San Bernardino District Attorney Dennis Stout has been accused of sexually harassing a former administrator, her attorney said Friday.
Vincent Nolan is representing former Chief of Administration Theresa Bushey, who has filed a lawsuit accusing the county’s top prosecutor of sexual harassment. Bushey also accuses Stout of retaliation, defamation and of taking action to inhibit her ability to gain employment elsewhere.
The suit was filed Oct. 31 in San Bernardino Superior Court.
Nolan, a Riverside employment litigator who represents only employees, said Bushey’s suit accuses Stout of having committed the alleged harassment “over a period of four or five years.” Bushey accused her former boss of “engaging in a course of conduct involving verbal sexual harassment,” and one episode of physical harassment involving an alleged “swat on the behind.”
Bushey’s suit claims that Stout fired her in August in retaliation after she complained about the alleged harassment. Nolan said the complaint was made in a face-to-face meeting with Stout.
The defamation accusation stems from statements Bushey claims Stout made at or about the time of her termination indicating Bushey was fired for “inflating budgetary figures,” Nolan said. Had Bushey inflated figures, Nolan pointed out, her actions would have been illegal. Stout’s statements, he said, “impugned her honesty and integrity.”
“All information that we’ve gathered indicates that she was an exemplary employee at the time of her termination,” Nolan stated.
The “blackballing” allegation involves a separation report prepared by Stout’s office at the time of Bushey’s termination, Nolan said. In that document, Nolan said Bushey’s work was described as being “below standards,” and she was noted as being ineligible for rehire.
Nolan was unable to say if the claim of “blackballing” applies to Bushey’s ability to find work outside of county employ, or if it applies only to her working again for the county. He said she is currently seeking other employment.
Friday evening, Stout’s secretary referred calls to his attorney, Geoffrey Hopper of Riverside. Hopper could not be reached for comment, but according to The Sun, a San Bernardino County newspaper, Hopper branded the claims “outrageous and totally false.” The Sun reported assertions by Hopper that that Bushey swore revenge when fired and said she vowed to time her revenge to affect the March election, in which the two-term district attorney is being challenged.
Nolan said he expects the case to come to trial in 12 to 18 months.
2001-11-13
Stout: Former Chief Administrator Sues San Bernardino District Attorney
Ex-Official Accuses Stout of Harassment, Defamation, Retaliation, ‘Blackballing’
By J'AMY PACHECO, Staff Writer
San Bernardino District Attorney Dennis Stout has been accused of sexually harassing a former administrator, her attorney said Friday.
Vincent Nolan is representing former Chief of Administration Theresa Bushey, who has filed a lawsuit accusing the county’s top prosecutor of sexual harassment. Bushey also accuses Stout of retaliation, defamation and of taking action to inhibit her ability to gain employment elsewhere.
The suit was filed Oct. 31 in San Bernardino Superior Court.
Nolan, a Riverside employment litigator who represents only employees, said Bushey’s suit accuses Stout of having committed the alleged harassment “over a period of four or five years.” Bushey accused her former boss of “engaging in a course of conduct involving verbal sexual harassment,” and one episode of physical harassment involving an alleged “swat on the behind.”
Bushey’s suit claims that Stout fired her in August in retaliation after she complained about the alleged harassment. Nolan said the complaint was made in a face-to-face meeting with Stout.
The defamation accusation stems from statements Bushey claims Stout made at or about the time of her termination indicating Bushey was fired for “inflating budgetary figures,” Nolan said. Had Bushey inflated figures, Nolan pointed out, her actions would have been illegal. Stout’s statements, he said, “impugned her honesty and integrity.”
“All information that we’ve gathered indicates that she was an exemplary employee at the time of her termination,” Nolan stated.
The “blackballing” allegation involves a separation report prepared by Stout’s office at the time of Bushey’s termination, Nolan said. In that document, Nolan said Bushey’s work was described as being “below standards,” and she was noted as being ineligible for rehire.
Nolan was unable to say if the claim of “blackballing” applies to Bushey’s ability to find work outside of county employ, or if it applies only to her working again for the county. He said she is currently seeking other employment.
Friday evening, Stout’s secretary referred calls to his attorney, Geoffrey Hopper of Riverside. Hopper could not be reached for comment, but according to The Sun, a San Bernardino County newspaper, Hopper branded the claims “outrageous and totally false.” The Sun reported assertions by Hopper that that Bushey swore revenge when fired and said she vowed to time her revenge to affect the March election, in which the two-term district attorney is being challenged.
