By Kathleen Cady
District Attorney George Gascón’s blanket “Youth Justice Policy” is retraumatizing victims whose cases were concluded years ago. Family after family has been told that the person who murdered their loved one and was sentenced to prison will be released.
Sixteen and 17-year-olds who commit exceptionally heinous and brutal crimes, who are repeat offenders, or whose crimes exhibit adult sophistication can legally be charged in criminal court. Prior to Proposition 57, the decision whether to keep the minor in juvenile court or transfer them to criminal court was made by the district attorney. Proposition 57, enacted by the voters in 2016, changed the law to allow the prosecutor to make a motion to transfer a minor to criminal court but required that a judge make the final decision.
Former minors (all of whom are now in the 20s or 30s) who were charged, convicted and sentenced in criminal court prior to Prop. 57 have been sent back to the juvenile court by the Court of Appeal with an order to the court to hold a retroactive transfer hearing. Although transfer motions had been filed in each of these cases before Gascón took office, Gascón has now determined that his policy of never sending juveniles to criminal court should apply retroactively. The result is that approximately 20 former minors who were convicted of gang murderers, sometimes of multiple murders, are now back in our communities having served only a few years in custody.
Gascón’s blanket policy is retraumatizing murder victims’ families. In addition, community safety is significantly endangered because gang members have become aware of Gascón’s policies. Gangs are now soliciting their youngest members to commit the most heinous crimes since these minors will serve little time.
One such defendant is Andrew Cachu. Cachu was just two months shy of his 18th birthday when he shot and killed 41-year-old Louis Amela outside a Palmdale restaurant in March 2015. Cachu was convicted by a jury who also found the murder and armed robbery was gang-motivated and involved use of a gun. Cachu was sentenced to 50 years to life which, under the Youthful Parole law (Penal Code 3051) would have made him eligible for parole after 20 years.
Alisa Blair, who recently transferred to the district attorney’s office from a career in the public defender’s office, is now Gascón’s special advisor on Juvenile, Diversion and Collaborative Courts. She took over the Cachu case in May 2021. Marsy’s Law (Cal. Const. Article I, Section 28) provides that victims of crime have a constitutional right to be notified about all court proceedings and speak to the assigned prosecutor. Despite this, Blair never contacted the victim’s family. Blair did, however, have contact the defendant’s family. During a May 10 recorded jail phone call between the defendant and his mother, Cachu’s mother tells him, “Hi Mijo. You know who that was? … That’s Gascón’s special advisor … She’s the one I’ve been emailing back and forth … She looked at me like ‘Girl — I got you.”
In keeping with Gascón’s policies, Blair requested to keep Cachu (now age 24) in the juvenile system. The judge converted Cachu’s conviction to a juvenile adjudication and set it for a disposition hearing (similar to a criminal sentencing hearing). At a juvenile disposition hearing a prosecutor must present evidence to the court to enable the judge to determine the appropriate sentence. In the absence of evidence, a court cannot make the findings required to sentence the former minor. At Cachu’s disposition hearing, Blair did not present any evidence. Because of this, Cachu was released after spending just over six years in custody for a gang motivated armed robbery and murder. The judge stated during the hearing that Blair’s actions were intentional and her refusal to put on evidence left him with no legal ability to do anything other than release Cachu.
The victim’s family is devastated and feels abandoned by their district attorney, George Gascón.
Additional Ramifications of Gascón’s Youth Justice Policy
Gascón’s policy also mandates that juveniles can only be charged with the lowest possible crime and only one count per incident. Sentencing enhancements that reflect the gravity of the crime, such as the use of a weapon, infliction of great bodily injury, or committing the crime for the benefit of a gang, could affect whether the minor is detained (kept in custody) or whether the crime qualifies as a strike. But pursuant to Gascón’s policy, these allegations cannot be charged. Gascón’s policy means that if a minor robs several people at gunpoint, the most he can be charged with is one count of grand theft person. Not filing appropriate charges and enhancements also means that the case is not open to public. (Welfare and Institutions Section 676). This absurd policy prevents the public from learning about these heinous crimes, and gives the false impression that minors are not committing violent crimes.
Recently Blair has stated that the office’s new, as yet unwritten, policy will be that cases will only be filed for juveniles who commit murder and forcible sex crimes. In all other cases, charges will not be filed at all. Instead, juveniles will be “diverted” (placed on informal probation and charges dismissed). Not providing consequences to juveniles who commit armed robbery, car jackings, home invasion robbery or gang shootings gives the message that they can continue with their violent behavior.
Gascón’s policies have resulted in dangerous individuals being released from custody and has empowered minors to commit crime with little fear of consequences. His policies also provide a false narrative and misleading statistics that juveniles are not committing dangerous or violent crimes. Victims of crime demand justice. Our communities deserve to have an elected official that is dedicated to public safety.
About the author: Kathleen Cady began her career as a prosecutor in 1989 and retired in 2019. She is one of several former prosecutors who are providing pro bono assistance to crime victims in response to Gascón’s policies.
Previous related Op-ed: Injustice in the juvenile “justice” system
LCR says
Louis Amelo (41) shot four times, murdered because Andrew Cachu wanted to steal his bicycle. The jury got this verdict right.
LCR says
The simple fact is that Andrew Cachu was convicted by a jury, and now the victim’s family is retraumatized by Gascon’s liberal agenda. Gang members love Gascon, and I can tell you this “reform” that he promotes is a lie and will make things much worse in our society. Too many times a violent offender is released and goes right out committing more violent crimes, including murder, with more victims being devastated and lives ruined.
David Paul says
There are no words to help this make any sense. The fact that most young offenders age out to some degree of their criminal inclinations is weak solace to cling to. If there is no way to stop one man from undoing what should stay done in the name of fair and small p progressive changes, it’s just one more thing to realize we have failed at. Life is not fair, but we do make it less fair than we could, don’t we? Turning it upside down is not likely to fix it, is it?
Tim Scott says
Here’s a word that will help make sense. That word is LIE. As in bald faced lie.
This phrase: “Gascón has now determined that his policy of never sending juveniles to criminal court…” is a big part of what makes it all so confusing, and the fact is that there is no such policy and never has been. The diversion program to keep juvenile offenders out of criminal court has a number of qualifiers and the entire “but what about the murdered victims families???” line of propaganda is fiction because murderers don’t qualify. Neither do rapists and a number of other violent offenders.
Gascon is heavily opposed because he is trying to reform a system that is corrupted all the way to the top. The opposition has demonstrated that they are willing to exaggerate to the point of outright lying. They are just trying to hold on to their gravy train and not end up riding it into cells on the same block as Baca and Tanaka.