.
.
.
The Orange Juice Blog will replace the Inquisition picture with one of Mr. O’Crowley, if and when we can locate one.
Several months ago, near the beginning of Christopher Woodard‘s long hellish incarceration at LA Central, we reprinted here what looked to me like an important screed from attorney/supporter Matthew Pappas, detailing the catalogue of injustices thus far (as of April) and urging readers to contact LA District Attorney Jackie Lacey. That piece is still worth the read – go ahead, click on it, I’ll wait.
Then one afternoon last week, after I’d forgotten all about Mr. Woodard and the Pappas essay, I got a phone call from the Deputy DA who prosecuted the case, a Mr. Patrick O’Crowley, whose alleged abuses of power were detailed in the piece. He asked me politely if I could either take the piece down or at least make some major changes in it, because it was inaccurate and unfair to him. (And that it was all water under the bridge now as Woodard had confessed and been released – after six months in Central.)
Well, that was a first, a call from a Deputy DA to change one of my stories. I’m not complaining, mind you, and I didn’t feel intimidated. Anybody, beggar or king, can contact me if you think I’ve written something wrong or unfair and I’ll hear you out. But it was unusual. Was the piece causing him professional embarrassment or difficulties? It IS the second thing that pops up when you google “District Attorney Patrick O’Crowley.”
So I asked him to e-mail me a letter detailing the alleged inaccuracies, and four days later I got it, in PDF form, which you could read here – it’s not long. And it really doesn’t say much. It doesn’t deny what seemed to me to be the more outrageous allegations against him, but only contends that everything he did during the case was “truthful, ethical and fair,” and “adhered strictly to the requirements of the law.”
Well, perhaps everything O’Crowley did WAS within the law (perhaps not) but “truthful” and “fair” is really pushing it. Beyond that, were the things he did, the tricks he pulled, standard policy in Jackie Lacey’s office, or has he been behaving as a rogue anti-MMJ inquisitor? Inquiring minds want to know!
Let’s go back to Pappas’ narrative, but let’s fast-forward through all the initial injustices which didn’t yet involve O’Crowley but set the stage for the travesty of a trial: the hastily enacted “emergency legislation” against Long Beach’s law-abiding dispensaries, and the subsequent brutal militarized raids against Woodard’s business and home.
And let’s also fast-forward through Woodard’s civil rights lawsuit against the Long Beach police detective responsible, David Strohman; and we’ll fast-forward through the unbelievable outrage of that same cop coming and arresting him six weeks before trial date, for alleged “crimes” of two years earlier, after Chris had long given up on the medical marijuana trade and had been raising his family in Corona and working as a lineman for Edison.
Yes, let’s fast forward, for now, to the first outrage we can lay at the feet of Deputy DA O’Crowley:
The 1275 Motion
What is a 1275 motion? Sergio Sandoval, Pappas’ long-suffering paralegal who was in town trying to arrange bail for Woodard AND find him a pro-bono criminal attorney, didn’t know what a 1275 motion was. Most people he asked didn’t. Even O’Crowley, who quickly slapped the 1275 on Woodard, admitted it was new territory for him. It’s a procedure created for DRUG KINGPINS, so they can’t use their drug money to post bail and skip town. In this case, it was a desperate (but successful) ploy to keep poor Woodard in jail, because O’Crowley knew that was the only way to force a confession out of him.
Drug kingpin? Drug money? Chris needed $2500 to get back to his work and kids, and didn’t have it himself. His collective had been destroyed two years earlier; his house was underwater, he worked for Edison. Between a brother and an uncle he rustled up that cash – does that sound like drug kingpin money?
But the bondsman still wanted one more co-signer, so Sergio selflessly added his signature to the bottom of the form. To Sergio’s surprise the next day, HE then became the issue: O’Crowley (and his doppelganger Detective Strohman whispering in his ear) declared that Sergio himself – the co-signer – was tainted, because he worked for the Pappas Law Firm (not even his main job; he’s a graphic designer) AND the Pappas Law Firm may or may not at some point in the past have received money from a collective, even though most of their work is pro bono.