Nolan said he expects the case to come to trial in 12 to 18 months.
By J'AMY PACHECO, Staff Writer
San Bernardino District Attorney Dennis Stout has been accused of sexually harassing a former administrator, her attorney said Friday.
Vincent Nolan is representing former Chief of Administration Theresa Bushey, who has filed a lawsuit accusing the county’s top prosecutor of sexual harassment. Bushey also accuses Stout of retaliation, defamation and of taking action to inhibit her ability to gain employment elsewhere.
The suit was filed Oct. 31 in San Bernardino Superior Court.
Nolan, a Riverside employment litigator who represents only employees, said Bushey’s suit accuses Stout of having committed the alleged harassment “over a period of four or five years.” Bushey accused her former boss of “engaging in a course of conduct involving verbal sexual harassment,” and one episode of physical harassment involving an alleged “swat on the behind.”
Bushey’s suit claims that Stout fired her in August in retaliation after she complained about the alleged harassment. Nolan said the complaint was made in a face-to-face meeting with Stout.
The defamation accusation stems from statements Bushey claims Stout made at or about the time of her termination indicating Bushey was fired for “inflating budgetary figures,” Nolan said. Had Bushey inflated figures, Nolan pointed out, her actions would have been illegal. Stout’s statements, he said, “impugned her honesty and integrity.”
“All information that we’ve gathered indicates that she was an exemplary employee at the time of her termination,” Nolan stated.
The “blackballing” allegation involves a separation report prepared by Stout’s office at the time of Bushey’s termination, Nolan said. In that document, Nolan said Bushey’s work was described as being “below standards,” and she was noted as being ineligible for rehire.
Nolan was unable to say if the claim of “blackballing” applies to Bushey’s ability to find work outside of county employ, or if it applies only to her working again for the county. He said she is currently seeking other employment.
Friday evening, Stout’s secretary referred calls to his attorney, Geoffrey Hopper of Riverside. Hopper could not be reached for comment, but according to The Sun, a San Bernardino County newspaper, Hopper branded the claims “outrageous and totally false.” The Sun reported assertions by Hopper that that Bushey swore revenge when fired and said she vowed to time her revenge to affect the March election, in which the two-term district attorney is being challenged.
Nolan said he expects the case to come to trial in 12 to 18 months.
2001-10-28
Stout: The Case of: The Persecuted Prosecutor, Eaves Dropped!, or... California Sour Grapes"
SAN BERNARDINO, CA -- Assistant District Attorney Dan Lough has filed a
$1.6-million lawsuit against the county, alleging the Sheriff's
Department unlawfully made him a target of political spying. The suit
filed Monday claims the department "has for many years engaged in
political espionage." At the request of a corruption task force, former
Rialto Councilman Ed Scott secretly recorded dozens of conversations
with Lough, District Attorney Dennis Stout and a county investigator.
The taping occurred during Scott's campaign last year to unseat
Supervisor Jerry Eaves. Prosecutors were investigating Eaves at the time
and court transcripts indicate Stout and Lough discussed the Eaves probe
and advised Scott in his campaign. Scott narrowly lost the election.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/calreport/data/
$1.6-million lawsuit against the county, alleging the Sheriff's
Department unlawfully made him a target of political spying. The suit
filed Monday claims the department "has for many years engaged in
political espionage." At the request of a corruption task force, former
Rialto Councilman Ed Scott secretly recorded dozens of conversations
with Lough, District Attorney Dennis Stout and a county investigator.
The taping occurred during Scott's campaign last year to unseat
Supervisor Jerry Eaves. Prosecutors were investigating Eaves at the time
and court transcripts indicate Stout and Lough discussed the Eaves probe
and advised Scott in his campaign. Scott narrowly lost the election.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/calreport/data/
2001-10-04
San Bernardino Co. Rejects Claims by Former D.A. Aides
San Bernardino County on Wednesday rejected multimillion-dollar claims of two former officials in the district attorney’s office who say they were made scapegoats in an ongoing investigation of political corruption.
Dan Lough, the county’s former assistant district attorney, and Barry Bruins, former chief of the district attorney’s bureau of investigations, say Dist. Atty. Dennis Stout made them the fall guys when his office came under fire for some of its tactics during the corruption inquiry.
