Riverside County District Attorney’s Office

Sworn witnesses testified, that although career Deputy District Attorneys have traditionally been given discretion to manage their assigned cases, in the current DA’s office, discretion has been all but taken away. According to the sworn testimony of current and former prosecutors, they must get approval for everything. Supervisory personnel are reportedly unwilling to make decisions and every issue must go up the chain of command. This makes it more difficult and time-consuming to adjudicate a case. It removes the prosecutor who is most knowledgeable of case factors from decision-making regarding case settlement. Witnesses reported that one reason for case dismissals was delays in the decision making process.

It is the stated policy of the DA’s office to settle cases: (a) consistent with the charges, and (b) the prosecutors’ assessment of their ability to achieve a conviction. Although the DA’s office Policy and Procedure Manual devotes an entire section to encouraging case settlement where appropriate, witnesses report that current DA’s office practices discourage case settlements. Witnesses reported cases where a settlement offer was considered appropriate and acceptable to the accused, the defense attorney and the court, but was rejected by the prosecutor. Witnesses’ testimony, confirmed by data provided by the court, the DA’s office, and Public Defender’s office, indicates that the prosecutors’ attitude toward case settlement has resulted in less favorable verdicts, than if settlement had been accepted. Investigation revealed that the insistence of the DA’s office to proceed to trial disregarding potential settlements contributes to the congestion of Riverside County Courts. According to sworn witnesses the practice of taking a case to trial is highly valued in the DA’s office. There is a widespread belief that promotions are based upon proceeding with a jury trial resulting in conviction.

Former and current prosecutors, as well as members of other County agencies, reported a pervasive climate of fear and intimidation within the DA’s office. Based upon actual experiences, DA’s office witnesses described a prevalent fear of being transferred or reassigned to less desirable positions and/or geographic locations as punitive measures for perceived lack of loyalty. Fear of retaliation was described as inhibiting initiative, particularly in negotiating case settlements. 2

In June 2007, the Board of Supervisors authorized the creation of an Executive Division, consisting of nine personnel, within the DA’s office. Documentation disclosed that the Executive Division resulted in an increase of $296,068 to the DA’s office budget for FY 2007/2008 and $492,190 in FY 2008/2009. Review of the budget proposal reveals that the Executive Division’s functions replicate duties previously performed by existing staff.