D.A

Los Angeles County prosecutors moved to drop manslaughter charges Friday against two Torrance police officers who shot and killed a Black man in 2018, attempting to end a seven-year saga that saw the case rejected and then reexamined by three different district attorneys.

Matthew Concannon and Anthony Chavez were indicted in 2023 for the shooting death of Christopher Deandre Mitchell, a 23-year-old car theft suspect who was in possession of an air rifle at the time he was killed.

Michael Gennaco, a special prosecutor hired earlier this year by Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman to review the case, filed a motion to dismiss charges late Thursday, saying he did not believe prosecutors could prove voluntary manslaughter at trial. Attorneys for the officers filed a joint motion in agreement, they said in court Friday.

But in a surprising move, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Sam Ohta declined to rule on the motion Friday, because the case is currently under the jurisdiction of the California Supreme Court. Concannon’s attorneys had previously filed a writ of habeas corpus after Ohta rejected a motion to dismiss the charges.

“I am not going to rule on this because it would be inappropriate for me to do that at this point. The Supreme Court has to tell us its decision,” Ohta said.

One of Concannon’s attorneys, Matthew Murphy, said he felt Ohta was punishing the defendants for exercising their right to challenge Ohta’s prior ruling. Ohta slapped that argument down, pointing out it was the defense team who put the case before the California Supreme Court.

Ohta signaled he wouldn’t decide the motion until the case was withdrawn from the Supreme Court, and even then, he would need time to review the filings.

Ohta said he was “surprised” that the motion was filed at 3 p.m. on Thursday, giving him little time to digest it ahead of Friday’s 8:30 a.m. appearance.

“It’s going to be a lot of work. I’m not just going to orally say yes go ahead and dismiss the case, case dismissed,” the judge said.

Murphy said he would move to withdraw the habeas filing.

Chavez and Concannon were among those investigated in 2021 when the district attorney’s office uncovered a thread of racist text messages sent by members of the Torrance Police Department. The Times has never seen evidence that either of the two officers sent racist messages, but the scandal infuriated community activists, who have long called for them to face justice for killing Mitchell.

Jeff Lewis, a civil attorney for Concannon, said his client “never sent or replied to any racist messages.”

The shooting incident occurred when officers approached Mitchell while he was seated in the car in a Ralph’s parking lot. They said they spotted what was later revealed to be a “break barrel air rifle” between his legs.

Concannon told authorities he saw Mitchell reaching for what he believed to be a real firearm and opened fire, according to the district attorney’s office. Chavez fired two rounds immediately after. The two officers then retreated and waited for backup.

Nearly 30 minutes elapsed before anyone checked on Mitchell, who was then pronounced dead of gunshot wounds, according to court records.

Concannon and Chavez were initially cleared of all wrongdoing by then-Dist. Atty. Jackie Lacey. But when George Gascón swept into office on a police accountability platform and ousted Lacey in 2020, he hired a special prosecutor to reexamine several cases Lacey declined to prosecute, including Mitchell’s death.

But Lawrence Middleton, the special prosecutor brought on by Gascón, did not obtain an indictment in the case until 2023, more than two years after he had been hired to reconsider charges in shootings by police.

The statute of limitations for involuntary manslaughter, an easier case to prove than the voluntary manslaughter charges that Middleton brought, expired in late 2021. Concerns about the timeline Middleton would face to pursue the cases Gascón targeted were raised almost immediately after he joined the D.A.’s office.

Middleton appeared in the courtroom Friday morning and sat beside Mitchell’s mother and a number of activists who have long monitored the trial. All declined to comment.

Middleton previously argued the officers “created the jeopardy that led to the shooting,” by needlessly confronting Mitchell when he was not a threat and had no means of escaping arrest as the car was parked facing a wall, according to grand jury transcripts. But Ohta disallowed that evidence after a hearing in late 2023. The shooting happened in 2018, two years before a change in California law modified the threshold by which fatal uses of force are judged.

