Defense of Accused Felon and Top LA DA Aide Could be Paid by Taxpayers

It is a question that no one seems to want to answer:  Is Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascon paying for accused felon and erstwhile “ethics” advisor Diana Teran’s defense lawyer?

Gascon’s office said it does not comment on personnel issues and the office of James Spertus – Teran’s defense lawyer – did not respond to the question at all.

If – as is churning through the rumor mill in the LA legal community – Gascon is covering Teran’s legal bills the cost could run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Politically and ethically very inconvenient to admit for Gascon? Very much so.  

But here’s the kicker – it’s legal in California.

Yup – a government agency can pay for the criminal defense of a public employee…under certain conditions.

California Government Code section 995.8 expressly allows Gascon to pay Teran’s lawyer if the following two conditions are met:

(a) The criminal action or proceeding is brought on account of an act or omission in the scope of his employment as an employee of the public entity; and

(b) The public entity determines that such defense would be in the best interests of the public entity and that the employee or former employee acted, or failed to act, in good faith, without actual malice and in the apparent interests of the public entity.

If Gascon has determined, which is a distinct possibility, that in his opinion Teran was “only doing her job” and that she had no evil and/or improper intent, then he can directly pay for defense lawyer Spertus.

Also, the code does not mention whether the alleged felonious acts actually occurred, just that “the agency” essentially believes they were “whoopsies” that were part of the job.

Teran is facing eight felonies brought against her by California Attorney General Rob Bonta in April for allegedly illegally accessed LA County Sheriff’s deputies personnel files while she worked in that department as a “Constitutional Policing Advisor” in 2018. Then, after going to work for Gascon, uploading them into the DA’s office system and/or adding them to the “Brady List,” a data base of sketchy officers the office maintains (most prosecutors maintain such a list just in case they have to rely on that officer in court, etc.)

Inclusion on the Brady List is career death for most officers.

Besides possibly paying for her attorney, Gascon has kept Teran on the payroll as the case against her moves forward. She earns about $320,000 per year – plus benefits.

The paying of Spertus – if it is occurring – could have sparked the serious ethical issue the office faced when Spertus started working for high-profile defendant Rebecca Grossman. 

Teran was  “in the chain of command” on the Grossman case, so the three deputy district attorneys who handled the case – Jamie Castro, Ryan Gould, and their direct boss Garrett Dameron –  filed a motion with the court to have Spertus “conflicted” off of Grossman’s defense team. 

In other words, they felt Spertus could not appropriately represent both clients, in part because a basis for an appeal/new trial request in the Grossman case could be some form of allegation of prosecutorial misconduct, a standard, nearly boiler plate, assertion in such requests.  But if asserted, then Spertus could face the problem of cross-examining his own client.

The conflict becomes even worse if Spertus was not only working for Teran but also being paid by the very DA’s office he was fighting in the Grossman trial.

Grossman was convicted of murder in the deaths of Mark and Jacob Iskander, ages 11 and 8, whom were run over by her in a crosswalk in Westlake Village. In June, she was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison but is reportedly considering a further appeal and/or a request for a new trial.

If he is/was paying Spertus for Teran’s defense while he was Grossman’s attorney, the ethical tangle Gascon could find himself in would be deeply convoluted and politically embarrassing.

But this is California – so it’s legal.

By the way, it appears Teran’s trial date has been set to start no later than Election Day.