latimes--2020-10-16--Prop. 20 sparks debate over effects of criminal justice reform in California

As much of the country weighs changes to the criminal justice system , California has had a head start , adopting a series of laws in the last decade that , among other things , helped reduce the state ’ s prison population by more than one-third , or 50,000 people .
Now a group of prosecutors and law enforcement leaders has placed Proposition 20 on the November statewide ballot , which would expand the list of felonies for which the convicted are ineligible for early parole ; increase penalties for repeat shoplifters ; and collect DNA samples from adults @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it is needed to fix flaws in past measures that they say are putting the public ’ s safety at risk , including the early release of potentially violent criminals .
But opponents of the measure , who include civil rights leaders , Gov .
Gavin Newsom and former Gov .
Jerry Brown , say it wrongly rolls back necessary criminal justice reforms as crime has declined in recent years .
“ California is ahead of the game — we ’ ve done so many great reforms , ” said Assemblyman Jim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retired sheriff ’ s captain and proponent of Proposition 20 .
“ But there have been unintended consequences with these reforms.
” Brown , who led past reform efforts , called the initiative “ very inhuman.
” He said it takes away hope and incentives for prison inmates to pursue educational opportunities and demonstrate good behavior to improve their chances of getting out early .
“ Proposition 20 is supported by a very narrow group of people who don ’ t accept even the modest prison reforms that I was able to achieve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s driven by ideology and , in some cases , by a total lack of understanding of human nature and no sense of redemption or allowing people to put their lives on track .
It ’ s vindictive.
” Brown was governor when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that California ’ s prisons were overcrowded in violation of constitutional protections .
That year , he signed Assembly Bill 109 into law to reduce the state prison population by requiring that many people convicted of felonies not involving violence or sex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instead of state prison .
In 2014 , California voters approved Proposition 47 , which reclassified many lower-level drug and property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors .
Before then , thefts could be considered a felony if stolen merchandise was valued at $ 450 or more , but Proposition 47 raised the threshold to $ 950 .
Proposition 57 , which Brown developed and was approved by California voters in 2016 , increased parole and good behavior opportunities for those convicted of nonviolent felonies .
The new initiative to be voted on Nov. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three laws .
The measure would broaden the list of crimes that make inmates ineligible for early release from state prison through the parole program in Proposition 57 , adding 22 offenses , including trafficking a child for sex and felony domestic violence .
The measure also would increase penalties for people who commit multiple thefts , including serial shoplifting , to address a spate of such crimes , and would mandate the collection of DNA samples from adults convicted of crimes newly classified as misdemeanors under AB 109 , including forging checks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ addition , Proposition 20 would require the state Board of Parole Hearings to weigh an inmate ’ s entire criminal history when deciding parole , not just the most recent offense , which was the standard set by AB 109 .
Supporters of the initiative include the California Police Chiefs Assn.
, Orange County Dist .
Atty .
Todd Spitzer , Sacramento County Dist .
Atty .
Anne Marie Schubert and the union representing state prison guards .
“ Prop .
57 was misleading because it promised that only ’ nonviolent ’ inmates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Citrus Heights Police Chief Ron Lawrence said .
“ But under California law , a number of violent crimes are classified nonviolent.
” Crimes that Proposition 20 would classify as violent , making them ineligible for early release , include felony assault with a deadly weapon , rape of an unconscious person , and human trafficking of a child , said Lawrence , past president of the California Police Chiefs Assn .
“ Trafficking a human being for sex — that shocks the public conscience , ” Cooper said .
“ You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When campaigning for Proposition 57 , Brown said that all sex offenders would be excluded from early release from prison , but a judge in 2018 ruled that many must be considered for earlier parole .
However , the case is pending review by the state Supreme Court , so no sex offenders have yet been released as a result of Proposition 57 .
Brown said that although Proposition 57 allows a parole hearing for nonviolent offenders , most are not released .
The board is made up of criminal justice experts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , prison officials began referring inmates to the Board of Parole Hearings for early parole consideration under Proposition 57 .
The board has reviewed 21,181 cases , with 3,797 inmates approved for release and 15,499 denied , according to state officials .
Other cases were delayed or canceled , some because of eligibility issues .
Those released because of Proposition 57 include Armando Martín , who said he faced a nine-year prison term for narcotics and firearm possession .
The 2016 initiative encouraged him to turn his life around and take education classes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parole last year after serving less than half of his sentence .
“ When Proposition 57 came out , there was a light in the tunnel , there was hope , ” the 45-year-old Los Angeles resident said .
Today , Martín has a unionized construction job and has been working on the new Rams stadium in Inglewood .
He opposes Proposition 20 , saying it will take hope away from inmates .
Proponents of Proposition 20 say that others released early have re-offended , with some committing nonviolent or misdemeanor crimes and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serious , violent offenses .
Ventura County Dist .
Atty .
Gregory Totten , who opposed Proposition 57 , said that since its passage the Board of Parole Hearings has approved early release on parole for 79 inmates who came from his county .
Twenty-four of those parolees have allegedly committed new offenses , including residential burglary , identify theft , assault on a peace officer with a deadly weapon , elder abuse , automobile theft and possession of child pornography , said Totten , who supports Proposition 20 .
None of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ release for one of the crimes that Proposition 20 would put on the ineligible list , and the majority of new offenses were nonviolent crimes , including misdemeanor petty theft .
Out of 191 Sacramento County inmates convicted of felonies who were granted early release on parole under Proposition 57 , the district attorney ’ s office said 55 were later arrested for committing new crimes , including sexual battery and robbery , as well as nonviolent offenses .
Proposition 20 is also supported by retail chains including Albertsons and Kroger , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rings have been increasing .
Safeway and other stores said in 2016 that shoplifting had increased at least 15 % .
The ballot measure would create a new felony for serial theft when a person is caught for the third time committing thefts valued at $ 250 or more , which Cooper said would serve as a deterrent .
The San Francisco-based Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice , which advocates for reducing incarceration , estimates that , under Proposition 20 , up to 9,900 arrests for theft-related offenses could be charged as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The center said an estimated 66 % of people sent to jail or prison under Proposition 20 would be Black , Latino , Asian or other Californians of color .
The new initiative also addresses a decline in the number of DNA samples taken after Proposition 47 reduced many crimes from felonies to misdemeanors , meaning those convicted were no longer required to provide DNA samples .
Proponents of Proposition 20 say DNA samples collected from those convicted of theft and drug crimes can help solve other violent crimes , including rape and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of DNA samples sent by California law enforcement agencies to the California DNA Data Bank has plummeted from 179,026 in 2012 to 105,890 last year , according to the state Department of Justice .
Based on the department ’ s data , Cooper estimates at least 2,000 more hits would be possible each year if DNA were still collected as it was before AB 109 .
Not all prosecutors are on board with Proposition 20 .
Opponents include Los Angeles County Dist .
Atty .
Jackie Lacey and the man running to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , former San Francisco County Dist .
Atty .
George Gascón .
“ While I opposed Proposition 47 and 57 , these measures were backed by California voters and must be given more time to be analyzed before a decision is made on rolling them back , ” Lacey said .
Santa Clara County Dist .
Atty .
Jeff Rosen said past reforms have led to an ideal situation in which fewer people are in prison and crime has generally declined .
California ’ s rate for violent crimes , including murders and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last year , down from 470 a decade earlier , with a spike in 2017 , according to the state Department of Justice .
Property crimes in California are also down from what they were a decade ago .
The high for the decade was in 2012 , when there were 2,772 property crimes per 100,000 population , and they were at 2,290 last year , according to the the department .
A June 2018 study by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California found no evidence that violent crime increased because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it affected property crime .
“ While the reform had no apparent impact on burglaries or auto thefts , it may have contributed to a rise in larceny thefts , which increased by roughly 9 percent compared to other states , ” the study said .
Rosen said Proposition 20 will require more money to keep people in jail or prison , taking funds away from programs that assist crime victims to recover from trauma and get jobs .
The state Legislative Analyst ’ s Office estimates Proposition 20 will increase state and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ costs by “ tens of millions of dollars annually , ” depending on the implementation .

