It goes without saying that we expect members of our legal community to uphold the highest standards of ethical conduct; we expect the best from those in the public service. These expectations make the following cases of gross misbehavior in the County D.A.'s office a shocking reminder of why we need a new D.A. The following text was prepared by Mike Aguirre.
   

This happened right here in San Diego on February 8, 2000. The agents were investigators from the California State Attorney General’s office. The search warrants were for the San Diego County District Attorney’s office. The evidence sought was relevant to whether Peter Longanbach, a member of D.A. Paul Pfingst’s management team, had committed grand theft of public funds. It was Pfingst who put Loganbach in charge of the D.A.’s Economic Fraud Unit.

District Attorney employees claimed Longanbach ordered them to "falsify his personal real estate leases and required other staff to handle his private business on county time." A written report that described Loganbach’s role in preparing false leases was made available to Pfingst in March 1998.

After he had been told of Loganbach’s activities in March 1998, D.A. Pfingst did not fire Loganbach or even require him to repay the County. Pfingst promoted Loganbach in July 1998 to the highest level a deputy could hold, a level 5, and raised his salary.

It was not until after the Attorney General raided his office that Longanbach was placed on paid leave. Loganbach eventually resigned. A Grand Jury indicted Mr. Loganbach on twelve counts of embezzlement and grand theft on February 15, 2001.

Sky Flanders told Loganbach, the prosecutor in the case, that Harless had a history of fighting. This was relevant evidence. The case would turn on whether Harless attacked Genzler or the other way around. After Ms. Flanders met with Longanbach, she changed her story. She falsely told the jury Harless did not have a history of fighting.

Ms. Flanders admitted her perjury before a second jury that the appellate court had ordered to hear a retrial of the case. Flanders said she had testified falsely at the behest of Loganbach. She told the jury Loganbach warned her that it would be difficult to convict Genzler if she admitted Harless had a history of fighting. Longanbach, called as a witness, took the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination.

The Deputy District Attorney who retried the case discovered the subterfuge and disclosed it to the court and defense counsel, as required by applicable ethical rules. Afterwards, this Deputy District Attorney was so harassed by management she was forced to leave her trial job. Genzler is now suing the District Attorney and the County of San Diego in federal court.

These horror stories are part of a pattern of misbehavior under Paul Pfingst. Since 1995 there has been rampant prosecutorial misconduct, misuse of public funds, cover-ups of wrongdoing, disfavor and retaliation against those who act ethically within the District Attorney’s office, loss of morale, loss of focus, self-promotion and disservice to the public trust and the public interest.

Ms. Palmer told Burt she had some pictures he might like to see. After Ms. Palmer’s call, all charges against Darin Palmer were dropped by Deputy District Attorney James Pippin, who as chief of the Superior Court Division also reported to Burt. San Diego police expressed their unhappiness with the dismissal. They complained; the Attorney General took over the case and successfully prosecuted it. Burt appeared as a witness for Palmer but the jury chose not to credit Burt’s spin that Palmer possession of narcotics was innocent. Palmer was convicted and sent to prison for life. Ms. Palmer took her pictures to the San Diego Union-Tribune.

On March 20, 1997 the paper began reporting the facts behind Tracey Palmer’s mysterious pictures and the suspicious dropping of the narcotics charges against Darin Palmer. Several years before, while in custody for armed robbery, Darin Palmer acted as the District Attorney’s star witness in a murder case prosecuted by Burt.

Palmer’s gun had been used to kill 23-year-old police officer Jerry Hartless. Burt did not charge Palmer with murder. Instead, Burt gave Palmer a secret deal: a time-served sentence on the armed robbery. Palmer also got sex visits from his wife at the District Attorney’s office, of which Burt claimed he was unaware. Palmer testified in favor of the District Attorney’s successful murder prosecution. However, Burt did not disclose to the judge or jury the extraordinary benefits given Palmer.

