Tag: law

MSM ignores S.F. DA Jenkins misconduct “It’s a pandemic over there.” 

SAN FRANCISCO

Lee Heidhues 5.23.2025

San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins is a serial abuser of her office.

By and large San Francisco’s mainstream media has given this slick political operative a pass, instead giving big play to the successful prosecutions, while ignoring the dark underside of how Brooke Jenkins performs her job.

Her years shameful historical record of prosecutorial misconduct is well documented.

Brooke Jenkins history of prosecutorial misconduct started before she quit DA Chesa Boudin’s office in October 2021, labeled herself a “volunteer” (though she was being paid over 150K) and worked as a leader in his June 2022 Recall.

Brooke Jenkins, being rewarded for her political treachery, is sworn-in as District Attorney at City Hall in San Francisco, Calif., on Friday, July 8, 2022. | Paul Kuroda for The Standard

Then being awarded for her political treachery by former Mayor London Breed. Selected as DA. Her incumbency has reeked of prosecutorial misconduct. Conduct which has resulted in several complaints lodged with the California State Bar.

The latest story in the Mission Local, a sordid tale which the mainstream media chooses to ignore is illustrative of this journalistic dereliction of its duty.

Excerpted from Mission Local 5.23.2025

The San Francisco District Attorney’s Office has, under Brooke Jenkins, made a “pattern and practice” of improperly withholding evidence in both misdemeanor and felony cases, the city’s public defenders assert. 

“That is the tip of the iceberg,” said Jacque Wilson, one of two misdemeanor managers at the public defender’s office. The 50 incidents of late discovery tracked by the public defender’s office is a conservative estimate, he said, since it only includes cases where public defenders are aware of a violation. “It’s a pandemic over there.” 

Under California law, prosecutors and defenders must disclose their evidence to one another at least 30 days before trial during the discovery process. This ensures the opposing side has enough time to review evidence before a court hearing.

But in a six-month period between Sept. 1, 2024 and Feb. 28, 2025, the public defender’s misdemeanor unit says it tracked 50 incidents of the district attorney’s office failing to turn over evidence on time. 

The DA has had some of this evidence “in their possession for weeks, if not months or years, before disclosure,” wrote assistant chief public defender Angela Chan in a document sent to the Bar last month and obtained by Mission Local.

At times, she added, evidence was withheld until the eve of a trial. And “in a number of egregious cases” important evidence was not disclosed until the middle of a trial, Chan wrote.

S.F. DA has ‘pattern and practice’ of withholding evidence, public defenders allege

Judge ousted juror for refusal to convict. “I am not changing my mind.” 

SAN FRANCISCO

Lee Heidhues 4.7.2025

California criminal justice grinds slowly and not necessarily fairly. Particularly when the death penalty is at issue.

Why has it taken 16 years for the California Supreme Court to over turn a jury’s verdict now 16 years old?

Why did the trial Judge not declare a mistrial in 2009 when a holdout juror refused to convict?

Instead this Judge ousted the recalcitrant juror, empaneled an alternate juror who voted to convict. Kicking off a 16 year appeal process while the accused has languished behind bars since 2009.

What’s next? Another trial no doubt with witnesses whose memories have faded over time.

Excerpted from The San Francisco Chronicle – Bob Egelko – 4.3.2025

A California Supreme Court unanimously overturned Timothy Joseph McGhee’s convictions and death sentence for three gang-related killings in Los Angeles between 1997 and 2001. Prosecution witnesses said he had fatally shot members of rival gangs, while the defense said the witnesses had admitted being under the influence of alcohol and drugs and had been coached by prosecutors.

After three days of deliberations on his guilt, the court said, several jurors told the trial judge that another juror appeared to be incapable of making a fair decision, had expressed distrust of the police and had told them, “I am not changing my mind.” 

After speaking with other jurors, Superior Court Judge Robert Perry questioned the holdout juror, then removed him, saying he was biased and had refused to deliberate. He was replaced by an alternate juror who then joined unanimous verdicts for convictions and a death sentence.

In a unanimous ruling overturning the convictions and sentence, Justice Goodwin Liu said the juror’s stated refusal to change his mind about McGhee’s guilt did not amount to a refusal to deliberate, and he should have been allowed to remain on the jury.

The juror “was rejecting, not disregarding, the prosecution’s evidence, and the record as a whole indicates that his rejection was based on the evidence,” Liu said.