Inmates at San Quentin State Prison in California. The state’s voters face a decision next month on Proposition 20, which would roll back some changes to the criminal justice system that have reduced the state’s prison population by more than one-third.
As much of the country weighs changes to the criminal justice system, California has had a head start, adopting a series of laws in the last decade that, among other things, helped reduce the state’s prison population by more than one-third, or 50,000 people.
Now a group of prosecutors and law enforcement leaders has placed Proposition 20 on the November statewide ballot, which would expand the list of felonies for which the convicted are ineligible for early parole; increase penalties for repeat shoplifters; and collect DNA samples from adults convicted of some misdemeanors.
Proponents argue that it is needed to fix flaws in past measures that they say are putting the public’s safety at risk, including the early release of potentially violent criminals. But opponents of the measure, who include civil rights leaders, Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Gov. Jerry Brown, say it wrongly rolls back necessary criminal justice reforms as crime has declined in recent years.
Advertisement
“California is ahead of the game — we’ve done so many great reforms,” said Assemblyman Jim Cooper (D-Elk Grove), a retired sheriff’s captain and proponent of Proposition 20. “But there have been unintended consequences with these reforms.”
Brown, who led past reform efforts, called the initiative “very inhuman.” He said it takes away hope and incentives for prison inmates to pursue educational opportunities and demonstrate good behavior to improve their chances of getting out early.
“Proposition 20 is supported by a very narrow group of people who don’t accept even the modest prison reforms that I was able to achieve,” Brown said. “It’s driven by ideology and, in some cases, by a total lack of understanding of human nature and no sense of redemption or allowing people to put their lives on track. It’s vindictive.”
Brown was governor when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that California’s prisons were overcrowded in violation of constitutional protections. That year, he signed Assembly Bill 109 into law to reduce the state prison population by requiring that many people convicted of felonies not involving violence or sex offenses serve their sentences in county jails instead of state prison.
In 2014, California voters approved Proposition 47, which reclassified many lower-level drug and property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. Before then, thefts could be considered a felony if stolen merchandise was valued at $450 or more, but Proposition 47 raised the threshold to $950.
Proposition 57, which Brown developed and was approved by California voters in 2016, increased parole and good behavior opportunities for those convicted of nonviolent felonies.
The new initiative to be voted on Nov. 3 makes key changes in the previous three laws.
Advertisement
The measure would broaden the list of crimes that make inmates ineligible for early release from state prison through the parole program in Proposition 57, adding 22 offenses, including trafficking a child for sex and felony domestic violence.
The measure also would increase penalties for people who commit multiple thefts, including serial shoplifting, to address a spate of such crimes, and would mandate the collection of DNA samples from adults convicted of crimes newly classified as misdemeanors under AB 109, including forging checks and certain domestic violence crimes.
In addition, Proposition 20 would require the state Board of Parole Hearings to weigh an inmate’s entire criminal history when deciding parole, not just the most recent offense, which was the standard set by AB 109.
Supporters of the initiative include the California Police Chiefs Assn., Orange County Dist. Atty. Todd Spitzer, Sacramento County Dist. Atty. Anne Marie Schubert and the union representing state prison guards.
“Prop. 57 was misleading because it promised that only ’nonviolent’ inmates would be released from prison early,” Citrus Heights Police Chief Ron Lawrence said. “But under California law, a number of violent crimes are classified nonviolent.”
Crimes that Proposition 20 would classify as violent, making them ineligible for early release, include felony assault with a deadly weapon, rape of an unconscious person, and human trafficking of a child, said Lawrence, past president of the California Police Chiefs Assn.
“Trafficking a human being for sex — that shocks the public conscience,” Cooper said. “You shouldn’t get out early.”
When campaigning for Proposition 57, Brown said that all sex offenders would be excluded from early release from prison, but a judge in 2018 ruled that many must be considered for earlier parole.
However, the case is pending review by the state Supreme Court, so no sex offenders have yet been released as a result of Proposition 57.
Brown said that although Proposition 57 allows a parole hearing for nonviolent offenders, most are not released. The board is made up of criminal justice experts, including law enforcement.
In July 2017, prison officials began referring inmates to the Board of Parole Hearings for early parole consideration under Proposition 57.
The board has reviewed 21,181 cases, with 3,797 inmates approved for release and 15,499 denied, according to state officials. Other cases were delayed or canceled, some because of eligibility issues.
Those released because of Proposition 57 include Armando Martín, who said he faced a nine-year prison term for narcotics and firearm possession. The 2016 initiative encouraged him to turn his life around and take education classes, he said, and he won parole last year after serving less than half of his sentence.
“When Proposition 57 came out, there was a light in the tunnel, there was hope,” the 45-year-old Los Angeles resident said.
Today, Martín has a unionized construction job and has been working on the new Rams stadium in Inglewood. He opposes Proposition 20, saying it will take hope away from inmates.
Proponents of Proposition 20 say that others released early have re-offended, with some committing nonviolent or misdemeanor crimes and others being sent back to prison for serious, violent offenses.
Ventura County Dist. Atty. Gregory Totten, who opposed Proposition 57, said that since its passage the Board of Parole Hearings has approved early release on parole for 79 inmates who came from his county.
Twenty-four of those parolees have allegedly committed new offenses, including residential burglary, identify theft, assault on a peace officer with a deadly weapon, elder abuse, automobile theft and possession of child pornography, said Totten, who supports Proposition 20.
None of the 24 parolees who re-offended were given early release for one of the crimes that Proposition 20 would put on the ineligible list, and the majority of new offenses were nonviolent crimes, including misdemeanor petty theft.
Out of 191 Sacramento County inmates convicted of felonies who were granted early release on parole under Proposition 57, the district attorney’s office said 55 were later arrested for committing new crimes, including sexual battery and robbery, as well as nonviolent offenses.
Proposition 20 is also supported by retail chains including Albertsons and Kroger, who say shoplifting and stealing by organized theft rings have been increasing. Safeway and other stores said in 2016 that shoplifting had increased at least 15%.
The ballot measure would create a new felony for serial theft when a person is caught for the third time committing thefts valued at $250 or more, which Cooper said would serve as a deterrent.
The San Francisco-based Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, which advocates for reducing incarceration, estimates that, under Proposition 20, up to 9,900 arrests for theft-related offenses could be charged as felonies rather than misdemeanors each year.
The center said an estimated 66% of people sent to jail or prison under Proposition 20 would be Black, Latino, Asian or other Californians of color.
The new initiative also addresses a decline in the number of DNA samples taken after Proposition 47 reduced many crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, meaning those convicted were no longer required to provide DNA samples. Proponents of Proposition 20 say DNA samples collected from those convicted of theft and drug crimes can help solve other violent crimes, including rape and murder, sometimes decades later.
The number of DNA samples sent by California law enforcement agencies to the California DNA Data Bank has plummeted from 179,026 in 2012 to 105,890 last year, according to the state Department of Justice.
Based on the department’s data, Cooper estimates at least 2,000 more hits would be possible each year if DNA were still collected as it was before AB 109.
Not all prosecutors are on board with Proposition 20.
Opponents include Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Jackie Lacey and the man running to take her place in the November election, former San Francisco County Dist. Atty. George Gascón.
“While I opposed Proposition 47 and 57, these measures were backed by California voters and must be given more time to be analyzed before a decision is made on rolling them back,” Lacey said.
Santa Clara County Dist. Atty. Jeff Rosen said past reforms have led to an ideal situation in which fewer people are in prison and crime has generally declined.
California’s rate for violent crimes, including murders and rapes, was 433 per 100,000 population last year, down from 470 a decade earlier, with a spike in 2017, according to the state Department of Justice.
Property crimes in California are also down from what they were a decade ago. The high for the decade was in 2012, when there were 2,772 property crimes per 100,000 population, and they were at 2,290 last year, according to the the department.
A June 2018 study by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California found no evidence that violent crime increased because of Proposition 47, but some evidence that it affected property crime.
“While the reform had no apparent impact on burglaries or auto thefts, it may have contributed to a rise in larceny thefts, which increased by roughly 9 percent compared to other states,” the study said.
Rosen said Proposition 20 will require more money to keep people in jail or prison, taking funds away from programs that assist crime victims to recover from trauma and get jobs.
The state Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates Proposition 20 will increase state and local correctional, court and law enforcement costs by “tens of millions of dollars annually,” depending on the implementation.


latimes--2020-10-16--How Scott Peterson's murder convictions were suddenly thrown into doubt

Laci Peterson ’ s 2002 disappearance from her Modesto home on Christmas Eve made instant headlines .
Her family initially said that Scott , her husband , was beyond suspicion .
Then a woman surfaced who said she was having an affair with him .
Finally , Laci ’ s remains and her 8-month-old fetus washed up on a rocky shore near where Scott said he had gone fishing on Christmas Eve .
Eighteen years later , Peterson ’ s death sentence for killing his pregnant wife and unborn son has been overturned , and his convictions are under scrutiny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case back to San Mateo County Superior Court , where the fertilizer salesman was found guilty and sentenced to death after a 2004 trial .
“ It ’ s basically a second chance for Peterson , ” said Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson , a former federal prosecutor who now leads a project at the school to try to free the wrongly convicted .
The unraveling of such a high-profile murder case stems from legal errors made by the trial judge and a woman who allegedly lied to get picked for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the fetus , whom Laci and Scott were going to name Conner .
The California Supreme Court on Wednesday issued an order requiring a San Mateo County judge to examine whether the juror committed misconduct , and if so , whether the guilty verdicts should be overturned .
A full-blown hearing with witnesses is possible .
If the evidence clearly shows misconduct , prosecutors will have to show the juror ’ s actions were irrelevant to the case to prevail .
Whatever the judge decides can be appealed , and the process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If the defense succeeds in overturning the convictions , Peterson most likely would be retried .
The order issued by the state ’ s highest court is called “ an order to show cause.
” It asks the trial court to determine whether Peterson should be granted a new trial on the grounds that “ Juror No .
7 committed prejudicial misconduct by not disclosing her prior involvement with other legal proceedings , including but not limited to being the victim of a crime.
” The California Supreme Court rarely issues such orders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not verdicts , said Scott Kauffman , a criminal defense appellate lawyer .
In any case , Kauffman said , the prosecution ultimately prevails most of the time .
“ When you are in habeas you are already dead and buried , ” Kauffman said .
“ If you get an order to show cause , you ’ re closer to the surface but you are not there .
You have to prove your claims in a hostile environment against a usually hostile judge.
” But the defense can prevail .
Cliff Gardner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said he has had two capital cases in which such orders led to the overturning of sentences .
“ I am very confident that we can win it , ” Gardner said Thursday .
“ Whether we do or not , there are a lot of things that go into that calculus.
” The California Supreme Court ’ s actions , he said , “ reflect the importance of jury selection in a case.
” John Goold , a spokesman for the Stanislaus County district attorney ’ s office , which prosecuted Peterson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s order .
“ This is one step in a very long and complicated appellate process , ” Goold said .
The California Supreme Court had little choice but to overturn Peterson ’ s death sentence this year .
The late Judge Alfred Delucchi , who presided over the trial , discharged prospective jurors who expressed opposition to capital punishment but said they would be willing to impose it .
Delucchi ’ s actions flouted U.S. Supreme Court precedent .
“ Jurors may not be excused merely for opposition to the death penalty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unable to fairly consider imposing that penalty in accordance with their oath , ” Justice Leondra R. Kruger wrote for a unanimous California Supreme Court .
The court expressed bewilderment about Delucchi ’ s actions .
He had experience in criminal law and should have known better , the court said .
But Peterson ’ s lawyers also challenged the convictions in a separate habeas corpus petition , which examines evidence the court did not hear .
Most legal documents are dry and soporific , but Peterson ’ s 277-page habeas was gripping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ innocent and alleged that his trial lawyer , Mark Geragos , had failed his client by neglecting to read a document that could have been used to challenge a prosecution witness .
The court , however , rejected all claims but one : that Richelle Nice , Juror No .
7 , lied to get picked for the jury .
Initially seated as an alternate , Nice replaced a discharged juror during deliberations .
She later co-wrote a book about the case with several other jurors .
Peterson ’ s lawyers argued that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jury .
Even though her employer would pay for only two weeks of jury service , Nice said she was willing to forgo months of pay to serve .
All the potential jurors were asked whether they had ever been a victim of a crime or involved in a lawsuit .
Nice said no to both questions .
In fact , Peterson ’ s lawyers said , Nice in 2000 had obtained a restraining order against her boyfriend ’ s ex-girlfriend for harassing her when she was 4 ½ months pregnant .
Nice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , saying she feared for her unborn child .
The attacker was tried based on Nice ’ s charges , convicted and sentenced to a week in jail , according to Peterson ’ s lawyers .
They also said Nice also was one of two holdouts for convicting Peterson of first-degree murder for killing his unborn child .
The jury convicted Peterson of the first-degree murder of Laci and the second-degree murder of the fetus , whom Nice called “ Little Man.
” After the trial , Peterson ’ s lawyers said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letters , many of them focused on the killing of his unborn son .
Peterson was tried in San Mateo County after a judge ruled he could not get a fair trial in Stanislaus County .
Stanislaus County prosecutors may seek a new penalty trial for Peterson to try to get the death penalty reinstated .
Goold , the district attorney ’ s spokesman , said no decision has been made on that .
Loyola ’ s Levinson said the errors the judge made in the Peterson case and the possible juror misconduct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trials .
“ If this can happen in a high-profile case , it certainly makes us wonder what is happening in cases that are not under the microscope , ” she said .

Scott Peterson, center, during his murder trial in 2004. At left is defense attorney Mark Geragos.
Laci Peterson’s 2002 disappearance from her Modesto home on Christmas Eve made instant headlines. Her family initially said that Scott, her husband, was beyond suspicion. Then a woman surfaced who said she was having an affair with him. Finally, Laci’s remains and her 8-month-old fetus washed up on a rocky shore near where Scott said he had gone fishing on Christmas Eve.
Eighteen years later, Peterson’s death sentence for killing his pregnant wife and unborn son has been overturned, and his convictions are under scrutiny. Alleged juror misconduct has sent the case back to San Mateo County Superior Court, where the fertilizer salesman was found guilty and sentenced to death after a 2004 trial.
“It’s basically a second chance for Peterson,” said Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor who now leads a project at the school to try to free the wrongly convicted.
The unraveling of such a high-profile murder case stems from legal errors made by the trial judge and a woman who allegedly lied to get picked for the jury and became obsessed with the death of the fetus, whom Laci and Scott were going to name Conner.
Advertisement
The California Supreme Court on Wednesday issued an order requiring a San Mateo County judge to examine whether the juror committed misconduct, and if so, whether the guilty verdicts should be overturned. A full-blown hearing with witnesses is possible. If the evidence clearly shows misconduct, prosecutors will have to show the juror’s actions were irrelevant to the case to prevail.
Whatever the judge decides can be appealed, and the process could take months if not years. If the defense succeeds in overturning the convictions, Peterson most likely would be retried.
The order issued by the state’s highest court is called “an order to show cause.” It asks the trial court to determine whether Peterson should be granted a new trial on the grounds that “Juror No. 7 committed prejudicial misconduct by not disclosing her prior involvement with other legal proceedings, including but not limited to being the victim of a crime.”
The California Supreme Court rarely issues such orders and usually limits them to sentences, not verdicts, said Scott Kauffman, a criminal defense appellate lawyer. In any case, Kauffman said, the prosecution ultimately prevails most of the time.
“When you are in habeas you are already dead and buried,” Kauffman said. “If you get an order to show cause, you’re closer to the surface but you are not there. You have to prove your claims in a hostile environment against a usually hostile judge.”
But the defense can prevail. Cliff Gardner, Peterson’s defense lawyer, said he has had two capital cases in which such orders led to the overturning of sentences.
“I am very confident that we can win it,” Gardner said Thursday. “Whether we do or not, there are a lot of things that go into that calculus.”
The California Supreme Court’s actions, he said, “reflect the importance of jury selection in a case.”
Advertisement
John Goold, a spokesman for the Stanislaus County district attorney’s office, which prosecuted Peterson, downplayed the significance of Wednesday’s order.
“This is one step in a very long and complicated appellate process,” Goold said.
The California Supreme Court had little choice but to overturn Peterson’s death sentence this year. The late Judge Alfred Delucchi, who presided over the trial, discharged prospective jurors who expressed opposition to capital punishment but said they would be willing to impose it. Delucchi’s actions flouted U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
California California’s top court overturns Scott Peterson’s death sentence The California Supreme Court overturned Peterson’s death sentence for killing his wife and unborn son. The penalty portion of his case may be retried.
“Jurors may not be excused merely for opposition to the death penalty, but only for views rendering them unable to fairly consider imposing that penalty in accordance with their oath,” Justice Leondra R. Kruger wrote for a unanimous California Supreme Court.
The court expressed bewilderment about Delucchi’s actions. He had experience in criminal law and should have known better, the court said.
The Aug. 24 decision left intact the guilty verdicts.
But Peterson’s lawyers also challenged the convictions in a separate habeas corpus petition, which examines evidence the court did not hear.
Most legal documents are dry and soporific, but Peterson’s 277-page habeas was gripping. It raised evidence suggesting Peterson was innocent and alleged that his trial lawyer, Mark Geragos, had failed his client by neglecting to read a document that could have been used to challenge a prosecution witness.
The court, however, rejected all claims but one: that Richelle Nice, Juror No. 7, lied to get picked for the jury.
Initially seated as an alternate, Nice replaced a discharged juror during deliberations. She later co-wrote a book about the case with several other jurors.
Peterson’s lawyers argued that Nice worked hard to get on the jury. Even though her employer would pay for only two weeks of jury service, Nice said she was willing to forgo months of pay to serve.
All the potential jurors were asked whether they had ever been a victim of a crime or involved in a lawsuit. Nice said no to both questions.
In fact, Peterson’s lawyers said, Nice in 2000 had obtained a restraining order against her boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend for harassing her when she was 4 ½ months pregnant.
Nice filed a lawsuit to obtain the order, saying she feared for her unborn child. The attacker was tried based on Nice’s charges, convicted and sentenced to a week in jail, according to Peterson’s lawyers.
They also said Nice also was one of two holdouts for convicting Peterson of first-degree murder for killing his unborn child. The jury convicted Peterson of the first-degree murder of Laci and the second-degree murder of the fetus, whom Nice called “Little Man.”
After the trial, Peterson’s lawyers said, Nice wrote Peterson more than two dozen letters, many of them focused on the killing of his unborn son.
Peterson was tried in San Mateo County after a judge ruled he could not get a fair trial in Stanislaus County. Stanislaus County prosecutors may seek a new penalty trial for Peterson to try to get the death penalty reinstated. Goold, the district attorney’s spokesman, said no decision has been made on that.
Loyola’s Levinson said the errors the judge made in the Peterson case and the possible juror misconduct raised questions about less visible death penalty trials.
“If this can happen in a high-profile case, it certainly makes us wonder what is happening in cases that are not under the microscope,” she said.


latimes--2020-10-16--It's no wonder hundreds of millions have been spent on Prop. 22. A lot is at stake

California has never seen anything like this .
Nor has any state — a record $ 200 million spent on a single ballot measure .
It ’ s understandable .
The financial stakes are high .
This is about new labor-management rules for the 21st century gig economy .
Or trying to use the same old rules .
It ’ s Proposition 22 , a ballot initiative bankrolled by Uber , Lyft , DoorDash and the like to override a new state law that requires their ride-hailing and delivery drivers to be classified as employees rather than independent contractors .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , their pay and benefits would increase .
But the app-based gig companies say there ’ d be far fewer jobs because customer fares would rise and demand for rides would fall .
The companies probably couldn ’ t even operate in California , they say .
If the drivers are allowed to remain as independent contractors , the companies will provide modest benefits — a new concession embedded in the ballot measure — and the workers will retain the flexibility to set their own hours and routes .
Organized labor is solidly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drivers and contends they ’ ve been exploited by the ride-hailingand delivery companies .
“ It ’ s smoke and mirrors , ” says Mike Ross , spokesman for the No on 22 campaign .
“ The companies want to lock in the drivers to second-tier jobs.
” But if Proposition 22 fails , “ it will cause the industry to sink significantly , ” says Bill Hamm , a former state legislative analyst who heads the Berkeley Research Group .
He was paid by the Proposition 22 campaign to analyze the measure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of roughly $ 202 million has been raised by both sides , according to the nonpartisan California Target Book , which chronicles California election campaigns .
The “ yes ” side ’ s money-raising has dwarfed the opposition ’ s — $ 187.5 million to about $ 15 million .
“ The ‘ no ’ side always knew it was going to be outspent , but we didn ’ t think we ’ d be outspent 13 to 1 , ” Ross says .
“ No corporations should be able to buy their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. Supreme Court allows it .
The largest donors for Proposition 22 are the ride-hailing companies : Uber with $ 52 million and Lyft , $ 49 million .
Delivery companies have also kicked in big : DoorDash has spent $ 48 million and Instacart , $ 28 million .
Labor money is spread among many California priorities this election cycle .
They include legislative races and Proposition 15 , the ballot measure to raise property taxes on commercial holdings .
Against Proposition 22 , the Service Employees International Union has pitched in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Commercial Workers , $ 3.3 million and Teamsters , $ 1.5 million .
Anyone who has had the TV on for just a few minutes lately has seen where the money is being spent .
Every other commercial seems to be a pro-Proposition 22 ad .
“ At what point do people get sick of seeing the same thing over and over and they ’ re not going to listen to it anymore ?
” asks Steve Smith , communications director for the California Labor Federation .
There ’ s one new Proposition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first time I saw it .
The insulting spot contends that if the measure fails , there ’ ll be more drunk drivers on the road because they won ’ t have ride-hailing options .
That implies that many of us who summon Uber or Lyft are drunks or druggies — not , for example , sober seniors just seeking an easy , affordable ride .
Proposition 22 has some pluses — benefits and flexibility for drivers and a life raft for a growing but still unprofitable industry — but there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad government : For the Legislature to amend the initiative , it would require a practically impossible seven-eighths majority vote of each house .
Many goodies would need to be handed out to secure that massive a vote .
We ’ re at this point with Proposition 22 because Gov .
Gavin Newsom and the Democrat-dominated Legislature refused to deal with the gig companies last year and again this past summer .
The gig operations wanted to negotiate a compromise — some were even willing to allow collective bargaining — but unions were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t budge on much of anything without labor ’ s permission .
This began when the California Supreme Court significantly tightened the rules for classifying a worker as an independent contractor rather than an employee .
An employee is eligible for first-rate benefits and job protections — but also is subject to employer dictates , such as working hours and where to drive .
Labor and the Legislature decided to enshrine the court ruling in state law .
Assembly Bill 5 was passed last year .
It covered several types of workers — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journalists and musicians .
After howls of protest from companies and workers , some exemptions were granted .
Lawsuits were filed and cases are pending .
But the governor and Legislature wouldn ’ t bend on ride-hailing and delivery driving .
Full disclosure : My daughter is working for a law firm representing Lyft in an AB 5 lawsuit filed by the state attorney general .
Uber , Lyft and allies threatened a $ 90-million repeal campaign .
Many Democrats thought they were bluffing .
Now the companies are spending twice that much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this will turn out .
Reliable polling is outdated .
It ’ ll depend on how effective those costly TV ads are .
It ’ s a close call for me , but I ’ ll vote “ yes.
” I like people being able to work independently when they want to .
Perhaps pick up extra bucks to supplement other income .
Or help pay their college expenses like my grandkids do .
Some gig officials tell me they ’ d still like to negotiate a grand bargain with labor and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That will never happen if it fails .