Their portion of the investigation focused on Supervisor Jerry Eaves, who has since been indicted on federal bribery charges and has pleaded no contest to seven state misdemeanor charges of violating conflict-of-interest laws and failing to report gifts.
During the months that preceded the election that returned Eaves to office in November, Lough, Bruins and Stout participated in the investigation of the supervisor.
Court documents show that during the same period, Lough and Bruins discussed the Eaves investigation several times with Rialto City Councilman Ed Scott, Eaves’ opponent in the supervisorial race. Unknown to Lough and Bruins, Scott taped these discussions on behalf of a joint FBI-San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department task force investigating corruption in the county.
Transcripts of the tapes show that Lough and Bruins gave Scott campaign advice, suggesting that he find a “marginally honest” private investigator to look into Eaves’ credit card records.
A subsequent internal district attorney’s office review found the relationship between Scott and Stout, Lough and Bruins ethically questionable.
In their claims filed earlier this week, Lough and Bruins contend that to save himself, Stout put all the blame on them, forcing them to accept demotions “voluntarily” or face dismissal.
Lough was demoted from the No. 2 spot in the office to a position as a deputy district attorney. His salary dropped from $127,000 a year to $94,000 a year.
Bruins was made an investigator in Fontana, with a pay cut from $95,500 a year to $75,200.
These demotions effectively ruined their careers, the two men say.
Lough said the secret tapes violated his rights of free speech and privacy. He said that although he violated no laws, and was never charged with criminal wrongdoing, “they managed to do a job on my reputation.”
2001-07-05
Stout: Board of Supervisors May Remove District Attorney, Lockyer Says
Board of Supervisors May Remove District Attorney, Lockyer Says
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A county charter may authorize the Board of Supervisors to remove the district attorney or another elected official from office, Attorney General Bill Lockyer has opined.
Removal of local elected officials is a matter of home rule, Lockyer said in a published opinion made public Tuesday, as long as specific state laws are not violated.
The opinion, prepared for Lockyer by Deputy Attorney General Anthony S. Da Vigo, was requested in April by District Attorney Dennis Stout of San Bernardino County. Stout has been under fire this year as a result of his office’s investigation of alleged wrongdoing by Supervisor Jerry Eaves.
Complaints were voiced after the Sheriff’s Department disclosed it had spent most of last year investigating Stout’s office and had secretly recorded phone conversations among the district attorney, top aides, and Eaves’ unsuccessful opponent in last year’s election, Ed Scott.
The transcripts of those conversations, attorneys for Eaves claimed, showed that Stout has followed a political agenda in seeking to remove Eaves from office.
Eaves was named in a Political Reform Act suit charging that he had accepted gifts from individuals and companies that did business with the county. He admitted accepting the gifts and paid $7,000 in restitution in exchange for being dropped from the suit.
Stout, however, pursued a statutory removal proceeding, although he later removed his office from the matter and asked Lockyer to take over the case. The little-used procedure could result in Eaves’ removal from office following a jury trial.
The question of whether supervisors could remove an elected official from office was raised in March after supervisors asked County Counsel Alan Marks to prepare a code of conduct for county officials. The request came at the same time that supervisors voted to send a letter to Stout asking for an explanation of the contacts between his office and Scott.
Asked at the time what sanctions could be imposed against an official who violated the proposed code of conduct, Marks mentioned a section of the county charter which allows supervisors to remove an elected official—other than a board member—by four-fifths vote following notice and a hearing.
Marks said the action had not been taken in recent history, but noted that a constable resigned his position more than 30 years ago when faced with the prospect of removal by the board.
Unlike the accusation-and-removal procedure used in the Eaves case, however, the charter provision has no support in state statutes. But it is consistent with the state’s constitutional home rule provisions, Lockyer said in his opinion, which allow a charter county to provide for the “election or appointment, compensation, terms and removal” of county officers.
The attorney general noted, however, that he was not being called upon “to consider any particular basis or cause for removal” or what type of hearing would be required.
The opinion is No. 01-408.
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A county charter may authorize the Board of Supervisors to remove the district attorney or another elected official from office, Attorney General Bill Lockyer has opined.
Removal of local elected officials is a matter of home rule, Lockyer said in a published opinion made public Tuesday, as long as specific state laws are not violated.
The opinion, prepared for Lockyer by Deputy Attorney General Anthony S. Da Vigo, was requested in April by District Attorney Dennis Stout of San Bernardino County. Stout has been under fire this year as a result of his office’s investigation of alleged wrongdoing by Supervisor Jerry Eaves.
Complaints were voiced after the Sheriff’s Department disclosed it had spent most of last year investigating Stout’s office and had secretly recorded phone conversations among the district attorney, top aides, and Eaves’ unsuccessful opponent in last year’s election, Ed Scott.
The transcripts of those conversations, attorneys for Eaves claimed, showed that Stout has followed a political agenda in seeking to remove Eaves from office.
Eaves was named in a Political Reform Act suit charging that he had accepted gifts from individuals and companies that did business with the county. He admitted accepting the gifts and paid $7,000 in restitution in exchange for being dropped from the suit.
Stout, however, pursued a statutory removal proceeding, although he later removed his office from the matter and asked Lockyer to take over the case. The little-used procedure could result in Eaves’ removal from office following a jury trial.
The question of whether supervisors could remove an elected official from office was raised in March after supervisors asked County Counsel Alan Marks to prepare a code of conduct for county officials. The request came at the same time that supervisors voted to send a letter to Stout asking for an explanation of the contacts between his office and Scott.
Asked at the time what sanctions could be imposed against an official who violated the proposed code of conduct, Marks mentioned a section of the county charter which allows supervisors to remove an elected official—other than a board member—by four-fifths vote following notice and a hearing.
Marks said the action had not been taken in recent history, but noted that a constable resigned his position more than 30 years ago when faced with the prospect of removal by the board.
Unlike the accusation-and-removal procedure used in the Eaves case, however, the charter provision has no support in state statutes. But it is consistent with the state’s constitutional home rule provisions, Lockyer said in his opinion, which allow a charter county to provide for the “election or appointment, compensation, terms and removal” of county officers.
The attorney general noted, however, that he was not being called upon “to consider any particular basis or cause for removal” or what type of hearing would be required.
The opinion is No. 01-408.
2001-06-28
SB County Prison Industrial Complex Perverts Prop 36
LOCAL DRUG PLANS SCORED
In a blistering report on the county's plan to implement Proposition 36, a national drug policy foundation on Wednesday said the county is bolstering the criminal justice system instead of emphasizing drug treatment.
The Lindesmith Center, which backed the measure that mandates treatment over incarceration as an alternative to the nation's war on drugs, gave San Bernardino County its lowest grade: F.
The New York-based center criticized the county's budget for drug treatment, its lack of treatment services and its failure to have meetings to garner public reaction.
"San Bernardino County has ignored the will of the voters," the report said. "It has an implementation plan that is likely to fail."
Founded by billionaire financier George Soros, a major sponsor of theProposition 36 initiative, the Lindesmith Center evaluated plans submitted byCalifornia's 11 largest counties to the state Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs.
County officials on Wednesday defended their preparation to implement Proposition 36, which takes effect Sunday.
The center's findings angered Bob Hillis, deputy director of the county Office of Alcohol and Drug Programs.
"I really think it's done our county a disservice," he said. "I don't think Lindesmith has a clue what's happened here in this county."
The county proposal calls for a probation officer to be the first to evaluate drug offenders after they are sentenced by a judge. That goes against the goal of Proposition 36, said Whitney Taylor, the Lindesmith Center's statewide implementation director.
"That's like going to a lawyer if your kidney hurts," she said.
Probation is part of drug treatment, said Dave Oberhelman, director of adult services for the county Probation Department.
"We are not something outside of that treatment circle," he said. "It's unfair to give us an F. We're one of the pioneers of drug court programs."
Taylor said the county could have quality programs but the plan she reviewed was vague, confusing and poorly written. She said it didn't mention detoxification services, although it "kind of alluded to it."
"They mentioned intervention," Taylor said, "but it was too vague."
Hillis said the plan was intentionally written that way, in a general nature so the county would have more control of and flexibility in dealing with cases, and not be "pinned down by the state."
San Bernardino County received the lowest rating among the 11 counties evaluated by Lindesmith. Riverside County received an overall grade of C, while San Francisco earned an A, the highest.
Lindesmith's criticism isn't the first directed at the San Bernardino County program.
San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Patrick Morris, who declined to comment on the center's report Wednesday, complained at a May 22 meeting of the county Board of Supervisors that the plan wouldn't be effective in treating drug offenders.