“The Pappas Law Firm is under investigation!” O’Crowley declared to an incredulous Judge James Otto and Sergio Sandoval. Was the Pappas Law Firm under investigation? Why yes, they were, because O’Crowley and Strohman had just decided to investigate them. How do you like that – “You are under investigation because we just decided to investigate you!” Judge Otto laughed that argument off and ordered Woodard released on bail. [See Pappas’ outraged letter to O’Crowley and DA Lacey, who eventually called off the phony “investigation” at least.]
But let’s pause here. Do you think any of O’Crowley’s behavior above was truthful? Ethical? Fair? Well, he’s just getting warmed up…
“Lost” in Jail; and the Secret Mulligan!
Last we left our hero a couple seconds ago, he’d been ordered released on bail by Judge Otto. Needless to say, O’Crowley and Strohman were not happy with that turn of events. So, miraculously, three days went by with nobody being able to find Chris Woodard in LA County Jail, as the Draconian Duo plotted how to change Judge Otto’s mind.
So that Monday, after the lost-in-jail weekend, telling nobody on the defense side, they hastily convened an emergency re-hearing on the 1275 motion. Woodard wasn’t present, nor was Pappas, Sandoval, or even Woodard’s public defender – instead, O’Crowley went and fetched some empty suit from the Public Defender’s office who knew nothing about the case to sit there and pretend he was defending Woodard. And who knows WHAT new arguments they made, but they got Judge Otto to reverse himself and re-instate the 1275, meaning Woodard could NOT go free on bail because … what was it again … the guy who CO-SIGNED on his bail gets a fraction of his income from a law firm that the prosecutors had just decided to “investigate” for maybe at some point in history having got money from a dispensary.
Sorry but let’s pause again. THIS was truthful, ethical, FAIR? Was this even “adhering to the requirements of the law?” To defy a Judge’s order to free a man, and conveniently “lose” him in jail while you go and plot how to change his mind? And give the prisoner no notice or representation through all this? Is this standard practice in your department, Jackie Lacey? Can you condone this?
That was pretty much the end; it was impossible to bail Chris out; he languished in jail another 5 months or so, and finally missed his kids and job so much that he copped to two bullshit charges: Possession of an “assault weapon” (which actually belonged to his sister and was kept in a gun locker but Strohman claimed it wasn’t locked properly and was hence “endangering” his kids); and a failure to file state income taxes on his dispensary income one year (probably explainable due to the crazy legal patchwork of California marijuana law.) And now he’s free at last. *sigh*
Wrapping up – FOR TODAY
Deputy DA Patrick O’Crowley ended his letter to me with this unimpeachable sentiment:
“It is important for the public to have accurate information about what is done by their government officials, so I appreciate this opportunity to respond.”
Well, yeah, sure. I’d add that it’s also important for the public to feel sure that the government official who may someday prosecute them for something they may or may not have done is not going to use every dirty trick in the book to keep them incarcerated unjustly. That he won’t use arcane procedures to keep them from getting bailed out, up to and including inventing phony investigations and drug connections. That he won’t conveniently lose them in jail when they are ordered released. That he won’t run behind your back and get the judge to reverse himself while you have no representation.
There will be more to this, soon: I will hopefully be interviewing Chris Woodard himself; as well as Jim Allard, an investigator who has filed a formal complaint on O’Crowley for remarkably similar behavior – O’Crowley improvising lies about Allard on the stand to discredit him, this time with notably less success. A modus operandi? But I did want to get this piece out quickly, because Mr. O’Crowley was so eager to get his side of the story heard! [Oh right, again, that’s here.]
Mr Crowley is guilty of Human Trafficking.