Hochman fired Middleton shortly after ousting Gascón in the 2024 election cycle, a move which drew praise from one of Concannon’s attorneys at the time. Gennaco was hired a short time later. He also declined to comment on Ohta’s refusal to rule on the dismissal motion.

In an interview, Hochman said that while he did not believe the officers were “innocent” he also did not think prosecutors could meet the legal bar needed to prove voluntary manslaughter. He said Gascón and Middleton bungled the case.

Hochman questioned Middleton’s attempt to argue that the officers executed the arrest of Mitchell so poorly that they caused the situation that required the use of deadly force.

That evidence of so-called “officer-created jeopardy” was deemed inadmissible by Ohta last year.

The evidence might have been admissible under a change in California law passed in 2020, which lowered the standard for charging officers in fatal use-of-force cases, but it did not apply retroactively, Hochman said.

“These are difficult cases. The fact that they’re difficult doesn’t mean we won’t bring them when they are appropriate,” Hochman said. “I’d say we probably spent hundreds of hours on the 12 seconds that were involved in the case.”

Hochman would not say directly if he believed the officers should have been charged with involuntary manslaughter.

“What we’re saying is this would have been a potential charge for the grand jury to consider. I can’t tell you how the grand jury would have come out on it,” he said. “It certainly would have been something that was up for consideration.”

Chavez is no longer employed by the Torrance Police Department. Concannon remains on administrative leave. An agency spokesman declined to comment.

In the 2021 scandal, The Times uncovered messages that were replete with racial slurs and descriptions of violence against Black men and members of the LGBTQ+ community.

In one string of messages, officers used the N-word to describe Mitchell’s relatives and joked about what would happen after Concannon and Chavez’s names were made public.

“Gun cleaning Party at my house when they release my name??” one officer asked, according to a summary of the text messages made public in a 2022 court filing, which redacted the names of the officers sending the messages.

“Yes absolutely let’s all just post in your yard with lawn chairs in a [firing] squad,” another replied.

Lewis said in a letter to The Times that Concannon was “never a part of any text thread where an N-word was used to describe Mitchell’s family.”

Concannon and Chavez are the last officers connected to the scandal with pending cases.

Cody Weldin and Christopher Tomsic — whose criminal case led to the exposure of the scandal — struck a plea deal earlier this year to vandalism charges for spray painting a swastika on a car towed from a crime scene.

David Chandler, another officer investigated as part of the scandal, pleaded no contest earlier this month to assault charges for shooting a Black suspect in the back. Chandler will eventually see his case dismissed under the terms of the agreement.

All three officers had to give up their rights to be peace officers in California under the terms of their plea deals.

The Torrance Police Department and the California Attorney General’s office entered into an “enforceable” agreement to reform earlier this year.

Los Angeles County’s district attorney has opened an investigation into claims of fraud within the largest sex abuse settlement in U.S. history.

Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman said Wednesday his office has started a wide-ranging probe into claims that plaintiffs made up stories of abuse in order to sue the county, which agreed to the historic $4-billion sex abuse settlement this spring.

The announcement follows Times investigations that found nine people who said they were paid small amounts of cash by recruiters to sue the county for sex abuse in juvenile halls. Four of them said they fabricated the claims.

“They looked at this opportunity to compensate these true victims of sex abuse as an opportunity to personally profit and engage in some of the most greedy and heinous conduct,” Hochman said at a news conference Wednesday morning in the Hall of Justice downtown. “We are going to aggressively go after them.”

All nine plaintiffs had their cases filed by Downtown LA Law Group, a personal injury firm that represents roughly 2,700 people in the county settlement. The firm has denied wrongdoing. The Times could not reach the recruiters who made the alleged payments to plaintiffs for comment.

Hochman indicated his investigation, still in its early stages, showed this was just a small fraction of the “significant number of fraudsters involved in these settlement claims.”

