2 prosecutors say DA’s policy ‘not in interest of justice’

LOS ANGELES --At least two deputy district attorneys made it clear in court Tuesday they do not agree with Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón's new policy to remove sentencing enhancements that add prison time for serious crimes.

Superior Court Judge Jose L. Sandoval also seemed to disagree with the policy, denying at least two motions to strike enhancements relating to prior convictions and gang activity.

"Applying any basis the DA may have for their support in dismissing these allegations in the interest of justice ... I don't think the people have met their obligation or sufficient basis that dismissal of these allegations are in the interest of justice, so that motion is denied." Sandoval said in response to the motion filed by the district attorney's office.

Upon taking office this month, Gascón immediately made sweeping changes to longstanding prosecution policies, announcing he would put an end to cash bail and the death penalty, give leniency to those he described as low level offenders, and put a ban on prosecutors seeking enhanced prison sentences for any felony.

Some say sentencing enhancements are excessively punitive. However victim's advocates and deputies within Gascón's own office say to do away with enhancements is to do away with an effective crime deterrent.

Deputy District Attorney Jon Hatami of the family violence division, who appeared Tuesday before Sandoval, is prosecuting Akira Smith, charged in August with murder of her 4-year-old daughter after allegedly beating her to death. The criminal complaint alleges Smith had prior convictions for assault with a deadly weapon in 2016 and injuring her boyfriend in 2014.

Hatami told Sandoval he would not seek dismissal of the prior conviction enhancements when the case goes to trial.

"I have been ordered by DA George Gascón to ask this court to dismiss all the prior strike allegations and serious and violent felony allegations in this case," Hatami said. "[I] would like to say that I will ask the court in jury trial to use all of the defendant's priors under EC 1101 and 1101."

Deputy Public Defender Kimberly Greene, representing Smith, said her client is still facing a life sentence and the enhancements were unnecessary.

"I understand the emotional toll that this case has on all the parties involved but I don't think that should be a reason to undermine the authority of the new district attorney of Los Angeles, who is saying the base terms ... of these charges is sufficient in the interest of justice," Greene said.

In another preliminary hearing, Deputy District Attorney Richard Ceballos, who endorsed Gascón last year but is now prosecuting defendants on assault charges with added gang enhancements, also expressed implicit disapproval of Gascón's policy. The defendants in Ceballos' case allegedly beat and stabbed a transgender woman in a downtown LA park. The victim appeared before Sandoval and told him to do away with the enhancements would be to do away with an effective crime deterrent.

"He [Gascón] clearly has the right to order us to make these motions, and we are obligated to follow them," Ceballos said after the hearing. "However we cannot represent to the court that it is in the interest of justice if we ourselves don't believe it because that violates our duty of candor to the code."

Asked to respond to Ceballos comments, DA spokesman Max Szabo said the science and research around sentence enhancements show they are ineffective.

"There is no evidence that seeking an additional five or 10 years helps and protects our community," Szabo said. "In fact, the opposite is true. There are lots of studies that suggest that excessive sentencing, and sentencing laws, have driven not only mass incarceration, but extraordinary rates of recidivism."

"One study in particular says that, while there is an initial incapacitation benefit, that for each additional year of sentence length, you see a 4-7% increase in recidivism," Szabo continued. "So we have to start asking ourselves: Is this in our interest of our safety in the interest of taxpayers, let alone the interests of victims who have overwhelmingly said that they favor rehabilitation over increased spending in rehabilitation, job training, education, mental health and substance abuse, treatment?"