Government Lawyer Facing Sanctions For Lying About A Jail Search He Swore He Had Nothing To Do With
from the just-another-humdrum-day-in-law-enforcement dept
Cops lie. Cops lie so often it’s hardly even news at this point. The only people left to be shocked by these revelations are the increasingly small segment of the population who’ve actually considered, at some point in their lives, the purchase of a fainting couch.
Cops lie because cops can almost always get away with it. And it’s not just cops. It’s the entire punishment side of the American justice system. Lies are often unchallenged. When they are, courts often refer to the lies as “contradictory” or “misleading” statements. On rare occasions, courts will go so far as to refer to these lying government employees as “not credible.”
But they’re liars all the same. And while cops have the most opportunities to lie, prosecutors do it too. And, at least in this case [PDF], it appears a federal court actually wants to hold a prosecutor responsible for his lies.
A prisoner in the middle of civil rights lawsuit against a California women’s prison filed a motion stating that her cell had been recently searched and court documents belonging to her were removed by prison personnel. A lawyer (Derrek Lee) working for the California Office of the Attorney General met with the prison warden and filed a statement on the warden’s behalf with the court.
That sworn statement said:
I am employed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) as the Warden for the California Institution for Women (CIW) in Corona, California.
I have reviewed the Court’s Order (ECF No. 62), inquiring as to the merits of Caruso’s (W-25086) claim that documents connected to her lawsuit have been removed from her possession. Plaintiff specifically contends that documents were removed from per possession, on or about, January 31, 2018. In line with the Court, both myself and staff at CIW take allegations of this nature very seriously.
At the direction of the Court, I have looked into Plaintiff’s allegations, and have reviewed unit logs and cell-search logs dating back to January 1, 2018, to determine if Plaintiff’s allegations have merit. Whenever a cell-search is performed, staff are required to fill out these documents explaining the reason for the search and any items confiscated. With respect to inmate Caruso, there is no record of a cell search, nor is there a record of any documents, legal or otherwise, that were confiscated from her cell.
But that’s not what actually happened. And the AG’s lawyer knew this, because he helped with the search he was now pretending didn’t happen. The plaintiff was taken from her cell to go to the prison’s “Litigation Coordinator.” While she was there, she was told the AG’s office wished to speak to her about a document it had accidentally released to her. While she was in the Litigation Coordinator’s office, her cell was searched and documents were taken. Following this incident, Derrek Lee wrote up a statement for Warden Hill to sign and submit to the court.
The AG’s lawyer doubled down on his lies following this revelation.
On April 29, 2022, Defendants filed a supplemental brief that addressed these allegations. According to the supplemental brief, a search of Plaintiff’s cell occurred and a document that Defendants produced in discovery was confiscated and destroyed. However, Defendants allege that the search occurred on November 29, 2017, not in or around February of 2018, and that the document was confiscated because it was a confidential personnel record that should not have been produced to Plaintiff. Additionally, Defendants allege that it was Deputy Attorney General Mohmoud, not Derrek Lee, who initiated the search.
This new set of lies was also disproven.
On May 6, 2022, Plaintiff submitted a copy of an email dated November 29, 2017, to Bystrom in which Derrek Lee asked [prison litigation coordinator] Bystrom to set up a call with Plaintiff on that day. Derrek Lee also asked for an ISU member to be present (or on the line).
On May 10, 2022, Defendants provided an email from Deputy Attorney General Mohmoud to Lt. Spinney dated November 29, 2017, in which she attached a copy of the personnel record she wanted confiscated and stated she would appreciate an update on whether Lt. Spinney was able to locate it. Derrek Lee was cced on the email.
Having run out of lies, Derrek Lee (who no longer works for the state AG’s office) is being forced to confront the truth. The court is definitely displeased to have been jerked around for months by the government lawyer.
The parties now appear to agree that a search of Plaintiff’s cell occurred on November 29, 2017, and that a document was taken from Plaintiff’s cell. Additionally, lawyers with the Office of the Attorney General, including Derrek Lee, were aware of and participated in the search. Despite this, neither the Warden nor Derrek Lee informed the Court of the search when responding to the Court’s order inquiring about documents that were allegedly taken from Plaintiff during the course of this suit.
The lawyers representing the prison defendants (along with Derrek Lee) have been given 21 days to satisfactorily explain to the court why they shouldn’t be hit with sanctions for deliberately misleading the court. Given the events detailed here, it’s hard to believe they’ll be able to respond with anything that will lower the court’s ire to a low boil and allow them to continue fighting these prisoners’ allegations without the burden of sanctions.
Unfortunately, sanctions in cases like these are limited to a small list of remedies, but the court serves a large duty here simply by calling out both the misconduct and the government lawyer behind it, which will act as its own form of deterrent. And it’s just another data point showing the government is more than willing to cheat in order to secure wins.