If this is the way Jackie lacy runs her department it’s really sad, every case ocrawley has procecuteted or stoman has been involved in should have a second look, if he did this to Chris Lord knows what he is capible of, and since when does a procecutor do his own public relation unless he is trying to cover something up. Why not go through normal channels. This whole thing makes Mr o Crowley and ms lacy look very bad. I wouldn’t trust either of them, some people need to read the constitution.
Worse than that they are both in violation of CA Democratic party rules. Lacey is subject but not the DDA. Unless he is a Dem that seeks office anytime soon. The CA State Democratic Party passed a resolution to allow medical marijuana and businesses and if Lacey is in violation she could be called out to have her endorsement pulled because of this. If Crowley runs for office as a Dem he is going to have to address this.
Vern
do you know of Woodward had a sellers permit from the BOE?
I’ll ask when I interview him. I assume so.
You have written a lot here, Vern, yet the reader is left with many unanswered questions.
Aren’t the facts different in your second story than in your first story? Did the D.A. really go to a different judge like Pappas said in April, or did Judge Otto just change his mind like in your second story? If your second story is right, isn’t that an important accusation that Pappas made against the D.A that was wrong? Doesn’t that bring into question Pappas’ credibility? Doesn’t that bring into question all of his other allegations?
You say the D.A.’s letter doesn’t deny the more outrageous allegations, but when the D.A. says he was “truthful, ethical and fair,” isn’t that a denial of any statement to the contrary? If you thought it was noteworthy that Pappas asked how the D.A. had time to write a short letter defending his reputation, why do you complain that the D.A. didn’t write a longer one? Is it the D.A.’s job to fact check YOUR publication? Wasn’t it enough that the D.A. told you Pappas’ accusations were wrong & you could learn the truth by reading the court file?
Did you read the court file before you published again? If not, why not, & where did all the statements in your new story come from? Was it Pappas again? Did you forget to quote him? Your piece reads like you have personal knowledge of the facts (though its unclear how). So does Pappas’ writing. Do you? Does he?
You ask “who knows” what arguments were made in one of the hearings. Wouldn’t someone who got a transcript of the hearings know? Isn’t that what the D.A. suggested? If, as you wrote, inquiring minds want to know, why wouldn’t they actually inquire?
If you are going to make accusations against a person who has already, as you put it, politely informed you that the accusations are wrong, and if they are accusations which, if untrue, would obviously be defamatory & libelous, shouldn’t you make some reasonable effort to fact check? Wouldn’t that be the prudent, responsible and DECENT thing to do before you drag someone’s name through the mud?
Didn’t Pappas, in his text to you, as much as admit that it didn’t matter to him what the real facts were, because, “whatever the truth is,” “the bottom line” will be the same for him? (That Pappas will be a hero & the government will be the villain.) Didn’t THAT trouble you a little? Shouldn’t that response have been a red flag?
What went wrong here, Vern? Did you let your passion for one of the underlying issues here cloud your view of the particulars? I can understand that. But if that’s what happened, in the interest of salvaging your own credibility from this sinkhole you seem to have let Matt Pappas drag you into, and in the interest of any just cause you seek to advance, you should find a way to make it right.
Hello let me clear some items up here. I am one of the persons mentioned in this article. I personally was trying to get Mr. Woodard a public defender and then whatever other help that I or Mr Pappas could do for the accused.
Firstly Christopher Woodard is a human being and a U.S citizen that has all of the rights due to him as say a Long Beach Deputy District Attorney or a Long Beach Police Detective. Of those rights he had the right to post bail and prepare a proper defense to his charges. These rights were blatantly denied to him.