A ride-hailing driver raises her fist in protest as app-based gig workers stage a vehicle demonstration on Spring Street in front of Los Angeles City Hall urging voters to vote no on Proposition 22.
California has never seen anything like this. Nor has any state — a record $200 million spent on a single ballot measure.
It’s understandable. The financial stakes are high. This is about new labor-management rules for the 21st century gig economy. Or trying to use the same old rules.
For the record: An earlier version of this article said the No on 22 campaign spokesman was Mike Ross. The spokesman is Mike Roth.
It’s Proposition 22, a ballot initiative bankrolled by Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and the like to override a new state law that requires their ride-hailing and delivery drivers to be classified as employees rather than independent contractors.
If the drivers are reclassified as employees, their pay and benefits would increase. But the app-based gig companies say there’d be far fewer jobs because customer fares would rise and demand for rides would fall. The companies probably couldn’t even operate in California, they say.
Advertisement
If the drivers are allowed to remain as independent contractors, the companies will provide modest benefits — a new concession embedded in the ballot measure — and the workers will retain the flexibility to set their own hours and routes.
Organized labor is solidly opposed. It wants to unionize the drivers and contends they’ve been exploited by the ride-hailingand delivery companies.
“It’s smoke and mirrors,” says Mike Roth, spokesman for the No on 22 campaign. “The companies want to lock in the drivers to second-tier jobs.”
But if Proposition 22 fails, “it will cause the industry to sink significantly,” says Bill Hamm, a former state legislative analyst who heads the Berkeley Research Group. He was paid by the Proposition 22 campaign to analyze the measure’s ramifications.
An eye-popping total of roughly $202 million has been raised by both sides, according to the nonpartisan California Target Book, which chronicles California election campaigns.
Politics California Prop. 22: Gig economy | Election 2020 If Proposition 22 passes, it would allow companies like Uber and Lyft to continue to consider their workers as independent contractors, as opposed to full-time employees.
The “yes” side’s money-raising has dwarfed the opposition’s — $187.5 million to about $15 million.
Advertisement
“The ‘no’ side always knew it was going to be outspent, but we didn’t think we’d be outspent 13 to 1,” Roth says. “No corporations should be able to buy their own laws.”
Maybe. But the U.S. Supreme Court allows it.
The largest donors for Proposition 22 are the ride-hailing companies: Uber with $52 million and Lyft, $49 million. Delivery companies have also kicked in big: DoorDash has spent $48 million and Instacart, $28 million.
Labor money is spread among many California priorities this election cycle. They include legislative races and Proposition 15, the ballot measure to raise property taxes on commercial holdings.
Against Proposition 22, the Service Employees International Union has pitched in $3.7 million, United Food and Commercial Workers, $3.3 million and Teamsters, $1.5 million.
Anyone who has had the TV on for just a few minutes lately has seen where the money is being spent. Every other commercial seems to be a pro-Proposition 22 ad.
“At what point do people get sick of seeing the same thing over and over and they’re not going to listen to it anymore?” asks Steve Smith, communications director for the California Labor Federation.
There’s one new Proposition 22 ad that I got sick of the first time I saw it.
The insulting spot contends that if the measure fails, there’ll be more drunk drivers on the road because they won’t have ride-hailing options. That implies that many of us who summon Uber or Lyft are drunks or druggies — not, for example, sober seniors just seeking an easy, affordable ride.
Proposition 22 has some pluses — benefits and flexibility for drivers and a life raft for a growing but still unprofitable industry — but there’s one provision that’s just bad government: For the Legislature to amend the initiative, it would require a practically impossible seven-eighths majority vote of each house.
Many goodies would need to be handed out to secure that massive a vote.
We’re at this point with Proposition 22 because Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Democrat-dominated Legislature refused to deal with the gig companies last year and again this past summer.
The gig operations wanted to negotiate a compromise — some were even willing to allow collective bargaining — but unions were split. And Democratic politicians won’t budge on much of anything without labor’s permission.
This began when the California Supreme Court significantly tightened the rules for classifying a worker as an independent contractor rather than an employee. An employee is eligible for first-rate benefits and job protections — but also is subject to employer dictates, such as working hours and where to drive.
Labor and the Legislature decided to enshrine the court ruling in state law. Assembly Bill 5 was passed last year. It covered several types of workers — such as big-rig truck drivers, freelance journalists and musicians.
California Californians not sold on treating Uber, Lyft drivers as independent contractors, new poll shows A new poll found 39% of likely voters support Proposition 22, compared with 36% who oppose the measure that would allow app-based companies to treat their workers as independent contractors, exempting them from employment law AB 5.
After howls of protest from companies and workers, some exemptions were granted. Lawsuits were filed and cases are pending. But the governor and Legislature wouldn’t bend on ride-hailing and delivery driving.
Full disclosure: My consultant daughter is working with a law firm representing Lyft in an AB 5 lawsuit filed by the state attorney general.
Uber, Lyft and allies threatened a $90-million repeal campaign. Many Democrats thought they were bluffing. Now the companies are spending twice that much.
There’s no predicting how this will turn out. Reliable polling is outdated. It’ll depend on how effective those costly TV ads are.
It’s a close call for me, but I’ll vote “yes.”
I like people being able to work independently when they want to. Perhaps pick up extra bucks to supplement other income. Or help pay their college expenses like my grandkids do.
Some gig officials tell me they’d still like to negotiate a grand bargain with labor and the Legislature even if Proposition 22 passes. That will never happen if it fails.


latimes--2020-10-16--Body found at storage unit in Hawaiian Gardens

An investigation is underway by the Los Angeles County Sheriff ’ s Department after the body of a man was @ @ @ @ @ in Hawaiian Gardens on Thursday evening .
Homicide detectives described the deceased as a white @ @ @ @ @ years old .
His identity and cause of death are unknown .
Deputies arrived at @ @ @ @ @ Street at a storage facility about 6:10 p.m. after employees reported strong odors emanating from @ @ @ @ @ aided by Los Angeles County Fire Department personnel , found the body shortly after .
@ @ @ @ @ the man had been dead .
The Sheriff ’ s Department is asking anyone with @ @ @ @ @ bureau at ( 323 ) 890-5500 .

Sheriff’s deputies, shown here during an investigation in 2016, are looking into the cause of death and identity of a body found Thursday.
An investigation is underway by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department after the body of a man was discovered at a storage unit in Hawaiian Gardens on Thursday evening.
Homicide detectives described the deceased as a white male approximately 30 to 35 years old. His identity and cause of death are unknown.
Deputies arrived at the 12300 block of Carson Street at a storage facility about 6:10 p.m. after employees reported strong odors emanating from a locker.
Deputies, aided by Los Angeles County Fire Department personnel, found the body shortly after.
Advertisement
It is unknown how long the man had been dead.
The Sheriff’s Department is asking anyone with information to contact the homicide bureau at (323) 890-5500.