Filed Under: california, california attorney general, derrek lee, search
Comments on “Government Lawyer Facing Sanctions For Lying About A Jail Search He Swore He Had Nothing To Do With”
And yet if any of us did this in a court we’d be in jail facing charges.
It bears repeating
I posted a very similar comment here yesterday, but I will re-word it for this case:
Trivial “sanctions” are useless.
Unless and until the lying prosecutors start going to prison on a consistent basis for these kinds of perjurious lies, and for all of the other serious crimes they regularly commit (like withholding or destroying exculpatory evidence), there will be no end to this corrupt, third-world-style police state we live in where the government can railroad almost anyone into prison on a whim.
Really?
“which will act as its own form of deterrent”
So many riposts, so little time so we’ll pick a couple of classics:
I have this bridge, if you’re interested …
and
How touchingly naive
Re:
Well, if a restaurant claimed that its servings “will act as their own form of food”, that would be about equally encouraging. I would interpret those words along that line.
Re:
So many riposts…
*ripostes
The big issue
Those in power do not want to hold themselves accountable. Hence the special rules for them. Yellow rain baby, it’s just yellow rain.
Re:
I see you got the essence of trickle-down economy.
I don't quite see the perjury, actually
This is weaseling around: it says it is mandatory to create record of searches and that there is no record of the search in question. Both can be true and point to a violation of procedure and a massive bout of disingenuousness rather than perjury.
He never says in that sworn statement that the search didn’t happen, just that there are no records of it.
Now make no mistake: there is no question that the court should hit this asshole with heavy sanctions that have personal impact for his misleading evasiveness, including requiring his employer to punish his record tampering and require them to offer a plan for making such an occurence less likely in future. I just don’t see how they could make perjury stick on that thing.
Re: The whole truth?
David is probably right that the quoted statement does not legally sink to the level of perjury, but it certainly violates the part of the oath that says “the whole truth.”
In that case, I would suggest that an appropriate and effective plan to make such an occurrence less likely in the future would be permanent revocation of of the liar’s license to practice law.
Re:
Where does the article claim perjury? That term does not appear in the article.
The judge has a show cause order on the issue of “deliberately misleading the court”. That is to say, the statements made were not materially false (not perjury), but intended to mislead the court as to the truth.
Re: Re: Look at the Headline:
“Lying About a Jail Search He Swore He Had Nothing To Do With” would be perjury. But he did not swear he had nothing to do with the search but rather that such searches would fall under a record requirement and no records existed.
Re: Re: Re:
No. A lie by omission is a lie but not perjury. That right there shuts that down.
However, worse for you, there is more than one quote. Other quotes detail a specific lie that was made
Contradicted by:
Its not clear that statement was made under penalty of perjury. But it is a lie. Nor does your perjury analysis cover that statement. That the article discusses perjury is a strawman. That all lies are perjury is a strawman. To claim that the initial sworn declaration is the only place a lie could have been made is a strawman.
Re: Re: Re:
But he did not swear he had nothing to do with the search but rather that such searches would fall under a record requirement and no records existed.
Which was a blatant lie. He basically said, “All such searches are recorded. This search is not recorded, and was thus not carried out.”
Re: Re: Re:2 No, he didn't.
You claim:
What he said actually said was:
What you state “he basically says” is not what he said. It is merely what he wants the court to believe he said, like it’s what you want to believe he said.
It’s a reprehensible disingenuous weasel job. It’s not technically a lie since it still requires the recipient to draw false inferences to bridge strategically left gaps in what would otherwise be a complete falsehood.
Re: Re: Re:3
“He basically says” = “this is the gist of what he says”. Meaning you’re now engaging in a disingenuous weasel job. The guy clearly said that because the search wasn’t officially recorded, it didn’t take place.
Re: Re: Re:4
I will defend David, because as much as I think he is wrong, you are misstating his premise. He said no search occurred after Jan 1. As the article details, the search happened in November. He is correct that the statement about the search in that specific sworn statement is not perjury, it is however “deliberately misleading the court”. And David does not claim the court wasn’t lied to. His position is that the title of the article claims a material lie was made under the penalty of perjury.
The cogent argument is that ‘swears’ in the article title is not necessarily in the legal sworn statement sense, and that there exists a read of the title by reading a casual use of ‘swears’ that is more appropriate and therefore contextually the correct read. But even then, there is also a read that assumes summarized claims that Derek Lee did not initiate the search must also have been made as sworn statements, allowing the obvious lies to indeed be perjury even if the court declined to make such an accusation.
In the end, David’s core issue is a rigid adherence to a specific meaning of a specific word. Not a failure to understand that misleading statements were made.
Re: Re: Re:5
Emphasis on corrections made for clarity.
No Justice.
What you have is a legal system (an extraordinarily corrupt one). Please do not use the word Justice. It does not mean what you think it means.