He cited reasons such as a lack of both training for judges and an emphasis on treatment.
"I'm concerned about what our plan does not say," Morris told the board last month. "It fails to specify how we're going to treat this population."
Assistant District Attorney Jim Hackleman said the county will be successful, despite the center's findings.
"With no disrespect to the Lindesmith Center, I would far rather be judged on what we do and what we accomplish locally," he said. "If this was simply a sham and we weren't providing treatment, this would be a great waste of time for everyone."
Hackleman said the District Attorney's Office isn't going to change its guidelines on how drug offenders will be charged, an area of which Lindesmith was particularly critical.
San Bernardino County Assistant Presiding Judge J. Michael Welch said the Lindesmith Center's report card is unfair in comparing San Bernardino and San Francisco counties because the two are so different.
San Francisco is "a city and county where the infrastructure is already there to provide treatment," he said. "Everything is in a central location, and they have probation officers. They got an A because they can afford to take 90 percent of their money and put it into treatment. San Bernardino ( County ) can't do that."
Interim County Administrator John Michaelson said the center's report incorrectly lists a $5.4million budget for Proposition 36 implementation here. He said the county's budget for all services is $11.4 million.
Michaelson, however, said the county should have started to prepare for Proposition 36 earlier but was sidetracked by other matters, including corruption scandals.
In a blistering report on the county's plan to implement Proposition 36, a national drug policy foundation on Wednesday said the county is bolstering the criminal justice system instead of emphasizing drug treatment.
The Lindesmith Center, which backed the measure that mandates treatment over incarceration as an alternative to the nation's war on drugs, gave San Bernardino County its lowest grade: F.
The New York-based center criticized the county's budget for drug treatment, its lack of treatment services and its failure to have meetings to garner public reaction.
"San Bernardino County has ignored the will of the voters," the report said. "It has an implementation plan that is likely to fail."
Founded by billionaire financier George Soros, a major sponsor of theProposition 36 initiative, the Lindesmith Center evaluated plans submitted byCalifornia's 11 largest counties to the state Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs.
County officials on Wednesday defended their preparation to implement Proposition 36, which takes effect Sunday.
The center's findings angered Bob Hillis, deputy director of the county Office of Alcohol and Drug Programs.
"I really think it's done our county a disservice," he said. "I don't think Lindesmith has a clue what's happened here in this county."
The county proposal calls for a probation officer to be the first to evaluate drug offenders after they are sentenced by a judge. That goes against the goal of Proposition 36, said Whitney Taylor, the Lindesmith Center's statewide implementation director.
"That's like going to a lawyer if your kidney hurts," she said.
Probation is part of drug treatment, said Dave Oberhelman, director of adult services for the county Probation Department.
"We are not something outside of that treatment circle," he said. "It's unfair to give us an F. We're one of the pioneers of drug court programs."
Taylor said the county could have quality programs but the plan she reviewed was vague, confusing and poorly written. She said it didn't mention detoxification services, although it "kind of alluded to it."
"They mentioned intervention," Taylor said, "but it was too vague."
Hillis said the plan was intentionally written that way, in a general nature so the county would have more control of and flexibility in dealing with cases, and not be "pinned down by the state."
San Bernardino County received the lowest rating among the 11 counties evaluated by Lindesmith. Riverside County received an overall grade of C, while San Francisco earned an A, the highest.
Lindesmith's criticism isn't the first directed at the San Bernardino County program.
San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Patrick Morris, who declined to comment on the center's report Wednesday, complained at a May 22 meeting of the county Board of Supervisors that the plan wouldn't be effective in treating drug offenders.
He cited reasons such as a lack of both training for judges and an emphasis on treatment.
"I'm concerned about what our plan does not say," Morris told the board last month. "It fails to specify how we're going to treat this population."
Assistant District Attorney Jim Hackleman said the county will be successful, despite the center's findings.
"With no disrespect to the Lindesmith Center, I would far rather be judged on what we do and what we accomplish locally," he said. "If this was simply a sham and we weren't providing treatment, this would be a great waste of time for everyone."
Hackleman said the District Attorney's Office isn't going to change its guidelines on how drug offenders will be charged, an area of which Lindesmith was particularly critical.
San Bernardino County Assistant Presiding Judge J. Michael Welch said the Lindesmith Center's report card is unfair in comparing San Bernardino and San Francisco counties because the two are so different.
