Roger Parker refiled his civil rights case against the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office Sept. 29, this time bringing a Tatum-Lee claim as recommended by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal.
Parker was jailed from 2010 to 2014 on suspicion of killing Brandon Stevenson. Six months of those four years were after the District Attorney’s Office, under then-District Attorney Paul Zellerbach, found a jailhouse recording of Parker’s roommate, Willie Womack, confessing to the crime. Parker did not find out about the recorded confession until 2020.
While giving testimony in a related civil case, Zellerbach and his supervising team said that they always believed Parker’s case needed further investigation, and that they did not turn over the confession to Parker’s defense counsel because they did not think doing so was required.
Parker’s first suit
Parker had originally brought a claim for a violation of the Brady Rule. The rule establishes that a person’s due process rights are violated if prosecutors do not give defense counsel evidence that helps the defendant prove their innocence. In most circuits, the rule does not apply unless the case goes to trial. In the Ninth Circuit, the rule applies as long as there was a preliminary hearing. Since Parker’s case did not have a preliminary hearing during those four years, the case was dismissed, and its dismissal was upheld by the Ninth Circuit.
Tatum-Lee claim
In their published ruling, the Ninth Circuit said that Parker might have a case under the Tatum-Lee Rule.
In the 2014 case Tatum v. Moody, the Ninth Circuit held that a due process claim may be based on a detention of unusual length caused by the investigating officers’ failure to disclose highly significant exculpatory evidence to prosecutors, if the officers understood or were indifferent to the risks to the plaintiff’s rights. The appellate ruling was based on the prosecution of a man for a series of thefts. A police officer’s report said that the thefts that followed the same pattern had stopped after the defendant’s arrest. Later, defense counsel found that the thefts had continued while he was in jail.
The ruling was based on the reasoning in the 2001 case Lee v. City of Los Angeles.
Amended complaint
Roger’s new complaint brings charges for malicious prosecution, a Tatum-Lee claim, and two claims for municipal liability. Riverside County and Zellerbach are defendants, as are former members of Zellerbach’s administrative team: Sean Lafferty, Tricia Fransdal and Jeffrey Van Wagenen.
None of those defendants still work at the office. Michael Hestrin replaced Zellerbach as district attorney in the June 2014 election. Lafferty was voted in to a Riverside judgeship the same election. Van Wagenen is now the Riverside County Executive Officer. Fransdal left the office in 2016.
The complaint claims that the DA’s Office has a history of prosecutorial misconduct.
“The Riverside County D.A.’s office has a well-documented practice of committing prosecutorial misconduct – including withholding exculpatory evidence in high profile cases – which comes from the top down,” his complaint said.
The complaint based the claim upon oral argument in the separate Riverside case Baca v. Adams, and a Harvard report.
In oral argument held Jan. 8, 2015, appellate justices in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal established that Riverside prosecutor Robert Spira had presented false evidence while under oath in 1997.
“Do you concede, let me just start right out, do you conceded that Mr. Spira lied on the stand?” asked Justice Alex Kozinski.
“I am not certain that he lied. I think he had some general confusion about what happened at the sentencing hearing,” said Kevin Vienna of the California Attorney General’s Office.
“So, a district attorney of Riverside County made a false statement,” Justice Kim McLane Wardlaw asked 23 minutes into the argument.
“Yes,” Vienna said.
Spira was not disciplined or investigated, according to Vienna’s statements during the argument.
The complaint also mentions a 2017 Harvard report that said Riverside County had 32 findings of prosecutorial misconduct and four reversals over six years, ranking them fifth in the state for prosecutorial misconduct.
In a prior legal filing, the defendants argued that Parker should not be able to bring an amended complaint. They said that the statute of limitations for a Tatum-Lee claim already expired in March 2016. They also argue that the defendants were prosecutors, not investigating officers, and are immune from a Tatum-Lee claim.
Murder case fallout
Two prosecutors assigned to Parker’s murder case proclaimed Parker’s innocence.
The first prosecutor, Lisa DiMaria, requested the case be taken away from her because she believed Parker’s confession was coerced.
The second, Christopher Ross, claimed Ross was effectively fired by the District Attorney’s Office for professing Parker’s innocence and discovering Womack’s recorded confession. Ross brought a retaliation case against the office. The case alleged Ross was retaliated against because of his medical needs, in addition to his conduct regarding the Parker case. He argued along the same line as Parker: that Zellerbach did not want the case dismissed because he thought it would look bad in the upcoming election. He lost the case earlier this year, after a jury found he did not have medical issues that could be retaliated against.
During testimony to the jury, Lafferty and Zellerbach both said Ross made it seem as though the Parker case needed further investigation.
“I was told they had concerns about trying to prove the case at trial, but were continuing investigating,” Zellerbach said on the stand.
The amended complaint also comes with more exhibits, including Ross’ 2014 deposition in his own civil case.
“(I came to the conclusion) that there was no probable cause, and that there was–you couldn’t prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt and that the man (Parker) was innocent,” Ross said, according to the transcript.
Representation
Kimberly Trimble of San Diego’s Singleton Schreiber and Wilber Colom, special counsel to the president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, represent Parker.
Tony Sain and Abigail McLaughlin of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith represent the defendants.
Case information
Case No. 5:21-cv-01280
Appellate Case No. 22-55614
Read Parker’s amended complaint here.
Read the order dismissing Parker’s case here.
Read the county’s appellate brief here.
Read Parker’s appellate brief here.
Read the appellate ruling here.
Read about Parker’s claims here.
Read about the appellate ruling here.
