People v. Dekraai (5 Cal. App. 5th 1110, 2016)

Opinion

O’LEARY, P. J.

I. Introduction

The trial court recused the entire Orange County District Attorney’s (OCDA) Office from prosecuting Scott Evans Dekraai’s penalty phase after he pled guilty to eight counts of murder. The court did so after two evidentiary hearings in which it heard from 39 witnesses over six months. The court’s reasoning is detailed in an eight-page single-spaced order in which it concluded the OCDA had a conflict of interest with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department (Sheriff) that prevented the OCDA from fairly prosecuting the penalty phase. The Attorney General appeals from that ruling, arguing the Sheriff was to blame for the misconduct and the OCDA did not have a conflict of interest.

The sole issue is whether the trial court erred by recusing the entire OCDA’s Office from prosecuting Dekraai’s penalty phase. We have read the extensive record and considered the relevant authorities. As we explain below, we conclude it was well within the court’s discretion to recuse the entire OCDA’s Office from prosecuting the penalty phase because the OCDA Office had a disqualifying conflict of interest.

On the last page of the Attorney General’s reply brief it states, “The trial court’s order recusing the OCDA from prosecuting Dekraai’s penalty phase trial was a remedy in search of a conflict.” Nonsense. The court recused the OCDA’s Office only after lengthy evidentiary hearings in which it heard a steady stream of evidence regarding improper conduct by the prosecution team. To suggest the trial judge prejudged the case is reckless and grossly unfair. These proceedings were a search for the truth. The order is affirmed.

II. Summary

Penal Code section 1424 grants a trial court the authority to recuse a district attorney if the evidence establishes the district attorney has a conflict of interest that is so severe it is unlikely a defendant would receive a fair trial. We review the trial court’s ruling for an abuse of discretion. (Haraguchi v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 706, 711-712 [76 Cal.Rptr.3d 250, 182 P.3d 579] (Haraguchi).)

At the first evidentiary hearing, the trial court had before it Dekraai’s motions to dismiss, recuse the OCDA Office, and exclude his custodial statements. The basis for these motions was alleged misconduct on the part of the OCDA. Confidential informants (CIs), OCDA prosecutors and investigators, Orange County deputy sheriffs, and local law enforcement testified concerning a custodial Cl program (Cl program) in which deputy sheriffs placed CIs near represented defendants, including Dekraai, to obtain statements, and prosecutors were aware of the Cl program and either explicitly or implicitly promised CIs they would receive a benefit. There was also evidence that after district attorneys met with a Cl and learned the Cl had questioned Dekraai, they obtained permission from the Sheriff to place a recording device in Dekraai’s cell to obtain additional statements. OCDA prosecutors and investigators also testified their discovery practices concerning the Cl program were deficient in this case and others. During the course of the hearing, the OCDA agreed it would not use Dekraai’s custodial statements to a Cl during the penalty phase, and Dekraai subsequently pled guilty to all charges.

At the conclusion of the first evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the motions to dismiss the death penalty and recuse the OCDA Office, and ordered that the OCDA not use Dekraai’s custodial statements during the penalty phase. The court reasoned that although the prosecution team committed significant, negligent misconduct in this case as evidenced by the OCDA’s constitutional discovery violations and interference with Dekraai’s constitutional right to counsel, evidence concerning prosecutorial misconduct in other cases was not relevant in this case. The court concluded the OCDA did not suffer from a conflict of interest and the court had not lost confidence the OCDA could fairly prosecute the penalty phase.

After Dekraai filed a motion for reconsideration based on newly discovered evidence, the Sheriff’s TRED records, the trial court conducted a second evidentiary hearing. Orange County deputy sheriffs testified regarding the TRED records, which were three-line computer data entries regarding, inter alia, the reasons for classification decisions and housing movements. Two deputy sheriffs who testified at the first evidentiary hearing admitted they did not disclose the TRED records and gave conflicting reasons for the failure.

At the conclusion of the second evidentiary hearing, the trial court explained that for a decade the Sheriff maintained the TRED database in which it documented inmate housing movements and deputy sheriffs accessed the database on a daily basis. The court opined the two deputy sheriffs were not credible and concluded evidence concerning prosecutorial misconduct in other cases was now relevant in this case. The court reasoned that although there was no evidence the OCDA knew of or concealed the TRED records, their recent disclosure demonstrated the OCDA’s “benign neglect” resulted in a violation of Dekraai’s constitutional and statutory rights. The court concluded that based on the TRED records and the other evidence it heard during the first and second evidentiary hearings, the OCDA had a conflict of interest with the Sheriff and it had lost confidence the OCDA could fairly prosecute Dekraai’s penalty phase. The court granted the motion to recuse the entire OCDA’s office from prosecuting the penalty phase and ordered additional evidentiary sanctions.

As we explain below, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it recused the entire OCDA’s Office from prosecuting the penalty phase. There was substantial evidence to support the court’s conclusion the OCDA’s institutional relationship with the Sheriff constituted a conflict of interest that prevented the OCDA’s Office from fairly prosecuting the penalty phase. The court’s conclusion the OCDA’s institutional relationship with the Sheriff prevented it from supervising its law enforcement team was a conflict of interest well established in law. Further, the court’s exercise of its discretion, that based on the entire factual record before it, the OCDA’s conflict of interest was so grave that it was unlikely Dekraai would receive a fair penalty phase, was within the permissible range of options provided by section 1424.

“[W]e must rely on our prosecutors to carry out their fiduciary obligation to exercise their discretionary duties fairly and justly—to afford every defendant, whether suspected of crimes high or petty, equal treatment under the law.” (Hollywood v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 721, 734 [76 Cal.Rptr.3d 264, 182 P.3d 590] (Hollywood).) “The first, best, and most effective shield against injustice for an individual accused, or society in general, must be found not in the persons of defense counsel, trial judge, or appellate jurist, but in the integrity of the prosecutor.” (Corrigan, On Prosecutorial Ethics (1986) 13 Hastings Const. L.Q. 537, italics added.)

III. Facts

Offenses and Custodial Events

Dekraai entered a hair salon in Seal Beach armed with three handguns. He shot eight people, seven of whom died, including his ex-wife. After he left the salon, Dekraai fatally shot a man who was sitting in his vehicle in the parking lot. Minutes later law enforcement officers stopped Dekraai in his truck and arrested him. Seal Beach Detective Gary Krogman interviewed Dekraai the same day.

Orange County deputy sheriffs placed Dekraai in the Orange County Jail, module L, sector 19, cell 13. Deputy sheriffs moved Fernando Perez, a Cl who had been in module L, sector 17 since the previous month, from cell 3 to cell 1. Around the same time, deputy sheriffs moved Dekraai, who was represented by retained counsel at the time, to sector 17, cell 3, next to Perez. Perez befriended Dekraai, and Dekraai made incriminating statements to him. Perez wrote down Dekraai’s statements and gave them to a deputy sheriff in the county’s special handling unit (SHU). That deputy sheriff called an OCDA investigator who notified prosecutors Dekraai spoke to Perez. Assistant District Attorney Dan Wagner (Wagner) and Senior Deputy District Attorney Scott Simmons (Simmons), OCDA investigator Robert Erickson, and Krogman met with Perez in the jail. After speaking with Perez, the prosecutors obtained the Sheriff’s approval to place a recording device in Dekraai’s cell. Dekraai made additional statements to Perez for about a week until Dekraai was moved to another facility. Just before he was moved, the Orange County Public Defender was appointed to represent Dekraai.

Perez and another inmate, Oscar Model, worked as CIs in “Operation Black Flag” (Black Flag), a federal/state task force led by the Santa Ana Police Department to combat criminal gang activity in Orange County. Assistant United States Attorney Terri Flynn-Peister was to prosecute the federal cases, and Deputy District Attorney Erik Petersen (Petersen) was to prosecute the state cases. The primary case agents were FBI Agent Anthony Garcia, Deputy Sheriff Seth Tunstall, and Santa Ana Detective Gonzalo Gallardo. Black Flag was scheduled to culminate in July 2011 with the fifing of indictments.

Procedural History

A complaint, filed in October 2011, and an indictment, filed in January 2012, charged Dekraai with eight counts of murder (§ 187, subd. (a)), and attempted murder (§§ 664, subd. (a), 187, subd. (a)), and alleged the multiple-murder special circumstance (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)), and a firearm enhancement (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). In October 2012, the OCDA declined to produce information concerning Perez because it did not intend to call him as a witness; it had already produced the jail recordings. In January 2013, the trial court granted Dekraai’s motion to compel discovery regarding Perez. Over the following months, the OCDA provided voluminous discovery.

In early 2014, Dekraai filed the following motions: (1) a nonstatutory motion to dismiss the death penalty based on outrageous governmental conduct; (2) a motion to recuse the OCDA pursuant to section 1424 and the due process clause; and (3) a motion to exclude his custodial statements pursuant to Massiah v. United States (1964) 377 U.S. 201 [12 L.Ed.2d 246, 84 S.Ct. 1199] (Massiah) (prosecution may not use evidence obtained in violation of 6th Amend, right to counsel). The motions were supported by a declaration from Assistant Public Defender Scott Sanders (Sanders), Dekraai’s trial counsel. The prosecution opposed the motions, supported by a declaration from Wagner, the head of the OCDA’s homicide unit. The Attorney General opposed recusing the OCDA.

First Evidentiary Hearing—March to July 2014

At the outset of the hearing, the trial court indicated it had read the motions, declarations, and exhibits and it concluded Dekraai had made a prima facie showing requiring an evidentiary hearing and it would consider the motions jointly. The court heard testimony from 36 witnesses, only some of which we discuss here.

Perez, a Cl with two active cases being prosecuted by Petersen, testified about his life in custody. As relevant here, Perez emerged as a shot caller in the Mexican Mafia after a power struggle for control of the OC jails. When Perez’s faction lost power and he became vulnerable, he had an “awakening” and contacted Benjamin Garcia, a deputy sheriff who worked in the SHU. In summer 2010, Perez “debriefed” with Garcia and Deputy Sheriff William Grover, who also worked in the SHU, and began providing them information on the Mexican Mafia. In January 2011, after meeting with Tunstall, who also worked in the SHU, Detective Gallardo, and FBI Agent Anthony Garcia, Perez signed a Cl agreement. During 2011, Perez was a Cl providing information on the Mexican Mafia to Garcia, his primary personal handler. When Perez received information, he would notify one of his handlers and write down the information, and a deputy sheriff would pick up his notes. Perez testified that from the outset he was told he could not question inmates but if an inmate told him something, he could write it down.

Perez testified he became a Cl because it was the right thing to do, but he hoped his work would be taken into consideration in his prosecution. He added no one promised him anything. Perez claimed he did not question anyone or ingratiate himself with inmates to get them to discuss their cases, although he acknowledged he had an incentive to be a Cl because he faced two life sentences. Perez stated inmates confided in him because he was a Mexican Mafia shot caller who could be trusted. When Perez was asked about his notes indicating he questioned inmates or arranged to have inmates Leonel Vega and Abel Perez housed near him, he could not remember. Perez admitted he asked Garcia for a fake validation packet, a notice indicating a person is a Mexican Mafia member, which would enhance his credibility.

Perez also provided information on numerous inmates, including the following: Daniel Wozniak, who Sanders also represented, confessed to Perez he killed and mutilated two people; Vega, a Delhi gang member who was charged with special circumstance murder and was represented by counsel, was a Mexican Mafia member who provided information to Perez; Isaac Palacios, a Delhi gang member who was charged with two counts of special circumstance murder and was represented by counsel, confessed his crimes to Perez; and Fabian Sanchez, a Delhi gang member who was charged with attempted murder and was represented by counsel, confessed to Perez and implicated himself in another homicide.

Perez testified he had befriended Dekraai, and Dekraai confessed to him. As he had done with other inmates who he was informing on, Perez regularly checked on Dekraai and helped him adjust to life in custody, showing him how to bathe in his cell and heat food, and giving him various items. When his recollection was refreshed with a transcript of the jail recordings, Perez agreed he asked Dekraai whether he used drugs; this was after Perez met with the prosecution team. Perez wrote down what Dekraai told him and gave it to Garcia. At the October 19, 2011, meeting, Perez initially told Wagner and Simmons, OCDA investigator Erickson, and Detective Krogman he did not ask Dekraai questions but later admitted to them that he told Dekraai to explain what happened. They told Perez to listen to Dekraai and write down what he said but that he could not ask Dekraai any questions.

