SEN. RODERICK WRIGHT AND CLMAN. RICHARD ALARCON V. TREAS. STEVEN HINTZ : Selective Prosecution and A Denial of Equal Protection of the Law

Los Angeles, California


September 13, 2016
(Today's date)


February 22, 2012
(Original date)

**UPDATE (denotes NEW updated information)

*Denotes some change was made in the original blog, either added information or deleted information


The decision by the Ninth Circuit recently, in Perry v. Brown, finding and holding that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, made me think of State Senator Roderick Wright. Sen. Wright is now facing multiple felony counts of criminal conduct for election and/or voting violations stemming from his use or misuse of the wrong address for voting and representation purposes. Basically, Wright is being charged with falsely using a wrong address, and thereafter, stating that falsehood in voting and election papers, with at least one of the papers, i.e.,Declaration of Candidacy Statement, requiring the statements to be made under oath.

After initially being charged and indicted with multiple counts of misconduct, Wright moved to dismiss certain counts based on a California election statute. The trial judge, Kathleen Kennedy, necessarily accepted Wright's reasoning and dismissed the counts. Apparently, the government appealed, and on appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed Kennedy and ordered the counts be reinstated. Now Wright, once again, faces multiple felony counts of election-voting violation. And, from my understanding, a trial date has not been set.

Before Sen. Wright, City Councilman Richard Alarcon faced the same dilema, that is, multiple charges of felony misconduct based on the use or misuse of a wrong address for election-voting and representation purposes. Like Wright, Alarcon also has been indicted and faces trial on multiple felony counts. I wrote an extensive blog regarding the Alarcon indictment, in view of the non-indictment of one Treasurer-tax collector Steven Hintz of Ventura County (Hintz's election-voting crimes evolve from the use or misuse of a wrong ballot designation). See the blog, "Indictment, Richard Alarcon and Steven Hintz: Why has City Councilman Richard Alarcon been indicted, but ex-judge Steven Hintz hasn't?" Sen. Wright is Black, Councilman Alarcon is Hispanic, and Treasurer Hintz is white. In the Alarcon blog, I concluded that the only reasonable reason why Alarcon was indicted and Hintz wasn't was race. Now, with the indictment of Sen. Wright, I am even more convinced that race is the predominant factor, even if there are other factors, that has caused the State of California to bring indictments against Wright and Alarcon and not Hintz.

Since I wrote the Alarcon blog, Alarcon's trial has been delayed or postponed for over a year since his indictment. There appears to be at least a unilateral understanding on the part of the government not to try Alarcon now. Why hasn't Alarcon publicly complained about the denial of a speedy trial? Could it be because of an understanding between the government and Alarcon? But, since Alarcon has not taken any action, that I am aware of, to cause a dismissal of the indictment, he is still susceptible to a trial. Alternatively, the government could also try and work out a deal with Alarcon. There is no barrier precluding it from doing so in Alarcon's case. I believe Alarcon and his people have read the Alarcon blog (at least it was copied to them), but, I could be wrong. In any event, Alarcon has had time to move to dismiss his indictment on constitutional grounds, as far as I know, but, has chosen not to, for whatever reasons. That's his choice. And, if Alarcon has reached some type of "understanding" with the government, it is not likely that any of the "new" information that I am about to discuss will make a difference with his decision to defend himself on constitutional grounds or not.

Although Councilman Alarcon has a strong argument for selective prosecution, Sen. Wright has a much more formidable argument and case for both selective prosecution and a denial of equal protection of the law, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This is so because there are new facts which have arose since Clmn. Alarcon's indictment which provides Sen. Wright with a prima facie case of selective prosecution and denial of equal protection of the law. I will incorporate those new facts within a comparison of facts between Wright and Hintz that help demonstrate the selective prosecution and equal protection violations.

First, both Wright, who is black, and Hintz, who is white, are public and elected officials. Second, Wright's prosecution and indictment was purportedly brought because or when "prosecutors received a complaint that he was allegedly living outside the district" (news account). It was the same for Alarcon, "Prosecutors said they launched their investigation after receiving a written complaint that Alarcon was living outside his district" (other news account)(also see Alarcon blog). But, here, as stated in the Alarcon blog, there has been multiple written complaints about Hintz, including one filed in the California Attorney General's Office, yet, there has been no indictment of Hintz. Third, Wright has been indicted for perjury by declaration, filing a false declaration of candidacy, and fraudulent voting. Complaints against Hintz have included charges of filing a false declaration of candidacy, perjury by declaration, and fraudulent voting. But, no prosecution or indictment.

Now, I will discuss some differences between Clmn. Alarcon's case and Sen. Wright's, which causes Wright's case to be more powerful. First, when I compared Alarcon to Hintz, it was in the context of a federal citizen complaint and a prospective federal prosecution (which relied on the feds to convert the matter to a state action by referral to state authorities). In Wright's case, there has been a state citizen complaint filed against Hintz, so the state charges alleged are directly under California state jurisdiction. There's no need for a federal referral. Second, in the Alarcon-Hintz comparison, Alarcon, in an attempt to make a selective prosecution claim, would have had to rely on the conversion of federal charges to similar state charges, which would have created an additional burden (though not insurmountable). In Wright's case, Hintz has now been complained about to state officials with the complainant charging violation of state penal statutes, with several of the exact same charges that Wright has been indicted for (new fact). So, Wright doesn't have the burden that Alarcon had in bringing a selective prosecution claim or defense. Third, in the Alarcon-Hintz comparison, Alarcon had only one public official in the same general area that he could compare himself to, Hintz, in the event of a selective prosecution claim. In Wright's case, there are at least two (new fact). In the criminal citizen's complaint filed with the Attorney General's Office, one James B. Becker, Assistant County Clerk and Recorder, Ventura County , who is white, is also charged with elections-voting violations. So, Wright, regarding a selective prosecution claim or an equal protection claim, has two persons (or a group) to point to. Further, unlike Alarcon, who stood alone at the time of his indictment, Sen. Wright now has Alarcon's company, and together they form a group (minority), so that for equal protection purposes, they will not have to separately rely on a "class of one".

Lastly, in my Alarcon-Hintz blog, I did not raise or pursue the notion of a constitutional violation, rather, I left that up to Alarcon's people. I thought when I raised the issue of race, it would ring a bell and cause his people to pursue the matter further, and perhaps result in some type of action being taken in response thereto. To my knowledge nothing has been done. I could be wrong. However, in Wright's case, it's different. Wright is Black and Black people have a special history in America. And, indeed, the Fourteenth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause therein were erected in large part for or on behalf of recently freed slaves, or Black Americans. So, on behalf of Senator Wright, I will not just leave it up to his lawyers or his people; especially where I am uniquely in possession of facts that can help him. I will briefly state why I believe Sen. Wright must take some action regarding both the selective prosecution and the equal protection defenses.

First, selective prosecution. Without going into an in-depth discussion of the requirements for the defense, which this blog is not meant to do, I will simply state that on the face of the present and available facts, particularly with the inclusion of Clmn. Alarcon, Sen. Wright can demonstrate a prima facie case of selective prosecution or enforcement by the State of California by showing that the State has specifically and intentionally chosen to prosecute Alarcon and himself, as minorities, while specifically and intentionally not prosecuting similarly-situated and white Hintz and Becker.

Second, and most important, the Equal Protection defense. Sen. Wright is uniquely situated and qualified to argue an Equal Protection violation because, as alluded to above, the 14th amendment was designed with him in mind, and the Equal Protection Clause provides him with the greatest protection. Under or pursuant to the Clause, Sen. Wright is a member of a "suspect class", that is, "a discrete and insular minority for whom. . . heightened judicial solicitude is appropriate" (citation omitted). Therefore, the court, in this case Judge Kathleen Kennedy (who appears to be a fair judge), would be required to review the discrimination or disparate treatment against Wright and Alarcon with "strict scrutiny", the highest or closest level of examination under equal protection review. Finally, in order for judge Kennedy to sustain the difference in treatment between Sen. Wright and Hintz-Becker, the State of California must set forth a "compelling state interest", not simply a rational reason. I believe the State of California would have great difficulty in meeting this standard. Right now, the State of California has provided Hintz and Becker with legal protection against or from prosecution. Sen. Wright, I believe, merely would want equal protection. "The Equal Protection Clause 'keeps governmental decision makers (here, the State of California) from treating differently persons who are in all relevant respects alike.'" Soskin v. Reinertson, 353 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2004).

Sen. Wright also has another circumstance present in this case that should make a decision to take action easier. That is, he, through his lawyers, has already filed a motion to dismiss on other grounds. Even though the grant of that motion by judge Kennedy was reversed on appeal, Wright's lawyers would only need to move for reconsideration of the same motion on different grounds. Or, they can file a new motion. But, anything less than a dismissal of all charges will not properly or equally protect Wright.

What is clear is that the State of California intends to try Wright, with the goal of convicting him on one or more of the 8 counts of the indictment. And, the Court of Appeals implicitly reinforced this concept by ordering reinstatement of two of the counts of the indictment. Not only did the Court eliminate one of the defenses Wright might have used at trial, but the court's ruling also made it highly unlikely that the prosecutors can or will cut a deal with Wright to dismiss the charges, at least not the two that were ordered reinstated. So, Wright can expect to be tried and convicted on at least one or more of the indicted counts. And, according to the Metropolitan News-Enterprise, July 13, 2011, District Attorney Steve Cooley "claimed his office has been '100 percent successful in our historic prosecutions of these cases starting with the formation of the Public Integrity Division in 2001."