latimes--2020-10-15--Trump administration blocks California wildfire relief

The Trump administration has rejected California ’ s request for disaster relief funds aimed at cleaning up the damage from six recent fires across the state , including Los Angeles County ’ s Bobcat fire , San Bernardino County ’ s El Dorado fire , and the Creek fire , one of the largest that continues to burn in Fresno and Madera counties .
The decision came late Wednesday or early Thursday when the administration denied a request from Gov .
Gavin Newsom for a major presidential disaster declaration , said Brian Ferguson , deputy director of crisis communication and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Office of Emergency Services .
Ferguson could not provide a reason for the federal government ’ s denial .
President Trump has threatened to withhold federal dollars in aid before , including in 2019 unless state officials “ get their act together , which is unlikely.
” A major disaster declaration allows for cost-sharing for damage , cleanup and rebuilding between the state and federal government .
It also activates federal programs led by the Federal Emergency Management Agency .
California did not ask for a specific dollar amount because damage estimates are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The true cost won ’ t be known for months or years afterward , ” he said .
He added : “ What the state is looking for is the highest level of federal support , which requires the highest bars be cleared .
But we feel our case for those requirements has been met.
” According to Ferguson , such aid could easily reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars .
Outside the Southern California fires , the state is also asking for aid for Mendocino County ’ s Oak fire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Newsom formally submitted a letter to the White House and FEMA on Sept. 28 asking for such a declaration and citing the fact that five of the six largest fires in California ’ s recorded history have taken place this year .
The biggest is the August Complex fire , which began Aug. 16 and as of Oct. 15 had burned just over 1 million acres through seven Northern California counties and was 77 % contained .
Newsom also said funds would go toward helping rebuild public infrastructure , miles of roads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Many of the counties impacted by these wildfires are still recovering from previous devastating wildfires , storms and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic , ” Newsom wrote .
Many residents lost homes and property that was uninsured .
According to Newsom , as of Sept. 28 , 959 residences were destroyed by fires and 90 more were damaged , totaling an estimated $ 264,289,200 .
The governor also noted the cash-strapped nature of the state , which is projecting a pandemic-induced $ 54.3-billion deficit this fiscal year .
The denial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a federal appeal by the state .
Ferguson is hopeful too that FEMA will reverse course and just approve the decision .
In February , the federal government agreed to pay back California more than $ 170 million for repair to the Oroville Dam spillway .
Overall , the government kicked in $ 562.5 million for the project .
California previously successfully applied for a declaration from the federal government for two fires caused by lightning , including the Complex fire , in August .
Newsom will also probably ask for another disaster @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Glass fire in Sonoma County and the Zogg fire in Shasta County .
The Zogg fire was extinguished on Tuesday , while the Glass fire is 97 % contained .

A rejection from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to provide aid to California for numerous recent wildfires was reversed Friday following appeals from the governor and Republican lawmakers.
“Just got off the phone with President Trump who has approved our Major Disaster Declaration request. Grateful for his quick response,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in an afternoon statement.
The prior evening, FEMA rejected the state’s request for disaster relief funds for six recent California wildfires, including Los Angeles County’s Bobcat fire, San Bernardino County’s El Dorado fire, and the Creek fire, one of the largest that continues to burn in Fresno and Madera counties.
The decision was met with outcry from officials in California, which has experienced its worst fire season on record in 2020.
Advertisement
“I have personally toured the damaged areas and listened to heartbreaking stories from people who lost their homes and businesses to the Creek fire,” state Sen. Andreas Borgeas (R-Modesto) wrote in a letter to the White House on Friday, asking it to reconsider FEMA’s decision. “Many of the structures destroyed were located on federal lands and the surrounding communities supported tourists who come to enjoy the National Parks.”
Borgeas’ district includes the Sierra National Forest, where the Creek fire has burned some 340,000 acres and where National Guard troops recently helped airlift hundreds of people cut off due to the flames. Trump recognized those troop members in a recent ceremony in Sacramento.
When word of FEMA’s initial rejection first reached California, emergency officials scrambled to find money in a budget already devastated by the coronavirus. Within hours however, Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Elk Grove) tweeted that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) had spoken with Trump and that a “Presidential Disaster Declaration is imminent and help is on the way.”
The governor’s office soon confirmed that assertion.
Newsom on Friday said he spoke with Trump about reconsidering the state’s rejected application for federal wildfire assistance and the president, who was aboard Air Force One, almost immediately said he would approve it. “I couldn’t even finish the ask,” Newsom said during a remote appearance at the Milken Institute’s Global Conference. “He said, ‘You got it. I’m signing off on that major disaster declaration in California.’ ”
Despite the contentious relationship between California and the president, Newsom has consistently said that’s he’s had a good working relationship with the administration when dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic and response to the state’s wildfires.
The state’s fires have been fueled by several factors, including climate change. Trump has repeatedly criticized California for its handling of fire policy, sometimes with misleading claims, and had rejected the role of rising temperatures as a factor.
Advertisement
More than 4 million acres have burned this year, more than double the state’s previous record. The fires have scorched an area larger than the state of Connecticut and have killed 31 people.
A major disaster declaration allows for cost-sharing for staffing, damage, cleanup and rebuilding between the state and federal government. It also activates federal programs led by FEMA.
In its initial rejection, FEMA said the fires “were not of such severity and magnitude to exceed the combined capabilities of the state, affected local governments, voluntary agencies and other responding federal agencies.”
The agency said it was already assisting the state in combating wildfires. “FEMA approved four Fire Management Assistance Grants in five counties for wildfires included in the state’s disaster request, allowing reimbursement to state, local governments and other eligible agencies for 75% of firefighting, evacuation and sheltering costs. These grants will deliver millions of dollars of assistance for emergency expenses and funds to help reduce the risks of future disasters. If the state identifies additional information to support the request, it may appeal the decision within 30 days.”
The state and local governments rely on FEMA every year to help recover up to 75% of their staffing costs for sending firefighters into other jurisdictions — including onto federal land — to help fight wildfires for weeks at a time.
Federal documents filed with the National Interagency Fire Center show costs to date to fight the Bobcat fire in Los Angeles County, the El Dorado fire in San Bernardino County and the Slater fire in Siskiyou County were $67.8 million, $38.4 million and $44.8 million, respectively. The agencies that sent firefighters to these incidents generally expect to be paid back a portion of the costs for sending their crews.
California did not ask for a specific dollar amount because damage estimates are not complete, said Brian Ferguson, deputy director of crisis communication and media relations for the governor’s Office of Emergency Services.
“The true cost won’t be known for months or years afterward,” he said.
He added: “What the state is looking for is the highest level of federal support, which requires the highest bars be cleared. But we feel our case for those requirements has been met.”
According to Ferguson, such aid could easily reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars.
The state is also asking for aid for San Diego County’s Valley fire and Mendocino County’s Oak fire.
Newsom formally submitted a letter to the White House and FEMA on Sept. 28 asking for such a declaration and citing the fact that five of the six largest fires in California’s recorded history have taken place this year.
The biggest is the August Complex fire, which began Aug. 16 and as of Oct. 15 had burned just over 1 million acres through seven Northern California counties and was 77% contained.
Newsom also said funds would go toward helping rebuild public infrastructure, miles of roads, parks, signs and fire shelters.
“Many of the counties impacted by these wildfires are still recovering from previous devastating wildfires, storms and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic,” Newsom wrote.
He added, “Californians are exhausted.”
Many residents lost homes and property that was uninsured. According to Newsom, as of Sept. 28, 959 residences were destroyed by fires and 90 more were damaged, totaling an estimated $264,289,200.
The governor also noted the cash-strapped nature of the state, which is projecting a pandemic-induced $54.3-billion deficit this fiscal year.
In February, the federal government agreed to pay back California more than $170 million for repair to the Oroville Dam spillway. Overall, the government kicked in $562.5 million for the project.
California previously successfully applied for a declaration from the federal government for two fires caused by lightning, including the Complex fire, in August.
Newsom will also probably ask for another disaster declaration, Ferguson said, for the Glass fire in Sonoma County and the Zogg fire in Shasta County. The Zogg fire was extinguished on Tuesday, while the Glass fire is 97% contained.
For many in state government, FEMA’s initial decision to reject the funding request was reminiscent a Trump tweet last year in which the president said FEMA should withhold aid to California unless state officials “get their act together, which is unlikely.”
The administration ultimately backed off on that threat.


latimes--2020-10-16--L.A. County sheriff's deputy charged with arranging to meet an underage girl for sex

A Los Angeles County sheriff ’ s deputy caught in an undercover bust online has been accused of arranging to meet a teenage girl for sex .
Miguel Cabrera , 38 , pleaded not guilty Friday to felony charges of meeting a minor for lewd purposes and distributing pornography to a minor .
Cabrera allegedly met an undercover police officer posing as a 17-year-old girl on a mobile dating app in October 2019 .
He is accused of arranging to meet the girl and later appearing at the agreed-upon location , where he was arrested by detectives after the meeting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sheriff ’ s Internal Criminal Investigations Bureau is continuing to investigate Cabrera ’ s conduct , officials said .
In a statement Friday , the Sheriff ’ s Department said the investigation reflected Sheriff Alex Villanueva ’ s “ commitment to transparency and accountability.
” “ This case originated with , was fully investigated by , and was presented to the office of the district attorney for prosecution by our department .
We remain committed to transparently holding our personnel accountable while providing for the safety and security of the communities we serve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who was placed on leave after his arrest , is scheduled to return to court for a preliminary hearing at Foltz Criminal Justice Center on Nov. 18 .
If convicted of the charges , Cabrera could face up to four years , eight months in state prison .

A Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy was charged with arranging to meet an underage girl for sex.
A Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy caught in an undercover bust online has been accused of arranging to meet a teenage girl for sex.
Miguel Cabrera, 38, pleaded not guilty Friday to felony charges of meeting a minor for lewd purposes and distributing pornography to a minor.
Cabrera allegedly met an undercover police officer posing as a 17-year-old girl on a mobile dating app in October 2019.
Advertisement
He is accused of arranging to meet the girl and later appearing at the agreed-upon location, where he was arrested by detectives after the meeting, Oct. 21, 2019. The sheriff’s Internal Criminal Investigations Bureau is continuing to investigate Cabrera’s conduct, officials said.
In a statement Friday, the Sheriff’s Department said the investigation reflected Sheriff Alex Villanueva’s “commitment to transparency and accountability.”
“This case originated with, was fully investigated by, and was presented to the office of the district attorney for prosecution by our department. We remain committed to transparently holding our personnel accountable while providing for the safety and security of the communities we serve,” the statement said.
Cabrera, who was placed on leave after his arrest, is scheduled to return to court for a preliminary hearing at Foltz Criminal Justice Center on Nov. 18. If convicted of the charges, Cabrera could face up to four years, eight months in state prison.


latimes--2020-10-16--Nuke Bizzle rapped about getting rich from unemployment claims; feds charge him with doing just that

Nuke Bizzle ’ s rap career may be about to fizzle after the hip-hop artist who bragged on a track about getting rich by committing unemployment fraud was arrested Friday on federal charges that he ripped off more than $ 1.2 million in pandemic unemployment assistance .
The rapper boasts in a YouTube music video about a scheme to steal unemployment benefits and displays what appears to be dozens of benefits letters and bank cards that he raps paid for his swag .
But that fictional tale was true to life , prosecutors for the U.S. attorney ’ s office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose real name is Fontrell Antonio Baines , 31 , is accused of using a series of stolen identities to fund his lifestyle in the Hollywood Hills , court documents said .
A representative for Baines could not be reached for comment .
Baines allegedly exploited the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance provision of the CARES Act , which is designed to expand access to unemployment benefits to self-employed workers , independent contractors , and others who would not otherwise be eligible , according to the affidavit filed with the criminal charges .
Baines is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fraud , aggravated identity theft , and interstate transportation of stolen property .
If convicted on all charges , he could face a statutory maximum sentence of 22 years in federal prison .
In the music video “ EDD ” , a reference to California Employment Development Department , he raps about doing “ my swagger for EDD ” and holds up a stack of envelopes presumably from the agency , intoning he is getting rich by “ go [ ing ] to the bank with a stack of these.
” Investigators allege @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cards that are mailed recipients of unemployment insurance .
A second rapper in the video intones , “ You got ta sell cocaine , I just file a claim.
” Baines , originally from Memphis , was taken into custody by Las Vegas police last month when he was a passenger in a speeding Cadillac Escalade .
According to the affidavit , he consented to a search .
He was arrested by Las Vegas Metro police in connection with possession of eight EDD debit cards in seven different names without the owners ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vegas police also found $ 49,734 under the third row of seats where Baines was seated , the affidavit said .
Baines pleaded not guilty to charges related to the arrest and was released on bond .
In Friday ’ s announcement of federal charges , prosecutors said at least 92 debit cards were “ pre-loaded with $ 1.2 million in fraudulently obtained benefits ” mailed to addresses associated with the rapper .
On the video for “ EDD , ” Baines included a disclaimer : “ This video was created with props @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The debit cards were issued in the names of third parties , including identity theft victims , the affidavit states .
Prosecutors allege the applications for these debit cards listed addresses to which Baines had access in Beverly Hills and Koreatown .
Prosecutors allege that Baines and several associates accessed more than $ 704,000 of these benefits through cash withdrawals .
Some of the money was retrieved in Las Vegas .
The rapper is due in a downtown Los Angeles federal courtroom for arraignment Friday .

A rapper who bragged on a track about getting rich with unemployment claims is charged with ripping off pandemic unemployment assistance
Nuke Bizzle’s rap career may be about to fizzle after the hip-hop artist who bragged on a track about getting rich by committing unemployment fraud was arrested Friday on federal charges that he ripped off more than $1.2 million in pandemic unemployment assistance.
The rapper boasts in a YouTube music video about a scheme to steal unemployment benefits and displays what appears to be dozens of benefits letters and bank cards that he raps paid for his swag.
But that fictional tale was true to life, prosecutors for the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles allege. Bizzle, whose real name is Fontrell Antonio Baines, 31, is accused of using a series of stolen identities to fund his lifestyle in the Hollywood Hills, court documents said.
Advertisement
A representative for Baines could not be reached for comment.
Baines allegedly exploited the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance provision of the CARES Act, which is designed to expand access to unemployment benefits to self-employed workers, independent contractors, and others who would not otherwise be eligible, according to the affidavit filed with the criminal charges.
Baines is charged with three felonies — access device fraud, aggravated identity theft, and interstate transportation of stolen property. If convicted on all charges, he could face a statutory maximum sentence of 22 years in federal prison.
In the music video “EDD”, a reference to California Employment Development Department, he raps about doing “my swagger for EDD” and holds up a stack of envelopes presumably from the agency, intoning he is getting rich by “go[ing] to the bank with a stack of these.”
Investigators allege that is a reference to the debit cards that are mailed recipients of unemployment insurance. A second rapper in the video intones, “You gotta sell cocaine, I just file a claim.”
Baines, originally from Memphis, was taken into custody by Las Vegas police last month when he was a passenger in a speeding Cadillac Escalade. According to the affidavit, he consented to a search.
He was arrested by Las Vegas Metro police in connection with possession of eight EDD debit cards in seven different names without the owners’ consent, the affidavit said.
The Vegas police also found $49,734 under the third row of seats where Baines was seated, the affidavit said. Baines pleaded not guilty to charges related to the arrest and was released on bond.
Advertisement
In Friday’s announcement of federal charges, prosecutors said at least 92 debit cards were “pre-loaded with $1.2 million in fraudulently obtained benefits” mailed to addresses associated with the rapper.
On the video for “EDD,” Baines included a disclaimer: “This video was created with props and was made for entertainment purposes”
The debit cards were issued in the names of third parties, including identity theft victims, the affidavit states. Prosecutors allege the applications for these debit cards listed addresses to which Baines had access in Beverly Hills and Koreatown.
Prosecutors allege that Baines and several associates accessed more than $704,000 of these benefits through cash withdrawals. Some of the money was retrieved in Las Vegas.
The rapper is due in a downtown Los Angeles federal courtroom for arraignment Friday.


latimes--2020-10-16--Body parts found years apart at Kern County lake are of missing Orange County woman

Remains that were found in a Kern County lake this summer , as well as body parts discovered there more than two years ago , have both been identified as belonging to an Orange County woman who was reported missing in 2017 , authorities said this week .
The Kern County Sheriff ’ s Office announced Thursday that DNA testing had confirmed the identity of 64-year-old Shirley Mae Cassel .
Her remains were pulled from a vehicle submerged in Buena Vista Lake , about 30 miles southwest of Bakersfield , on July 12 , according to sheriff ’ s officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leg and foot were found in the area on July 28 , 2018 .
Lt. Joel Swanson said Friday that Kern County authorities “ don ’ t suspect foul play ” and believe Cassel ’ s death may have been an accident .
Cassel was reported missing by her landlord Sept. 11 , 2017 , according to the Santa Ana Police Department .
She was last seen at her residence on Aug. 21 of that year .
Santa Ana authorities said at the time that it appeared Cassel had left in her vehicle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closed their part of the investigation .
Santa Ana Police Cpl .
Anthony Bertagna said that the positive identification closes his department ’ s missing person ’ s case as well .
“ If there was some criminal piece to this , it would be their case , ” Bertagna said , referring to Kern County , “ and we would assist them .
”

Human remains found at Kern County’s Buena Vista Lake in 2018 and this summer have been identified as those of 64-year-old Shirley Mae Cassel, who was reported missing from Santa Ana in 2017.
Remains that were found in a Kern County lake this summer, as well as body parts discovered there more than two years ago, have both been identified as belonging to an Orange County woman who was reported missing in 2017, authorities said this week.
The Kern County Sheriff’s Office announced Thursday that DNA testing had confirmed the identity of 64-year-old Shirley Mae Cassel.
Her remains were pulled from a vehicle submerged in Buena Vista Lake, about 30 miles southwest of Bakersfield, on July 12, according to sheriff’s officials — almost two years after her lower leg and foot were found in the area on July 28, 2018.
Advertisement
Lt. Joel Swanson said Friday that Kern County authorities “don’t suspect foul play” and believe Cassel’s death may have been an accident.
Cassel was reported missing by her landlord Sept. 11, 2017, according to the Santa Ana Police Department. She was last seen at her residence on Aug. 21 of that year.
Santa Ana authorities said at the time that it appeared Cassel had left in her vehicle.
Swanson said Kern County officials have closed their part of the investigation. Santa Ana Police Cpl. Anthony Bertagna said that the positive identification closes his department’s missing person’s case as well.
“If there was some criminal piece to this, it would be their case,” Bertagna said, referring to Kern County, “and we would assist them.”


latimes--2020-10-16--Gang member attacked transgender women in MacArthur Park, prosecutors say

A 25-year-old whom law enforcement officials say has gang ties was charged with multiple counts of attempted murder Friday in connection with the stabbings of two transgender women in MacArthur Park in recent months , authorities said .
Donoban Fonseca was charged with three counts of attempted murder in connection with attacks spanning from late August to early October , the latter of which sparked widespread outrage in the LGBTQ community .
Fonseca will also face hate crime and gang enhancements , according to a news release issued by the Los Angeles County district attorney ’ s office .
Fonseca @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a law enforcement official with knowledge of the case , who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak candidly about the ongoing investigation .
On Oct. 4 , a 42-year-old woman was seated on a park bench around 9:30 p.m. when she was surrounded by four of five men who said “ something to the effect of , ‘ We don ’ t want gays in the park , ’ ” according to LAPD officials .
The victim , identified by local activists as Daniela Hernandez , suffered a stab wound @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Though gender identity and sexual orientation are completely different , LGBTQ rights activists say people who show hatred for one or the other often conflate the two .
Fonseca was also charged with participating in the stabbing of a transgender woman in the park on Aug. 21 , prosecutors said .
Authorities say he also took part in an attack on the same victim on Sept. 1 .
Fonseca was scheduled to appear in a downtown courtroom Friday afternoon .
It was not immediately clear whether he had an attorney .
Police arrested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was held in lieu of $ 1-million bail , jail records show .
Fonseca had also been arrested for carrying a “ dirk or dagger ” in early July , records show , but he was released after prosecutors had to decline a case against him because of an “ inadmissible search , ” according to Greg Risling , a spokesman for the district attorney ’ s office .
Los Angeles police officials declined to respond to questions about Fonseca ’ s prior arrest .
It was not clear whether other suspects are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Hernandez , who is expected to survive , immigrated to the U.S. from El Salvador three years ago , according to Bamby Salcedo , president and CEO of the TransLatina Coalition advocacy group .
She had been working as a housekeeper and volunteered with the advocacy group to serve hot meals out of their Wilshire Boulevard offices in recent months , friends said .
“ She came to this country running away from the violence she was experiencing in El Salvador , only to come to the United States to almost get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack came just weeks after the violent robbery of three transgender women in Hollywood in what police also called a hate-driven assault .