Hochman emphasized the inquiry would focus on those higher up the chain — lawyers, recruiters and medical practitioners who may have submitted fraudulent forms — and not the plaintiffs.

Many of the people The Times spoke with who filed false claims were poor and in unstable housing. They said they desperately needed the cash promised by recruiters, which ranged from $20 to $200. All were flagged down outside county social services offices, where many were on their way to get food assistance and cash aid.

Hochman said any person who contacted his office about filing a fraudulent claim would not have the statements haunt them in a criminal prosecution.

“If you provide us truthful information, complete information, any of the words that you use will not be used against you,” said Hochman, adding the offer did not extend to attorneys or medical professionals. “It’s not something that we offer lightly to anyone.”

Hochman said Downtown LA Law Group was one of the law firms they were focused on, but the probe was not limited to them. He said the investigation would touch anyone who helped fraudulent cases get filed.

“I’m happy to label that entire group as a group of fraudsters conspiring to defraud a settlement where the money should be going to legitimate sex abuse survivors and victims,” he said.

The law group has denied paying plaintiffs and said it only wants “justice for real victims” of sexual abuse. The firm declined to comment further Wednesday.

Shortly after The Times’ investigation, the county supervisors voted to launch their own inquiry into possible misconduct by “legal representatives” involved in the lawsuits. The county set up a hotline for tips from the public, and moved to ban “predatory solicitation” outside county social services offices.

The supervisors also joined a chorus of voices — including California lawmakers, labor leaders and a powerful attorney trade group — calling for the State Bar to investigate. The State Bar does not comment on potential investigations, but has previously said California law generally prohibits making payments to procure clients, a practice known as capping.

Downtown LA Law Group represents roughly 2,700 people suing the county. Hochman said the firm is one of several he’s focused on.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

A flood of sex abuse claims followed the passage of AB 218, a state law that gave victims of childhood sexual abuse a new window to sue that stretched far beyond the previous statute of limitations. The law, which went into effect in 2020, has led to thousands of lawsuits filed against California school districts, governments and religious institutions.

This spring, the county agreed to pay $4 billion to resolve thousands of claims from victims who said they were abused decades ago in county-run juvenile detention centers and foster homes. In October, the county agreed to a second settlement worth $828 million over another set of similar claims.

Hochman noted the first settlement would have massive financial ramifications for decades for the county, which acts as a social safety net for the region. The county will pay the settlement out over the next five years and has asked most departments to trim their budgets to help pay for it. The district attorney’s budget, Hochman said, had been slashed by $24 million, in part, to help pay for the cases.

“Every penny that a fraudster gets is a penny taken away from a sex abuse victim that validly and legitimately suffered that abuse at the hands of someone [in] Los Angeles County,” said Hochman. “It is not free money.”

A California district attorney reposted on social media 9/11 images along with comments blasting the election of Zohran Mamdani as New York City’s first Muslim mayor. Despite the gory images and strong denunciation of Mamdani, Dan Dow insists that he has no issues with the Muslim community in San Luis Obispo County, where he is the top prosecutor.

He has “strong ties” with the community, Dow said in an emailed statement Thursday to The Times.

But his posts have drawn backlash, and a Muslim advocacy organization is demanding an apology and an investigation.

On Wednesday, Dow retweeted a post on X from a popular right-wing account that appeared to show a snapshot moments after flames jutted from the South Tower, the second of the twin towers struck by a plane on Sept. 11, 2001.

A second visual tweet, more graphic than the first, displayed footage from two angles of a plane barreling into one of the towers. That was posted by the leader of an activist organization, described as a hate group by some, that claims to “combat the threats from Islamic supremacists, radical leftists and their allies.”

Each was posted in the aftermath of the New York City mayoral election won by 34-year-old, self-described democratic socialist Mamdani.

The posts were retweeted and subtweeted days later and 3,000 miles away by Dow, drawing rebuke from some locals, in a story first broken by the San Luis Obispo Tribune.