This statement alone should inspire Wright's lawyers to at least present the selective prosecution and equal protection defenses to the court. But, beyond this statement, both defenses are formidable defenses, not just colorable. Wright's lawyers might have a moment of pause, because of the pressures of raising the issue of race, examining officials from two different counties, and possible federal involvement; and, some might even believe some courage is needed. However, the stakes are simply too high for Sen. Wright (i.e., the possible consequences of a criminal conviction, including prison time and a lifetime bar from politics), and after a momentary pause and the gathering of any necessary courage, Wright's lawyers should, through either a reconsideration motion or a new motion, present the selective prosecution and equal protection defenses to judge Kennedy. In my opinion, the defenses are so significant, that, under the circumstances, a failure by Wright's lawyers to raise them will be ineffective assistance of counsel.

Finally, if the defenses are not raised before judge Kennedy and Sen. Wright goes on to be convicted at trial, Sen. Wright and his lawyers will only be left to wonder: Would the defenses have made a difference, or prevented his conviction?


cc: Senator Roderick Wright
Fredric D. Woocher
Winston Kevin McKesson

UPDATE--February 28, 2012

It apppears now that one of the reasons for the delay in Councilman's Alarcon's trial is that the State intends to try Alarcon and Wright together; at least their pretrial conferences are scheduled together. Further, Alarcon now has a "995 PC Motion" (i.e., motion to dismiss) pending, and the motion is scheduled to be heard this Friday, 3/2/12, before judge Kennedy in Dept. 109. However, I have been unabled to review the motion ( I tried to review it at the Criminal Court Building, but could not obtain access to the file--in judge's chambers awaiting a hearing), so I do not know the specific basis or grounds for the motion. One of the grounds, e.g., illegally committed, it appears, would relate to this blog, or, vice versa. Therefore, the blog may be informative for the Court.

UPDATE--March 5, 2012

I attended the Alarcon-Wright hearing/pretrial conference on Friday (3/2/12) on Alarcon's motion to dismiss. Prior to attending the hearing, I had submitted an "amicus curiae" or "friend of the court" document to the court, i.e., a letter-blog (a copy of this blog) on the issue of denial of equal protection of the law or a constitutional issue that I believed might be a related issue argued in Alarcon's motion. As it turned out, I was correct. An equal protection argument was made by one of Alarcon's attorneys, but it was on a different ground or subject matter than my argument in this blog. It was so confusing that I did not get the real equal protection harm or argument. All I could gather was that it revolved around some statutes. Hopefully, there was a clearer presentation of the argument in the written motion.

Anyway, when the hearing opened, Judge Kennedy informed the court, in general, that she had receieved my submission the day before, and she revealed my name and displayed the first page letter of the document to the court. She asked if Alarcon-Wright's counsel, Mr. Woocher, had received the document. Woocher responded in the affirmative by stating that he had checked with the CA State Bar and there was no indication that I was a member. She asked the government, and the government's counsel responded that she had not received it (I did not submit a copy to the government, and Alarcon's counsel only received the blog, but not the letter to the judge which accompanied the blog--the letter explained that the blog was being submitted as a "friend of the court" presentation, based on Alarcon's motion filed with the court). Judge Kennedy then stated that she would not read the material. And, there was no objection by either counsel. She then proceeded with the hearing, and Alarcon's attorney (Woocher) began his presentation on the pending motion to dismiss.

Although I was present in the courtroom, I saw no purpose to be served by acknowledging my presence, especially since I had not had the opportunity to review the motion, and there had been no arrangement made for me to make a presentation. My primary purposes had been served: to place the equal protection argument before the court and to obtain confirmation that judge Kennedy and Alarcon-Wright's counsel had received it. Unless the court had requested my acknowlegement, the only purpose to be served by my stating my presence and speaking would be to thread ethical waters.

Once judge Kennedy stated that she would not read the "amicus curiae" materials, she shifted the responsibilities for bringing the matter to the court to Alarcon-Wright's attorneys. But, they did or stated nothing about the blog or its contents, especially the equal protection argument; and they could have and absolutely should have under the circumstances. And, this was clearly ineffective assistance of counsel. I will explain why later. But, first, I will comment on judge Kennedy's action. Earlier in this blog, I commented that judge Kennedy "appears to be a fair judge". I now maintain that position after the hearing. Judge Kennedy was altogether within her rights to not read the materials, although she could have, especially when she discovered that the government had not received a copy of the materials (but, she still could have rightfully read them had she chosen to); and she simply exercised those rights. She likely wanted to assure herslf and the parties of the highest degree of impartiality, and without the government having received a copy of the materials, she might have felt that it would tend to make her appear partial to the defense. So, to avoid even the appearance of partiality, she decided to not read the materials and force defense counsel to raise the matters contained in the blog. But, they did not do so. After sitting through the hearing, I believe judge Kennedy is a fair judge. What a relief!

UPDATE - April 12, 2012

Now, back to the Alarcon-Wright lawyers. I believe the Alarcon-Wright lawyers rendered ineffective assistance of counsel to both Alarcon and Wright for two main reasons:(1) the selective prosecution and equal protection defenses are formidable under the circumstances, but the only way to determine if they are successful defenses is to present them to judge Kennedy and litigate the matter; the Alarcon-Wright lawyers have refused to do so thusfar, which means Alarcon and Wright, and especially Wright, will likely face a trial charged with multiple felony counts without having a determination of the success or failure of the defenses; and (2) Alarcon's lawyers, with the main lawyer also representing Wright (Woocher), presented an equal protection defense of their own, just on different grounds; so they could have easily incorporated an additional equal protection argument within their argument to the court without any additional preparation (at that time; perhaps the court would have ordered a hearing later on the matter, but it would have been raised and preserved then, without having to request a separate hearing to raise it).

MY PREDICTION: I predict that, without raising the selective prosecution and equal protection defenses, both Alarcon and Wright, ultimately, will be tried and convicted of multiple counts of election-voting fraud (even if the trial is delayed momentarily by rulings of judge Kennedy).

UPDATE - May 4, 2012

Yesterday, Judge Kennedy, in open court, granted the defense's (Alarcon's) motion to dismiss the indictment, on procedural grounds (and she made it clear that her ruling was not based on the merits of the case or charges), that is, that the prosecution had failed to properly present Alarcon's exculpatory evidence to or before the grand jury, so that the evidence could be properly considered by the grand jury.

However, as expected, District Attorney Steve Cooley turned around, within hours, and re-filed charges against Alarcon. Thus, judge Kennedy's dismissal is my predicted "momentary delay" in Alarcon's trial *on multiple felony counts of voter/election fraud. Alarcon still has an opportunity to present the selective prosecution/equal protection defense to judge Kennedy. And, the one thing Alarcon and Wright have going for them that Dr. Conrad Murray did not have is a fair judge. I continue to believe that judge Kennedy is a fair and impartial judge. So, Alarcon and Wright need to take advantage of that circumstance, which is rare. Finally, judge Kennedy did not grant the motion on the defense's equal protection arguments, so perhaps they should try mine.

UPDATE - June 16, 2012

Yesterday, Judge Kennedy, again in open court, denied Wright's motions to dismiss certain Counts of the indictment. For at least one Count, Wright's counsel argued that the Legislature rather than the Executive branch of government had complete jurisdiction over an issue regarding Wright's qualifications for office. Judge Kennedy wasn't convinced, and denied the motion. I will say more later, but, I wanted to inform the reader of the latest "momentary delay" in Wright's and Alarcon's trial and conviction on multiple felony counts of voter election fraud. Wright's lawyers still have time to submit the selective prosecution and equal protection defenses. They are probably Wright's only hope (including Wright's black lawyer's pondering a jury selection/fair cross section of the community argument that judge Kennedy said she would discuss with another judge who seems to have proper jurisdiction of the issue--but I don't think judge Kennedy will be impressed with this issue either, even if she secures jurisdiction). I believe the issue is a fair issue for discussion, i.e., a colorable or meritorious issue--clearly meritorious-- but I don't think judge Kennedy will dismiss the indictment based on that issue at this time, even with or after discovery or disclosure. I think she would have to give more thought to and grant a hearing , if requested, on the selective prosecution and equal protection claim. ). If Wright's lawyers do not raise the defense before judge Kennedy, a fair judge, not only will it be ineffective assistance of counsel, but it also will be an insult to the efforts of the initiators of the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.(who ultimately gave his life fighting for civil rights and so that a person in Wright's position, particularly a black person, could credibly raise a civil rights issue, not only for himself, but for others as well).

UPDATE--July 18, 2012

On Tuesday, there was an appearance by Sen. Wright's black lawyer, but nothing significant occurred. He just continued, with the Court's approval, the matter until August 19th. I believe a trial date will be set at that time. Counsel informed me that the jury issue I briefly discussed above would be decided by another judge, as I had anticipated it would be. I do not believe judge Kennedy wanted to entertain that issue in any event. So, Wright is headed for a trial.