Wagner testified he had been a prosecutor for 20 years and was one of the district attorneys prosecuting Dekraai. Wagner described his employment history with the OCDA’s Office and how he came to head the homicide unit. Wagner agreed he had trained attorneys but he could not recall if any programs involved Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 [10 L.Ed.2d 215, 83 S.Ct. 1194] (Brady) (prosecution duty to disclose to defendant material exculpatory evidence), and none of the trainings involved Massiah or CIs.

Wagner testified regarding the prosecution’s efforts to obtain Dekraai’s psychological records. While watching Krogman’s interview with Dekraai, Wagner learned Krogman had obtained a medical waiver from Dekraai prior to Dekraai’s being represented by counsel. On October 17, Wagner, Simmons, and Erickson drove to Dekraai’s psychiatrist’s office. When they entered the office, staff gave them the name and telephone number of the doctor’s attorney, Joel Douglas. Erickson called Douglas, who told him that he would produce the records when he received the waiver. They sent the waiver to Douglas, and Erickson called him. Douglas stated the waiver was invalid because it did not specify psychological and substance abuse records and Erickson had to obtain a new waiver. Later that day, Krogman learned the waiver was invalid and went to the jail and tried to get Dekraai, who was now represented by counsel, to sign a new waiver, but he refused. Wagner denied anyone from the OCDA’s Office told Krogman to try to obtain a new waiver. When Wagner was asked whether he was frustrated with Krogman’s conduct, he said Krogman was “bound by different ethics than I am.” Later, pursuant to a lawfully obtained search warrant, but contrary to a subsequent court order prohibiting seizing the records until resolution of Dekraai’s motion to quash the search warrant, Krogman seized the records; no one for the prosecution team inspected the records, and they remain under seal.

Wagner testified about the prosecution team’s meeting with Perez on October 19, 2011. Wagner admitted his knowledge of Massiah was limited. Wagner did not know Perez and did not research his background before meeting him but thought he was a “jailhouse informant.” Deputy Sheriff Garcia met the prosecution team, showed them Perez’s notes, and took them to a room where Perez and another deputy sheriff were seated. Erickson told Perez that they would appreciate him sharing any information he heard about the Seal Beach shootings but not to expect anything in return. After Perez said he understood, Erickson activated his recording device. During the interview, Perez repeated he understood they were not promising him anything in return for his information. Erickson asked Perez how his conversation with Dekraai began. Perez stated he asked Dekraai what happened and when Dekraai asked him if he really wanted to know, Perez told him to explain what happened. The recorded interview was brief.

Wagner left the meeting thinking Perez was a gang member and jailhouse informant. Because Wagner did not intend to call Perez as a witness, he and Simmons “discussed whether and how it might work to capture Dekraai on tape if he continued to speak about the crime.” After a Sheriff’s captain approved their request to place a recording device in Dekraai’s cell, they asked Garcia to remind Perez to not initiate any conversation with Dekraai about the shootings. After the interview, Wagner did not investigate Perez or his background as an informant.

In late 2011, Erickson asked and Wagner approved of Erickson notifying Perez’s prosecutor, whose identity Wagner did not know, that Perez provided information on the Dekraai case. When Wagner read Erickson’s November 2011 memorandum to Petersen, which he claimed was two years later, he cringed when he read the following: “As the prosecutor handling Perez’s case, this memorandum is being directed to you for your consideration and information only.” Wagner believed ‘“consideration” referred to continued benefits while in custody and not a reduced sentence, and he did not approve conferring any benefit to Perez for his information.

Wagner testified that in February 2012, after he read Erickson’s report regarding the October 2011 meeting with Perez and Krogman’s report concerning Dekraai’s recorded statements, he approved disclosing the information to Dekraai while concealing Perez’s name to protect him. This information, and Perez’s notes concerning Dekraai, were produced to Dekraai in April 2012; it was the first discovery regarding Perez. The reports do not include any information about Perez’s prior work as a Cl.

In April 2012, Wagner asked Erickson to run Perez’s ‘“rap sheet” to determine if the Orange County Public Defender’s Office had previously represented Perez. Wagner learned Perez faced a life sentence, the name of his defense counsel, and likely that Petersen was prosecuting his cases. Wagner did not intend to call Perez as a trial witness, but he knew it was likely Perez would have to testify at a Massiah hearing.

In June 2012, Wagner e-mailed Erickson to ask him about which cases Perez was working on as a Cl, and Erickson directed him to Petersen. Wagner admitted he had information Perez was working on ‘“some other case,” but he did not ‘“recall having [the] thought process[]” that Perez’s work as a Cl needed to be shared with defendants other than Dekraai. Wagner believed he first spoke to Petersen about Perez between June 2012 and January 2013.

In October 2012, Sanders sent Wagner an informal discovery request concerning Perez and his Cl work. Wagner replied the OCDA had already produced recordings in July 2012, and he declined the request because he did not intend to call Perez as a trial witness.

In January 2013, Sanders filed a formal discovery motion concerning Perez’s Cl work. Wagner opposed the motion. In his opposition, Wagner stated he had disclosed all Brady material, and included a declaration in which he stated Perez was not going to receive any benefit for providing information in the Dekraai case. The following week, Wagner sent Petersen and Deputy Sheriff Tunstall an e-mail asking how much Cl information there was and how long it would take to collect it. A couple days later, Petersen replied there were eight state Black Flag cases and one homicide case. The next day, the trial court granted Dekraai’s motion to compel discovery.

Wagner admitted that after the trial court’s ruling, he realized his understanding of Massiah and In re Neely (1993) 6 Cal.4th 901 [26 Cal.Rptr.2d 203, 864 P.2d 474] (Neely) (6th Amend, violation where informant acted on police behalf based on preexisting agreement with expectation of benefit and deliberately elicited statements from defendant), were flawed. However, he stated his “ ‘withholding’ of ‘Brady material,’ ” as alleged in Dekraai’s informal discovery request, was not intentional but rather was because of his “failure to predict” the defense’s “creative applications” of Massiah and failure to evaluate “the subtleties of the Massiah motion which had not yet been filed.” The OCDA produced 5,490 pages of documents and 45 computer discs, including Perez’s Cl file and information regarding nine gang cases. Additional materials were produced in the following months, including Erickson’s November 2011 memorandum to Petersen mentioning “consideration.” Wagner read some of the material and skimmed the information on the nine gang cases.

Around the same time, Wagner e-mailed Ben Masangkay, the OCDA Cl index coordinator, requesting Perez’s Cl file. Wagner stated Perez’s Cl file did not contain any notes indicating Perez worked as a Cl on inmates Dekraai, Wozniak, or Sanchez, which he explained meant no request for consideration had been made.

Wagner testified about his review of Dekraai’s motions and his subsequent investigation of the contentions made therein vis-a-vis this case and to a lesser extent the nine gang cases. Wagner stated he had investigated the claims that members of the SHU and/or Santa Ana police placed CIs next to represented defendants to obtain statements. Wagner, Simmons, Erickson, and Krogman interviewed Petersen, Detective Gallardo, and Deputy Sheriffs Garcia and Tunstall in March 2013. He could not remember many of the details of these interviews, including whether he asked the interviewees if they were aware of moving CIs. Wagner remembered Tunstall stating Perez obtained information from an inmate not associated with the Mexican Mafia, Palacios, but he did not remember following up. He also remembered Garcia stating the Sheriff’s housing records indicated a jail nurse moved Dekraai to module L, sector 17, cell 3.

In May 2013, Wagner, Simmons, and Erickson interviewed Gallardo. Again, Wagner could not remember many details of the interview. At the meeting Wagner asked Gallardo whether he ever directed Perez to obtain statements from defendants who were charged with murder but not connected with the Mexican Mafia. Gallardo replied the following: “ ‘There were, there were—there was times we did. We did use informants and we—basically under the direction of a district attorney we would use inmates.’ ” When confronted with the interview transcript, Wagner gave inconsistent answers about this exchange.

Within weeks of receiving Dekraai’s motions in early 2014, Wagner spoke first with his supervisor, Senior Assistant District Attorney Jim Tanizaki, and then with District Attorney Rackauckas about the motions. Wagner admitted that before he had read the entire motion to dismiss he made public comments the motion included “scurrilous allegations” and “untruths.” Wagner also stated the Sanders’s allegations were “ ‘commonplace’ ” and “ ‘part of their normal litigation strategy.’ ” Wagner said that after he read the entire motion he had a “begrudging respect” for Sanders’s work on the gang cases, but he failed to acknowledge any wrongdoing in the Dekraai case. Wagner admitted there was “a lot of anger inside [him]” regarding Sanders’s allegations and the anger was pervasive in the OCDA’s Office, including “many” in the 15-person homicide unit.

Simmons, an OCDA senior deputy district attorney, testified he had been a prosecutor for 24 years and was the other attorney prosecuting Dekraai. Simmons knew there were jail informants, but he was unaware SHU deputy sheriffs worked with them. As to the October 19, 2011, meeting, Simmons stated no one tried to learn anything about Perez. Simmons did not remember hearing Perez had previously provided reliable information. Simmons was skeptical Perez was providing information for purely altruistic reasons, but he did not suspect Perez was a Cl in other cases until he saw Perez’s notes weeks later. Simmons had a basic understanding of Massiah and although he knew Perez asked Dekraai questions, he did not think they should stop the meeting because he did not think Perez was a government agent. Immediately after the meeting, they decided to not use Perez as a trial witness and instead placed a recording device in Dekraai’s cell. Simmons learned the extent of Perez’s Cl work in late 2012 or early 2013.

Simmons stated the first time he saw Erickson’s November 2011 memorandum to Petersen, which he did not instruct Erickson to write, was shortly before it was produced to the defense in September 2013. Simmons said he has a better understanding of Massiah and Neely and now believes the memorandum and information about Perez’s Cl work should have been produced in response to Dekraai’s informal request for discovery. He attended a training on CIs many years ago, one training regarding Brady within the last 10 years, and no training on Massiah. Simmons did not consider making an entry in Perez’s Cl file for his work on Dekraai because he shared Wagner’s understanding concerning when to make a notation in a Cl file.

Erickson testified he was previously an OCDA investigator who worked with Simmons on the Dekraai case. Erickson knew SHU deputy sheriffs worked with CIs and he “may have” previously spoken with Deputy Sheriff Garcia about CIs. He also knew Perez had previously provided reliable information before the prosecution team met with him at the jail. Both before and after recording, Erickson told Perez that they were not making him any promises in return for his information, and Perez stated he was not seeking anything. After the interview, and after Garcia gave him Perez’s notes regarding Dekraai on November 1, 2011, Erickson believed Perez had done a “comfortable amount of work” as a jail informant. Erickson gave Perez’s notes to Detective Krogman.

Erickson testified concerning his November 2011 memorandum to Petersen. Someone told him to write the memorandum but he could not remember who it was. He was “quite certain” it was not Wagner or Simmons, but he would have sought their approval. When Erickson was asked what he meant when he wrote a “covert investigation” in the jail demonstrated Perez’s information was reliable, he stated he was referring to the meeting with Perez and Perez’s notes. Erickson explained that when he said “consideration” he meant “careful thought and contemplation” rather than “actual consideration.” He added the purpose of the memorandum was “basically” to make Petersen aware Perez provided information.

Erickson stated he wrote a report regarding the October 19, 2011, meeting with Perez a couple months after the meeting. Erickson did not include information that Perez had previously provided reliable information, and he did not recall any prosecutor telling him to include that information after they reviewed the report.

Krogman, a 27-year veteran of the Seal Beach Police Department, testified he was the lead detective in the Dekraai case. Krogman interviewed Dekraai the day of the shootings and obtained a medical waiver. After he learned attorney Douglas would not accept the waiver because it did not specify psychological records, Krogman prepared a new waiver and went to the jail to have Dekraai sign it. Krogman knew Dekraai was represented by counsel, and he was “vaguely” familiar with Massiah, but he was not concerned because he did not plan to interrogate Dekraai and he had already signed a waiver. Krogman stated no one from the OCDA’s Office instructed him to have Dekraai sign another waiver. Krogman learned Perez previously provided reliable information the day the prosecution team met with him. One week later, Krogman obtained a compact disc of the recordings from Dekraai’s cell. Several weeks later he listened to the recordings and prepared a report detailing some of the recordings. He obtained Perez’s notes regarding his conversations with Dekraai on November 9, 2011.

