Contra Costa DA Candidate O'Malley Steps into the Mel Gibson Mess and TMZ Territory

This is so exciting! I get to cite TMZ as a source for a story--this one involving a figure in a key Contra Costa County political race!

Anyway, the celebrity gossip news site reports that Dan O'Malley, a candidate for the Contra Costa District Attorney's Office, has agreed to help represent the ex-girlfriend of Mel Gibson--who recorded those now notorious career-derailing Mel Gibson meltdown phone calls.

This news about O'Malley's involvement comes as the L.A. County Sheriff's Department tells TMZ that it is several weeks from completing an extortion investigation involving Oksana Grigorieva.

The source about this famous--or infamous--new client for O'Malley, a former Contra Costa County superior court judge, is none other than another East Bay attorney, Daniel Horowitz, who has his own history of inserting himself into celebrity cases.

Horowitz positioned himself as one of those TV legal analysts during the trial of Scott Peterson, briefly represented Orinda housewife Susan Polk and was good buddies with--um--CNN host Nancy Grace. But he retreated from the spotlight, for a time anyway, after his wife, Pamela Vitale, was found beaten to death on their hilltop Lafayette property in October 2005.

Horowitz tells TMZ that O'Malley is now on board to advise his legal team on the domestic violence issues surrounding this case.

According to TMZ: "Specifically, Horowitz says O'Malley will 'hook up people in the domestic violence community to help Oksana,' as well as 'interface with the L.A. County District Attorney regarding the Mel Gibson domestic violence investigation.'"

Gloria Allred wasn't available?

However, if O'Malley wins the election for District Attorney, he will have to give up his role in Grigorieva's legal dream team, TMZ says.

TMZ says the legal team that O'Malley is joining also includes Martin Garbus, who has defended Robert Redford, Al Pacino, and Spike Lee.

"Both [Garbus] and Horowitz rank among America's top litigators," TMZ says.

To continue:

"We're told Garbus and Horowitz will represent almost all things Oksana -- they will be her reps in connection with the domestic violence investigation as well as the extortion probe."

The race for boss of our county DA's office--already entangled in a rape scandal involving a former sex crimes prosecutor, a scuffle between two of its two top homicide prosecutors and allegations of a toxic, unprofessional work environment--continues to get more and more interesting. O'Malley's opponent in the race is Deputy District Attorney Mark Peterson, who was the top vote getter in the June 8 primary.

And, thanks to the Mayor of Claycord for spotting this local angle of one of the biggest celebrity scandals of the past few years.

This post is also published on Walnut Creek Patch.

OMG: It's Election Day and I have so not done my homework!

And, I can't even find my voter guide.

It's in a pile somewhere of mail I was supposed to go through, I don't know weeks ago. Maybe it's sitting there with my unopened health insurance cards.

Am I a bit scattered? Does my stupid pretty cat me-ow desperately when she wants to be let outside?

The Walnut Creek Patch job has been keeping me extremely busy. As you can tell, I have not been able to do my Crazy in Suburbia blogs as much as I would like. :(

I don't see my husband and son as I often as I should either. My son gave me a talking to last night.

And, now we have election day, and I realize that I'm not measuring up in that arena either. I am not the engaged, informed member of our democratic system that I like to be.

OK, here's the extend of my ignorance: Those state propositions: who, what where, and why 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. Actually some pro-Proposition 14 guys tried to hit me up with some literature at the farmers market Sunday. Yeah, I think was proposition 14. It could have been Proposition 15 they were touting. I honestly don't know. Well, I guess both propositions have something to do with reforming the elections process--maybe to keep idiots like me out of the voting booth.

Oh, but that wouldn't be very democratic, would it? Even idiots like me should have the right to vote. We do, I believe, with some frequency. :)

OK, I have some familiarity with some races, including local ones: the District Attorney's and Sheriff's races, the county Assessor battle. Too bad I can't vote on the Mount Diablo Unified School District's Measure C bond measure. I probably know more about that race than any other because I've been editing and writing and reading stories about it. Unfortunately, I don't live in that district, so I won't have a say.

Then we have, of course, the gubernatorial primary. That's the biggie. Oh, then there is the U.S Senate GOP primary, and the 10th congressional district race. Wait! Didn't I just vote in that? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Back in 2009 or something: the special election to replace former U.S. Rep Ellen Tauscher.

Well, thanks for letting me write this. I think I am slowly becoming more knowledgeable about some things I should be knowledgeable about. I'll probably do what I typically do when there are races I must vote in, and of which I'm totally ignorant. I peruse endorsements in major local and state newspapers. Hey, mainstream media is good for something, right?

Meanwhile, if any of you have any useful advice and tips, send them this way.

Contra Costa D.A.'s race getting bloody, literally, with top homicide prosecutor reportedly throwing punch at supervisor

Harold Jewett, the top homicide prosecutor in Contra Costa County, was placed on administrative leave, and his supervisor went to the hospital for two stitches below the eye, the Contra Costa Times is reporting.

Amid rising tensions over the upcoming District Attorney's race, an argument broke out between the two on Monday over a letter to the editor that Jewett sent to the Contra Costa Times. In that letter, Jewett criticized political fundraising inside the "toxic" atmosphere of the office, and said that he had "never seen the kind of political environment that exists in this office now." I published the text of that letter before, and you can read it here. You can also read about the fundraising controversy that led to the letter.

The fight echoes political divisions in the office, where prosecutors are apparently lining up behind the two leading candidates to replace District Attorney Robert Kochly, who is not seeking re-election. Those two candidates are Dan O'Malley, a former deputy district attorney in the office, and superior court judge, and Mark Peterson, a deputy district attorney who still works in the office.

Attorneys told the Times said that the fight between Jewett and Sequeira took place Monday in a third-floor office.

Sequeira, a supervisor ranked No. 3 in the office, was talking to another prosecutor and his raised voice lured Jewett out of his office. ... Jewett ignored Sequeira's orders to return to his desk and followed him to another office. As the argument escalated, Sequeira accused Jewett of harming the office with the letter to the Times, which came in response to an editorial that criticized prosecutor and district attorney candidate Peterson. The candidate had asked the state to investigate his opponent Dan O'Malley and some of O'Malley's supporters in the office on accusations they broke campaign laws.

Sources said Sequeira was body-to-body, face-to-face with Jewett when Jewett hit him in the face. Sequeira never struck Jewett. Some colleagues said Jewett felt Sequeira was going to strike him and acted in self-defense. Others viewed the incident as a straightforward assault by Jewett.

No one is saying anything official. Kochly declined to comment, citing confidentiality over personnel matters.  Jewett just confirmed to the Times that he was placed on leave.

The Times says the fight "shocked" the local legal community with the two men considered among the county's top legal talent. Apparently, though, the two have a "history of butting heads," the Times reports, "and they now stand on opposite sides in an election with job assignments at stake."

Both have litigated some of Contra Costa County's highest profile homicide cases. Sequeira has taken on more administrative responsibilities in the office but has nonetheless prosecuted the murder trial of Jimena Barreto, a nanny who was intoxicated when she ran over Danville siblings Troy, 10, and Alana Pack, 7, in 2003, the Times says. He also prosecuted Susan Polk, the Orinda woman who received national media attention when she represented herself before being convicted of killing her husband.

Jewett was named "Prosecutor of the Year" by the California District Attorneys Association in 2007. He prosecuted Concord's Helzer brothers, who were convicted of killing five people as part of an extortion scheme, and the trial of Scott Dyleski, the Lafayette teenager convicted of killing the wife of attorney Daniel Horowitz.

Top Contra Costa prosecutor blasts Times editorial, the conduct of his own union, and what he describes as the toxic atmosphere in our county’s District Attorney’s Office

Who would think it, but the race among three candidates to be the next Contra Costa District Attorney is getting scorching hot. One of the office’s top prosecutors, and one of California's most respected homicide prosecutors, has issued a public statement, pointing to alleged bad behavior and politicial posturing among some of his DA colleagues and attacking the Contra Costa Times for ducking out on its Fourth Estate role as community watchdog.

Hal Jewett is the "Jack McCoy" of the Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office, says Contra Costa Times Political Editor Lisa Vordergruebben. Her blog Tuesday published a letter that Jewett has sent to the Times, criticizing the paper for too easily dismissing allegations that one candidate’s supporters in the DA’s office violated the law.

The prosecutor’s union has endorsed one of the candidates, Dan O’Malley, a former Contra Costa County prosecutor and Superior Court judge. That means, the union is not endorsing the second candidate Mark Peterson, who is currently another senior prosecutor in the office.