UPDATE--August 13, 2012

Richard Alarcon's preliminary hearing has now begun. Alarcon continues to face multiple counts, 24 felony counts, of perjury, election and/or voter fraud. So, the only thing the dismissal accomplished was to buy Alarcon more time and get him another judge. Apparently, Alarcon's and Wright's trial has now been severed. Alarcon's preliminary hearing and new judge, who will likely be his trial judge, is judge M.L. Villar de Longoria, who, according to the L.A. Times, is the sister of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who, according to the Times, is "a City Hall ally of Alarcon". I am not familiar with judge Villar de Longoria, but, I will assume she will be a fair judge. Apparently, the prosecution assumes that as well, with no apparent objection to her presiding over the preliminary hearing. But, I believe judge Kennedy was a fair judge as well. So, my prediction stands, Alarcon will be found guilty of multiple counts of voter/election fraud and/or perjury after a trial on the merits. And, I base my prediction in large part on District Attorney Steve Cooley's announcement that he had obtained a 100 % conviction rate for these types of cases. Even if Alarcon is not convicted on all counts, I believe there will be "multiple" counts of conviction. I just don't believe Cooley would make a statement like that without record support. And, I haven't heard of anyone who has come forawrd to dispute it and say, "I had a case like that in L.A. County, and I was acquitted."

Consequently, I will have no sympathy for either Alarcon or Wright if either of their cases go to trial and either is convicted, if they continue to refuse to assert and litigate at least a colorable defense of selective prosecution or denial of equal protection of the law. And, with respect to the current preliminary hearing, Alarcon's felony charges will be tried to a jury.

Until next time.

UPDATE--October 16, 2012

Alarcon has now been ordered to stand trial on multiple felonies evolving from an alleged misuse of an address for election/voting purposes, as predicted. Wright will be next. Now, it's too late for Alarcon to raise the selective prosecution/equal protection defenses. We'll see what happens. You already have my prediction. It's probably too late for Wright too, but thusfar, his case has not been set for trial. His next trial date is Halloween.

UPDATE--March 15, 2013

Both the Alarcon and Wright cases are still in pre-trial mode. There are pre-trial proceedings scheduled for both cases, in March and April, 2013.

Until next time.


UPDATE--July 15, 2013

Sen. Wright's trial was supposed to begin today, but, another delay; now, the trial is scheduled to take place on November 4, 2013. Wright is only delaying the inevitable. Sen. Alarcon's case is still in the pre-trial mode as well.


UPDATE--January 15, 2014

Sen. Wright's trial has now begun. The government will likely rest tomorrow, and the defense should began its case thereafter. I have attended the trial from the beginning, including parts of jury selection or voir dire.

I had an opportunity to speak with Sen. Wright during the course of the proceedings thusfar, and I must say that I find him to be cordial.

More next time.


UPDATE--January 18, 2014

The Wright trial is now in recess until after the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday weekend. Trial will resume on Tuesday, January 21st.

Now, to continue from the previous blog. Whatever happens with Wright's case, Wright cannot complain about the jury. Wright has a constitutional jury of his peers. There is one older Black man, 2 Black women, 4 Asian women, 2 Hispanic males, 2 Hispanic females, and one white woman (one white woman originally paneled was replaced by an Asian woman due to illness)(judge Kennedy pulled a number--of an alternate juror--from a "Dodgers" hat). The remaining alternates are 2 Black men and an Asian woman. Primarily, Wright has a jury of his peers because of the three Black people on the jury.

The government is charging Wright with eight felony violations, all generally centered around perjury and fraud evolving from voter registration and election conduct, and their opening statement mirrored the charges filed against Wright. The defense, in its opening, generally argued that Wright met the requirements for running for office in the 25th District and did not violate voter registration laws.

The prosecution put on 22 witnesses according to my count before resting. In my view, it met its burden of showing that Wright did not live in the 25th District based on the factual evidence. The legal basis is another matter. My initial impression of the prosecution team (a Black female, Michele Gilmer, and a white male, Bjorn Dodd) was that they were not seasoned prosecutors, and I based that impression on some of their questioning of some witnesses and the results which were produced. But, admittedly, they improved as questioning proceeded with various witnesses. They did a fairly good job.

As for the defense, so far, the defense has put on four witnesses, including Sen. Wright. Their main witness, besides Sen. Wright himself, was Cine Ivery. She was a very good witness for the defense. She was clear, she was informative, and she provided some good information for the defense regarding Wright's various residences. She was not rattled by the prosecution's cross-examination. I think Wright held his own on the witness stand and presented himself as an intelligent and well spoken person. He generally testified that he believed that he was protected from any charge of living outside of the district that he represented by a "conclusive presumption" regarding domicile (as set forth in the election code) and a California case, Fenton (v. Board of Directors), which Wright believed allowed him to live outside of the district in one residence while maintaining a residence in the district. My initial impression of Wright's counsel (a Black male and a white female) was similar to that of the prosecution's. They didn't appear to be well-seasoned in the beginning, but improved as the trial continued. Actually, the lead counsel, Winston Kevin Mckesson, presented the entire defense case himself (while both counsel of the prosecution's team presented selected parts of the prosecution's case). The difference is, it took a longer time for the defense team to improve. But, it did improve, and McKesson gave a good closing argument. As did the prosecution.


UPDATE--January 29, 2014

THE VERDICT : GUILTY (ON ALL 8 COUNTS)

AS I PREDICTED. That is, I told you so. Richard Alarcon is next.

First things first: DID SEN. WRIGHT RECEIVE A FAIR TRIAL?

The Jury

Wright not only received a jury of his peers, but he also recieved a fair cross-section of the community. Wright's peers were a * Black man and two(2) Black women. The fair cross-section of the community were four(4) Asian women, two(2) Hispanic men, two(2) Hispanic women, and one(1) white woman. So, Wright cannot complain about the jury. He received a constitutionally fair jury. He received a uniquely fair jury for a Black man in America. The only thing that could have surpassed the jury that Wright received, in terms of fairness for a black defendant in America, would have been an all-Black or predominantly Black jury. Wright received a fair jury.

NOTE: The jury foreperson was the Black man.

The Judge

Wright, fortunately, received a fair judge. Judge Kathleen Kennedy is a "special" judge. Not only was she fair, but she went out of her way or "bent over backwards" to assure that Wright receive a fair trial; at one point, even defying the California Court of Appeals, in an indirect way. I repeat, Judge Kennedy is a "special" judge, which means she is a fair judge. She was fair to both sides *(she sustained multiple objections by the government). When I look back on my career as a Black lawyer, if I would only have had judge Kennedy preside over a few of my civil cases, my life would likely be much different today. In conjunction with this, my only reservation regarding judge Kennedy is that I have not experienced or observed her conduct regarding civil cases, i.e., money cases, to determine whether she exercises the same type of fairness with those types of cases. There's a difference. Sometimes judges are liberal (or fair) with black litigants regarding criminal matters, but are altogether different when it comes to a judgment for money. But, the matter under discussion or evaluation here is judge Kennedy's fairness over Wright's trial, and I absolutely know from my observation of the entire trial, that judge Kennedy was fair.

NOTE: If I practiced in the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles, and I engaged in the practice of "judge-shopping", I would shop for Judge Kennedy.


The Prosecution

I believe the prosecution conducted its case in a fair manner. I am not aware of any constitutional violations, such as Brady violations, i.e., withholding evidence, perpetrated by the government. In fact, the prosecution was presented with a situation whereby it could have rightfully appealed a ruling during trial, which would have delayed the trial pending an appellate decision, but chose not to. But, I am not praising the prosecution, for some of their conduct was inappropriate or uncalled for, such as implying that there was some type of romantic relationship between Wright and his Chief of Staff. Because even if there was a relationship, it was irrelevant or immaterial to their case. I suppose they were somehow attempting to impeach the character of the witness. It was a low blow.

NOTE: The prosecution did, however, discriminate against Wright pre-trial, by bringing an indictment against Wright, as a black Senator, while refusing to bring an indictment against other white public officials who had committed similar offenses to that of Wright.


The Defense

Necessarily, Wright cannot complain about his defense, he chose it. But, I will comment later about the high level of respect that I, as a Black lawyer, have for Senator Wright for retaining two Black lawyers in his case to represent him and Wanda Sanders, his stepmother.

McKesson, his lead counsel, after exhibiting ineffective assistance of counsel in pretrial (unless Wright directed his actions, which is possible), was effective at trial. He generally provided a fairly good defense, based on what he had to work with. Again, his closing argument, on the whole, was good *(I was nearly brought to tears myself). *It gave Wright a chance. But, he likely lost some jurors with his arrogance. Some jurors, who may have been on Wright's side, probably turned against him because of McKesson's arrogance, e.g., arguing that the government had no case and that it was absurd for the government to bring the case in the first place. Clearly, the government had a case. This probably caused some jurors to shift from compassion for Wright to adherence to the law for the government. *But Wright had a good and valid defense, and if the defense had been correctly emphasized and argued to the jury, as opposed to arguing prosecution misdeeds, Wright could have and should have been acquitted. *I would have gotten Wright an acquittal. Wright had "special" facts during his trial that Clm. Alarcon will not have during his. While Wright had a good Black lawyer representing him at trial; he needed a special one.

Overall, Wright had an effective defense at trial. McKesson *made a crucial misstep in his defense *(by not emphasizing critical facts and law to the jury--he covered it, but he did not "emphasize" it), *but, he provided good advocacy.

*NOTE: I am intentionally not identifying what the "emphasis" is that I am speaking of because I will not give Alarcon and his people an advantage that Wright didn't have. When I made my prediction about the outcomes of both the Wright and Alarcon trials, it was made with the assumption that the counsels of both Wright and Alarcon would not present the necessary defense to prevail at trial. Wright's counsel had his chance; now, Alarcon's counsel will have his or hers, without any input or aid from me. My prediction stands.