Moriel, a Cl housed in a federal facility serving time on another case, testified he was facing two life sentences in a 2005 gang-related attempted murder case prosecuted by Petersen. Moriel, a high-ranking member of the Delhi gang, explained that in 2009, while he was in Orange County Jail, he decided to turn his life around and he spoke with Deputy Sheriffs Garcia and Grover about becoming a Cl. In February 2009, he met with Garcia and Detective Gallardo and told them about two murders and that he knew who committed them. Moriel withheld information first because he wanted immunity and then because he wanted a deal. Like Perez, Moriel wrote down information and gave it to SHU deputy sheriffs. He said SHU deputy sheriffs never told him there were inmates that he could not talk to or to stop talking to inmates. Moriel provided information on “a couple dozen” cases where he did not write any notes and he provided written notes on at least two cases that were not recorded in his Cl file.

Moriel testified about Vega, a Delhi gang member and Mexican Mafia associate, who was charged with special circumstance murder. He and Vega were housed near each other both in disciplinary isolation and in module L. Moriel admitted he asked for, and Gallardo provided, a validation packet to convince Vega that he was not a Cl. He initially claimed Vega told him about his pending case without asking him any questions. He said that during a subsequent conversation, Vega confessed to him. Moriel admitted that during this conversation he did question Vega. The same day, Moriel wrote Garcia a note about a previous conversation with a detective and Grover regarding moving Palacios. Despite his initial denials, Moriel eventually admitted his note indicates the plan was to obtain a confession from Palacios like he did Vega.

Finally, Moriel testified regarding Amaury Luqueno and Sergio Elizarraraz. Moriel told Gallardo that Luqueno told him an off-duty police officer shot at him and Elizarraraz. Days later, Elizarraraz was moved into Moriel’s unit. Not long after, Moriel obtained confessions from Elizarraraz about various crimes.

Susan Kang Schroeder, OCDA chief of staff, testified OCDA Rackauckas is her direct supervisor. Schroeder is authorized to make public comments about high profile cases, and when she does, it is the OCDA’s official position. Schroeder’s review of the motions to dismiss and recuse consisted of the two paragraphs that concerned her. Schroeder told one local news outlet the OCDA’s Office understood the frustration of the victims’ family members, and ‘“we’re frustrated the defense keeps up with delay tactics.” She told another local news outlet the motions were ‘“on the checklist of things to do,” and ‘“they’ll lose and we’ll do the trial.” Schroeder stated the motions had no merit because Wagner, who she described as one of the best prosecutors in the OCDA’s Office, said the motions were meritless.

After Schroeder testified, the OCDA conceded the Massiah motion and stated it would not use Dekraai’s statements to Perez in its penalty phase case-in-chief. The OCDA argued that evidence concerning other cases, which the trial court previously characterized as Evidence Code section 1101 evidence, was not relevant to the other two motions and further testimony from Petersen and others should be limited. Dekraai accepted the concession, but contended the evidence was relevant to the dismissal and recusal motions. The trial court accepted the DA’s concession on the Massiah motion and explained that although it may at some point narrow the scope of the testimony concerning other cases, the court opined the ‘“[Evidence Code section] 1101-type evidence” was admissible subject to Evidence Code section 352. Testimony continued.

Petersen, an experienced deputy district attorney, testified he was assigned to the TARGET unit, the tri-agency gang enforcement team, and was housed in the SAPD from 2009 to 2013. Petersen had a heavy caseload with voluminous discovery. Petersen’s investigator and paralegal, whom he shared with other prosecutors, assisted him with discovery. Petersen agreed that because of his heavy caseload, he did not review all cases for discovery material before it was produced, got ‘“up to speed” when defense counsel announced ready, and hoped all the discovery had been produced.

Petersen learned of Black Flag in 2010. Deputy Sheriff Tunstall asked Petersen if he was interested in prosecuting some of the defendants after they learned the defendants could receive more prison time in state court than in federal court. Petersen was assigned the Vega case and the Monel case in October 2010. When he retrieved the discovery from the previous prosecutor, he said there was no outstanding discovery.

Petersen knew Model was a federal informant, but he did not investigate the extent of his Cl work even after he heard Model testify about his extensive Cl history. Petersen produced Model’s notes regarding Vega’s confession, which were dated August 1, 2009, and consisted of four pages, to Vega’s defense counsel. Petersen admitted he did not produce other relevant discovery to Vega, and to another defendant who Vega’s defense counsel also represented. At the time of Vega’s trial, Petersen was only aware Model provided information regarding Vega, Palacios, and Elizarraraz. Petersen never asked Moriel or Tunstall how Moriel came to be housed next to Vega. Petersen testified he had never seen the Sheriff’s log detailing MorieTs Cl work and he did not know the Santa Ana Police Deprtment conducted three recorded interviews with him in 2009.

When Petersen read the motion to dismiss, it was the first time he learned of “coincidental contact” between CIs and targeted defendants and that he had not produced to defense counsel a significant amount of Moriel’s notes. Petersen also learned he produced different quantities of notes in Black Flag cases—four pages to Vega and 196 pages to another defendant. Petersen admitted there was “discovery that was not” produced, but he stated it was not intentional. He believed Assistant United States Attorney Flynn-Peister decided what information could be released. He conceded his understanding of Brady was “evolving” as he read more cases.

While prosecuting the Perez case, Petersen did not know Perez obtained information from Dekraai until either Wagner or Erickson told him. When he received Erickson’s November 2011 memorandum, he did not consider how it affected Perez’s case but he intended to give it to Perez’s defense counsel. Petersen did not recall whether Wagner told him Perez was not to receive any consideration for providing information in the Dekraai case. However, Wagner said he would tell the sentencing judge what Perez did and he would recommend less than a life sentence in one of Perez’s cases.

Gallardo, a former Santa Ana detective, testified that in 2003 he was assigned to the career criminal unit, a federal task force designed to dismantle criminal street gangs. Gallardo admitted that a few days before his testimony he met with OCDAs about his May 2013 interview with district attorneys. Gallardo testified he misspoke at that interview when he told Wagner that the district attorneys directed him to obtain statements from murder suspects. Gallardo said it was under Flynn-Peister’s direction. Gallardo realized his mistake during his meeting with district attorneys a few days earlier “[wjhen it was brought to [his] attention.” Gallardo claimed it was a simple mistake he attributed to the fact he was working with the OCDA and the interview was in the OCDA’s Office. Gallardo stated he had to get approval from Flynn-Peister or a FBI agent before disseminating information. He added, however, that after July 2011, all Cl notes were released to detectives.