Dow responded to a Times email for comment saying his issue was not with the county’s Muslim population, which numbers around 500, according to the Assn. of Religion Data Archives.

“I shared the posts because, in my opinion, Mamdani is going to destroy New York being a self-proclaimed socialist,” Dow responded. “I support the Muslim community and have strong ties to our Muslim community in San Luis Obispo.”

The first post Dow retweeted came from the account @EndWokeness, which vows to its nearly 4 million followers that it’s “fighting, exposing, and mocking wokeness.”

The second post came from Amy Mekelburg, founder of Rise, Align, Ignite and Reclaim (RAIR) Foundation, which is listed as a hate organization by the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

The council’s Los Angeles office demanded Thursday evening that Dow apologize and “retract his recent anti-Muslim social media posts.” CAIR-LA is also asking for an independent investigation into Dow’s conduct and “his fitness to continue to serve as DA.”

The organization is incensed at his retweeting of Mekelburg, whom they describe as “a known anti-Muslim extremist.”

Mekelburg wrote a sizable message on the video post, saying she’d “given my entire self” to warn the world “about the threat of Islam after 9/11.”

“And now … to see New York — my city — stand in this moment, where someone like Zohran Mamdani could even be elected,” she wrote. “My God, New York, what have you done?”

CAIR-LA said that Mekelburg “falsely equated the election of Mamdani with 9/11, reinforcing the harmful stereotype that Muslims are inherently tied to terrorism simply because of their faith.”

Dow subtweeted that specific post with a message that began by highlighting his 32 years of service in the U.S. Army and his four tours overseas.

“I remember like it was yesterday our nation being attacked by Islamic extremists on 9/11/2001,” he wrote. “I love this country and I do not in any way share the same views as the 33-year-old socialist Zohran Mamdani.”

He added in the tweet: “I am very sad to see the Big Apple torn apart by electing an un-American socialist who wants to trample on the values and freedoms that millions of Americans have fought and died for.”

“Dow’s decision to repost content that weaponizes bigotry and baselessly ties an elected Muslim official to terrorism is appalling and reflects the deeply rooted dehumanization and fearmongering in this country that American Muslims have had to endure for decades,” CAIR-LA Executive Director Hussam Ayloush said in a statement.

Dow’s posts also struck a nerve with one of his Muslim allies in San Luis Obispo, Dr. Rushdi Cader, who referred to the district attorney as “a personal friend” to the San Luis Obispo Tribune.

Cader told the Tribune the posts were “highly incendiary and puts Muslims at risk for harm, especially hijab-wearing Muslim women like my wife Nisha, whom Dan has himself described as ‘a kind and gentle lady’ who he ‘prayed would be blessed with peace.’”

Cader added he thought Dow’s “ugly post” was borne “out of disagreement with Mamdani’s politics” rather than any direct attack on Islam.”

Dow’s tweets drew other rebukes.

San Luis Obispo County Second District Supervisor Bruce Gibson called Dow a “Christian nationalist.”

He “occupies a powerful public office that requires decency and discipline,” Gibson said of Dow. “This post is yet another example that he has neither.”

San Luis Obispo Mayor Erica Stewart emailed The Times to say that the city was welcoming to all community members.

“Dan Dow, as the county’s District Attorney, by definition, should be objective and fair,” she wrote. “For someone in his position to express racism is unacceptable.”

Dow had his defenders too.

Orange County Dist. Atty. Todd Spitzer serves with Dow on the California District Attorneys Assn. Spitzer is the organization’s secretary-treasurer while Dow is the president.

Spitzer found no fault with Dow’s social media posts.

“Elected officials have a platform to share their views and be judged by their constituents,” he wrote in an email. “It is heartbreaking to see someone who has expressed such anti-public safety and anti-Semitic sentiments elected as mayor of New York, and we as the elected protectors of public safety have a right to express that.”