CONCLUSION : Sen. Wright received a fair trial. He cannot claim that he didn't receive a fair trial, unless there are some legal errors that I am unaware of as a spectator. And, as a lawyer myself, I know it's possible. There may be some legal errors that occurred either pre-trial or during trial that McKesson might be aware of that I, as a spectator, am not aware of. So, whether there is an appealable issue is for McKesson to decide. But, from my standpoint, Wright received a fair trial.

*Upon reflection, I am aware of one issue that, arguably, can be appealed. It would present a challenge. *But, it provides Sen. Wright with a chance on appeal.

COMMENT: So, Sen. Rodrick Wright has now been convicted of multiple felonies, as I predicted he would be, without having raised the defenses of selective prosecution or denial of his right to equal protection of the law. That means he will never know if the defenses would have been successful or not. Wright will have to live with his decision for the rest of his life. Depending on the future consequences of the guilty verdicts, Wright's future life may be wrought with pain. And, every time he experiences that pain, he will be moved to ask himself, what if? I believe the selective prosecution defenses presented him with *just as formidable a defense *as the one he had at trial.

And, I know that Sen. Wright had more and stronger defenses to his charges than Councilman Richard Alarcon will have to his, in part because Wright is a *State Legislator. So, where does that leave Alarcon in anticipation of his trial?

More next time.


UPDATE--January 30, 2014

According to a L.A. Times article, "Democrats mull options on Wright", January 30, 2014, "the Senate has been scrambling to determine what action, if any, it should take--including whether to vote on an expulsion. Ousting the senator would require a two-thirds vote of the upper house." But, it appears to me, as a matter of fairness, the Senate should await a decision regarding an appeal by Wright, and if the matter is appealed, the resulting appellate decision. I believe that Wright has at least one colorable issue for appeal. So, I believe the Senate should allow Wright to exhaust his appeals before taking any drastic or permanent actions against him.


UPDATE--January 30, 2014

ABOUT SENATOR WRIGHT

As I alluded to earlier, I had an opportunity to speak with Sen. Wright during his trial proceedings, and I found him to be cordial and well-spoken. I didn't speak with him regarding my blogs about the selective proecution defenses, because he was already in trial and I didn't want to place any extra burdens on his mind by speaking about an issue that it was too late to take any action on. He generally just expressed to me his position about domicile. Together with the information that I obtained about him during his time on the witness stand, I find Wright to be a very caring and concerned person, both as a man and as a public official. He is intelligent and well-versed in his capacity as a State Senator.

During our conversation, I told him that I respected him for retaining two Black lawyers as lead counsel for representation for himself and Ms. Sanders during the course of the investigation and trial of his case (he also retained a white female co-counsel for the case, Anita Olp). I know from my personal knowledge and experience and exposure that many Black public officials, sports figures, entertainers-artists-singers, etc., under the same circumstances (even with knowing a Black lawyer as a friend) would choose a white lawyer to represent them, primarily because the lawyer was white (combined with their belief that because he is white, the lawyer somehow will automatically provide him with better representation--a myth)*(this was the case with O.J. Simpson; originally, O.J. had selected the white Robert Shapiro to represent him, but it was the late, great Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., who had to come in and save O.J.; Shapiro would not have won that case for O.J. Why didn't O.J. hire Johnnie Cochran at the outset? The myth). Sen. Wright didn't do that. I sincerely respect him for that.


ABOUT SENATOR WRIGHT'S DECISION TO NOT ASSERT THE SELECTIVE PROSECUTION DEFENSE

After the guilty verdicts were announced in the Wright case, I was tempted to say that Wright got what he deserved for not advancing the selective prosecution defense as I had suggested. But, I can't say that because I truly do not believe that Senator Wright deserve the guilty verdicts, because I do not believe that he proceeded with a guilty mind in identifying his residence in Inglewood as his district address. *But, in reality, he did get what he deserved for not fighting for his civil and/or constitutional rights *to be treated equally (in view of the civil rights movement). I believe all Black people of today should pay a price for not fighting for their civil rights (in view of the civil rights movement of yesteryear and the lives that were lost), if they are in a position to do so (some Black people may want to do so but can't, e.g., they lack the resources or are unabled to find a lawyer to represent them) and do not. *My concerns about Wright not asserting his constitutional rights are :

Every time a Black person, particularly a Black person with sufficient wherewithall to support a legal challenge, is faced with a situation where he or she possesses potential constitutional and/or civil rights, but must assert those rights in order to obtain justice and refuses to do so, if I become aware of this circumstance, I am usually angered. Senator Wright was in that position prior to his trial. And, I am dismayed and angered, and it pains my heart that he did not challenge his indictment on constitutional/equal protection grounds. The first thing that comes to my mind in these situations are the sacrifices that were made by the men, women, and children of the Civil Rights movement who many times gave their lives so that we (in today's generation) could have the opportunity to assert the rights that they helped achieve. For so many years, there were no laws or enforcement of laws for the provision or protection of the civil rights of Black people. So that we simply had to accept racial discrimination in nearly all aspects of life. But, the men, women, and particularly children of the 50's and 60's, put their lives on the line to help change that and to help us acquire rights against racial discrimination. Children, knowing that they would endure water and water hoses, dogs, billy clubs and the like, marched *and otherwise protested in an effort to obtain freedom *and equality, sat in at lunch counters in order to obtain access *and equality, and much more. So, it is a disservice and insult to those individuals for Black people today to refuse to fight against discrimination and, instead, accept it. And, that is what Senator Wright has done by his refusal to challenge his indictment on equal protection grounds. He has done what the system wants him to do, let it be. *Be a good boy. Accept your misstreatment, *and do what we want you to do, i.e., stand trial for perjury charges. And what that does is take us backward, not forward.

I'm angered because Sen. Wright did not fight for his rights, when he had the opportunity and resources to do so. Those children of the 50's and 60's confronted racial discrimnation head on. How can we do any less? Some of those children were only 10, 11, and 12 years old. *Perhaps some were pressed by their parents, but I believe that many voluntarily participated. These were children! So how can we, as adults, show such lack of courage in discontinuing the fight. I think its disgraceful and dispicable. Black people in the United States of America are still not free. We might be free-er *(then we were before the civil rights movement,i.e., no more "whites only" or "colored only" signs, and we can eat and sleep, i.e., hotels, with white people) but we are not free. We still are not treated *and fully accepted as first class citizens in America, *notwithstanding the few rich and middle class Black people among us. That means that the fight must continue for our full civil rights, and a refusal to fight when confronted with a circumstance that dictates a fight is not only a disservice to the individual refusing to fight, but it's a disservice also to the participants of the early Civil rights movement, especially the children (who sometimes were merely "babies").

More next time.


UPDATE--January 31, 2014

THE BOTTOMLINE : I respect Sen. Wright for retaining Black lawyers for his representation; but I disrespect him for not fighting for his civil *and constitutional rights *for equal treatment; and I extend that disrespect to his counsel, *McKesson, for the same reasons. I believe it is simply unacceptable and inexcusable for Black people of today to not fight for their civil *and/or constitutional rights, especially when they are able to do so.

Nevertheless, I wish Sen. Wright well regarding his appeal. *Although I could make a prediction on that course as well.


Next, Councilman Richard Alarcon, what will he do?


UPDATE--February 4, 2014

The purpose of this Update is to briefly respond to a L.A. Times article written by Sandy Banks, "Wright was simply wrong", February 4, 2014. First of all, Banks states that even though she didn't attend the trial, the guilty verdict "makes sense" to her, apparently relying on some of the simple facts, i.e., Wright's clothes and cars in one residence as opposed to another (the district residence)(where the law purportedly requires him to live), notwithstanding her own statement that, "The state Election Code's section on residency requirements is convoluted and obtuse; it seems crafted to confuse---or to give wily politicians a little linguistic wiggle room".

It is this "linguistic wiggle room" provided by the law, that provided Wright with a legitimate and legal defense (that is, the law allows Wright to live where he lives and not be in violation of residency requirements--Wright's lawyer simply didn't emphasize the correct legal principles to the jury). I attended the trial, I am a lawyer, and I am familiar with some (not all) of the law that was involved in the case. So, to me the guilty verdict did not "make sense", especially in the context of equal treatment for Wright.

Further, Banks, who is Black (but you wouldn't know it from her article), quotes "community activist" Najee Ali, who is also Black (but, again, you wouldn't know it from his comments), as stating "He's got a good heart (Wright), but he made a bone-headed decision" and "Now people are just hoping that this sends a message to other legislators." But, he apparently made no comment regarding the targeting of Wright for prosecution by the government because Wright is Black or a minority. His comments suggest that this is just another case of another politician, regardless of race, whose gotten in trouble. And, that's nonsense. Wright was targeted, at least in part, because of his race. Like Councilman Richard Alarcon was.

THE BOTTOMLINE: As I have stated before, Los Angeles has a void of Black leadership with the courage to address issues of race and civil rights head-on *(which means simply, there's a lack of Black leadership), except for "safe" issues, e.g.,some police misconduct cases. While Banks and Ali discuss the Wright matter from a non-racial perspective, as if Wright is some white politician *(who, incidentally, the government chooses not to prosecute for similar crimes), they fail or refuse to address the issue of race. Scared to ruffle white feathers. Banks does mention the NAACP "has denounced the verdict", which is a positive thing, but she doesn't mention the basis for the NAACP's objection. It doesn't appear to be grounded in racial discrimination.

So, Wright is left to face the issue of racial discrimination in the government's targeted prosecution on his own. And since he lacks the courage himself to address the issue, other than my blogs, it won't get addressed. That's a sad commentary.