A 25-year-old whom law enforcement officials say has gang ties was charged with multiple counts of attempted murder Friday in connection with the stabbings of two transgender women in MacArthur Park in recent months, authorities said.
Donoban Fonseca was charged with three counts of attempted murder in connection with attacks spanning from late August to early October, the latter of which sparked widespread outrage in the LGBTQ community.
Fonseca will also face hate crime and gang enhancements, according to a news release issued by the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office. Fonseca is a member of MS-13, according to a law enforcement official with knowledge of the case, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak candidly about the ongoing investigation.
Advertisement
On Oct. 4, a 42-year-old woman was seated on a park bench around 9:30 p.m. when she was surrounded by four of five men who said “something to the effect of, ‘We don’t want gays in the park,’” according to LAPD officials. The victim, identified by local activists as Daniela Hernandez, suffered a stab wound to the throat, police said.
Though gender identity and sexual orientation are completely different, LGBTQ rights activists say people who show hatred for one or the other often conflate the two.
Fonseca was also charged with participating in the stabbing of a transgender woman in the park on Aug. 21, prosecutors said. Authorities say he also took part in an attack on the same victim on Sept. 1.
Fonseca was scheduled to appear in a downtown courtroom Friday afternoon. It was not immediately clear whether he had an attorney.
Police arrested Fonseca late Wednesday night, and he was held in lieu of $1-million bail, jail records show.
Advertisement
Fonseca had also been arrested for carrying a “dirk or dagger” in early July, records show, but he was released after prosecutors had to decline a case against him because of an “inadmissible search,” according to Greg Risling, a spokesman for the district attorney’s office.
Los Angeles police officials declined to respond to questions about Fonseca’s prior arrest.
It was not clear whether other suspects are being sought in any of the attacks.
Hernandez, who is expected to survive, immigrated to the U.S. from El Salvador three years ago, according to Bamby Salcedo, president and CEO of the TransLatina Coalition advocacy group. She had been working as a housekeeper and volunteered with the advocacy group to serve hot meals out of their Wilshire Boulevard offices in recent months, friends said.
“She came to this country running away from the violence she was experiencing in El Salvador, only to come to the United States to almost get killed,” Salcedo said.
The attack came just weeks after the violent robbery of three transgender women in Hollywood in what police also called a hate-driven assault.


latimes--2020-10-16--California Republicans defend ballot boxes as subpoenas are issued

California officials on Friday said that the state Republican Party has agreed to no longer deploy “ unstaffed , unsecured , unofficial and unauthorized ” private ballot boxes and that subpoenas have been issued in an investigation into how the containers have been used in at least three counties .
“ The California Republican Party can conduct valid collection activities , but they have to play by the rules and follow state law , ” California Secretary of State Alex Padilla told reporters .
But aside from correcting some boxes that were wrongly labeled as “ official ” locations for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continued Friday to insist that their activities have been legal .
Party leaders have said they will continue to use the boxes to collect ballots , with staffers overseeing the process and delivering the ballots to county elections offices .
The battle between state officials and the GOP — sparked by revelations over the weekend that Republicans were stationing unofficial gray metal receptacles in Los Angeles , Orange and Fresno counties — has centered over the legality of using third-party collection boxes .
California law requires the person collecting a voter ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the absentee envelope before handing it over to elections officials .
State law also stipulates that a mail voter may designate another person to return their ballot .
The bins have confused voters , Padilla said , adding that the Republican Party has “ tried to spin their unlawful conduct by playing the victim all week long.
” Should his office receive any indication that state law is being violated , he said , it “ will not hesitate to act on it immediately.
” “ We are trying to make sure that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Gen. Xavier Becerra said .
“ We ’ re not going to mother , or shepherd them through , every day of activity.
” Late Friday morning , the state Republican Party countered that it has made no concession to the attorney general or the secretary of state .
“ In two phone calls with nine attorney general lawyers , they never requested the California Republican Party to do anything except provide information about our program and to turn over records , including names of voters , which we have declined to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hector Barajas .
“ This is a thuggish voter intimidation and vote suppression tactic by our Democratic attorney general and secretary of state , ” he added .
Republicans assert that they are operating under a 2016 state law that allows an unlimited number of completed ballots to be collected by an individual or political parties and campaigns .
State officials argue that the unauthorized boxes are misleading and illegal .
The private bins have raised questions about the chain of custody of the ballots , as well as concerns over the ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The drop boxes were placed at various locations , including gun shops , shooting ranges , churches and Republican Party offices .
State election officials say there is a distinction between designating a third party to deliver a ballot for a voter and placing a ballot into an unofficial box .
The dispute adds to growing partisan rancor over allegations of voter suppression and voter fraud in the run-up to the Nov. 3 election .
For years , Republicans have decried the use of so-called “ ballot harvesting ” as a form of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raised concerns about “ politically weaponized ballot harvesting ” in May , decrying the practice as ripe for voter fraud and abuse without offering proof of fraud in California races .
In California , the state ’ s Republican Party has taken Gov .
Gavin Newsom and other officials to court over the practice .
In Texas , a federal appeals court ruled this week that the state can limit absentee ballot drop-off spots to only one per county .
And last year , a Republican political operative in North Carolina was indicted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alleged involvement in a “ ballot harvesting ” scheme during the 2016 general election and the 2018 elections .
It is illegal in North Carolina for anyone other than the voter , a close relative or legal guardian to deliver a voter ’ s mail-in ballot .
President Trump waded into the fracas Tuesday evening and again Wednesday morning by , urging , “ Fight hard Republicans !
” State party officials repeatedly have declined to say how many ballots have been collected from the boxes or to provide details on how many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what rules and procedures are being used in the collection and delivery of ballots .
Barajas told The Times earlier this week that “ we collect [ the ballots ] , we transmit them , and we have a process that enables us to make sure that they are processed by the [ registrar of voters ] , just like the general public.
” Barajas has said that the party is “ looking at potentially expanding ” its ballot collecting program .
During a telephone conference Wednesday , the California GOP ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was to blame for putting the word “ official ” on some of the party ’ s private drop boxes .
Officials said that language was removed from the containers over the weekend .
California Democratic Party chair Rusty Hicks said he felt the Republican ballot collection boxes fell short of what the law mandates , citing concerns of safety and oversight .
“ They ’ re trying to make the case that a metal filing cabinet is the same as the person , ” Hicks said .
“ I believe what the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to add confusion to the election.
” State law says that a “ vote by mail ballot drop box ” should be a “ secure receptacle established by a county or city and county elections official whereby a voted vote by mail ballot may be returned to the elections official from whom it was obtained.
” A spokesperson for the attorney general ’ s office said in an email that lawfully collected ballots may be stored in a number of ways , “ but they may not be collected through unauthorized drop boxes.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ emphasized in the email in boldface .
“ In other words , ” the spokesperson said , “ if ballots have been collected lawfully , they may be stored in a secure box as long as they are delivered within three days.
” But in at least one populous county , the mail-in ballot envelope has not included space for a ballot collector ’ s name and signature since 2016 .
“ We removed that line and language from the return envelope , ” said Scott Konopasek , the assistant registrar of voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the election code language governing the requirement for information from a ballot collector was rendered inoperative once the state removed the rules over who could deliver the document on behalf of the voter .
“ Counties don ’ t do anything with it , ” Konopasek said of the information .
“ Why put crap on the envelope and mislead people ?
” In some cases , Republican officials were advised not to distribute the drop boxes .
Joe Holland , the registrar of voters in Santa Barbara County , said party representatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the boxes started showing up in Southern California and the Central Valley .
“ We said no , don ’ t do that , ” Holland said in recounting the conversation .
“ We have 30 official drop boxes across the county .
If you go to an official drop box , that ’ s like directly depositing your ballot with a county elections official.
” Holland said two-thirds of the ballots received so far from voters have arrived in the mail .
And while he said he doesn ’ t believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be considered “ unethical.
” It was not immediately clear whether any of the unofficial boxes were placed in Santa Barbara .
Elaine Ginnold , the former Marin County registrar of voters , said the GOP ’ s move is “ very risky , ” because “ they leave themselves open to accusations of tampering with the ballots.
” “ Our laws allow somebody to give their ballot to somebody else , ” she said .
“ They ’ re just taking it , I think , to an absurd extreme ... @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Ginnold added that she was glad state officials have pushed back against the unofficial ballot drop boxes , which she described as a sort of “ Wild West ” take on election law .
“ There are other ways to go about this , ” she said .