During their sex sessions in the District Attorney’s office, the Palmers had "taken 13 Polaroid photographs depicting graphic, sexual poses of each of them against such backdrops in the prosecutor offices as law books, a deputy sheriff’s uniform and an investigator’s nameplate."

To get to the truth, Judge Kennedy held a three-month hearing, July to October 1998. A total of 52 witnesses were called. Judge Kennedy determined that Deputy District Attorney Burt testified falsely in the hearing. His testimony was contradicted by two witnesses, one of whom was Superior Court Judge Allan Preckel.

Deputy District Attorney Keith Burt was found to have engaged in gross prosecutorial misconduct by four judges, Superior Court Judge William Kennedy and Appellate Court Justices Dick Huffman, Gilbert Nares, and Judith Haller. The murder convictions of the defendants were reversed.

Despite these findings, D.A. Pfingst did not prosecute, much less terminate, Burt. Instead, Pfingst hired a private attorney, who was "unable to find a single action by DDA Burt" that "rises to the level of ethical or unprofessional conduct warranting any disciplinary action." Pfingst paid $7,000 of public funds to this attorney.

• The decision to drop the narcotics charges against Palmer, after his wife called Burt about her sex-visit pictures, occurred in 1995, almost a year after Pfingst took office.

• The failure to properly investigate the existence of the sex photos occurred in 1996, more than a year after Pfingst was in office.

• Burt’s false testimony before judge Kennedy (that there was no secret time-served deal for Palmer) occurred in the summer of 1998, 2 years after Pfingst took office.
• The D.A.’s payment of $7,000 of public funds to a private attorney to write a report that Pfingst used as a pretext for not dismissing Burt; this occurred in 2000, five years after Pfingst became D.A.
• Pfingst’s decision not to fire Burt took place in 2000, 5 years after Pfingst took office.
• The D.A.’s repeated false statements that none of the Hartless misconduct happened on his watch.

The District Attorney’s toleration of unethical and unlawful practices has taken its toll on office morale. The working environment is unhealthy and dysfunctional; retaliation and pettiness are a way of life. Highly qualified Deputy District Attorneys have been banished to one of the field offices to handle duties far below their abilities.

Two female deputies were retaliated against when they became pregnant. They both sued. The County had to pay Susan Sergojan, a Deputy District Attorney for 15 years, $1 million. A federal court jury found in her favor. Laura Akers, the other female Deputy District Attorney case, is pending.

At least three additional lawsuits arising out of these misdeeds have been filed. Genzler has sued, the defendants in the Hartless case have sued, another Deputy District Attorney has sued for retaliation. They seek millions of dollars in damages. The County faces untold expenses for attorneys’ fees and costs to defend the District Attorney in these cases.

The felony prosecution against former Deputy District Attorney Peter Loganbach is working its way to trial. The District Attorney has already been called before the County Grand Jury to testify about the case. He will likely be a witness in the trial. He is also named as a defendant or will be a witness in the other litigation. The District Attorney has been and will be spending an increasing amount of time defending his office’s misconduct time that could be better spent on prosecuting criminals.

The District Attorney has also frustrated the Deputy District Attorneys effort to gain fair wages and conditions of employment. The deputies pay scale is lower than the City of San Diego and other local government attorneys. Deputies with 20 years experience make far less than attorneys in private practice with little experience. Pfingst has used his access to County Supervisors and executives to thwart his deputies. All of this has caused a downward spiral in office morale.

The sorry condition of the District Attorney’s office reflects poorly on San Diego’s legal community. It builds on the negative impression that the public formed from the convictions of three San Diego Superior Court judges. If the public loses confidence in our legal system, all members of the legal community suffer.

Judge William Kennedy laid out the imperative for action best in the finding he reached in the Hartless case:

"No government can allow any desired law enforcement end to cause flaunting of basic ethics and the fundamental principles upon which our constitution rests. To do so encourages more than mischief; it invites anarchy."

These are the facts that support the case for a new District Attorney.