“There was an evidentiary basis for (the juror’s) concerns regarding the credibility of the witnesses who were central to the prosecution’s case,” Liu wrote. He said many of the prosecutions’ witnesses were current or former gang members, and some admitted having lied to the police.

McGhee, was initially convicted and sentenced in 2009 and who could still face death penalty charges from Los Angeles County’s newly elected district attorney, Nathan Hochman.

McGhee’s lawyer, Patrick Ford, said the ruling “sent the important message that our system won’t tolerate the removal of a dissenting juror,” especially one who was troubled by what Ford described as “massive police misconduct.”

Hochman’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The case is People v. McGhee, S169750.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/rare-decision-california-supreme-court-tosses-20257596.php?utm_source=marketing&utm_medium=copy-url-link&utm_campaign=article-share&hash=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuc2ZjaHJvbmljbGUuY29tL2NyaW1lL2FydGljbGUvcmFyZS1kZWNpc2lvbi1jYWxpZm9ybmlhLXN1cHJlbWUtY291cnQtdG9zc2VzLTIwMjU3NTk2LnBocA%3D%3D&time=MTc0NDA4Njk0ODgxMA%3D%3D&rid=OTJhM2RhZWItNDMzYy00ZjMxLTgyMTQtZTU2ZjE2NDIzNDRl&sharecount=Mw%3D%3D

Mississippi Judge crushes the US Constitution right to publish

SAN FRANCISCO

Lee Heidhues 2.20.2025

A HUGE story about Prior Restraint and suppression of the right to publish.

Major media outlets are giving this story major coverage. I am going close to the site of this egregious Prior Restraint by a Judge in Mississippi.

All those who care about Press freedom must be concerned and alarmed.

https://www.actionnews5.com/2025/02/20/judge-orders-clarksdale-newspaper-remove-editorial-after-libel-suit/

Excerpted from Mississippi Today – Pulitzer Prize Winning Non-Profit News 2.20.2025

Clarksdale, Mississippi Press Register crushed in the Courtroom

A Mississippi judge ordered a newspaper to remove an editorial criticizing the mayor of Clarksdale and city leaders after the officials sued the news outlet, leading press advocates to criticize the order as one of the most egregious First Amendment violations in recent years. 

Charlie Mitchell is the former executive editor of the Vicksburg Post and an attorney. He is a assistant professor at the University of Mississippi’s School of Journalism and New Media, where he has taught media law for years. He told Mississippi Today there were so many issues with the judge’s order that he didn’t even “know where to start.”

“The First Amendment allows restraint of expression, including by the media, only extremely rarely and only when there is clear evidence of immediate and irreparable risk to the public — such as blocking publication that would identify confidential informants,” Mitchell said.

Hinds County Chancellor Crystal Wise Martin issued a temporary restraining order against the Clarksdale Press Register

Without a hearing for the newspaper, Hinds County Chancellor Crystal Wise Martin issued a temporary restraining order against the Clarksdale Press Register on Tuesday after the news outlet wrote a Feb. 8 editorial titled “Secrecy, Deception Erode Public Trust.” 

The column criticized the city for not sending the newspaper a notice about a meeting city commissioners held over a proposed effort to ask the state Legislature for permission to enact a local tax on alcohol, marijuana and tobacco. 

As of Thursday morning, the news outlet had removed the editorial from its website, but Wyatt Emmerich, the newspaper’s owner, told Mississippi Today that he intended to fight the judge’s order in court, which he called “absolutely astounding.” 

The United States Supreme Court in the famous New York Times v. Sullivan has stood strongly for the right to publish without interference of censorship by government authorities.

Hinds County judge orders Clarksdale newspaper to remove editorial, alarming press advocates

Excerpted from The New York Times 2.20.2025

Adam Steinbaugh, a lawyer at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which supports free speech, criticized the city’s lawsuit, writing on social media that it was “wildly unconstitutional.”

He said that governments “can’t sue for libel” under New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark First Amendment decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1964.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled the freedom of speech protections in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution limit the ability of a public official to sue for defamation.[1][2] The decision held that if a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit is a public official or candidate for public office, then not only must they prove the normal elements of defamation—publication of a false defamatory statement to a third party—they must also prove that the statement was made with “actual malice“, meaning the defendant either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded whether it might be false.[2] New York Times Co. v. Sullivan is frequently ranked as one of the greatest Supreme Court decisions of the modern era.[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan