Sentencing -- USA v Thompson, et al

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1


CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HONORABLE PERCY ANDERSON, JUDGE PRESIDING

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Vs.

GREGORY THOMPSON, STEPHENLEAVINS, GERARD SMITH, MICKEYMANZO, SCOTT CRAIG, andMARICELLA LONG,

Defendants.

___________________________________

))))))))))))))))))))))

No. CR 13-819 PA

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF SENTENCINGS

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2014; 9:15 A.M.

LEANDRA AMBER, CSR 12070, RPROFFICIAL U.S. DISTRICT COURT REPORTER

312 NORTH SPRING STREET, # 408LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012

www.leandraamber.com(213) 894-6603

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


2

A P P E A R A N C E S

IN BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF,UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

BY: BRANDON D. FOX, AUSALIZABETH RHODES, AUSAMAGGIE CARTER, AUSA

312 NORTH SPRING STREET12TH FLOORLOS ANGELES, CA 90017(213) [email protected](213) [email protected](213) [email protected]

IN BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT,GREGORY THOMPSON: LAW OFFICE OF DAVID E. STOTHERS

BY: DAVID E. STOTHERS, ESQ.850 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUESUITE CORANGE, CA 92866(714) [email protected]

GODES AND PREIS LLPBY: KEVIN B. McDERMOTT, ESQ.8001 IRVINE CENTER DRIVESUITE 1420IRVINE, CA 92618(949) [email protected]

IN BEHALF OF DEFENDANT,GERARD SMITH: LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM GENEGO

BY: WILLIAM GENEGO, ESQ.2115 MAIN STREETSANTA MONICA, CA 90405(310) [email protected]

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


3

A P P E A R A N C E S(CONTINUED)

IN BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT,MICKEY MANZO:

LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW J. LOMBARDBY: MATTHEW J. LOMBARD, ESQ.316 WEST SECOND STREETSUITE 1202LOS ANGELES, CA 90012(213) [email protected]

IN BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT,STEPHEN LEAVINS: LAW OFFICE OF PETER JOHNSON

BY: PETER JOHNSON, ESQ.409 NORTH PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAYSUITE 651REDONDO BEACH, CA 90277(310) [email protected]

LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD W. RAYNORBY: RICHARD W. RAYNOR, ESQ.800 SOUTH PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAYSUITE 8-284REDONDO BEACH, CA 90277(424) [email protected]

IN BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT,SCOTT CRAIG : STONE BUSAILAH LLP

BY: RICHARD RABE, ESQ.MUNA BUSAILAH, ESQ.

200 EAST DEL MAR BOULEVARDSUITE 350PASADENA, CA 91105(626) 683-5600

IN BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT,MARICELLA LONG: LAW OFFICE OF ANGEL NAVARRO

BY: ANGEL NAVARRO, ESQ.714 WEST OLYMPIC BOULEVARDSUITE 450LOS ANGELES, CA 90015(213) [email protected]

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


4

I N D E X

PAGE

SENTENCING OF DEFENDANT THOMPSON 79

SENTENCING OF DEFENDANT LEAVINS 83

SENTENCING OF DEFENDANT SMITH 89

SENTENCING OF DEFENDANT MANZO 93

SENTENCING OF DEFENDANT CRAIG 98

SENTENCING OF DEFENDANT LONG 103

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

00:00:13

00:00:22

00:00:29

00:00:36


5

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2014

9:15 A.M.

-o0o-

THE CLERK: Calling Item One, United States of

America versus Greg Thompson, Stephen Leavins, Gerard Smith,

Mickey Manzo, Scott Craig, and Maricella Long.

Counsel, please state your appearance for the

record.

MR. FOX: Good morning, your Honor.

Brandon Fox, Lizabeth Rhodes, and Maggie Carter on

behalf of the United States. With your permission, also

sitting at counsel table is David Dahle, Special Agent with

the FBI.

THE COURT: Good morning.

MR. STOTHERS: Good morning, your Honor.

David Stothers and Kevin McDermott on behalf of

Greg Thompson, who is present.

MR. JOHNSON: Good morning, your Honor.

Peter Johnson and Richard Raynor on behalf of

Stephen Leavins, who is present.

MR. GENEGO: Good morning, your Honor.

William Genego on behalf of Gerard Smith, who is

present.

MR. LOMBARD: Good morning, your Honor.

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

00:00:45

00:00:54

00:01:05

00:01:14

00:01:35


6

Matthew Lombard on behalf of Mr. Manzo, who is

present.

MR. RABE: Good morning, your Honor.

Richard Rabe and Muna Busailah on behalf of Scott

Craig, who is present.

MR. NAVARRO: Good morning, your Honor.

Angel Navarro with Maricella Long. She is present

this morning.

THE COURT: Good morning.

This matter is before the Court for the

pronouncement of judgment and the imposition of sentence. Is

there any reason why judgment and sentence should not be

imposed at this time?

MR. FOX: Not from the Government, your Honor.

MR. McDERMOTT: Not by defense, your Honor.

MR. JOHNSON: No, your Honor.

MR. LOMBARD: No, your Honor, on behalf of

Mr. Manzo.

MR. NAVARRO: No, your Honor.

MR. RABE: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: I provided notice of the conditions of

supervised release that the Court is contemplating imposing

in this case. Does any of the parties have any objections to

the contemplated positions of supervised release?

MR. FOX: Not from the Government, your Honor.

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

00:01:43

00:01:58

00:02:31

00:02:44

00:02:50


7

MR. McDERMOTT: No, sir, not from defendant

Thompson.

MR. LOMBARD: No, your Honor on behalf of

Mr. Manzo.


MR. GENEGO: No, your Honor.

MR. RABE: No, for Craig.

MR. NAVARRO: No, your Honor, not for Miss Long.

THE COURT: What I intend to do at least in terms

of calculating the advisory guidelines in this case is to

address the various arguments for enhancements, the

objections -- to do that jointly, addressing each counsel.

And then once the advisory guidelines are

calculated, I'll have some general comments about the nature

of the offense, and then we'll address each of the defendants

individually with respect to the appropriate sentence in this

case.

Does anybody have any objections to proceeding in

that manner? If you do, I'll do them individually.

MR. FOX: Not from Government, your Honor.

MR. STOTHERS: Not from Thompson, your Honor.

MR. LOMBARD: No, your Honor.



MR. RABE: No.

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

00:03:01

00:03:10

00:03:25

00:03:40

00:03:52


8


THE COURT: Was the Presentence Report timely

disclosed to all parties?

MR. FOX: Yes, your Honor.

MR. McDERMOTT: Yes, as to Thompson.

MR. LOMBARD: Yes, your Honor, for Mr. Manzo.

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, your Honor.

MR. GENEGO: Yes as to Smith.

MR. RABE: Yes as to Craig.

MR. NAVARRO: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: The Court has received, read, and

considered the Presentence Report, addendum to the

Presentence Report, the parties' objections, the sentencing

memoranda, and letters received on behalf of the defendants.

Apart from any issues raised in your sentencing

memoranda, which we'll address shortly, is the Presentence

Report factually accurate? Do you have any objections,

corrections, or additions?

MR. FOX: None from the Government besides the

additional obstruction enhancement, which we've addressed in

our motions.

MR. McDERMOTT: Sir, as to Thompson, nothing that

hasn't been addressed in the pleadings so far.

MR. LOMBARD: Same for Mr. Manzo, your Honor.

MR. JOHNSON: Same for Mr. Leavins, your Honor.

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

00:04:02

00:04:35

00:04:56

00:05:09

00:05:22


9

MR. GENEGO: Same for Mr. Smith.

MR. RABE: And Craig.

MR. NAVARRO: And Ms. Long, as well.

THE COURT: All right. What I'm going to do is I'm

going to first object -- or address the factual objections

and corrections that the defendants have stated; and after

that I'll address the potential enhancements that have been

proposed by the Probation Office; and then I'll address the

proposed minor role adjustments that I believe Defendant

Smith and Manzo have asked for; and finally I'll address the

Government's argument for an obstruction of justice

enhancement.

Why don't I turn first to the factual objections

raised by Mr. Thompson. I've reviewed your papers. I'm

ready to rule on those, but I'll hear you if you want to be

heard on any of those.

MR. McDERMOTT: Sir, on behalf of Defendant

Thompson, everything that we wanted to address with this

Court was put in the pleadings, and there wouldn't be

anything further we would like to say as to those issues.

THE COURT: All right. Does the Government wish to

be heard on any of the factual objections raised by

Mr. Thompson?

MS. CARTER: Your Honor, I just want to address one

point.

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

00:05:39

00:06:17

00:06:38

00:07:08

00:07:27


10

The Government recently submitted some exhibits in

support of paragraphs 80 through 84 in the PSR to which

Defendant Thompson objected, but I just want to clarify for

the Court that the Government is not asking the Court to

adopt or rely at sentencing on paragraphs 83 and 84.

THE COURT: All right. All right. As to the

objection to Paragraph 70, I don't believe it's necessary to

rule on whether Mr. Thompson's superiors in this case,

Mr. Tanaka or his assistant, were participants in this scheme

because that issue will not affect Mr. Thompson's sentence

regardless of the role played by Mr. Tanaka.

Mr. Thompson's sentence and the calculation of the

advisory guidelines will be determined based on his conduct

in this case.

And as to Paragraph 18, the Court finds that

Paragraph 18 is supported by a preponderance of the evidence

that was adduced in this case including several of the trial

exhibits.

As to Paragraph 25, the Court finds that

Paragraph 25 is supported with a preponderance of the

evidence as it essentially recites the defendant's own

statements and one of the trial exhibits I believe

Exhibit 33.

As to paragraphs 26 and 32, these paragraphs

essentially summarize trial exhibits 35 and 36. Moreover,

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

00:07:48

00:08:14

00:08:52

00:09:35

00:10:04


11

there's additional evidence in the record to support the

statements in paragraphs 35 and 36. And, therefore, the

Court believes that they are supported by a preponderance of

the evidence.

As to Paragraph 29, the Court believes that

Paragraph 29 is supported by a preponderance of the evidence

including several of the trial exhibits, the testimony of

Yolanda Baines, as well as testimony from Jason Pearson and

Ryan Ortiz in addition to the testimony of Mr. Tanaka that he

was sure at some point that he had seen the writ. And I

believe those exhibits also support that, and moreover those

statements are consistent with the verdict in this case.

As to Paragraph 30, the Court also believes that

that statement is supported by the trial exhibits in this

case. And, in fact, I believe the defendant doesn't dispute

that he ordered deputies to go to the Records Center with

another lieutenant. And there's evidence to support an

inference that that records jacket was slipped under

Lieutenant Thompson's door.

Paragraph 33 I think what we probably ought to do

in that case is have the full portion of the sentence. I

think the Probation Department basically cut off a portion of

the sentence from Exhibit 60. And so I'm going to order the

Probation Department to pull -- put the full sentence from

Paragraph -- from Trial Exhibit 60 into the PSR.

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

00:10:31

00:10:58

00:11:17

00:11:36

00:11:51


12

And as to paragraphs 80 and 82, I understand the

Government's withdrawing their reliance or -- on 83 or

paragraphs 83 and 84.

And as to paragraphs 80 through 82 the

Government -- the Court finds that they are supported by

trial exhibits, and the Court by statute is authorized to

consider information that may be relevant to the background

character and conduct of any person that has been convicted

of an offense for the purposes of imposing a sentence.

Any additional objections that you had on behalf of

Mr. Thompson to any of the factual allegations?

MR. McDERMOTT: No, sir, not on behalf of Thompson.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. I'll turn to the

factual objections raised by Mr. Leavins.

Do you wish to be heard on any of those?

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, just briefly, your Honor.

Your Honor, I've addressed all of the objections

that we have factually. I -- the paragraph numbers were

different in Mr. Thompson's PSR as to Mr. Leavins; so I

wanted to highlight just one thing that I think is important

for the Court, and that's the leadership or organizational

role.

THE COURT: Sir, I'm only dealing with the factual

objections as to any enhancements. We'll get to those next.

MR. JOHNSON: I apologize, your Honor. That was my

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

00:12:14

00:12:35

00:13:18

00:13:47

00:14:06


13

mistake, and there were no -- everything was written.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

All right. I believe there was an objection to

Footnote 1 in Paragraph 18. Okay. The Court is -- I don't

think a ruling is necessary because the Court didn't rely on

Footnote 1 in determining the sentence for Mr. Leavins in

this case.

There's also an objection to Footnote 6 in

Paragraph 32. The Court believes that that footnote is

supported by a preponderance of the evidence in this case.

There was also an objection to Paragraph 36, and

the Court believes that that paragraph is amply supported by

a preponderance of the evidence as I believe that at some

point Mr. Craig actually specifically names the FBI as an

entity in which Mr. Michel shouldn't talk to.

Now, there was also an objection to paragraphs 83

through 87. Is the Government still -- does the Government

have a position with respect to paragraphs 83 through 87 as

to Mr. Leavins?

MR. FOX: Your Honor, we do not ask the Court --

we're not asking the Court to rely on those paragraphs in the

sentencing.

THE COURT: The Court will not rely on paragraphs

83 through 87 in determining a sentence in this case for

Mr. Leavins.

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

00:14:24

00:14:39

00:15:19

00:15:45

00:16:10


14

Any additional objections on behalf of Mr. Leavins?


THE COURT: All right. I'll turn to the factual

objections raised by Mr. Smith.

Do you wish to be heard on any of those?

MR. GENEGO: No, your Honor, we'll submit on the

papers.

THE COURT: All right. I believe Mr. Smith

objected to Footnote 1 in Paragraph 18. That Paragraph or

that issue will not affect Mr. Smith's sentence. There was

also an objection to Paragraph 18.

The Court finds that that statement is supported by

a preponderance of the evidence. I believe there is evidence

in the record that Mr. Smith made clear his knowledge of the

subpoenas and, moreover, to the extent that there is an

objection that he didn't have any knowledge of the federal

grand jury investigation.

The jury's determination proves that -- well,

supports his knowledge of the grand jury investigation in

this case.

There is also an objection to Paragraph 22. The

Court finds that that statement is supported by a

preponderance of the evidence as -- including Trial Exhibits

37, Trial Exhibit 48; and thus the statements are accurate as

shown by those exhibits.

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

00:16:35

00:17:13

00:18:00

00:18:38


15

There was also an objection to Paragraph 26. The


preponderance of the evidence including the testimony from

Ryan Ortiz as well as additional trial exhibits that were

offered during the trial.

There is also an objection to Paragraph 33. The

Court finds it's unnecessary to determine whether Mr. Smith

actually transported Mr. Brown to different jails or whether

he caused it to happen, and that will not affect his sentence

in this case.

There's also an objection to Paragraph 34. I'm

going to strike -- or order the Probation Department to

strike that Smith told one of those deputies that the federal

government was coming to get Brown, and they should, at all

costs, stop the federal government from seeing him.

Any additional objections raised by -- factual

objections raised by Mr. Smith?

MR. GENEGO: No.

THE COURT: Mr. Manzo had an objection to

Paragraph 25 as well as paragraphs 62 and 66. Any additional

objections you wish to raise?

MR. LOMBARD: No, your Honor, we would submit.

THE COURT: All right. As to Paragraph 25, the


preponderance of the evidence, and the Court believes

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

00:19:15

00:19:53

00:20:24

00:20:45

00:21:08


16

supported by Trial Exhibit 177. And therefore that objection

is overruled.

As to Paragraph 62 and 66, to the extent those

paragraphs attribute conduct to Mr. Manzo instead of others,

I'm not going to consider it, but I will consider it in

determining Section 2(j)(1).2 as to whether or not this

scheme was extensive in scope and in the planning or

preparation as they relate to Mr. Manzo's actions or those of

others as long as -- as far as those actions were reasonably

foreseeable to him. Accordingly the Court finds that it's

unnecessary to rule on a specific objection to those

paragraphs.

Also the Court to the extent that Paragraph 66 is

something more than summarizing facts regarding Manzo's role

as to why he was not an organizer or manager. It seems to me

I really don't need to rule on that objection because I don't

find it necessary to consider in imposing his sentence in

this case.

I don't believe Mr. Craig had any factual

objections to the Presentence Report.

MR. RABE: That's correct.

THE COURT: And I believe Miss Long had no specific

factual objections to the Presentence Report.

MR. NAVARRO: Correct, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. I'm going to turn to the

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

00:21:39

00:22:08

00:22:20

00:22:27

00:23:01


17

enhancements. There was a two-level enhancement pursuant to

Section 2(j)1.2(b)(3). I believe Defendant Smith, Manzo,

Craig and Long argued that they shouldn't be held accountable

for that enhancement involving the destruction, alteration,

or fabrication of records or scheme otherwise being extensive

in scope or planning or preparation.

All right. Why don't I take up -- does Mr. Smith

wish to be heard on that enhancement?

MR. GENEGO: No, your Honor, we'll submit on the

papers.

THE COURT: Does Mr. Manzo wish to be heard?

MR. LOMBARD: No, your Honor, we'll submit.

THE COURT: And does Mr. Craig wish to be heard?

MR. RABE: Your Honor, we'll submit on what's been

already --

THE COURT: All right. And does Miss Long wish to

be heard?

MR. NAVARRO: No, your Honor, nothing further.

THE COURT: Does the Government wish to be heard on

that enhancement?

MR. FOX: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. The Court believes that

that enhancement is appropriate because this offense involved

the alteration or fabrication of the substantial number of

records and documents in hiding Inmate Brown from the federal

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

00:23:27

00:23:46

00:24:08

00:24:34

00:25:03


18

government.

It applies either under Section 2(j)1.2(b)(3)(a) or

2(j)(1).2(b)(3)(c), and it also applies under

Section 2(j)1.2(b)(3)(a), also applies under

2(j)(1).2(b)(3)(c) because this offense was extensive in

scope as it involved numerous participants, occurred over a

substantial period of time -- namely six weeks -- and

involved witness tampering and the threatened arrest of an

FBI agent.

Where a conspiracy is charged, a defendant can be

held accountable for the actions of another, and the

application note provides that a defendant is not just

accountable for his own conduct but also for the action of

others committed in furtherance of the jointly undertaken

criminal activity with the exception of the conduct of others

shouldn't be applied if it wasn't reasonably foreseeable.

And in this case the Court finds that the conduct

engaged in by others was reasonably foreseeable.

Specifically there was witness tampering involved

when Inmate Brown was interviewed on at least two occasions.

And while these defendants may not have initiated that

scheme, they were aware of the scheme in order to find him

and interview him.

Furthermore, none of these defendants did anything

to remove them from the conspiracy or to prevent the

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

00:25:28

00:25:49

00:25:55

00:26:08

00:26:24


19

codefendants from engaging in conduct while it was ongoing.

And as such the Court finds that this conduct was

reasonably foreseeable as to each of the defendants and the

application of the enhancement was appropriate.

Okay. There was also a two-level enhancement

applied by the Probation Department for an abuse of position

of trust under Section 3(b)(1).3. Does Mr. Leavins care to

be heard on that enhancement?

MR. JOHNSON: No, your Honor. We'll submit on the

papers.

THE COURT: Does Mr. Smith care to be heard on that

enhancement?

MR. GENEGO: No, your Honor. We'll rest on the

arguments that were made in the papers.

THE COURT: All right. And does Mr. Craig wish to

be heard on that enhancement?

MR. RABE: Submit on the papers, your Honor.

THE COURT: And does Miss Long wish to be heard?

MR. NAVARRO: No, your Honor. We'll submit on our

brief.

THE COURT: Does the Government wish to be heard?

MR. FOX: No, your Honor. Thank you.

THE COURT: The defendants essentially argue that

the abuse of trust enhancement does not apply to them because

of their positions as law enforcement officers are

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

00:26:45

00:27:06

00:27:27

00:27:52

00:28:08


20

insufficient to create a position of public-to-private trust

and because they had no special duty or relationship with the

federal government.

The defendants' actions as law enforcement officers

significantly contributed to the obstruction of justice in

this case. Among other things and in their capacity as law

enforcement officers, they repeatedly interviewed Inmate

Brown. They hid him. They changed his name. Moved him in

order to keep him from testifying before the grand jury and

ordered other deputies not to cooperate with the FBI. They

conducted surveillance on FBI Special Agent Marx, threatened

Marx with an arrest.

In addition, the defendants ordered Michel not to

cooperate with the FBI, and therefore the deputies abused

their position of public trust with Michel as well as with

Deputy Courson.

The Ninth Circuit has held that police officers are

accorded public trust to enforce the law. The public,

including fellow law enforcement agents, expect the police

officers will not violate the laws that they are charged with

enforcing. And each of the defendants took advantage of that

trust and adversely influenced the grand jury's

investigation.

This is precisely the type of situation that is

contemplated by Section 1(b) or 3(b)(1).3 as an abuse of a

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

00:28:25

00:28:57

00:29:18

00:29:33

00:29:54


21

position of trust.

And, therefore, the defendant's objections are

overruled, and the Court finds that the Probation Office

correctly applied that enhancement.

All right. There was also a four-level enhancement

that was applied for an aggravated role pursuant to Section

3(b)(1)(1).A for defendants Thompson and Leavins. Do you

wish to be heard on that enhancement?

MR. McDERMOTT: No, sir, on behalf of Thompson.

THE COURT: All right. As I understand it,

Defendant Thompson raised one objection. He urged that the

role offense warranted only a two-level enhancement rather

than the four-level enhancement. And let me ask, does the

Government wish to be heard as to that enhancement?

MS. CARTER: Not beyond what's in the papers, your

Honor.


First of all, the two-level enhancement cannot

apply to this defendant because the conviction of at least

six defendants of conspiracy that was charged in Count One of

the indictment and the jury necessarily found beyond a

reasonable doubt that the criminal activity involved five or

more participants.

Here, the evidence established that Mr. Thompson

exercised control over other OSJ co-conspirators and was

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

00:30:18

00:30:39

00:30:48

00:31:13

00:31:38


22

responsible within that conspiracy for making sure that the

informant was hidden from the FBI. He exercised

decision-making authority regarding how to hide Mr. Brown,

recruited accomplices, had conspirators reporting back to

him. The record is clear that Mr. Thompson did considerably

more than pass along directives. He was organizing,

directing the actions of the OSJ deputies who worked for him.

The Court finds that the defendant acted as an

organizer or leader, and the application of the four-level

adjustment was proper. And therefore the objection is

overruled.

All right. Does Mr. Leavins wish to be heard on

the enhancement?

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, your Honor, just briefly.

Your Honor, did -- this is the enhancement that I

think is troubling because of the context in which the

offense occurred. And I just -- the Presentence Report

didn't mention or gave little mention of the power and

responsibility of Sheriff Baca, Undersheriff Tanaka and

Captain Carey in orchestrating and guiding and giving orders

in the leadership. Just because those individuals were not

charged in this offense doesn't mean that the -- Mr. Leavins

is then -- now the leader or organizer in the offense.

The directions in this case based upon -- I know

that the jury didn't hear it, but the Court has -- has heard

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

00:31:59

00:32:20

00:32:33

00:32:51

00:33:06


23

the media reports from Sheriff Baca and the letter from

Sheriff Baca on September 26, 2011 -- give an indication that

Sheriff Baca believed that the actions of the -- of the

Los Angeles Sheriff's Department were, in fact, legal.

And more importantly in this context gives an

indication that he orchestrated and directed these

individuals to investigate the presence of the cell phone and

the person or persons responsible.

And I think that under these circumstances, the

leadership role is inappropriately applied in the PSR.


be heard?

MR. FOX: Very briefly, your Honor. I just want to

point out that Mr. Leavins himself on the witness stand

testified that he was the one that ordered that Mr. Brown

would be moved despite knowing that a writ was probably

coming and that, with respect to the approach and threatened

arrest of Special Agent Marx, that Mr. Leavins said that

Mr. Tanaka and Mr. Baca did not order that to occur. Did not

order them to threaten the arrest of Special Agent Marx.

Mr. Leavins was involved in every phase of this at

a high level. He is one of the two highest-ranking people.

He and Mr. Thompson are the two highest ranking people

charged, and it's clear that they had their fingers all over

everything that was happening with this obstruction.

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

00:33:23

00:33:45

00:34:05

00:34:35

00:34:59


24

MR. JOHNSON: Your Honor, as to the order from

Lieutenant Leavins, Lieutenant Leavins communicated -- he was

the conduit of information. And I think the testimony of

Undersheriff Tanaka and Captain Carey were clear on that,

that he communicated information to them. And the orders

came from the -- higher than him. It's impossible for him to

have ordered his superiors to do anything or to act in a

certain way. Once he informs him, the orders come down,

that's what I believe the testimony was.

As far as a threat of arrest, I believe that

Mr. Craig stated that Mr. Leavins never said -- threatened,

"Go arrest her." And, in fact Lieutenant, Leavins testified

that he didn't say "Go out there and arrest her."

So I think that is an error on the Government's

part in stating the evidence. The -- and basically, you

know, the general comment that his leadership was all over

this is just -- it's highlighting his role as Lieutenant, and

the role as a Lieutenant or the -- the named Lieutenant is

not an appropriate factor to consider in this application of

the guideline. It's more of his role in the offense.

THE COURT: All right. The Court finds that

regardless of the roles played by other higher-ranking

officials, that Defendant Leavins exercised discretion,

control, and leadership within the conspiracy. It makes him

an organizer or leader.

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

00:35:19

00:35:39

00:36:02

00:36:23

00:36:43


25

The guideline application also notes that more than

one person can be an organizer or a leader for purposes of

the enhancement. Specifically I believe Application Note 4

states that there can, of course, be more than one person who

qualifies as a leader or organizer of a criminal organization

or conspiracy.

Here Mr. Leavins either exercised control over, had

leadership responsibility for several aspects of the

conspiracy including hiding Anthony Brown and tampering with

witnesses. He exercised decision-making authority over the

decision to move Brown, held himself out and was held out by

co-defendant Craig as the superior officer during the witness

tampering interviews of Gilbert Michel and William Courson

and supervised and directed Craig and Long in investigating

the FBI case agent.

Co-conspirators including Craig, Long, Smith and

Manzo were also reporting back to him on their activities

through much of this conspiracy. And the record is,

therefore, clear that he did not let -- the discretion was

not just simply following orders of his superiors. Instead

he was organizing, directing the actions of the OSJ deputies

as well as the ICIB deputies involved in this conspiracy.

The Court, therefore, finds that he acted as an

organizer or leader and the application of that enhancement

was proper; and, therefore, the objection is overruled.

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

00:37:07

00:37:18

00:37:41

00:38:05

00:38:27


26

All right. I believe that there was also an

objection to the three-level enhancement for an aggravating

role for Defendant Craig. Does Defendant Craig wish to be

heard on that issue?

MR. RABE: Your Honor, no. We submitted

substantial argument in the papers already.


be heard?

MS. RHODES: No. Similarly the Government would

rest on its papers, your Honor.

THE COURT: This defendant was a senior

investigator with ICIB and co-defendant Long's training

agent. He was in charge of the investigation as to how that

cell phone that was possessed by Inmate Brown got into the

jail, directed the conduct of Long and other L.A.S.D.

personnel in interviewing Brown and other witnesses, and

directed the team that was involved in the surveillance of

Agent Marx and other FBI agents.

The defendant continued to exercise his leadership

role in the criminal conspiracy by directing aspects of the

scheme to obstruct justice, namely interviewing Brown and

other witnesses and attempts to intimidate Marx. In

particular at one point in the scheme the defendant used his

positions as a Sergeant to order Michel, a subordinate

officer, not to cooperate with the FBI.

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

00:38:44

00:39:10

00:39:31

00:39:48

00:40:19


27

Accordingly the Court finds that the three-level

enhancement for being a manager or supervisor was

appropriately applied by the Probation Officer in this case,

and the objection is overruled.

All right. I believe that Defendant Smith and

Manzo asked for a two-level decrease for a minor role. Does

Mr. Smith first wish to be heard on that issue?

MR. GENEGO: No, your Honor. We'll submit on the

papers.



THE COURT: Mr. Smith argues that he was only

following orders and that he did not repeatedly interview

Brown or move him from one location to another. It's the

defendant who bears the burden of proving by a preponderance

of the evidence that he's entitled to a mitigating role

adjustment.

The Court finds that Mr. Smith has not sustained

his burden of proving that he was substantially less culpable

than the average participant in this case. There were any

number of witnesses that the Hero's Park meeting was called

by and led by Mr. Smith among others. There was testimony in

the record that several other participants in the conspiracy

looked to Mr. Smith or Mr. Manzo.

There's evidence in the record that Smith or Manzo

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

00:40:43

00:41:04

00:41:28

00:41:52

00:41:57


28

were the people that should be called if anyone wanted to

visit Anthony Brown or challenge them while they were

guarding Anthony Brown, that it was Smith or Manzo who told

them about their overtime.

And even if they were following orders, it's clear

from the evidence in this case that Mr. Smith was one of the

participants that was giving orders or overseeing the actions

of others. There were e-mails that he sent out indicating

that he was in charge and there would be no movement of

Anthony Brown without the approval of one of six people. And

Mr. Smith listed himself as one of those six.

And furthermore, Mr. Smith urged other participants

to call him if they needed anything.

He also -- there was other evidence in the record

that showed that Mr. Smith was more than culpable than the

average participant and consequently the Court finds that a

downward adjustment for a mitigating role was not appropriate

in this case for Mr. Smith.

Does Mr. Manzo wish to be heard on the mitigating

role adjustment?

MR. LOMBARD: We'll submit on the papers, your

Honor.


that issue?

MS. RHODES: No, nothing further than the papers,

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

00:42:17

00:42:49

00:43:05

00:43:30

00:43:50


29

your Honor.

THE COURT: Again, the defendant bears the burden

of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he was

entitled to a mitigating role. The Court finds, for many of

the same reasons stated for Mr. Smith, that he hasn't

sustained his burden; and therefore the Court finds that the

mitigating role or the nonapplication of the mitigating role

was proper in this case.

All right. I believe Mr. Craig asks for a

two-level decrease for an acceptance of responsibility. Do

you wish to be heard on that?

MR. RABE: Your Honor, submitted on the papers.


MS. RHODES: No thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Here the defendant admitted to

committing much of the conduct charged by the Government.

However, he never admitted he was engaged in any type of

criminal conduct.

Furthermore, the Court finds that the defendant did

not go to trial solely on the issues unrelated to factual

guilt. Rather he contested his intent which was the element

of both the offenses of obstruction of justice and making

false statements. And for the defendant to be found guilty

of obstruction, the Government had to prove, among other

things, that he acted corruptly with the purpose of

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

00:44:07

00:44:35

00:44:48

00:45:07

00:45:27


30

obstructing a grand jury investigation, similarly the false

statements required that the defendant willfully made a false

statement.

Therefore, the Court finds that the defendant did

not meet the requirements for an acceptance of responsibility

because he forced the Government to prove the elements of the

offense at trial which related to factual guilt.

All right. I'll hear from the Government as to

their proposed two-level enhancement for obstruction as to

Defendant Leavins.

MR. FOX: Your Honor, we will submit on the papers

as well, unless you have additional questions.

THE COURT: All right. Does the defendant wish to

be heard?

MR. JOHNSON: We submit on the papers at docket

531. Just to be clear, we addressed this separately in a

filing on August 25th.

THE COURT: All right. The Court finds that the

Government hasn't sustained its burden and thus the objection

is sustained as to the obstruction of justice enhancement for

Defendant Leavins.

All right. I believe Mr. Craig also objected to

the two level increase for obstruction of justice. Do you

wish to be heard?

MR. RABE: Your Honor, yes.

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

00:46:04

00:46:46

00:47:10

00:47:38

00:48:02


31

In the Government's reply, that was recently filed

on Page 7, it states that defendant also argues that his

testimony regarding his general practice of admonishing

witnesses to refuse to talk to the FBI was not perjured

testimony.

That's in difference to their original argument and

against the actual testimony of my client. On Page 17 of

their original papers, line 15, 16, the question was:

"Okay. Other than that, it is generally our

practice to order people not to talk."

So they've morphed the -- what they're calling

perjury from a general practice to order people not to talk,

which the answer was yes to a specific statement saying it

was his practice not to order people to talk to the FBI,

which does not accurately reflect the evidence.

The general practice is a general practice over

years. It can't be a snapshot on the -- this particular case

that just has a few people being interviewed, some of which

were admonished, some of which were not, a general practice,

it wasn't my general practice in this case. It's my general

practice.

So there's insufficient evidence for any court to

decide what would have been Sergeant Craig's general practice

in this area for witnesses in general. That would have to

necessarily include going back to review a substantial number

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

00:48:23

00:48:36

00:48:55

00:49:11

00:49:50


32

of cases historically and that's -- we don't have that kind

of evidence to determine a general practice.

As to the other two, I'm going to submit them on

the papers.


be heard?

MS. RHODES: Well, yes, your Honor, briefly.

In the Government's reply, it was summarizing what

it believed defendant's argument was regarding the general

practice at Page 7. The Government has submitted the five

interviews that Defendant Craig did on August 30 -- Bravo,

Michel, Her (phonetic), Lyons and Courson. The defendant

testified that his general practice was to say not to talk to

anyone. And yet here, three out of the five, he did not do

so. And specifically with regard to Deputy Bravo, he

indicated he did not do so because he had no reason to

believe that Deputy Bravo was talking to the FBI.

And for that reason the Government believes that is

perjured testimony.

THE COURT: All right. The Court finds that the

Government has not sustained its burden and the objection to

that enhancement is sustained.

All right. Has Mr. Thompson and his counsel read

the Presentence Report and the addendum to the Presentence

Report?

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

00:50:04

00:50:13

00:50:22

00:50:38

00:50:48


33

MR. McDERMOTT: We, have sir.

THE COURT: And although the guidelines are not

mandatory but advisory, has the Probation Office correctly

analyzed and applied the advisory guidelines in this case?

MR. McDERMOTT: Yes, sir, it has.

THE COURT: Thank you.

All right. Has Mr. Leavins and his counsel both

read the Presentence Report and the addendum to the

Presentence Report?


THE COURT: And has the Probation Office correctly


MR. JOHNSON: Outside of the objection, yes, your

Honor.


And has Mr. Smith and his counsel both read the

Presentence Report and the addendum to the Presentence Report

some?

MR. GENEGO: Yes, your Honor. We have both.



MR. GENEGO: Other than the previously stated

objections.


And has Mr. Manzo and his counsel read the

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

00:50:57

00:51:14

00:51:23

00:51:36

00:51:45


34

Presentence Report and the addendum to the Presentence

Report?

MR. LOMBARD: Yes, your Honor.



MR. LOMBARD: Yes, your Honor, notwithstanding the

objections.


Sorry. Did I skip Mr. Leavins?


THE COURT: All right. And has Mr. Craig read the


Report?






And has Ms. Long and his counsel read the


Report?

MR. NAVARRO: Your Honor, Ms. Long and I have read

them. And the aside from our two objections, no other

objections.


KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

00:52:00

00:52:11

00:52:19

00:52:47

00:52:57


35


MR. NAVARRO: Aside from our objections, yes, your

Honor.

THE COURT: And has the Government read the

Presentence Report and the addendum to the Presentence Report

for each of the defendants?


Just to be clear, did -- did you admonish or ask

Mr. Smith? Because at counsel table we're a little confused

over that too.

THE COURT: All right. Let me just make sure.

On behalf of -- I believe I did.

MR. FOX: I believe you did too, but we're unsure

over here.

MR. GENEGO: I believe you did as well.

MR. FOX: All right. Then we're fine, your Honor.

Yes, we read all the PSR's, and we agree with all

the calculations from the PSR's.

THE COURT: All right. Does counsel for

Mr. Thompson wish to be heard on appropriate sentence in this

case?

MR. McDERMOTT: Could we have a couple of words

with the Court if you're so inclined, sir?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. McDERMOTT: Thank you. From here or the

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

00:53:15

00:53:31

00:53:51

00:54:11

00:54:26


36

podium, which do you prefer?

THE COURT: Why don't we do it from the lectern.

MR. McDERMOTT: Sir, this is probably one of the

few times in the course of this trial that you might find me

a little short of words to express the kind of opinions that

I might have on behalf of my client at this particular point

in time.

We have before the Court a request to consider some

variances. I would ask the Court to consider in the totality

of the circumstances the e-mail of 18 August where my client

had requested to send Mr. Brown to state prison to remove him

from the jail completely and to extricate Brown from the

machinations that were going on that they were just coming to

understand.

If my client had the kind of supervisory power that

he now wishes he certainly did have, Mr. Brown would have

been in state prison and maybe this entire circumstance would

have never occurred. There would have been no opportunity

for the mechanics that took place, whoever may have ordered

or dictated or directed those.

But I believe on the 18th of August, Mr. Thompson

was trying to do the right thing and was trying to make this

situation smooth out, even out, go into a direction where

they could figure out what was going on. And I don't believe

the Government would ever argue that if Mr. Brown was in some

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

00:54:41

00:54:54

00:55:14

00:55:36

00:56:00


37

state prison on the 19th of August, that there would have

been any type of argument that there might have been

obstruction or impeding or anything of that nature.

And from the very start of this trial, we heard

that there was no actual obstruction, that it was an

endeavoring to obstruct.

And what this was an attempt on my client's part

was to make this endeavor go away, to make it absolutely end

at that particular point in time.

And if there was any assistance, that Mr. Brown

could have offered the Government that could have occurred at

Calipatria, any other number of places in which he was

assigned to.

My client served the county of Los Angeles

faithfully for over 30 years. He was a good officer. He was

a good Lieutenant. Maybe too good of a Lieutenant.

We all recognize how much the structure of the

Sheriff's Department might have needed to change, but I'm

asking this Court not to have my client bear the burden of

all the change that should have come forward long before this

situation ever arose.

My client has the right to be viewed as an

individual who has endeavored and perhaps crossed a line.

The variances that we requested in our moving papers, sir,

seem to be established by the Supreme Court in the Koon case

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

00:56:18

00:56:41

00:56:57

00:57:17

00:57:36


38

addressing the fact that if the -- when the Court sentences

police officers to jail, that there should be some

dispensation or consideration given to that fact.

And also in light of the argument that was

addressed also in Koon, the fact that that particular event

didn't start out to be a crime, evolved into one, we would

venture to say to this Court on the 8th of August, when they

located that cell phone -- that was the start of the

evolution into what occurred and evolved from a legitimate

investigation into something that the jury has found and this

Court has found that they had no permissible right to

conduct.

We can argue the parameters of what a Sheriff's

Department may or may not be able to do inside of its jail.

I've often thought about what the circumstances might be or

what -- how it could be different if that had been a Glock, a

Smith & Wesson -- some kind of item inserted into the jail on

the theory that it would be sufficiently beneficial for an

investigation.

Now, we've heard some testimony -- and we can

discount it all we want -- as to the nature of the

dangerousness of a cell phone in a lockup facility; but I

implore this Court to consider the service that my client has

given to this county, to consider the type of individual that

he's been prior to August 18, 2011, and the fact that where

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

00:58:01

00:58:22

00:58:42

00:59:10

00:59:24


39

he will be sent upon this Court's sentencing will have some

significant impact on him far more than myself or anybody

else in the courtroom.

We need to take into consideration that he is an

officer that will be confined. We're not arguing that that's

not an impermissible sentence in this case, but we ask the

Court to consider the crime and not the circumstances.

By that I mean this was an endeavor. This was an

argument from the very beginning by the Government. There

was no actual -- they didn't really impede, they just got in

our way a little bit, and we stepped the rest of the way

through it. There was nothing actual.

But however we want to view it now and however the

facts came out, I ask this Court to use its judgment and

leniency to consider the fact that this officer has now

sacrificed everything he's now worked for the past 30 years

and will now have to face those in confinement that would

love nothing more than have that opportunity to meet an

officer face-to-face beyond bars. That's what Koon stands

for.

We'd ask that the appropriate range on that

variance, as it was found in Koon, eventually was about half.

And that was dovetailed with the consideration as to whether

or not this was an evolving offense that didn't start out

that way but became criminal as it bore on.

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

00:59:45

00:59:58

01:00:16

01:00:38

01:00:56


40

Whatever the Court's considerations are in this

case, we'd ask sincerely that you consider their status and

the circumstance under which this event unfolded. On that,

sir, I would submit.


be heard?

MS. CARTER: Yes, your Honor.

Your Honor, the Government maintains that its

requested sentence of 48 months at the high end of the

applicable guidelines range in this case or towards the high

end is the appropriate sentence here because what we have

here is a massive abuse of trust, people doing essentially

the opposite of the job that they were entrusted to do.

And also you have a very serious offense.

Obstruction, not just of a narrow issue in a particular case

but obstruction of an FBI and grand jury investigation to

entire categories of civil rights and public corruption

abuses in the Los Angeles County jails.

The arguments that the defendant has raised about

his initial impulse to go -- to -- was to send the informant

to state prison is not sufficiently mitigating because even

looking at the evidence from August 18th, it's clear that his

goal was to take this informant out of play, separate him

from his FBI handlers.

Yes, the initial impulse was to move him to 1750

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:01:15

01:01:32

01:01:51

01:02:06

01:02:30


41

and then to send him out to state prison, but it was not to

do the right thing. And the -- over time, yes, the planning

all evolved and got more serious, and the conspirators took

more and more drastic actions to first isolate this informant

from the handlers and then to do other things to obstruct the

investigation.

But that initial impulse to send Anthony Brown to

state prison, which lasted only a few hours, is not

sufficiently mitigating and is certainly very different from

the diminished intent situation in the Nachamie case that the

defendant cites in his papers.

In that situation the doctors that were the

supposed -- the defendants were lied to. They didn't get

into the conspiracy until they were lied to, and they relied

on those lies. It was only after -- and then later this

concept of diminished intent was when they should have known,

but they still relied on the lies.

There's nothing like that here, your Honor. This

defendant went into the conspiracy knowing of the facts as

the facts evolved, the efforts of the conspirators to

obstruct the investigation just became that much more severe.

The Government also submits that in this case the

defendant put by choice his record of service at risk and

that this was not the only situation in which he may have

done so. And the Government has put before your Honor two

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:03:22

01:03:12

01:03:36

01:04:04

01:04:20


42

other situations in which it believes that this defendant was

not doing the right thing.

First it submitted what was marked at trial as

Government's Exhibits 89 and -- 189 and 190 that relate to an

incident where he was receiving information about an

investigation into his -- a family member.

And then also the information that the Government

submitted in its declaration regarding paragraphs 80 and 81

in the PSR where this defendant tipped off another

Los Angeles sheriff's deputy about information that his own

deputies have brought to him for investigation. And that

deputy was alleged to have committed some wrongdoing himself

admitted that he had been shown a report by Defendant

Thompson.

With regard to the Koon decision, the Government

submits that that decision does not stand for the proposition

that police officers who commit crimes should receive lesser

sentences. That case was related to a very specific set of

facts in its decision. It talks about a unique combination

of factors present in that case which the trial court was

relying on, not just the defendant's status as police

officers.

And the Government would submit that under the

guidelines as it should be, police officers' status is not

generally mitigating. It's generally aggravating because it

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:04:38

01:04:58

01:05:23

01:05:50

01:06:16


43

demonstrates an abuse of the public trust.

For all of those reasons, your Honor, the

Government submits that its 48-month sentence is in fact the

appropriate one. A probationary sentence would not account

for the serious abuse of public trust in this case nor the

grave danger that was presented by this broad-based

obstruction until entire categories of abuses within the Los

Angeles County jails.

THE COURT: Is the Government aware of whether

there are any victims who wish to address the Court?

MS. CARTER: There are not, your Honor.

THE COURT: Does the defendant wish to be heard?

MR. McDERMOTT: No, sir, not at this time.

THE COURT: Does counsel for Mr. Leavins wish to be

heard?


Your Honor, I would show the Government the photos

that I'll be displaying.

Your Honor, Mr. Leavins is a lifelong resident of

Los Angeles, a loyal father, a recently married person who

dedicated almost 30 years of service to the Los Angeles

Sheriff's Department.

