OLD_San Francisco Public Defender's Office

San Francisco, CA – Omeed Aziz Popal, 30, pled not guilty by reason of insanity today at the Hall of Justice, 850 Bryant Street. Popal is facing attempted murder charges in connection with a series of alleged hit-and-run incidents that injured sixteen people in San Francisco on August 29, 2006.

Popal, who suffers from schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and auditory command hallucinations, has been receiving psychiatric treatment in jail since his arrest last year. Within six months prior to his arrest, Popal suffered two psychiatric breakdowns resulting in hospitalization and involuntarily commitments.

Popal’s attorney, Deputy Public Defender Sandy Feinland, says he expects the trial to go forward this summer. “Unfortunately, this is a tragedy that could have been avoided. We all need to be better educated about mental illness, how to spot the warning signs, and how to get afflicted people the help they need,” Feinland said.

The mission of the Public Defender’s office is to provide vigorous, effective, competent and ethical legal representation to persons who are accused of crime and cannot afford to hire an attorney. Established in 1921, the San Francisco Public Defender has a long, proud history of providing top-notch representation to its clients, and championing programs that help people turn their lives around.

###

San Francisco, CA – The Fifth Annual Juvenile Justice Summit: “Less Talk, More Action: Solutions for Safe Schools and Safe Streets,” will be held on Wednesday, May 14, 2008, at the San Francisco Public Library, Koret Auditorium, 100 Larkin Street.  Hosted annually by the Public Defender’s Office since 2004, the summit will draw over 250 youth, parents and city leaders to discuss and pose solutions to juvenile justice issues both locally and statewide.

This year’s summit will examine the issue of how violence affects youth in their schools and in their neighborhoods.   The morning panel will feature Executive Director and CEO of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Nathaniel Ford, SFUSD Superintendent Carlos Garcia, Department of Children, Youth & Families Director Margaret Brodkin, and Visitacion Valley Middle School Principal James Dierke, who was recently honored with the National Middle School Principal of the Year award for his work in violence reduction. This panel will discuss how school safety, transportation and after-school activities can be better coordinated to reduce the likelihood of crime and violence.  Dr. Tom Wentz from Anderson & Anderson consulting, an anger management firm, will discuss best practices in helping youth mediate conflict, and Angela Chan from the Asian Law Caucus will discuss mediation and dispute resolution strategies The afternoon panel will present a fascinating discussion of gun and violence abatement strategies, and include a wide-array of experts in this field.

Dr. Francisco Reveles, a Professor of Educational Leadership & Policy Studies at California State University, Sacramento, who has worked extensively with gang involved youth, will deliver the keynote remarks.  Jon Osaki, Executive Director of Japanese Community Youth Council, will also be honored for his outstanding work supporting youth in San Francisco.

According to Public Defender Jeff Adachi, “This year we will bring together an incredible brain trust of experts and leaders who are dedicated to reducing the violence that young people are experiencing in school, on their way to school, and in their immediate communities. We have invited all of San Francisco’s key players to the Summit and we anticipate a day of commitment and more importantly, action.”

The summit is a free event, and lunch will be served on site. 

Genetic evidence is widely viewed as ironclad. In ‘cold hit’ cases, however, the truth is often elusive. San Francisco Deputy Public Defender Kwixuan H. Maloof defended John Puckett in his trial for murder. Puckett insisted he didn’t kill the victim. According to the defense, although DNA at the crime scene happened to match his, it belonged to someone else.

Read the Los Angeles Times cover story on this case here.

By Jeff Adachi
Published in The Recorder, Friday, April 18, 2008

Following the California Supreme Court decision that barred the public from police disciplinary proceedings, Copley Press v. Superior Court, 39 Cal.4th 1272 (2006), lobbyists for police and sheriffs organizations have worked to convince state legislators to introduce new laws that would further shield law enforcement from public accountability and create a cloak of secrecy surrounding complaints of police misconduct.One example is AB 2377, introduced by Assemblywoman Mary Hayashi, D-Hayward, which would make it more difficult for criminal defendants – and plaintiffs in civil cases involving police misconduct – to obtain access to complaints made by the public against police officers.

Police and sheriff’s departments are required to keep and maintain records of officers and deputies who are accused of police misconduct. Since 1974, a party seeking records pertaining to a particular officer need only make a “plausible showing” that the officer engaged in misconduct towards them.

AB 2377 overturns this 35-year-old precedent and instead requires a party seeking such records to show an “internally consistent plausible scenario” of misconduct that is “substantially credible.”

As one might imagine, in cases where police abuse is alleged, it is common that the police version differs substantially from that of the accused. Thus, a person charged with resisting arrest, who claims that the officer used excessive force, might seek complaints of prior incidents where the officer used excessive force. Presently, these records are produced so long as the litigant swears, under penalty of perjury, that the officer used excessive force against him or her. AB 2377 would prohibit the disclosure of such records unless the citizen proves that his or her version of the events is more credible than the version offered by the police.

By setting forth a standard that requires the judge to find the civilian’s version of events more credible than the officer’s version, AB 2377 unduly limits the disclosure of police misconduct records.

Supporters of AB 2377 claim that changes in the law are needed to protect officers’ privacy rights. However, current law requires a judge to review police misconduct records outside the presence of the parties to ensure that only those records that are relevant to the proceeding are ordered produced. Litigants must agree not to disclose the records to anyone, and to only use the records in connection with the case. This well-worn procedure amply addresses any police privacy concerns.

Furthermore, the proponents of AB 2377 do not point to a single instance where an officer’s right to privacy was violated by the current procedure. Instead, they merely argue that police misconduct records should not be produced where a judge views the officer’s version of events as more believable than that of the citizen’s.

Unfortunately, California has no shortage of examples of what happens when police misconduct goes unchecked. Los Angeles’ Rampart scandal, which involved allegations of misconduct against 70 officers, including unjustified killings and framings of suspects, resulted in the release of more than 100 people from prison. Four Oakland officers, known as the Riders, systematically committed acts of police brutality and then falsified police reports to justify their acts. In San Francisco, officer Jessie Serna was allowed to remain on the job even though he used force 57 times, injuring 37 people, and cost the city nearly $200,000 in payouts for using excessive force. Currently, deputies from the Orange County Sheriff’s Department are under investigation for allegedly watching television, playing video games and taking naps while inmates were allowed to regularly beat and intimidate each other, resulting in the death of at least one inmate.

Under AB 2377’s procedural hurdle, these types of incidents would not be subject to disclosure, even to a victim of police brutality who was seeking redress for his or her injuries.

Another example of a law that shields law enforcement officers from public scrutiny is AB 1855, sponsored by Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-La Canada Flintridge. This bill would prohibit the names, salaries and badge numbers of police officers from being published in the media. If passed, AB 1855 would create a specific exemption for law enforcement officers, since, under current law, the public is entitled to know the identity of public servants as well as the salary they earn.

As the British historian Lord Acton observed more than a century ago, “Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show it can bear discussion and publicity.” To allow officers who have breached the public trust to hide behind a cloak of secrecy is to hasten the demise of the checks and balances that protect our system of justice against corruption and misuse of power.

We must therefore insist on the highest standards for law enforcement and demand assurances that allegations of misconduct are dealt with fairly, effectively and, above all, publicly.