His proudest moment was the first time he introduced himself in court: “Ebrahim Baytieh for the people.”
Baytieh, a senior assistant district attorney in Orange County, says he not only represents the people of California, but the people charged with crimes and their attorneys. He views himself as a champion for justice, not just for prosecutions. And a lot of the county’s high-profile, respected judges, trial attorneys and law enforcement leaders believe that version of Baytieh — a genteel, wise and fervent protector of the law.
Then there are those who see something different.
What they see is the lead apologist for former District Attorney Tony Rackauckas during the “snitch scandal,” when the office came under harsh scrutiny beginning in 2014 for inappropriately using jailhouse informants to win convictions. Critics question why Baytieh still holds one of the most prominent jobs in the District Attorney’s Office — head of special prosecutions — under the new boss, Todd Spitzer.
They ask how someone who so aggressively argued against the existence of a secret snitch network could be later trusted to fix the snitch problem.
They also believe Baytieh is at the center of what some say are two other big corruption scandals now facing Orange County’s justice system.
These are the two versions of Brahim Baytieh, one of the most powerful members of the Orange County bar and now a candidate for Superior Court judge in the June 7, 2022, election. Baytieh is not targeting a particular judicial office yet, but probably will aim for one where a judge has decided to retire.
Immigrated from Lebanon
Baytieh’s campaign website highlights his immigrant story. He came to America from Lebanon at age 18 without an ability to speak English and only $240 in his pocket. A strict uncle insisted he speak only English to work in the family gas station and market.
He went on to earn a law degree from Western State School of Law and an MBA from Cal State Fullerton before joining the Orange County District Attorney’s Office in 1997.
Santa Ana attorney Alfred Amezcua remembers speaking to Baytieh’s law school graduating class. Afterward, Baytieh hung around to thank Amezcua.
“He knows the story of the immigrant,” Amezcua said. “He always looks out for not only the victims but provides the opportunity for the alleged perpetrator of the crime, to bring justice to the table.”
Awards, praise
Baytieh says he has prosecuted a wide range of cases, from homicides and sexual assaults to public corruption and human trafficking. He took 128 trials to verdict, including 54 murders, he says.
Before he was elevated to senior assistant D.A. in 2018, Baytieh was named Prosecutor of the Year by the California District Attorneys Association in 2012 and earned the Helene & Joseph Sherwood Prize for combating hate from the Anti-Defamation League in 2010.
Spitzer praises Baytieh as a pinnacle of integrity and an office role model.
“I kept Brahim because Brahim’s a North Star, he’s someone you look up to to guide you. He’s someone I listen to a lot,” said Spitzer, who made the snitch scandal the focus of his campaign against Rackauckas.
Lacks ‘courage, integrity’
But that trust in Baytieh is especially irksome to victims’ advocate and Spitzer critic Paul Wilson.
“It’s funny how the people of Orange County, much like these attorneys and judges, forget the amount of corruption that exists in these two administrations,” Wilson said. … “(Baytieh) is a guy who doesn’t have courage or integrity.”
Wilson blames Rackauckas for fumbling the snitch controversy, Baytieh for covering it up and Spitzer for using it all to get elected without actually fixing anything.
For his part, 51-year-old Baytieh says he is misunderstood by critics who just don’t know the facts. Part of that, he says, is he has not tried to explain himself. Until now.
Problems in Dekraai case
Baytieh faces perhaps his harshest criticism for his role in defending the D.A.’s handling of the prosecution in Orange County’s deadliest mass murder case. Tugboat worker Scott Dekraai in 2011 opened fire on a beauty salon in Seal Beach, killing eight people, including Wilson’s wife, Christy. Although they had more than enough evidence to convict Dekraai, prosecutors and sheriff’s deputies used a veteran jailhouse informant to extract additional incriminating statements from the alleged shooter.
Using informants is typically legal — except when the target has a lawyer and has been formally charged, as was the case with Dekraai. Then it becomes a violation of his constitutional right to counsel under the 1964 ruling, Messiah v. United States.
Assistant Public Defender Scott Sanders caught the violation in the Dekraai case and then noticed that the informant had been used in other cases as well. Defense attorneys in those cases were not told of the informant’s prolific track record, which also is a violation of discovery laws under Brady v. Maryland in 1963.
Sanders discovered more misused informants, leading to the “snitch scandal,” which prompted the 250-member District Attorney’s Office to be thrown off the Dekraai case by a Superior Court judge, who also removed the death penalty from the table for Dekraai.
Ultimately, the judge gave Dekraai — the worst mass killer in Orange County history — eight life sentences with no possibility of parole.
Although Sanders had exposed a clandestine system of misusing jailhouse informants in the District Attorney’s Office and the Sheriff’s Department, Baytieh appeared at forums and debates to dispute the notion that prosecutors had cheated.
Early in the controversy, Baytieh used the term “baloney” to describe that notion.
