California Central District Judge Jesus Bernal threw out former defendant Roger Parker’s case against ex-Riverside District Attorney Paul Zellerbach on Aug. 21.
Parker had been held in jail on suspicion of murder for four years—including six months after the District Attorney’s Office found a recorded jail call in which another man admitted to the murder.
Parker accused Zellerbach and three members of Zellerbach’s administrative staff of holding charges against him to boost their case resolution numbers and better Zellerbach’s chances of reelection.
He had argued a violation of his right to evidence of his innocence, meaning the jail call confession, with additional arguments that Riverside County was liable for the claims. Under the Tatum-Lee Rule, criminal defendants have a right to evidence found by prosecutors that points to their innocence.
Riverside County attorneys moved to dismiss the case June 3. They argued that the defendants are entitled to immunity from his Tatum-Lee claim.
Bernal, the judge presiding over Parker’s case, agreed.
“The Court finds that Defendant Prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity for their alleged Tatum-Lee violations,” Bernal wrote.
A district attorney’s decision to prosecute defendants is protected, and DAs cannot be sued in civil court, he said. Their decisions during trial and discovery, however, are not protected.
“A prosecutor is absolutely immune from liability for ‘initiating a prosecution’ and ‘presenting the State’s case,’” Bernal wrote.
“However, a prosecutor’s ‘administrative duties’ and ‘investigatory functions’ which do not relate to an ‘advocate’s preparation for the initiation of a prosecution or for judicial proceedings’ are not entitled to absolute immunity,” Bernal wrote.
Bernal based his ruling on precedent established in the 2003 case Broam v. Bogan. That case established that prosecutors cannot be sued in civil court for violating a person’s federal constitutional rights through actions made during the judicial phase of the criminal process.
“A prosecutor’s decision not to preserve or turn over exculpatory material before trial, during trial, or after conviction is a violation of due process under Brady v. Maryland. It is, nonetheless, an exercise of the prosecutorial function and entitles the prosecutor to absolute immunity from a civil suit for damages,” the Broam v. Bogan ruling said. Bernal quoted that section.
He also cited the 1976 case Imbler v. Pachtman:
“In fact, Imbler itself states that the ‘deliberate withholding of exculpatory information,’ while ‘reprehensible’ and ‘warranting . . . disbarment,’ is included in the “legitimate exercise of prosecutorial discretion,’” Bernal wrote.
The Imbler ruling also said that the deliberate withholding of exculpatory information could warrant criminal prosecution.
Bernal made the ruling without a hearing, and did not grant Parker the option to amend his complaint.
Bernal also found that Zellerbach’s actions as alleged by Parker were in the capacity of a state official, not a county official. Parker, therefore, could not sue Riverside County for municipal liability, which only applies to city and county officials.
Parker’s counsel argued in an Aug. 5 reply brief that Bernal should grant an exception to Broam’s general rule in this case.
“Broam did not involve the sort of especially egregious conduct that occurred in this case, where there was no probable cause to arrest and prosecutors failed to disclose exculpatory evidence prior to a judicial determination of probable cause, resulting in four years of pretrial detention of an innocent person,” their reply brief read.
They argued that district attorneys are county officers, citing the 2013 case Goldstein v. City of Long Beach.
That case established that district attorneys are county officers when it comes to deciding administrative policy and procedures related to supervision, but are state officers when it comes to conducting prosecutions.
Bernal had ruled that Zellerbach’s alleged actions were in the course of deciding to prosecute, not in setting policy, and thus established him to be a state official within Parker’s allegations.
Case background
Parker, who is developmentally delayed, confessed to the killing he was accused of after a long interrogation. Prosecutor Lisa DiMaria believed his confession was coerced, and asked to dismiss the case. Supervisory Assistant District Attorney Sean Lafferty instead reassigned the case to prosecutor Chris Ross. Lafferty is a defendant in Parker’s case, and is now a Riverside Superior Court judge.
Ross believed the office did not have a case against Parker. He asked to drop the case. He asked former Riverside Superior Judge Jack Ryan to dismiss the case, but the judge did not.
In the fall of 2013, Ross found recordings of jail telephone calls in which Willie Womack, Parker’s former roommate, confessed to the killing. He informed Lafferty, who told Ross not to disclose the calls to Parker and removed Ross from the case.
Six months later, with Parker incarcerated, Supervisory District Attorney Tricia Fransdal moved to dismiss the case.
Ross was placed on administrative leave. He believed he was placed on leave, and effectively fired, as punishment for encouraging Parker’s release. The District Attorney’s staff testified that he was placed on leave to give him time to handle medical issues, and that he resigned. Ross filed his own case, alleging retaliation against his actions and his medical issue. He lost his case in November 2022.
Parker had originally brought a malicious prosecution claim. Bernal dismissed that claim on Feb. 23, 2022.
Case information
Kimberly Trimble and Sarah Weinman of San Diego’s Singleton Schreiber represented Parker.
Read Parker’s complaint here.
Read Parker’s reply brief here.
Read Bernal’s ruling here.
Read prior coverage here:
UPDATE: Due process claim against ex-Riv DA stands, other claims dismissed
Ex-prosecutor testifies he was forced out after finding evidence clearing defendant
Ex-prosecutor loses 8-year retaliation case against former DA
Riverside County, man jailed 4 years, argue civil-rights precedent for exonerative evidence
Civil rights case against Riverside DA’s Office sets precedent
UPDATE: Plaintiff brings new civil rights claim against Riverside DA