This latest brouhaha stems from Peterson crying foul about a January 14 fundraiser hosted for O’Malley by some of his DA’s office supporters. Peterson alleged that these O’Malley supporters acted illegally by hosting this fundraiser and asking the 50 invited prosecutors to donate money. An Internet invitation, written by prosecutor Johanna Schonfield, asked guests to "join Dan O'Malley and your fellow Deputy District Attorneys ... at an intimate fundraiser." It suggested that prosecutors give $200 to $500.

Peterson said the fundraiser ran afoul of a law that bars candidates for office, and employees of that office, from soliciting donations from others in the agency.

Barry Grove, president of the Deputy District Attorney's Association, said the e-mail invitation was written by a young attorney who wasn’t familiar with the law. Both he and O’Malley said O’Malley didn’t know about the solicitation for donations and asked that it be removed once he got wind of it. Furthermore, O'Malley's campaign has decried Peterson's attempts at an "ill-conceived smear campaign" over this incident, in which, the campaign says, he made other false allegations, such as who was or was not invited to the event, before investigating the facts.

Vordergruebben says in a recent column she questioned whether the incident was sufficient enough to warrant a criminal investigation. Her newspaper also published an editorial, saying that Mark Peterson “needs to stop his reckless accusations” against O’Malley and his supporters. In the view of the Times, this is simply the case of some lawyers getting “sloppy,” and “perhaps technically violating the law.” It is a diversion from the real issues that the candidates need to talk about.

Personally, I have not decided who I’ll vote for. But, this whole race has turned out to be disappointing and disturbing. First of all, aren’t prosecutors, with their JDs, supposed to be smarter than this? And, aren’t prosecutors hired to work on the public’s behalf, upholding the law?

It might be true, technically and legally, that no crime occurred. And, maybe some of Peterson's accusations against O'Malley crossed a line. But, so did the actions of O'Malley's supporters in asking for the donations.

The whole incident and back-and-forth accusations smell. Like a murder victim’s corpse left rotting in a house for a few days.

Sorry for my lame attempt at a Raymond Chandler-esque simile, but I’m not the only one who smells something rotten going on in our District Attorney's Office. And that person is Jewett.

I’ve seen Jewett in action in the courtroom and spoken with him. I know some of our politics would clash, and I don’t agree with some decisions he has made on certain cases, but I’m convinced he acts out of respect for the law and a desire to do the right thing, not to further his personal glory. By the way, in 2008, he was named "Prosecutor of the Year" by the California District Attorney's Association. Here is his letter:

It was with some dismay I read today’s editorial telling a candidate for public office to “shut up”, and castigating him for reporting a violation of campaign fundraising laws to the attorney general. Your remarks were profoundly ironic and rude.


Your conclusions were wrong. Any newspaper (or other advocate of the 1st Amendment) telling any citizen to “shut up," or trivializing the violation of a law designed to prevent undue influence being placed on public employees vested with a public trust, is itself irresponsible.


As a prosecutor of 27+ years in this county, I have never seen the kind of political environment that exists in this office now. Our new prosecutors union has long since exceeded its stated purpose of maximizing benefits for its members, and now seeks to exercise substantial influence in the political arena.


Historically, that was the job of the district attorney … but times have apparently changed. I have never previously seen a solicitation for monies even approaching the $500 mentioned in the “e-vite” here. The suggestion that the idea of this solicitation originated with some young lawyer who didn’t know better is ludicrous.


The assertion that this wasn’t a fundraiser by prosecutors for prosecutors (with a few police detectives thrown in the mix for good measure) is poppycock. However, the truly disturbing aspect of this story is not the violation of a relatively obscure law. It is the denials; it is lawyers in full spin mode prepared to sacrifice a young attorney to avoid responsibility. Your editorial did not help.


This office is almost daily treated to closed door sessions of experienced lawyers and managers talking political strategy. Banter in the hallways includes experienced prosecutors openly singing about “war”.


It doesn’t take a rocket scientist for the low and mid-level attorneys to figure out which side their bread is buttered on. The effect of all this on the clerical personnel is undoubtedly numbing. It is precisely this kind of environment the statute you pay lip service to was designed to prevent.


With all of the posturing going on, one thing is certain: in our zeal to promote our candidate (whoever that may be) we are quickly loosing sight of our client (The People).


If your newspaper is not the partisan rag your editorial suggests it is, you should carefully and critically examine all of the assertions being made by all of the candidates, both about themselves and about their opponents.


If the public is being misled or the law is not being obeyed, it is your responsibility to expose the truth regardless of your predilections. That’s what Mark Peterson did (while trying murder case after murder case, by the way).


Truth first.


Harold W. Jewett