensure all prosecutors are aware of and use the new uniform system.
R9
The OCSD should standardize and consolidate jail activity records that have potential discovery repercussions, and minimize multiple filing systems for recording potentially discoverable material within the jail management system.
F12
In spite of no official completed investigations, the OCSD has proactively made structural and organizational changes to address the issues that arose as a result of the informant controversy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10
The OCSD should improve supervisor training for newly promoted sergeants that includes demonstrated supervisory skills before rotation back to the field. REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code §933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected County official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code §933.05 are required as follows: Responses are required from the following elected officers of the date of the publication of this report: The Orange County District Attorney (F.1-11; R.1-7) The Orange County Sheriff-Coroner (F.1-3, 10-13; R.9,10) Responses are required from the following governing bodies of the date of the publication of this report: The Orange County Board of Supervisors (F.9, R.8)
F13
The current promotion process in the OCSD that requires patrol officers to be reassigned to the jail contributes to a culture of inadequate supervision of long-term jail personnel. Penal Code §933 and §933.05 require governing bodies and elected officials to which a report is directed to respond to findings and recommendations. Responses are requested, from departments of local agencies and their non-elected department heads. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2016-2017 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled, “The Myth of the Orange County Jailhouse Informant Program” in Orange County, the Orange County Grand Jury makes the following ten recommendations:
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 1
-
CL1There have been discovery violations in a small number of cases, over a period of years, due to a number of factors that are indicative of what happens to all organizations that are not diligent in maintaining awareness of their core mission. Both the OCDA and the OCSD allowed 2016-2017 Orange County Grand Jury Page 23 The Myth of the Orange County Jailhouse Informant Program individuals to drift from the core organizational mission and that laxness in supervision has had the unfortunate result of an erosion of trust in the criminal justice system. Both agencies are now aware of this shortcoming and have implemented organizational changes to repair the damage. Allegations of a corrupt OCDA’s office conspiring with the OCSD’s office to violate citizen’s constitutional rights are unfounded. Disparate facts have been woven together and a combination of conjecture and random events have been juxtaposed to create a tenuous narrative insinuating nefarious intent. That narrative does not stand up to factual validation. The OCGJ found no concerted effort by personnel in either the OCDA or the OCSD offices to circumvent the law in order to ensure successful prosecutions. The vast majority of prosecutors we spoke with are ethical, hard-working individuals who have not, and will not, file a case if they do not believe in the guilt of the accused. In an office where more than 15,000 felony cases are filed annually and nearly 97% are settled before they get to trial, allegations of wide-spread jailhouse informant use are not factually supported. The current search to get to the bottom of potential discovery violations in the Dekraai case has devolved into a witch-hunt for agency corruption; a search that after 5 years and more than 40,000 pages of court documents remains fruitless. Previous convictions have been questioned and new trials sought for individuals who claim they may have benefitted from the right to know about the use of an informant in their case. This unfortunate episode has eroded trust in the Orange County criminal justice system, not only within the Orange County legal community, but among the public at large. However, the OCGJ found no evidence to support claims of a systemic, widespread informant program, and reports of such have been exaggerated in the press. The violations uncovered in Dekraai have remedies under existing law. The remedy for evidence obtained illegally in violation of Massiah, such as the taped conversation between Dekraai and a jailhouse informant, is the rejection of that evidence into the trial. This has been done: The tape has been thrown out and the jury will never hear it. The remedy for prosecutorial misconduct, such as that due to egregious discovery violations, is the recusal of the prosecutor. This has also been done; the OCDA has been recused and is no longer prosecuting the penalty phase of the case. While the OCGJ has now finished its investigation, the California Attorney General and the United States Department of Justice have ongoing investigations. Any further investigation of potential widespread, systemic institutional wrongdoing surrounding discovery or informant issues in Orange County would be far more appropriately addressed by these agencies and not by the trial court for the largest confessed mass murderer in Orange County history.
Agency Responses 1
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.
No Responses Found 2
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Orange County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office
Orange County District Attorney
Elected County Office