Sarah Parvini, John Myers, Stephanie Lai

Voters place their ballots inside an official drop box at Carl Thornton Park in Santa Ana.
California officials on Friday said that the state Republican Party has agreed to no longer deploy “unstaffed, unsecured, unofficial and unauthorized” private ballot boxes and that subpoenas have been issued in an investigation into how the containers have been used in at least three counties.
“The California Republican Party can conduct valid collection activities, but they have to play by the rules and follow state law,” California Secretary of State Alex Padilla told reporters.
But aside from correcting some boxes that were wrongly labeled as “official” locations for dropping off completed ballots, GOP officials continued Friday to insist that their activities have been legal. Party leaders have said they will continue to use the boxes to collect ballots, with staffers overseeing the process and delivering the ballots to county elections offices.
Advertisement
The battle between state officials and the GOP — sparked by revelations over the weekend that Republicans were stationing unofficial gray metal receptacles in Los Angeles, Orange and Fresno counties — has centered over the legality of using third-party collection boxes.
California law requires the person collecting a voter’s ballot to fill out the information on the absentee envelope before handing it over to elections officials. State law also stipulates that a mail voter may designate another person to return their ballot.
The bins have confused voters, Padilla said, adding that the Republican Party has “tried to spin their unlawful conduct by playing the victim all week long.”
Should his office receive any indication that state law is being violated, he said, it “will not hesitate to act on it immediately.”
“We are trying to make sure that the law is followed,” Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra said. “We’re not going to mother, or shepherd them through, every day of activity.”
Late Friday morning, the state Republican Party countered that it has made no concession to the attorney general or the secretary of state.
“In two phone calls with nine attorney general lawyers, they never requested the California Republican Party to do anything except provide information about our program and to turn over records, including names of voters, which we have declined to do,” said California GOP spokesman Hector Barajas.
Advertisement
“This is a thuggish voter intimidation and vote suppression tactic by our Democratic attorney general and secretary of state,” he added.
Republicans assert that they are operating under a 2016 state law that allows an unlimited number of completed ballots to be collected by an individual or political parties and campaigns. State officials argue that the unauthorized boxes are misleading and illegal.
The private bins have raised questions about the chain of custody of the ballots, as well as concerns over the ability to enforce the integrity of elections. The drop boxes were placed at various locations, including gun shops, shooting ranges, churches and Republican Party offices. State election officials say there is a distinction between designating a third party to deliver a ballot for a voter and placing a ballot into an unofficial box.
The dispute adds to growing partisan rancor over allegations of voter suppression and voter fraud in the run-up to the Nov. 3 election.
For years, Republicans have decried the use of so-called “ballot harvesting” as a form of election fraud. A House Republican study raised concerns about “politically weaponized ballot harvesting” in May, decrying the practice as ripe for voter fraud and abuse without offering proof of fraud in California races.
In California, the state’s Republican Party has taken Gov. Gavin Newsom and other officials to court over the practice. In Texas, a federal appeals court ruled this week that the state can limit absentee ballot drop-off spots to only one per county. And last year, a Republican political operative in North Carolina was indicted on felony charges in connection with his alleged involvement in a “ballot harvesting” scheme during the 2016 general election and the 2018 elections. It is illegal in North Carolina for anyone other than the voter, a close relative or legal guardian to deliver a voter’s mail-in ballot.
President Trump waded into the fracas Tuesday evening and again Wednesday morning by retweeting a Times story , urging, “Fight hard Republicans!”
State party officials repeatedly have declined to say how many ballots have been collected from the boxes or to provide details on how many drop boxes are under their supervision and what rules and procedures are being used in the collection and delivery of ballots.
Barajas told The Times earlier this week that “we collect [the ballots], we transmit them, and we have a process that enables us to make sure that they are processed by the [registrar of voters], just like the general public.”
Barajas has said that the party is “looking at potentially expanding” its ballot collecting program.
During a telephone conference Wednesday, the California GOP’s attorney said an “overzealous volunteer” was to blame for putting the word “official” on some of the party’s private drop boxes. Officials said that language was removed from the containers over the weekend.
California Democratic Party Chairman Rusty Hicks said he felt the Republican ballot collection boxes fell short of what the law mandates, citing concerns of security and oversight.
“They’re trying to make the case that a metal filing cabinet is the same as the person,” Hicks said. “I believe what the Republicans are doing is a creative attempt to add confusion to the election.”
State law says that a “vote by mail ballot drop box” should be a “secure receptacle established by a county or city and county elections official whereby a voted vote by mail ballot may be returned to the elections official from whom it was obtained.”
A spokesperson for the attorney general’s office said in an email that lawfully collected ballots may be stored in a number of ways, “but they may not be collected through unauthorized drop boxes.” The term “drop” was emphasized in the email in boldface.
“In other words,” the spokesperson said, “if ballots have been collected lawfully, they may be stored in a secure box as long as they are delivered within three days.”
But in at least one populous county, the mail-in ballot envelope has not included space for a ballot collector’s name and signature since 2016.
“We removed that line and language from the return envelope,” said Scott Konopasek, the assistant registrar of voters in Contra Costa County.
He said the election code language governing the requirement for information from a ballot collector was rendered inoperative once the state removed the rules over who could deliver the document on behalf of the voter.
“Counties don’t do anything with it,” Konopasek said of the information. “Why put crap on the envelope and mislead people?”
In some cases, Republican officials were advised not to distribute the drop boxes. Joe Holland, the registrar of voters in Santa Barbara County, said party representatives contacted his office at least two weeks before the boxes started showing up in Southern California and the Central Valley.
“We said no, don’t do that,” Holland said in recounting the conversation. “We have 30 official drop boxes across the county. If you go to an official drop box, that’s like directly depositing your ballot with a county elections official.”
Holland said two-thirds of the ballots received so far from voters have arrived in the mail. And while he said he doesn’t believe a private box is illegal, it could be considered “unethical.” It was not immediately clear whether any of the unofficial boxes were placed in Santa Barbara.
Elaine Ginnold, the former Marin County registrar of voters, said the GOP’s move is “very risky,” because “they leave themselves open to accusations of tampering with the ballots.”
“Our laws allow somebody to give their ballot to somebody else,” she said. “They’re just taking it, I think, to an absurd extreme.... It’s just not responsible.”
Ginnold added that she was glad state officials have pushed back against the unofficial ballot drop boxes, which she described as a sort of “Wild West” take on election law.
“There are other ways to go about this,” she said.


latimes--2020-10-16--Brush fire briefly forces evacuations around Sign Hill in South San Francisco

A brush fire that erupted Friday afternoon on Sign Hill in South San Francisco , prompting evacuation orders for the surrounding area , was contained about two hours later , but officials warned it was too early for residents to return to their homes .
The South San Francisco Fire Department in San Mateo County called it a “ four-alarm fire , ” and video of the blaze posted shortly before 1 p.m. showed massive plumes of billowing smoke and orange flames , with tightly packed houses not far away .
Within a half-hour , evacuations were ordered at Carnelian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Ridgeview Court and Viewmont Terrace — the area just outside Sign Hill Park where the fire appears to have started .
The fire could be seen burning near the “ South San Francisco the Industrial City ” sign that adorns the hillside .
The blaze was also visible from San Francisco International Airport .
Firefighting planes swooped low to drop pink retardant on the brush fire , and officials warned that drones were interfering with some of the aerial attacks .
“ Safety is our No.1 priority .
Please help us keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from this incident , ” Fire Chief Jess Magallanes said in a message shared on Twitter .
The blaze broke out amid a red flag warning for a wide swath of Northern California , including the Bay Area .
Extremely dry , gusty winds and excessive heat were combining for the National Weather Service said .
The warning was extended through Saturday morning and included the North Bay Mountains and East Bay Hills .

A brush fire that erupted Friday afternoon on Sign Hill in South San Francisco, prompting evacuation orders for the surrounding area, was contained about two hours later, but officials warned it was too early for residents to return to their homes.
The South San Francisco Fire Department in San Mateo County called it a “four-alarm fire,” and video of the blaze posted shortly before 1 p.m. showed massive plumes of billowing smoke and orange flames, with tightly packed houses not far away.
Within a half-hour, evacuations were ordered at Carnelian Road, Sonja Road, Mountain Road, Ridgeview Court and Viewmont Terrace — the area just outside Sign Hill Park where the fire appears to have started.
Advertisement
The fire could be seen burning near the “South San Francisco the Industrial City” sign that adorns the hillside. The blaze was also visible from San Francisco International Airport.
Firefighting planes swooped low to drop pink retardant on the brush fire, and officials warned that drones were interfering with some of the aerial efforts.
“Safety is our No.1 priority. Please help us keep everyone safe by keeping your drones away from this incident,” Fire Chief Jess Magallanes said in a message shared on Twitter.
The blaze broke out amid a red flag warning for a wide swath of Northern California, including the Bay Area. Extremely dry, gusty winds and excessive heat were combining for critical fire conditions, the National Weather Service said.
The warning was extended through Saturday morning and included the North Bay Mountains and East Bay Hills.


latimes--2020-10-16--2 people, including a juvenile, found shot to death in crashed car in Willowbrook

Two people , including a juvenile , were found shot to death in a crashed car in Willowbrook late Thursday @ @ @ @ @ Los Angeles County sheriff ’ s deputies were dispatched to the 12200 block of Maple @ @ @ @ @ Street , shortly after 11 p.m. after reports of a traffic collision .
Once they @ @ @ @ @ people with gunshot wounds inside a vehicle .
The pair had both been shot in @ @ @ @ @ both were pronounced dead at the scene , authorities said .
Neither the names nor @ @ @ @ @ both of whom were male , have been released , but sheriff ’ s officials @ @ @ @ @ .
Authorities said Friday morning that they do not yet have information about a suspect @ @ @ @ @ with additional information is asked to contact the sheriff ’ s Homicide Bureau at ( @ @ @ @ @ also can be made anonymously by dialing ( 800 ) 222-8477 or visiting lacrimestoppers.org .

The pair had been shot in their upper torsos and both were pronounced dead at the scene of a crashed car, authorities said.
Two people, including a juvenile, were found shot to death in a crashed car in Willowbrook late Thursday night, authorities said.
Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies were dispatched to the 12200 block of Maple Avenue, near East 124th Street, shortly after 11 p.m. after reports of a traffic collision.
Once they arrived, deputies found two people with gunshot wounds inside a vehicle. The pair had both been shot in their upper torsos, and both were pronounced dead at the scene, authorities said.
Advertisement
Neither the names nor ages of the victims, both of whom were male, have been released, but sheriff’s officials said one was a juvenile.
Authorities said Friday morning that they do not yet have information about a suspect or a motive.
Anyone with additional information is asked to contact the sheriff’s Homicide Bureau at (323) 890-5500. Tips also can be made anonymously by dialing (800) 222-8477 or visiting lacrimestoppers.org.