Gallardo testified that during the May 2013 interview he was telling the truth when he said SHU deputy sheriffs would put Perez or Moriel next to a murder suspect to obtain statements. SHU deputy sheriffs were responsible for moving CIs near targeted defendants but he did not know how it was documented. Gallardo thought he heard discussions between Garcia and Santa Ana police officers about moving CIs near targeted defendants. He learned there was a plan to put Moriel and Vega together in disciplinary isolation. Gallardo initially said he believed Garcia gave Moriel fake paperwork but later said he did not know whether that happened.

After Gallardo testified, Dekraai pleaded guilty to all counts and admitted the special circumstance and firearm enhancement allegations.

Tunstall, a 15-year deputy sheriff, testified he was assigned to the SHU from 2002 to 2010, when he was assigned to the federal task force. As a member of the task force, his office was at the Santa Ana Police Department, but he had weekly contact with SHU deputy sheriffs. In the last couple years Tunstall had received training from the OCDA regarding CIs but not from the Sheriff. He had not been trained on Massiah but knew CIs cannot question represented defendants about charged crimes. Tunstall instructed CIs to write down information they received from inmates but not to question inmates about charged crimes. If he learned a Cl was eliciting information, he would instruct the Cl to stop; however, he was not aware of that happening. He met with both Perez and Moriel while they were working as CIs.

Prior to testifying, Tunstall read the motion to dismiss and reviewed Perez’s and MorieTs Cl notes. He testified he had no information deputy sheriffs moved CIs near charged defendants to elicit statements. But Tunstall admitted he once tried to have an inmate moved to obtain statements but it did not happen. He acknowledged that when he worked in the SHU at Theo Lacey Jail, Gallardo told him Vega was moved from Theo Lacey Jail to Orange County Jail so Moriel could obtain statements from Vega about the Mexican Mafia. Tunstall stated that had he known Moriel questioned Vega, he would have told Petersen, but he did not believe that happened.

Tunstall reviewed MorieTs August 1, 2009, four pages of notes detailing Vega’s confession before he testified at Vega’s trial. When confronted with the notes, Tunstall admitted the first time Vega confessed to Moriel was after Moriel told Vega to tell him what happened. Although Tunstall initially stated he did not have an obligation to produce MorieTs notes, he later said he would have notified someone had he known but he only “briefly” reviewed Vega’s notes before trial. Like Petersen, Tunstall blamed the United States Attorney’s Office and the FBI for the discovery lapses. Tunstall added that although he had a complete copy of Perez’s and MorieTs Cl notes, he was not allowed to give Petersen the notes until after the Black Flag operation in July 2011. He gave contradictory testimony about whether he ever gave Petersen all the Cl files.

Tunstall was interviewed by Wagner and Simmons in March 2013. When confronted with the interview transcript, Tunstall claimed he misspoke when he said he was involved in moving Perez near Mexican Mafia “targets” to obtain statements. He said there was only one target, Ronald Melendez.

Tunstall was questioned about the Sheriffs housing records concerning inmates Perez, Moriel, Dekraai, and Palacios. He repeatedly stated he did not know why they were moved. When Tunstall was asked whether inmate movements were documented in any Sheriffs reports, he answered the following: “No, they wouldn’t be. It would just be in the housing records.” When Tunstall was asked how defense counsel would know an inmate was moved near a Cl, Tunstall replied, “I do not know that answer.”

Garcia, a 12-year deputy sheriff, testified he worked in the SHU for about 11 years before being transferred to the task force in July 2013. Garcia explained SHU deputy sheriffs work with CIs from the federal task force but do not have their own CIs. Garcia said CIs were inmates who signed Cl agreements and not those that simply provided information. Ever since being at the police academy Garcia knew CIs cannot question a defendant about charged crimes.

Garcia read portions of the motion to dismiss regarding him intentionally moving CIs and inmates to obtain statements. He admitted that pursuant to orders from the federal task force, CIs were moved to try to obtain statements from Vega and Palacios regarding the Mexican Mafia. He gathered notes from CIs, summarized them, and gave them to the task force. Garcia repeatedly said he did not believe he ever wrote a report or documented movements of CIs and inmates near each other to obtain statements.

Sanders played an audio recording of a July 2009 meeting between Cl Moriel, Deputy Sheriff Garcia, another SHU deputy sheriff, and a Santa Ana detective. Garcia agreed that during the recording the detective stated Moriel would get “ ‘maximum consideration’ ” for providing information and Moriel had to sign a document the detective assured him would remain confidential. Garcia did not remember what was said during the meeting because he was working on the computer.

Garcia first met Perez in June 2010. Perez had written his life story, and either he or Deputy Sheriff Grover asked Perez to write down the names of all the gang members he knew. Garcia told Perez to write down any information he received, and Garcia would collect the notes, which Garcia later summarized. Garcia initially stated Perez provided information because he thought it was the right thing to do, but later acknowledged Perez asked whether he would receive a benefit. After reading Perez’s notes about Wozniak, Garcia admitted he was concerned Perez asked him about the charged crime but he could not remember whether he spoke with Perez. Garcia could not recall speaking with Perez about questioning inmates.

Garcia was asked how Dekraai and Perez were housed next to each other in module L, a module reserved primarily for inmates with special needs. Garcia explained Perez was housed in sector 17, cell 3 for protective custody awaiting transfer to a federal facility; this cell had the best visibility from the guard and nursing stations. The medical unit initially placed Dekraai in sector 19 for acute observation; the medical unit can place an inmate with medical issues without the SHU’s approval. Two days later, Nurse James Trimmer, with the Orange County Health Care Agency, completed paperwork to move Dekraai to sector 17, cell 3, Perez’s cell. Garcia stated a module L deputy sheriff who was not part of Black Flag and who would not have known Perez was a Cl moved Perez into the sector 17, cell 1, the adjoining cell.