UPDATE--February 22, 2014

THE IRONY OF WRIGHT'S DECISION TO FOREGO CHALLENGING HIS PROSECUTION ON EQUAL PROTECTION GROUNDS; HIS WHITE COUNTERPARTS HAVE NO PROBLEM USING THE CONCEPT AGAINST HIM

While Sen. Wright chose to avoid his equal protection challenge to his prosecution, and was later found guilty of eight charges; his white counterparts do not seem to have the same problem with utilizing equal protection principles against him.

Wright, in foregoing his equal protection defense, likely didn't want to ruffle white feathers or upset the white establishment of the Senate by pointing to specific white individuals to base his equal protection claim on. But, apparently some of his white senatorial counterparts do not have the same problem with ruffling Black feathers or upsetting the Black establishment of the Senate, by charging that Wright is being "treated differently"(my quotes)(the core principle of equal protection) than others because he has not been stripped of all committee assignments or because he has not been removed from office (based on the convictions alone, regardless of a proposed appeal). Indeed, a couple of Republicans, according to the L.A. Times, has stated, "When a senator's ability to represent his or her constituents is inhibited, it's incumbent upon that senator to step down. And when a senator fails to step down following convictions of this magnitude, it is incumbent upon the entire Senate to move for his or her removal." "Roderick Wright must go", February 14, 2014. The two Republicans, Steve Knight and Joel Anderson, go on to say, "In contrast to the inaction in the Wright case, the Senate leader stripped Sen. Ronald Calderon (D-Montebello) of all committee appointments simply because a television report alleged that he was under investigation. Calderon had not even been charged with a crime." Id. And, here's the equal protection and "treated differently" kicker : Knight and Anderson state, "The leaders of the Senate have failed to explain why 'similar action' has not been taken against Wright"(interior quote added); implying that Wright has been treated differently and favored.

So, while Wright has likely displayed a deep consciousness or concern for the feelings of white folks (particularly white folks in the Senate) in his failure to assert his equal protection defense of being treated differently, white folks (particularly white folks in the Senate) has not displayed the same feelings or concern for him. How ironic! In hindsight, Senator Wright, should you have exercised your right to argue that you were being targeted or treated differently?

I hope, for your sake, your answer is "yes".

Finally, I think I received some small amount of support (although I don't really need it) for my theory that, indeed, Wright was targeted for prosecution by the D.A.'s office. In discussing a Republican response to Wright's convictions, George Skelton of the L.A. Times, in the article, "Wright's crime is mild", February 17, 2014, notes "There is some demagogic clamor from a few opportunistic Republicans. . . to oust the Democrat (Wright). Never mind that a couple of Republicans have questionable domiciles themselves." While Skelton is viewing the suspect treatment of Wright from a political perspective, I view it from a racial perspective, which triggers the equal protection and selective prosecution defenses.


UPDATE--February 28, 2014

Now, after obtaining some further information concerning Sen. Wright, my theory of the D.A. targeting Wright has been confirmed. Wright has now been granted an indefinite leave of absence to continue to deal with his pending criminal case and any other associated matters, and according to the L.A. Watts Times, "Wright's departure leaves just one Black member of the California State Senate, newly-elected Senator Holly Mitchell, and leaves Democrats with a bare two-thirds majority."

This is absolutely new and crucial news to and for me regarding my theory that Wright was targeted for prosecution. And this fact should have compelled Wright to assert his selective prosecution/equal protection argument. It absolutely provided compelling support for a selective prosecution/equal protection argument.

I was not aware of this fact, i.e., only two Black State Senators. I do not keep up with politics that closely, apparently. And, in making my argument, I, necessarily, did not consider and incorporate this fact. Moreover, based on this fact, Wright clearly has done a disservice to his constituents, particularly and especially those who voted him into office. Those constituents deserved a better fight from Wright.

Furthermore, my level of disrespect for Wright and McKesson for not challenging Wright's prosecution on selective prosecution/equal protection grounds rises as well, because of this fact. This fact also means that Wright was the only Black male member of the Senate before and after the election of Mitchell; and, before Mitchell, he was the only Black Senator period. And that didn't prompt Wright to challenge his prosecution on equal protection grounds? It's just disgusting!

However, my high level of respect for Wright for retaining a Black lead counsel does not change.

I believe Wright was likely persuaded by Senate colleagues (white), especially those that supported him, not to pursue the selective prosecution route, i.e., leave race out of it. And, because Wright needed and wanted their support, he brushed aside the selective prosecution defense and decided to go the regular route (stand trial). However, I truly believe also that Wright believed that he had a winable case, i.e., that he would be acquitted (as exhibited by McKesson's arrogance). Therefore, he didn't need to assert the selective prosecution defense. But, I warned Wright, through this blog, that regardless of the confidence that he might have in his case, D.A. Cooley (at the time) had asserted that he had never lost a case similar to Wright's. That should have told Wright something. And, as it turned out, Cooley was right (although I believe, with the judge and jury that Wright had at his trial, and with Wright's facts, I would have gotten Wright acquitted--but, I still would have asserted, raised, and argued the selective prosecution defense prior to trial).

The fact of Wright being the only Black State Senator, alone, likely would have caused judge Kennedy to set aside his indictment on selective prosecution and equal protection grounds. But, Wright will never know, because he didn't raise the defense.

And, where is the outcry from the Black community in Los Angeles (based on the only Black Senator fact) or, in particular, the Black community that Wright serves ? I mean the only Black Senator, and he is prosecuted for an address crime? Please! And, I won't ask that question regarding so-called black leaders, because I already know that there are none (if I'm wrong, who are they? and where were they before, during, and after Wright's trial?). It is so sad.


Finally, according to news reports, McKesson said that he got the sentencing pushed back because he has to order the entire trial record in order to support a motion for a new trial, and that it will take until March for the record to be produced.

*Smells like a fishing expedition to me. But, that's his (W)right. (Smile).


UPDATE--March 4, 2014

More fuel to the fire of my position that Wright was targeted for prosecution : "When I think about all the legislators who have not lived in their districts and this guy (Wright) gets hit with eight felonies, it's just not right." David Townsend, political consultant, as quoted from a news report.

And, it seems that the more Wright speaks, the less respect I end up having for him for not challenging his prosecution on selective prosecution grounds. According to the L.A. Times, "Wright. . . insists he did nothing wrong and feels singled out by prosecutors when he says other lawmakers have lived outside their districts over the years." "Wright misses policy debate", March 4, 2014. And Wright states, "I am still at this point not convinced that what I did is out of (line with) what I have seen being done (by others) for 40 years." Id.

Then, why in the hell didn't you raise the defense? All you needed was one. And, I'm sure they couldn't all be your friends. Moreover, Steven Hintz, whom I identified for you in this blog, is not even a lawmaker.

There simply is no valid excuse or rationale for Wright not asserting the selective prosecution defense. It's just shameful. *I have no sympathy for Wright at this time.


UPDATE--June 26, 2014

RICHARD ALARCON'S (AND HIS WIFE) TRIAL HAS NOW BEGUN

Alarcon's trial has now began without Alarcon having asserted a selective prosecution or equal protection defense. So Alarcon begins as Wright did, waiving his right to raise the defenses, and standing on what will likely be his only defense, a legal defense. But, as I stated above, Alarcon does not have the facts that Wright had, so it will be much more difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate a defense to the government's case (if the government's case here is similar to its case in Wright's case, and I believe it will be).

Alarcon and his wife are being charged with multiple Counts of voter/election fraud and perjury, basically based on utilizing the wrong address or illegally using the wrong address in voting and running for elected office in a certain and specific district.
The Alarcons are being charged with basically the same or similar crimes as Senator Wright.

I missed the opening statements of the trial, which I regret, because they would have provided me with some insights into the position of the respective parties, especially the defense. I think I pretty much know the government's position, but it would have been interesting to hear the defense's position or defense, because I don't see a valid one for Alarcon or his wife. Nevertheless, it would have been interesting to see what Alarcon's lawyers are arguing in his defense.

After missing the first two days of the trial, I attended the trial for the first time on the third day of trial. It doesn't appear that I missed much, and I am absolutely convinced that I attended two of the most crucial days of the trial. On the last day I attended, Tuesday, June 24, 2014, I believe the government presented the most damaging evidence against Alarcon thusfar, an admission by Alarcon, through a witness, that Alarcon knew he was living outside of his district when he ran for and won his district office. That admission will be a huge burden for the defense to overcome. So huge that the government could rests its case now and feel confident that it will obtain a conviction on multiple counts. This admission is so destructive to Alarcon's case that he will almost assuredly be required to take the stand in his own defense to rebut the witness's statements. That is, he will have to take the stand and say she's lying, or place the statements in another context. If he doesn't take the stand, he's doomed.

From my understanding, Alarcon is being tried for 24 Counts of perjury,fraud, and other charges stemming from voting and/or election conduct. I believe his wife is charged with at least 8 Counts of fraud and other charges as well.

Alarcon is represented by an older white lawyer, Richard P. Lasting, and he and his wife is also represented by another older white lawyer, Mark Overland (aided by his daughter, who is also a lawyer). Mr. Overland appears to suffer from a disability, so he is assisted by his daughter in a physical way as well as with legal matters in court. The government is represented by Michele Gilmer, a Black lawyer. Ms. Gilmer was also the lead prosecutor in the Wright case. I am not familiar with either Mr. Lasting or Mr. Overland, so any impression I form about them will be based strictly on their courtroom performance in this, the Alarcon, trial. Of course, I am familiar with Ms. Gilmer from the Wright trial. The judge is George Lomeli, a different judge than the pre-trial judge, judge Kennedy. Was this a strategic move?

My initial impressions are that the government is laying out its case in a methodical manner(e.g., CA driver's license info, voting forms completed under oath, etc.) as it did in the Wright case (but, here, Gilmer is running the show herself with the aid of an investigator sitting at the desk with her, which is unusual--but apparently, the judge approved the arrangement--some judges only allow counsel to sit at counsel's table, with exceptions). Gilmer is doing a good job. Alarcon's lawyers are doing their best with what they have to work with. However, I believe their age shows with respect to energy and tenacity in their cross examinations. An aging lawyer can either be an asset or a detriment because of his or her age. The asset of course would be their wisdom, knowledge, and experience; the detriment would be restricted energy, speed, and tenacity in presenting the case. In this case, at this point, I detect a slight detriment because of Alarcon's lawyers' age in terms of all three items that I named. But, it is much too early for me to draw any conclusions as to the effect of the "detriment" on Alarcon's case. At this point, it's just an observation. Before the end of the trial, it may very well be that the lawyers' assets will overcome any detriment. We'll see.

At one point, Gilmer and Overland became engaged in a "heated" confrontation regarding Overland informally questioning a government witness. Gilmer, in front of the witness, informed Overland that the witness was not required to speak to him, and that he should have informed the witness of that fact. As Overland walked away, he blurted out some unkind words to Gilmer, and that was that.

Thusfar, it's not looking good for Alarcon. But, it is early, and the defense has not put on its case.

More next time.


UPDATE--June 28, 2014

SENATOR WRIGHT'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL

I have now discovered through the Los Angeles Wave newspaper that Fredric D. Woocher has now "re-joined" Senator Roderick Wright's team in moving for a new trial. The Wave states the proposition (Woocher re-joining the team) as though Woocher is some "new" outside attorney who is so significantly skilled that he will make the difference in assuring that Wright obtain a new trial, that is, "The legal profession's star quarterback has joined the team defending state Sen. Roderick Wright. . . ." Somehow attempting to equate Sen. Wright's scenario with that of O.J. Simpson's, where O.J. brought in Johnnie Cochran as the "star quarterback", and Johnnie went on to actually "save" O.J. There are two major differences however in the comparison between Wright and O.J. First, Woocher is not "joining" the team, he is re-joining the team. He initially started out as Wright's lead counsel during pre-trial proceedings, and later the reins were turned over to Winston Kevin McKesson to conduct the trial. Second, Woocher, who is white, is no Johnnie Cochran, even as it pertains to a new trial motion.

As indicated above in the portion of this blog dealing with Wright's pretrial proceedings, I am a little familiar with Woocher. And, I am not impressed. In fact, I charged that he rendered ineffective assistance of counsel to Wright for not advancing a selective prosecution defense during pre-trial proceedings. So, I don't think Woocher will add anything to the new trial motion, contrary to what the Wave appears to believe. If Woocher was that good, he would have gotten Wright acquitted in the first place, notwithstanding his not being lead counsel. He would have counseled McKesson on the critical argument that he needed to make in order to prevail at trial. McKesson did a good job at trial, he simply failed to make a critical argument to the jury. I believe that had he made the argument, Wright would have been acquitted. But, now, its too late.

I have not reviewed Wright's new trial motion, but the Wave have identified at least three grounds upon which the motion is based. I will only address one here. First, though, I don't think either of the grounds is valid. But the ground I will address is "the district attorney prosecuting the case has been guilty of prejudicial misconduct during the trial, therefore, before a jury." I attended the entire Wright trial, and I did not see any D.A. misconduct during the trial. I think the prosecution team conducted themselves in a professional manner. I did question a certain implication that the government attempted to make re: Wright and his chief of staff, but that certainly would not amount to trial error based on prejudicial misconduct. The government was simply attempting to attack the credibility of the witness *(and for good reason, because the witness was a very good witness for the defense). In fact, I believe the government could have appealed a ruling by judge Kennedy, which would have delayed the trial, but chose not too. I do not believe the other * grounds mentioned by the Wave will be sufficient for a new trial either. They (Woocher and McKesson), according to the Wave, are also asserting an additional ground of court error based on the terms "live" and "domicile". I believe that was hashed out during trial, jury instructions, and closing statements. *There was also a discussion of the term "residence". The jury simply did not accept the arguments that McKesson made, *and it did accept the government's arguments. And, the argument McKesson should have made, he didn't make (and Woocher, had he been lead counsel, would not have made it either, apparently).

BOTTOMLINE: I don't think Woocher will add anything to McKesson's new trial motion. And, I don't believe Wright's new trial motion will go anywhere, but, because of judge Kennedy being a fair judge, I will reserve any prediction at this time, at least until after the hearing.


UPDATE--July 1, 2014

SEN. WRIGHT'S NEW TRIAL MOTION

While I have little respect or sympathy for Sen. Wright at this time, for the reasons stated above, I also realize that he is still the only Black male member of the State Senate (at one time he was the only Black Senator), and from my limited knowledge of his performance as a senator, he has performed well for his constituents. Furthermore, I continue to have a high level of respect for him for retaining Black lawyers as lead counsel for his defense (including the lawyer he retained for his stepmother). For these reasons, I will extend an offer to Sen. Wright to consult with me regarding his new trial motion.

As I stated above, I attended the entire Wright trial, and, as a lawyer, I detected only one error made during the trial. And even that one error is a longshot. But, it's Wright's only hope. It would present a novel approach to raising an error, but, it was an error, and it would provide a legitimate legal basis for granting Wright a new trial. But, it will place a heavy burden on judge Kennedy for her interpretation of one aspect of the error. Because, depending on how she interprets the error, will determine whether she will grant Wright a new trial or not. So, once again, it will be up to judge Kennedy.

THE BOTTOMLINE: In my opinion, there was only one legal error made at trial. But, there was a legal error made. It will require a novel legal approach for Wright to raise and rely on the error (and it will be difficult to argue). But, it's his only shot at obtaining a new trial(I do not believe that any of the grounds for a new trial raised by Wright's attorneys, according to the Wave, are legitimate or court error--and I don't believe judge Kennedy will find any of the grounds justification for granting a new trial). If, however, Wright succeeds at getting a new trial, then, he will get another opportunity to argue what should have been argued the first time.

SEN. WRIGHT/ATTY McKESSON : GIVE ME A CALL


UPDATE--July 10, 2014

Now, back to the Alarcon trial. After a week's break, the trial continued this week. I missed the first two days of the trial (where two politicians took the witness stand). But, yesterday, the government continued to build its case, showing that the Alarcons really lived at one address while indicating for voting or election purposes that they lived at another address. One strange thing that I found about the trial was that a government investigator who had sat at the government's table during the trial, was allowed to testify about facts of the case, i.e., he wasn't sequestered before testifying. Ordinarily, that would have been objected to by the defense. But, apparently, it was agreed to by the defense. Anyway, this investigator took the stand and testified that one home (Panorama City) did not appear to have been lived in for many months (e.g., April to October, 2009--he had gotten to October when the trial was recessed or adjourned for the day, so he may add more months today). He offered several pictures of the condition of the house in a progressive fashion, i.e., before and after or later. It was damaging evidence. *NOTE : I was informed by Mr. Overland that a California rule or law allows certain prosecution witnesses to avoid sequestration and testify. I'm a federal lawyer, so I'm not up on all aspects of California procedural practice.

The government is presenting similar evidence against the Alarcons as it did against Sen. Wright. And we know what happen to Sen. Wright. And, as I stated before, Sen. Wright had "special" facts supporting his case. The Alarcons do not have those facts. So what does that point to? But, the Alarcons must still put on their case. It seems clear that their case will heavily rely on the concept of "domicile" (as did Sen. Wright's case). In fact, its their only hope. It will be interesting to see how they argue it. The Alarcons case should begin tomorrow. I hope to be there.


**UPDATE--July 12, 2014

Yesterday, the government rested their case (it didn't rest earlier, as I had expected). Before resting, the government presented photographic evidence of the Panorama City address to show that it had not been lived in for multiple months, at least. It even presented a "dairy man" to testify regarding an egg carton that was found in the refrigerator at the Nordhoff Street address. It ended its case by presenting evidence that the Alarcons really lived in the Sheldon Street home (outside of the district).

Thusfar, of what I've seen of the trial (and I didn't see it all), the government has presented the same type of evidence that it presented at the Wright trial. Assistant D.A. Gilmer has done a good job (as she did in Wright) in laying out the government's case. The defense has a heavy burden to overcome in its case-in-chief, and it appears that Alarcon will have to testify to try and overcome it. Sen. Wright testified at his trial, because he strongly and honestly believed that he had done nothing wrong and had nothing to hide. We'll see if Alarcon testifies.

In my view, in addition to testifying, Alarcon will have to show at least two more things. One is related to the concept of "domicile" and the other is related to the concept of "renovations" to the house. I won't go into detail here because Alarcon still has to put on his case, and he must be allowed to put on his own case. But, I think he must show those three things in order to create a deliberative question for the jury.

We'll see what happens. The defense's case begins Monday.


**UPDATE--July 23, 2014

Well, as of today, the Alarcons are convicted felons. There was a verdict today. But, before I discuss the verdict, I should comment on some of the defense's evidence. The defense's case was weak, to say the least, and it needed to be strong to overcome the government's methodical case against the Alarcons.