Was there a discrepancy in Mr. Pappas’s letter? Yes, there was an error of exactly which Judge had removed the 1275 order. This should rectify that error and place a light on the fact that you are trying to create a red herring to the fact that Mr. Woodard’s life and rights have been ripped apart by this D.A’s loose translation of what is legal. I was attending as many of those hearings that I was possibly able to along with the one time I had to take the stand to defend myself for trying to help the accused. Due to the fact that I like most have rent and bills I was unable to attend every single court appearance, or order every transcript which can be expensive. I was never paid nor did I expect pay. I did this because it was the right thing to do. I was given second hand knowledge of the 1275 court hearing from the bailbond company and from the Public Defender that was finally assigned to Mr. Woodard’s case. The bond company had angrily divulged to me various statements that Mr. O’Crowley had said about me and Mr. Pappas. I will not get into the personal attacks that were made but I will state that they reported the 1275 hearing was in front of one judge but it obviously then went in front of Judge Otto. This was later corrected and for the record explained to Mr. Vern Nelson.
So does this discrepancy make it legal for Mr. O’Crowley and Det. Strohman to abuse their powers and place whomever they wish into a state prison while denying him his constitutional and god given rights as a human being? Your argument says that you agree with their tactics and the worst crime done here was the dragging of Mr. O’Crowley’s name through the mud. I would argue that you have not begun to scratch the surface as to the worst crimes committed here.
If Mr. O’Crowley believes that he is truly blameless then shouldn’t O’Crowley have reported this to the D.A’s public relations department? I believe that that is standard practice. I also believe that a deputy D.A is supposed to let the P.R Department handle the media instead of getting his hands dirty when his own name is attached. Do you work for the D.A’s public relations department, “Mr. Billy?”
Let me quote you, “Wouldn’t that be the prudent, responsible and DECENT thing to do before you drag someone’s name through the mud?” ………..Christopher Woodard had to endure nearly six months of county and state prison, twelve prison riots and constant life threatening fights. All while being denied the right to post bail and even the ability to prepare a decent defense against these allegations!
You obviously have the standing of your office to back your perception on the matter. Where as we have the truth of what happened. There is a sinkhole here and one of us is in it.
It was Sergio I checked with to answer my questions, since he was on the scene most of the time; Matt for various reasons was not. I think we can see now why Matt was confused about whether it was two judges or not.
O’Crowley invited me to go up to LA, ask for the case records, and read through the no-doubt voluminous files to find out who’s telling the truth. i don’t have a car; I can’t do this all-day project; I don’t get paid. Since he took the time to write a letter and did nothing but say that everything he did was goodness and light, I wish he’d at least have written a couple paragraphs explaining his version of what exactly Sergio and Matt are accusing him of. To wit:
“I sincerely believe it was correct and important to keep Mr Woodard incarcerated without bail under a 1275 order BECAUSE…”
AND…
“Lost in jail for three days? Oh, right – funny story there. Let me explain…”
AND…
“We felt justified not telling Woodard, his public defender, or anyone from Pappas’ office that we were having a re-hearing on the 1275 motion BECAUSE…” (or alternately, “They’re lying, we DID tell them, and you can find the proof here…”)
AND…
“Here is how we changed Judge Otto’s mind and convinced him to deny bail to Woodard under the 1275 motion…”
Finally, Billy, while we totally allow anonymous commenters here, we do wonder why somebody so solicitous of those in authority needs anonymity.
**** ***, ******.
[Editor’s note: Don’t be a ****, Paul.]
Vern,
Did Woodward have ANY legal advice while in jail?
Was this just another way of dogging medical marijuana collectives into non-business, and police getting their way?
I’m not naïve enough to believe police have the public’s safety first. Obviously, in light of the time, we hear about this topic hourly on the news. And rightly so.
I am troubled by the glib way you mentioned him owning (or his sister?) an automatic weapon…
What’s the best way to protect the public from predatory police who waste valuable resources confining non-violent offenders, while rewarding those in the law enforcement system who do their jobs ethically?
+1
Another story that involves LA County “losing” a prisoner when it’s convenient to do so:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/530/mind-your-own-business?act=2
Seems to be a pretty common delaying tactic.