Garcia testified that when Perez told him that he spoke with Dekraai, he notified Erickson and Krogman. Garcia could not recall whether he told anyone from the OCDA or Krogman about Perez’s work as a Cl, but there was no reason he would have withheld that information. Garcia was asked a number of questions regarding the Sheriff’s housing records and the housing of specific inmates, including Perez and Model. Garcia claimed not to know why an inmate was moved in the jail.

Flynn-Peister testified she was an AUSA until the end of 2012 when she was appointed to the Orange County Superior Court. After discussing the details of Black Flag, Flynn-Peister stated she knew Perez and Model were CIs for the operation and she gave case agents legal advice on how to properly use them. She was not involved in the operational details of the investigation, did not direct case agents to move CIs and inmates near each other, and denied she provided questions for the CIs to ask inmates. She knew Perez and Model were obtaining information and writing notes, but she did not review the notes until 2011.

Flynn-Peister stated that when she learned case agents planned to use Model as a Cl, she was concerned about the potential Sixth Amendment issues. She wrote a memorandum on how to properly use him and to notify her if Model obtained information from an inmate about a charged crime. During 2010 and 2011, she could remember only one inquiry.

Flynn-Peister spoke with case agents about protecting the integrity of Black Flag, but she never told case agents to withhold information from defendants, the OCDA, or local law enforcement and she was not asked if Model’s and Perez’s notes could be disclosed. Flynn-Peister testified she and Petersen had equal access to the operation’s investigation materials with the exception of federal materials.

Later, the trial court questioned Flynn-Peister. The court read the portion of Petersen’s testimony in which he stated Flynn-Peister deliberately withheld discovery from him. The court asked Flynn-Peister whether she remembered telling any case agent to give the local prosecutor only four pages and nothing more. She said, “No.” When the court asked whether it was possible she was not remembering, she said, “No.”

Deputy Sheriff Tunstall was recalled. Tunstall testified Flynn-Peister authorized him to give Petersen only four pages of Moriel’s notes.

Trial Court’s First Ruling

After counsel presented argument, the trial court took the matter under submission. At a hearing the following week, the trial court issued its 12-page written ruling, portions of which it read into the record. The court explained the broad scope of the evidentiary hearing was necessary to allow it to determine whether “in this case” law enforcement engaged in outrageous government conduct and whether the Office should be recused from prosecuting the penalty phase, and not to fashion a global remedy based on evidence about other cases.

The trial court first addressed the outrageous government conduct motion. The court stated Dekraai’s motion was in large part based on discovery violations pursuant to Brady, supra, 373 U.S. 83, and interference with his right to counsel pursuant to Massiah, supra, 377 U.S. 201. The court said that prosecutors during their testimony and final argument admitted that for various reasons there were “Brady violations, or errors” in this case and others. The court found unpersuasive the OCDA’s justifications, i.e., misunderstanding of the law, heavy caseloads, uncooperativeness of federal authorities, and failure to anticipate defense strategy.

After discussing at length Brady and Massiah and their progeny, the trial court stated the district attorneys’ testimony and training materials suggest they were familiar with constitutional discovery rules. The court opined substantial evidence supported the conclusion there were a number of Brady violations, including that one district attorney took a “hands off’ approach to the discovery process and law enforcement made express or implied promises to CIs.

The trial court stated some issues required a hybrid analysis implicating both Brady and Massiah. The court explained deputy sheriffs, frequently at outside law enforcement agencies’ request, intentionally moved CIs and targeted inmates to obtain statements. The court said law enforcement “seldom, if ever,” documented the movements and thus, “little or no information” was produced to defense counsel. The court opined substantial evidence supported the finding CIs requested and received false documentation from deputy sheriffs to increase their credibility with targeted inmates. The court concluded Brady required district attorneys to produce this information to defense counsel to investigate possible Massiah violations.

However, the trial court explained the evidence before it demonstrated that “it [was] more likely than not” law enforcement did not intentionally house Dekraai and Perez in adjoining cells and “independent events” brought them both to module L. The court opined that nevertheless the question remained whether the OCDA and law enforcement engaged in subsequent misconduct.

The trial court focused on the prosecution team’s meeting with Perez. The court asked why the prosecution team, after learning Perez “ ‘provided reliable information on prior occasions,’ ” did not seek more information regarding Perez’s background and why did Garcia not provide this information when the prosecution team failed to inquire. The court wondered whether these failures were intentional or negligent and whether the OCDA discharged its constitutional obligations. The court reasoned “[l]aw enforcement was well aware” Perez was an effective, independent Cl and he would do anything to avoid having to serve a life sentence. The court said that despite Perez’s denials, the evidence demonstrated Perez did for law enforcement what he had done before—ingratiated himself with Dekraai to obtain incriminating statements. The court rejected the OCDA’s assertion it was not responsible for Perez’s action because law enforcement repeatedly told him not to question Dekraai but only to listen and report. The court opined the “historical ‘course of conduct’ ” established Perez was working on law enforcement’s behalf when he spoke with Dekraai.

In addressing whether the OCDA’s misconduct was negligent or rose to outrageous government conduct, the trial court cited to Wagner’s January 2013 declaration wherein he stated the prosecution team made Perez no promises of leniency. The court stated it initially believed this document, and other documents, demonstrated “intentional prosecutorial misconduct” but based on a totality of the evidence, the court concluded Wagner’s statement was “if not inaccurate, at least seriously misleading.” The court added that after hearing Wagner’s testimony on this subject, it found him to be credible, i.e., that before the meeting he did not know of Perez’s background, but that what he knew and what he should have known and should have done were very different things. The court stated “timely due diligence” would have revealed Perez had executed a formal Cl agreement and had been working as a professional Cl in the Orange County Jail for over one year in exchange for express or implied anticipated benefits.

After again rejecting the OCDA’s excuses for failing to satisfy its discovery obligations, the court opined that based on the entire record, the OCDA’s “failures in this case” were significant negligence, not malicious, and constituted prosecutorial misconduct. The court added that it also considered whether the apparent misconduct in other cases was relevant to the misconduct in this case and amounted to outrageous government conduct but ultimately concluded it was not.