The defense's strongest witness was their last witness, the brother of Flora Alarcon, "Miguel". He testified as to renovations made to the Nordorff house. He appeared to be honest and candid. He answered questions in detail without any display of bias for the defense. He described the work he had done on the house and pictures he had taken for a school course he was taking. And, the defense put on another witness who had done some work on the house. The problem was: none of the witnesses testified as to why they were doing the work or renovations, and they weren't asked. That is, they didn't state that they were doing the work for the Alarcons to move back in to live.

Another witness, "Robert", testified that on one occasion, he visited the Nordorff home to pick up Alarcon to go on a trip to Washington, D.C.. He testified that he observed children in pajamas come out of the house. His testimony was clearly biased in favor of Alarcon, in an attempt to show that Alarcon lived at the Nordorff address. He testified that he focused on the family when he went to pick up Alarcon to take him to the airport.

There were other witnesses offered to testify as to work orders for the Nordorff home.

Finally, the defense rested, without Alarcon or his wife taking the stand. I believe Alarcon needed to take the stand in order to refute the testimony of government witness Jackson that Alarcon admitted that he didn't live in the district when ran for a district office.

Then came closing arguments. Gilmer did a superb job for the government. I mean she even got down to how much gas and water, based on information supplied by water and power records and supportive testimony, was needed to take a shower or to cook food to show that the Alarcons could not have lived at the Nordorff address because there simply wasn't enough water and power to supply a family with the necessary requirements to live.

More next time.


UPDATE--July 24, 2014

To continue, Gilmer recounted the overwhelming evidence showing that the Alarcons could not have lived at the Nordorff address at the crucial times, and she again argued the admision made to the witness Jackson by Alarcon that he did not live in the district he ran for office for (admitting in effect that he knew he was breaking the law).

By far, Overland's closing argument was the most effective for the defense. He basically argued "domicile" and voting in the respective elections (in essence, he argued that the Alarcons did not break the law by voting in certain elections). I believe that it was Overland's closing statement that caused multiple not guilty verdicts for Alarcon (even though he was representing the wife). His "domicile" argument probably was most effective. As for attorney Lastly, he was less effective because he was a bit unorganized with his delivery. He constantly moved from the podium to counselor's table, and this was distracting. Further, he constantly could not find the documents he referred to in his argument (therefore, he went to the table and shuffled through papers looking for the document). He made some points, but he was less effective than Overland.

Overall, I believe the government presented an overwhelming case that the Alarcons did not live at the Nordorff address at the applicable time of voting and making statements under oath regarding their proper address. I don't believe the defense presented sufficient evidence to rebut the government's case. In fact, the defense's case was weak at best. Even with the "renovations" argument, the defense failed to make points that it should have made to provide impact and credibility to the argument or defense. I won't expound upon this point because the Alarcons likely will appeal, and they must present their own case. So, next, I'll discuss the verdict.


THE VERDICT : GUILTY (ON 7 COUNTS--FOR RICHARD(4)AND FLORA(3)ALARCON)

AS I PREDICTED. That is, I told you so. See my August 13, 2012 Update, where I stated, "Even if Alarcon is not convicted on all Counts, I believe there will be "multiple" counts of conviction."

First things first: DID COUNCILMAN ALARCON AND HIS WIFE RECEIVE A FAIR TRIAL?

The Jury

The Alarcons received both a jury of their peers and a fair cross-section of the community. The Alarcons' peers were three(3) Hispanic males. The fair cross-section of the community were three(3) black women (including an Ethiopian woman), two(2) Asian females, two(2) white females, and two (2) white males. So, the Alarcons cannot complain about the makeup of the jury. They received a constitutionally-sanctioned or constitutionally guaranteed jury . Therefore, they received a fair jury.

NOTE: The jury foreperson was a white male.


The Judge

The judge was George Lomeli. Let me first inform you that the Alarcons were last in the courtroom of judge Kathleen Kennedy, who presided over most of the Alarcons' and Sen. Wright's pretrial proceedings. For some reason, which I am not privy to, the case was transferred to judge Lomeli's court for trial. Even if Wright and Alarcon both wanted separate trials as opposed to joint or consolidated trials, they still would normally be tried by the same judge. But, for whatever reason, when the decision was made to try Wright and the Alarcons separately, apparently the Alarcons sought and obtained a different judge. The move is somewhat surprising to me because I know judge Kennedy is a fair judge. So, why would you want your case transferred from a fair judge to another judge, who , for me, the jury is still out on. From my experience in observing Lomeli in one case, the People v. "Lisa" Tseng, he is not a fair judge (Tseng has been unfairly denied a reduction of bail and, to my knowledge, is still incarcerated, without a trial and a finding of guilt). Nevertheless, judge Lomeli apparently was chosen by the Alarcons and presided over their trial. But, I must admit here, I do not know all of the facts regarding the assignment of the case to judge Lomeli.

In any event, judge Lomeli presided over the Alarcons' trial. Generally *(but, certainly not "entirely"), Lomeli appeared fair in terms of deciding issues or questions in the trial. *One instance of unfairness that I detected was when he chastised Overland for complaining that he(Overland) was being interrupted by Gilmer (prosecutor) when attempting to speak. Lomeli said "stop it". I thought the chastising was unfair and inappropriate because, indeed, Overland was interrupted by Gilmer as he was attempting to speak. She cut him off as he was speaking. Even if Lomeli thought Overland should not have responded the way he did, his (Lomeli's) stern chastising was uncalled for. Although Lomeli mentioned that Overland had done this before. However, I still believe his(Lomeli's) actions were uncalled for. But, I believe Lomeli was generally *(again, though not "entirely") fair to both sides during the trial. So, I believe the Alarcons received a fair judge during the trial. Although, Lomeli did commit at least two errors that were favorable to the prosecution; one error was objected to, the other one wasn't.
NOTE: *However, I will withhold disclosing the errors until after the Alarcons file their new trial motion and/or appeal. *Alarcon's lawyers likely picked up on them. We'll see.

More next time.


UPDATE--July 25, 2014

The Prosecution

I believe the prosecution conducted its case in a fair manner. Gilmer certainly was thorough, but, I didn't detect anything unfair about her presentation.

NOTE: As with Sen. Wright, however, the government discriminated against the Alarcons pretrial by bringing an indictment against Alarcon, as a Hispanic Councilman (and his wife), while refusing to bring an indictment against other white public officials who had committed similar offenses to that of Alarcon (and his wife).

Next time, the defense.


UPDATE--July 29, 2014


The Defense

Like Sen. Wright, the Alarcons cannot complain about their defense, they chose it. Again, the Alarcon lawyers were two older gentleman. As I stated earlier in this blog, that could be either an asset or a detriment. Although its close, I believe because of Overland, and particularly his closing statement, the age of the older lawyers was slightly an asset. I don't think Overland's closing was that passionate or dynamic (as compared to McKesson's closing statement in Wright's case), but it was effective, and it provided some members of the jury who wanted to support the Alarcons something to "hold on to". And apparently those Alarcon supporters held on and convinced other jurors to do likewise, thereby producing the multiple not guilty verdicts. On the whole, attorney Lastly's method of presentation was on many occasions, distracting, although he did make a few points.

Overall, the Alarcon lawyers, after providing the Alarcons, particularly Clm. Alarcon, with ineffective assistance of counsel at pretrial by not raising the pretrial selective prosecution defense, provided Alarcon with adequate, but effective, counsel
at trial, especially considering what they had to work with. Alarcon really had no defense, but, because of jury nullification, he was found not guilty on several counts.


CONCLUSION: Clm. Alarcon (and his wife, Flora) received a fair trial. Even with the couple of errors that I detected, Alarcon cannot claim that he didn't receive a fair trial. The errors did not create an overall unfair trial. I believe one error is appealable; the other is not because there was no formal objection to it.


COMMENT: So, Clm. Alarcon, like Sen. Wright, has now been convicted of multiple felonies, as I predicted he would be, without having raised the defenses of selective *prosecution or denial of his right to equal protection of the law. That means he will never know if the defenses would have been successful or not. So be it.

THE BOTTOMLINE: ALARCON GETS NO SYMPATHY FROM ME. HE GOT WHAT HE DESERVES. ANY MINORITY, AND ESPECIALLY A BLACK ONE, WHO REFUSES TO EXERCISE A CONSTITUTIONAL AND/OR CIVIL RIGHT WHERE ONE IS AVAILABLE IN DEFENSE OF HIMSELF OR HERSELF GETS NO SYMPATHY FROM ME WHEN HE OR SHE OBTAINS A NEGATIVE VERDICT.

In the end, the Alarcons really had no defense to the government's case, and Gilmer presented a methodical ,thorough, and clearly effective case. If not brilliant, her presentation was nearly so. The only reason Alarcon received the not guilty verdicts was because of jury nullification (a decision not based on the facts, evidence, or law, but rather, based on other extra-judicial reasons, e.g., sympathy or disagreement with the law in a particular case).

In comparing Wright with Alarcon, the difference is: Wright was *not guilty, before trial, yet, was found guilty, *after trial. And, Alarcon was guilty, *before trial, and was found guilty (and not guilty), *after trial. Alarcon clearly, even based on "domicile", did not live in the district that he represented; which is why he had no defense to the government's case. Wright, on the other hand, had a legitimate and valid defense to the government's case, that is, as a matter of law, he did not break the law. His lawyer simply did not properly argue to the jury what he needed to in order to get the jury to understand why he complied with the law. And, I believe that Wright relied on the fact that his lawyer would make that critical point to the jury when he formed his belief that he was innocent (which is why he took the witness stand on his own behalf, because he sincerely believed that he did not violate the law--and I believe that he didn't either). However, McKesson's simple but critical misstep was not ineffective assistance of counsel, because he covered the general area and otherwise did a good job.