‘Systemic’ misuse of informants
In November 2016, however, the 4th District Court of Appeal ruled that not only had prosecutors and deputies “intentionally or negligently” misused informants and violated defendants’ rights, but they did so systemically. The court wrote that “the magnitude of the systemic problems cannot be overlooked” and that prosecutors had a desire to protect the Sheriff’s Department at the expense of “Dekraai’s constitutional and statutory rights.”
Baytieh, in an interview, said he took the ruling to heart and never again spoke out against the scandal.
“The (appeals court) put more light on the problem, and I accepted it and I agree with it 100 percent,” Baytieh said. “I truly believe that the Court of Appeal’s analysis and findings set the foundation for some very positive changes in the criminal justice system. Changes that I am very proud to have championed by way of the training I have been providing for the past six years.”
Working to reform system
During that time, Baytieh said he worked behind the scenes to improve the system, making the office’s informant policy more restrictive than allowed by law. There was push back from law enforcement, he said, but other prosecution offices statewide began to take note. He was invited to train prosecutors and police officers throughout California on his informant policies. His message now is that even when allowed, it is generally better not to use jailhouse snitches.
“I felt we had an obligation to restore the trust in the system,” Baytieh said. “Mistakes were made and we needed to remedy them to make sure they never happened again.”
‘Did my absolute best’
Baytieh, who conceded he has not read the Dekraai case file, said he took seriously his mandate to defend the District Attorney’s Office from what he considered inaccurate accusations.
“This is not a game for me, this is about the truth. I had an assignment. I did my absolute best at it, with a single focus, to do the right thing. I never said anything that I didn’t believe was the truth, based on what I knew at the time.”
What he later accepted was that “we allowed, law enforcement allowed, a lack of appreciation of important legal principles to go unchecked. We need to make sure people in the process have a healthy, understanding and appreciation for procedural rights.”
And it should all be done with civility, he said. “I view myself as the defender of everybody. … Nobody would leave my courtroom saying, ‘The judge did not hear my side of the case.’”
Other scandals
Not everybody is buying Baytieh’s conversion.
Sanders has filed several motions to remove the District Attorney’s Office from various cases based on what he contends are the actions of Baytieh’s special prosecutions unit. Many of these recusal motions are tied to another scandal involving the booking of property evidence. An internal audit by Sheriff Don Barnes found that nearly one-third of the evidence collected by deputies was booked late or not at all. In some cases, deputies lied in their official crime reports, saying the evidence had been booked when it had not.
Initially, 17 deputies were referred to the District Attorney’s Office for prosecution — but were turned down for charges by Baytieh’s unit. Spitzer later learned about the size of the debacle in November 2019 and had the 17 deputy cases brought back for reconsideration. So far, two have pleaded guilty to misdemeanors and one is pending in court.
Names of the errant deputies are supposed to be placed on the Brady notification list of law enforcement officers with credibility problems maintained by the D.A.’s Office. The list, and supporting records, are given to defense attorneys when one of the named officers is called to testify.
In his legal motions, Sanders contends that hundreds of deputies caught in the evidence scandal should be put on that list instead of the handful now there. He accuses Spitzer and Baytieh of protecting deputies to keep their disciplinary records away from defense attorneys.
Spitzer’s office, in a special report, also admitted that his predecessor withheld informant notes kept by deputies after promising to turn them over to defendants. Those records, called special handling logs, still have not been turned over.
“Baytieh, along with Rackauckas and his fellow executive managers, decided in 2018 which deputies from the jail’s snitch unit would go on the Brady list without even looking at the deputies’ (informant) notes, which were being concealed from defendants,” Sanders said. “Although Baytieh can be very convincing, he can’t explain this away and he certainly should never sit in judgment of others.
“Baytieh ran around this county insisting prosecutors would not possibly hide informant evidence. And now it turns out his office unquestionably hid the most important evidence of the scandal (the informant notes) — evidence that should have been studied by him and his special prosecutions unit.”
Sanders also notes that defense recusal motions may end up in front of the very same judges who have endorsed Baytieh, creating a potential conflict of interest.
Endorsed by dozens of judges
That said, at this early stage, Baytieh is endorsed by three appellate justices — including one who participated in the ruling against the D.A.’s Office — and dozens of judges and attorneys, some who sided with Sanders in the snitch scandal. Judges contacted by the Orange County Register said they could not ethically comment on their endorsements.
Baytieh said he and other managers are not protecting bad officers, insisting they are following the law and the office’s procedure for putting deputies on the Brady notification list. He added he has nothing to do with the informant notes or special handling logs. Baytieh stressed that he could not talk about the inner workings of the District Attorney’s Office and how certain decisions were collectively made.
And he notes that he was above board with all the judges, including those intimately involved with the snitch scandal. The fact they endorse him speaks volumes, Baytieh said.
“A society that doesn’t take into account second chances is a society lacking humanity,” he said. “Fairness requires open-mindedness.”
from Irvine Business Signs https://ift.tt/3fR5hbP
via Irvine Sign Company