San Francisco is "a city and county where the infrastructure is already there to provide treatment," he said. "Everything is in a central location, and they have probation officers. They got an A because they can afford to take 90 percent of their money and put it into treatment. San Bernardino ( County ) can't do that."
Interim County Administrator John Michaelson said the center's report incorrectly lists a $5.4million budget for Proposition 36 implementation here. He said the county's budget for all services is $11.4 million.
Michaelson, however, said the county should have started to prepare for Proposition 36 earlier but was sidetracked by other matters, including corruption scandals.
2001-03-29
D.A. Dennis Stout Admits Errors, Drops Role in Probe
 | San Bernardino County Dist. Atty. Dennis Stout acknowledged Wednesday that he violated his own ethical standards and made “errors in judgment” when he secretly aided the political opponent of a county supervisor he was investigating. |
Consequently, Stout has stepped down from the prosecution of San Bernardino County Supervisor Jerry Eaves, one of several officials tangled in a pervasive corruption and bribery scandal. State Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer has agreed to take over the case against Eaves, starting this morning, Stout announced Wednesday.
“As an elected representative of a law enforcement agency, the public should expect much of me,” Stout said in a statement. “They should expect that I would avoid even the appearance of bias or favoritism in the conduct of my office. And in this matter, I let the public down.”
Stout, however, remained defiant in an interview hours after releasing that statement.
An Ontario native who was a prosecutor for 17 years and has been San Bernardino County’s district attorney since 1994, Stout pointed out that his office has not been accused of violating any laws. He pledged to run for reelection next year and scoffed at demands from critics that he resign.
“I don’t listen to people like that,” he said. “The only people I care about are the voters of this county and the people that work with me. I think we run a very good office here.”
Court documents released in February indicated that Stout and two top lieutenants secretly aided political candidate Ed Scott last year, when he was challenging Eaves for a position on the county Board of Supervisors. Stout and Scott are Republicans and Eaves is a Democrat–the only Democrat on the five-member board.
Scott, though he had been Stout’s friend and ally for years, cooperated with FBI and Sheriff’s Department officials in an investigation into the district attorney’s conduct. During his campaign against Eaves–which he lost–Scott secretly tape-recorded his conversations with the district attorney’s office. The U.S. attorney’s office will decide whether charges will be filed.
Transcripts show the district attorney’s chief investigator Barry Bruins told Scott that “Dennis doesn’t mind us helping you. In fact, you know, he likes the idea.”
For Stout, though, Eaves was not merely a political rival–he was also the target of a corruption investigation, and Stout’s office was prosecuting the case.
In charges loosely connected to bribery and kickback schemes that led seven county officials and business executives to enter guilty pleas in 1999, Eaves was accused of taking gifts from companies seeking county contracts.
Investigators say Eaves did not report the gifts on disclosure forms, and he was indicted last year on two felony perjury charges and 17 misdemeanor misconduct charges.
Eaves’ supporters say the charges against him have been motivated by politics. Eaves, who did not return phone calls Wednesday seeking comment, has pleaded not guilty, and three of the misdemeanor charges have been dropped.
Stout said he made his decision to withdraw from the Eaves investigation after seeking a “thorough review” of his office’s conduct–a probe that included legal and ethical analyses from the attorney general’s office and other district attorneys’ offices. His office also reviewed more than 700 pages of transcripts of recorded conversations.
Stout declined to release the review of his conduct, calling it part of the ongoing Eaves investigation, though he did say he found the report “disturbing and personally embarrassing.”
And, though he does not believe the case against Eaves has been damaged by the recordings, Stout conceded that his office’s relationship with Scott should have ended once last year’s campaign got underway.
“Since Ed Scott was the political opponent of the target of an investigation that my office was conducting, it was ill-advised and improper for us to continue this relationship,” he said.
Lockyer agreed, said Gary Schons, the senior assistant attorney general who runs the department’s criminal division in San Diego.
Starting this morning, at an evidentiary hearing in the Eaves case, Deputy Atty. Gen. Scott Taylor, who works out of the department’s San Diego office, will assume prosecution of the case.
Stout “explained to the attorney general what his concerns were with continuing the prosecution,” Schons said. “We looked at it, and we agreed with him that he had legitimate concerns about his office continuing with the case.”
— UNPUBLISHED NOTE —
Jerry Eaves is also referred to as Gerald Eaves or Gerald R. Eaves in other Los Angeles Times stories.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