More next time.


UPDATE--September 2, 2014

WRIGHT'S NEW TRIAL MOTION

Unless the date has been changed, tomorrow is the date set for the hearing on Sen. Wright's new trial motion.

Let me be clear, even though attorney Woocher has been "added" to the new trial motion team, and even though the L.A. Wave perceives him as some kind of "great white hope", as compared to the Black McKesson, if judge Kennedy decides to grant Wright a new trial on any ground, it will be because judge Kennedy for whatever reason has decided to "bend over backwards" again for Wright (as she did in the trial), in the interest of fairness, and give him another chance. Although judge Kennedy will have to rely on some aspect of an argument set forth by the defense, her decision will ultimately be based on her consideration of fairness. If judge Kennedy grants Wright a new trial, it will not be based on any of the arguments set forth by the defense (although, as I said, she will likely point to some broad area or argument made by the defense to support her ruling, or she could just sua sponte provide an altogether separate reason, which she can do, since she has a motion before her). I only saw one error at trial, and that error would be too difficult for the defense to raise. So, it's really up to judge Kennedy.

If Kennedy does grant Wright a new trial. He needs to consult with me.


UPDATE--September 3, 2014

Today, instead of a hearing on Wright's motion for a new trial, there was a request for a continuance, which judge Kennedy granted. As a trial lawyer, I have always been irritated by continuances, because most of them, I have found in my experience and career, are unjustified and are made for the purpose of buying time and prolonging the litigation. I am irritated by this one as well. And, I believe judge Kennedy was irritated by it as well. To wit: she stated there will be "no more continuances." McKesson's reason for the conntinuance was to provide Woocher with more time to complete a response to the government's rebuke, which, according to McKesson, should make it easier for judge Kennedy to make a decision. It should "cyrstalize" the matter for judge Kennedy. Apparently, McKesson himself, like the L.A. Wave newspaper (a local black newspaper), believes Woocher is "the great white hope".

I believe judge Kennedy was prepared to rule on the new trial motion today, and it only frustrated her to put it off another week. But, again, in her fairness, and I continue to believe in and am impressed with her fairness, she allowed the defense a final continuance (once again, she "bends over backwards"--it would not have been an abuse of discretion for her to deny the continuance--for the defense to assure fainess). I don't think anything in Woocher's response will change her mind. I think that she will hand down the same decision next Friday, September 12th, that she would have handed down today, notwithstanding Woocher's response. Because of judge Kennedy's fairness, I will not try and predict what her decision will be.

However, I will say this: if judge Kennedy grants Wright a new trial, it will be based on her final act of "bending over backwards" for Wright, because she perceives that Wright is actually and legally not guilty of the offenses with which he has been charged. It will not be based on any argument by Woocher or McKesson. And, while I will continue to believe that Wright, like Alarcon, will get what he deserves if judge Kennedy deny the new trial motion (for not raising the selective prosecution/equal protection defense), in my own sense of fairness and justice, I will not be disappointed if she grants Wright a new trial. Factually, and especially, legally, Wright was not guilty of the offenses with which he was charged, unlike Alarcon (who both factually and legally was). Wright had the proper "tools" at trial to prove his innocence, but McKesson simply did not utilize those tools effectively.

**UPDATE--September 13, 2014

SENATOR WRIGHT'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL AND SENTENCING

Well, Judge Kennedy denied Wright's motion for a new trial, not unexpectedly. While I reserved a prediction based on my perception of Judge Kennedy's fairness, judge Kennedy's ruling is not unexpected. As stated above, I saw no real errors in the trial, other than an error that the government could have raised (regarding jury instructions).

The "great white hope" (attorney Woocher) apparently did not come through. Judge Kennedy denied the new trial, even after Woocher's "crystalized" presentation through his motion and oral presentation at the hearing. Judge Kennedy, through her new trial decision, generally accepted the government's version of the case, that is, "Glenway was not his domicile at the time." She found that Wright was domiciled and had residence at the Baldwin Hills residence. She found that there was not legitimate evidence that Wright lived at the Glenway address. Therefore, she found that there was "dishonesty".

Kennedy also found, contrary to the defense's position, that "there were factual issues". The defense's position was that she should decide the case as a matter of law, not on the basis of any factual dispute.

Moreover, Kennedy stated that "the law applies to all of us" and that "the jury came to the right conclusion". Kennedy stated that there was "arrogance" on the part of Wright, as I found on the part of his counsel, McKesson (only). She stated that Wright acted as if "the law did not apply to him". She stated that, "the law applies to all of us".

Finally, she concluded that, "The jury came to the right conclusion". "The motion for a new trial is denied."

Kennedy provided a fair hearing, in that she allowed both sides to present their arguments, and she commented on or asked a question about the Fenton case, which was heavily relied upon by Wright. She apparently believed that the Fenton case did not present a defense.


SENTENCING

Wright, through McKesson, argued that "convictions is punishment enough", implying that Wright should only be sentenced to probation. McKesson made good sentencing arguments on behalf of Wright. However, the government argued that "without some jail time, the public will think that Wright is getting away" with committing crimes. And attorney Dodd requested "1000 hours of community service".

Kennedy determined that Wright was eligible for probation. However, she found that Wright's crimes were not "victimless" crimes. She found that the "victim is the process", and that Wright displayed a "lack of respect for the process".

Kennedy sentenced Wright to 90 days in County jail and 1500 hours of community service, plus payment of restitution and other fines and fees. Most importantly, however, she ordered that Wright could no longer be eligible to hold public office in California, i.e., a lifetime ban from holding pubic office in California. This is the main reason Wright should have asserted a selective prosecution defense. But, again, part of the reason for his not doing so was likely "arrogance" (or believing that he had such a good case that he didn't need to raise the defense).

Finally, Kennedy granted Wright a 45 day stay of execution of jail time, until October 31, 2014, before he must report to serve his time.

Kennedy's sentence was fair under the circumstances of Wright's case. It could have been "fairer", i.e., probation, but, it cannot be said that it was unfair.

BOTTOMLINE : I HAVE NO SYMPATHY FOR WRIGHT, WRIGHT GOT WHAT HE DESERVES FOR NOT ASSERTING HIS CIVIL/CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

Now, Wright has been convicted and sentenced without ever have raised the defenses of selective prosecution or denial of equal protection of the law. I have no sympathy for Wright regarding his sentence because of his failure to fight for his civil/constitutional rights.

More next time.


UPDATE--October 16, 2014

ALARCON'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL AND SENTENCING

On Tuesday, Judge George Lomeli denied Alarcon's motion for a new trial and sentenced Alarcon to 120 days in County jail, along with 600 hours of community service. Flora Alarcon was sentenced to 400 hours of community service with no jail time. Both Alarcons will serve a period of probation as well. Plus, Alarcon is BARRED FROM HOLDING PUBLIC OFFICE IN CALIFORNIA FOR LIFE.

BOTTOMLINE : AS WITH SEN. WRIGHT, I HAVE NO SYMPATHY FOR ALARCON; ALARCON GOT WHAT HE DESERVES FOR NOT ASSERTING HIS CIVIL/CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

Again, as with Sen. Wright, Alarcon has now been convicted and sentenced without ever having raised the defenses of selective prosecution or denial of equal protection of the law. Alarcon gets no sympathy from me. Again, like Wright, he is barred from holding public office in California, and he has given up this "Wright" without a real constituional fight. STUPID! STUPID! STUPID!

The actions of both Wright and Alarcon sickens me, and they should sicken the people who voted for the two, the people who wanted Wright and Alarcon to represent them. STUPID! STUPID! STUPID!

Finally, as I stated above, Wright had a valid defense, and he should have been acquitted. His attorney simply didn't argue a crucial aspect of the case properly. But, Alarcon had no defense. He was guilty from the get-go. He and his wife never really lived in the house in question. Wright actually lived in his house.

Bye-bye to two stupid minority candidates (for giving up such a huge asset, i.e., the right to run for public office, without a constitutional fight).


**UPDATE--September 13, 2016

Now, both Wright and Alarcon have appealed their convictions to the CA Court of Appeals, with different results. Alarcon, on or about January 20, 2016, had his conviction reversed, based on erroneous jury instructions. But Wright, not so "lucky". His convictions were affirmed. Was race a factor? I know this, although the United States of America almost always has a tendency to want to lump all minorities together, there are times where it is clear that Black people are in a class by themselves when it comes to racism and mistreatment by the white majority in the country. And I believe that this may be one of those times.

I have reviewed the 30-page "unpublished" decision (which says a lot itself), and clearly, clearly, if the Court of Appeals wanted to to find fault with the jury instructions in Wright's case, it could have. And, I'm basing this on the Court's discussion of jury instructions in Wright's case. The Court's discussion left the impression that it could have decided certain matters a different way, but, it decided against any relief for Wright.

So, now Wright has lost his case completely, and the California Supreme Court refused to provide review, without having raised his constitutional, or constitutionally-related defenses, i.e., selective prosecution or enforcement. He got what he deserves.

Although, the L.A.District Attorney's office can re-try Alarcon, and it had indicated that it would, it has not done so thusfar.

More later.