Citing in part to Krogman’s attempt to obtain a new waiver from Dekraai, the trial court stated it could be argued the prosecutorial misconduct violated Dekraai’s Sixth Amendment rights. The court opined the conduct was improper and concluded, based on the entire record, the misconduct was negligent and not malicious, noting there was no prejudice as the records remained under seal. The court concluded that when considered in its totality, the prosecutorial misconduct did not constitute outrageous government conduct requiring dismissal of the special circumstance Dekraai already admitted or the death penalty. Despite the court’s finding the prosecution team did not engage in outrageous government conduct, it concluded a significant sanction was appropriate and prohibited prosecutors from using Dekraai’s custodial statements during the penalty trial.

The trial court then turned to the motion to recuse the OCDA’s Office, incorporating the above findings. After discussing section 1424’s two-part test, the court concluded there was insufficient evidence the OCDA had a conflict of interest or that any conflict was so severe it disqualified the OCDA from prosecuting the penalty phase. The court added the following: “It is troubling that throughout this pending litigation additional materials that appear to have been subject to this court’s January[] 2013 discovery order have continued to emerge from various sources. On the other hand, the court is aware that roughly 17,000 pages of discovery have been produced by the [OCDA] in response to that order. On balance, this court has not lost confidence that the duly elected [district attorney] of this county has the ability to competently and ethically complete the prosecution of this serious matter.” The court denied Dekraai’s motion to recuse the OCDA.

Finally, the trial court addressed Dekraai’s Massiali motion. The court concluded there was significant evidence supporting the OCDA’s concession, and the court accepted it. The court granted the Massiah motion and precluded prosecutors from using any of Dekraai’s custodial statements during its penalty phase case-in-chief.

In conclusion, the trial court stated the evidence “in this case” established the prosecution team engaged in negligent prosecutorial misconduct requiring a significant sanction. The court opined many of the witnesses, including current and former prosecutors and sworn peace officers, “were credibility challenged.” The court said some simply could not remember, but “[ojthers undoubtedly lied.”

Motion for Reconsideration

Three months later, Dekraai filed a motion for reconsideration based on newly discovered evidence that Sanders obtained as a result of subpoenas in the Wozniak case. The newly discovered evidence consisted of TRED records, the Sheriff’s “dated computer entries that include the purported reasons for both jail housing movements and classification decisions.” The OCDA initially opposed the motion to reconsider as did the Attorney General. Dekraai filed a reply, supported by Sanders’s declaration. At a hearing, after the OCDA agreed, the trial court reopened the hearing.

Second Evidentiary Hearing—February to March 2015

Zachary Bieker testified he was an Orange County deputy sheriff assigned to the SHU from 2011 to 2013 and worked with Garcia and Grover. He explained housing decisions could be based in part on whether an inmate was a Cl but there was no document or computer record that indicated whether an inmate was a Cl. When Bieker was asked whether it would help if he had more time to think about it, he said, “No.”

When Bieker was asked what TRED records were, Bieker stated they are three-line computer entries regarding classification, interviews, separation orders, and housing movements. Bieker did not know what the acronym TRED meant, believed TRED records existed since the time the Orange County Jail got computers, and first learned about TRED records when he worked in the classification unit. He stated supervisors, deputy sheriffs in the classification unit and the SHU, and some deputy sheriffs in housing have access to TRED records. Bieker made TRED entries on a daily basis and estimated he made thousands of entries. TRED records were the first place Bieker would look to determine why an inmate was moved.

Bieker had not received training on whether he could discuss TRED records in court. He added no supervisor ever told him that he could not discuss TRED records and he was not of the opinion they could only be discussed among SHU deputy sheriffs. He believed he could share TRED records with the OCDA or an investigating agency. Based on Dekraai’s TRED records, Bieker “assum[ed]” Nurse Trimmer moved Dekraai to sector 17, cell 3 without the SHU’s approval because Dekraai’s TRED records did not include any notation the SHU approved the move.

On cross-examination, Bieker testified the “common practice” was “TREDs weren’t allowed in court,” but he did not know why. Bieker stated now that he knows TRED records were produced to Dekraai, he no longer thinks TRED records are confidential. When the trial court questioned Bieker, he answered, “My understanding of the TRED was that they weren’t allowed in court for whatever reason.” He stated it was probably another deputy sheriff who told him that.

Tunstall testified that when he was part of the task force from January 2010 to October 2014 he was also a deputy sheriff in the SHU. Tunstall knew prior to his March 2013 meeting with the OCDA’s Office he was going to be asked about Dekraai’s and Perez’s housing and whether the Sheriff intentionally housed them near each other so Perez could obtain statements from Dekraai despite having previously disavowed any knowledge of the Sheriff’s documentation of inmate movements. Tunstall now explained that if he wanted to know why an inmate was moved, he would consult “the back portion” of the classification system, which was the TRED system, the best source of the information. Tunstall made “tens of thousands” of TRED entries.

Tunstall testified that when he was first assigned to the SHU in 2001 he was informally trained on the use of TRED records. Tunstall was taught TRED records, unlike housing records, are confidential because they contain sensitive information that could pose a threat to inmates. He was advised that if he was asked a question about TRED records while testifying he should invoke the privileges of Evidence Code sections 1040 and 1042 and request to speak with the judge in chambers with county counsel present. Tunstall claimed it did not occur to him to review TRED records before he testified even though he knew the reason why Dekraai and Perez were housed near each other was the critical issue. Tunstall agreed he was asked several questions about the reasons for the movement of several inmates and he often answered he did not know. Those questions did not cause Tunstall to think about checking TRED records.

Garcia testified he began working in the classification unit in 2005 and the SHU in 2008. Garcia first learned of and had access to the TRED system (he did not know what TRED stood for) when he began working in the classification unit. Garcia also made thousands of entries in the TRED system. Before his interview with the OCDA in March 2013, he reviewed Dekraai’s and Perez’s housing and TRED records to determine why they were moved, who moved them, and when they were moved. Garcia agreed that at his October 2014 meeting with the OCDA he said his superiors instructed him to keep TRED records confidential. But he understood that if he was asked about TRED records while testifying to invoke the privileges of Evidence Code section 1040 and 1042.

Garcia reviewed the transcript of his previous testimony before testifying. He believed that during his first testimony he provided all the information required by the questions that were asked. Garcia admitted he was asked several questions about the reasons why inmates were moved and he often answered he did not know. Garcia provided different reasons why he never mentioned TRED records during his previous testimony, including he did not think Sand