A former high-ranking prosecutor, who accuses Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascon, has countered her for refusing to drop charges against three anti-police protesters accused of attempting to wreck a train in Compton. Action is set to receive a settlement of $800,000.
The Los Angeles County Claims Board agreed this week to recommend that the county board of supervisors release payments to Richard Doyle, a former chief deputy district attorney in the Compton office who has since retired.
The board of observers is expected to vote on the recommendation next month.
Doyle could not be reached for comment Friday, and his attorney, Alan Jackson, declined to discuss the terms of the settlement. The district attorney’s office did not comment.
Taxpayers forced to ‘pay bills’
Eric Siddle, vice president of the Deputy District Attorney’s Association, which represents nearly 900 Los Angeles County prosecutors, said the pending settlement could have been avoided.
“Unfortunately, this is not the first time that the taxpayer has paid the bill for the retaliatory behavior of George Gascon,” he said. “Taxpayers in San Francisco paid $400,000 in retaliation against a whistleblower who was concerned about Gascon violating federal law by carrying a gun on a plane. Now Los Angeles owes $800,000 to the case. How many more times will taxpayers have to pay for Gascon’s calculated discretion?
Doyle had a clean work history of 34 years until December 2020, when Gascon – who had been in office for less than a week – deemed him disrespectful.
Refusal to drop ‘viable prosecution’
Doyle sparked controversy after questioning Gascon’s order to drop charges against three anti-police protesters, all of whom on November 15, Fox derailed a train by placing police barriers and other items on the tracks near Compton Sheriff’s Station. Was accused of trying to get off. 11 Los Angeles reported.
The suspects were charged with attempting to break into a train, a charge that could have taken life without parole, as well as one lesser felony count of unlawful obstruction of a railroad, which included two more than two counts in county jail. There is a sentence of four years. at the station.
On December 8, just hours after Gascon was sworn in, Doyle said he received a call from Mario Trujillo, a close associate of Gascon, who serves his executive staff, instructing him to dismiss the charges, the station said. told.
“I told him that I’m not comfortable dismissing a good case, a viable prosecution, without knowing why, and he said, ‘Okay, can you just dismiss it today and we’ll find out the reasons.’ In?” Doyle told Fox 11. “And I said no.”
Trujillo dismissed the charges against the three defendants on behalf of Gascon.
Doyle told the television station that three weeks later he was transferred from the Compton office, where he supervised 66 people, to the smaller environmental crime department, further from his home, where he managed nine employees.
others accused of retaliation
In addition to Doyle, two other deputy district attorneys allege similar retaliation by Gascon and are suing for lost wages and other unspecified damages.
Former Juvenile Division head deputy Shawn Randolph said in a lawsuit filed in July that Gascon transferred him to a “dead end” position in the parole division in the city of Los Angeles after he complained that he did not allow prosecutors to file something. capacity has been exhausted. Crimes against juveniles governed under California’s “three-strike” law.
Leslie Klein Sonnenberg, who served as the Family Violence Division’s second-in-command for five years, alleged that she was denied a promotion to acting head deputy in January after complaining about Gascon’s policies. was given.
Sonnenberg was transferred, against her will, to the consumer protection division in the City of Los Angeles, for which she refused to comply with Gascon’s instructions, her suit said.
“The Consumer Protection Division is also a dead end situation for the plaintiff as he had no experience in civil law or civil courts,” states his lawsuit. “Plaintiff was moved to a position in which she literally ducks out of the water. After decades of learning criminal law and procedure, and nearing retirement, Plaintiff is now in a position she does not fully understand and At which she certainly won’t excel.”