I know the Court has read the papers that I filed,

so I won't detail everything. But I would ask the Court to

focus on the individual that gave a lifetime of service, the

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:06:42

01:07:05

01:07:33

01:07:58

01:08:14


44

individual that the Court has heard from and has gone through

various levels of the Sheriff's Department receiving what is

outlined in our position paper, awards, accommodations, of

excellent service throughout that time.

I would ask the Court to look at this in its

entirety and not to just examine the two months that this

offense is focused on.

I would also ask the Court to focus on the letters

that were received or submitted that described Mr. Leavins as

a consummate professional, the epitome of what anybody would

want out of a law enforcement officer, a person with a strong

morale compass -- fine, morale and ethical character.

These are the individuals that know Mr. Leavins. I

would also ask the Court to -- and I -- and I say this with

respect to the jury's decision, but I would ask the Court to

really look at the decision making of Mr. Leavins in context

in determining what is a fair sentence.

And in the context of this situation,

Lieutenant Leavins was receiving orders from his superiors.

And I know the Court has read the -- the letters from

Sheriff Baca that I've -- that I've mentioned, but I think

these are important considerations that need to be

considered:

The fact that Lieutenant Leavins would be

considered -- or the behavior of disobeying these orders

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:08:45

01:09:14

01:09:44

01:10:06

01:10:26


45

would be considered insubordination.

And during this time, while the jury did not hear

from people like Mr. Yoshinaga, I think the Court should also

consider that Lieutenant Leavins was acting in good faith to

protect Mr. Brown, to let others know what he was doing and

to conduct his affairs legally.

Your Honor, a term of imprisonment in this case is,

as outlined in the papers, I believe is inappropriate. For

the Court has the power to decide, and I'd ask the Court to

consider all of the factors including Mr. Leavins' medical

history, his service to the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department

and the fact that this case, while the jury did find

obstruction, there were no -- there was no benefit to

Mr. Leavins. He was on his way to retire.

This was a new situation for the Los Angeles

Sheriff's Department, a situation that they had not

encountered in the past where the FBI had introduced a cell

phone into the jail.

There was imperfect knowledge that the FBI or the

U.S. Attorney's Office -- Lieutenant Leavins didn't know

about the full investigation that was going on and didn't

know the -- the -- fully what others may have been thinking

or the others' motives during the time.

That there was a legal confusion, meaning that

there was a confusion over the law in that this idea of the

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:10:51

01:11:11

01:11:21

01:11:42

01:12:03


46

supremacy clause and what was -- what others could do or what

he could do and couldn't do was a difficult circumstance.

In the end, your Honor, I'd ask the Court to, as

well consider as not an excuse but as an explanation of

Mr. Leavins' goals in the situation to keep Mr. Brown safe is

that Mr. Brown actually was safe under what appeared to be a

dangerous situation to Mr. Brown.

THE COURT: Counsel, what did keeping Mr. Brown

safe have to do with approaching an FBI agent at their home?

MR. JOHNSON: Your Honor --

THE COURT: I can answer that for you. Absolutely

nothing.

MR. JOHNSON: -- I'm not simply -- I'm not making

excuses, your Honor. It's just by way of explanation. And

while the jury has found that this is obstruction to have

approached the FBI agent at her home, Mr. Leavins did not say

anything about arresting this agent. As -- by way of

mitigation, and again not to down play the approach,

Miss Marx was not arrested, and she was not harmed. And I

don't think there was ever any intent to harm or arrest her

on behalf of Mr. Leavins.

And I'm simply asking not as an argument of finding

guilt or not guilty but in terms of mitigation, in looking at

this in context, the setting, the circumstances, in

evaluating everything, in determining the sentence, as the

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:12:25

01:12:53

01:13:12

01:13:25


47

Court knows, that these are important factors.

In the end, your Honor, I believe that, again,

well, the Court is going to make the decision but the Court's

role is to impose a sentence that is no greater than

necessary to fulfill the objectives of 18 U.S.C. 3553. And

we believe that a noncustodial sentence with community

service of substantial hours of community service, will meet

the goals of sentencing and provide for just punishment in

this case. Thank you.


Does the Government wish to be heard?

MR. FOX: Yes, your Honor. Thank you.

Mr. Johnson just asked you to look at the context

of what was happening, and obviously we agree that you

should.

Mr. Leavins was the one who came up with the idea

to move Mr. Brown after he suspected that a writ would be

issued. Mr. Leavins also tampered with witnesses.

Mr. Courson and Mr. Michel he tampered with. He was there

when that tampering occurred.

And your Honor just asked Mr. Johnson what did the

approach of Special Agent Marx have to do with the safety of

Brown. Of course the -- the tampering of those two witnesses

had nothing to do with the safety of Brown. There's no

excuse for his decision to tamper with witnesses and -- and

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:13:40

01:13:55

01:14:16

01:14:28

01:14:44


48

cause his supervisor or Sergeant -- excuse me -- to also

tamper with witnesses.

With respect to Mr. Johnson's argument that there

was any confusion over the law, take away the supremacy

clause. As I know your Honor believes as well, this is Law

Enforcement 101 that an undercover agent or a super --

actually, she's supervising an undercover operation. She

doesn't commit a crime just because there's an undercover

operation into criminal activity.

All the defendants prior to trial, during trial,

and after trial have tried to excuse their conduct because

they were following orders, and I want to point out a couple

of things there: These are law enforcement officers who we

demand and expect to exercise their own judgment. They're

expected to follow the law, enforce the law. And if they are

just saying, "Well, I did it because somebody told me to do

it," they're not doing their duty. It is not an excuse to

say, "I was just following orders."

And as your Honor is aware, based on all the

testimony that we've heard throughout the three different

trials at this point, it's not very clear what orders they're

referring to at this point.

With respect to his -- Mr. Johnson's statement that

there was no benefit to Leavins, I think that's one of the

sad parts of this case. He was bound to investigate the

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:14:59

01:15:13

01:15:33

01:15:48

01:15:58


49

crimes that the FBI was investigating, and instead he decided

to protect his own department instead of enforcing the law as

he was supposed to do.

There was no personal benefit to him, but he

thought there was an organizable benefit, and that he was

sadly mistaken about because it had brought a lot of shame to

the department, and I'm sure the department at this point

would rather that the defendant and others had not taken the

actions that they took.

And finally with respect to whether home detention

or a period of probation is appropriate, I think the context

here is that the defendant's going to be receiving, based on

his retirement, $7,000 a month in pension based on his

retirement. He's going to be able to sit at home, collect

that money, if that's -- if that's the decision of the Court,

while he performs volunteer work on the side -- again, if

Mr. Johnson's recommendation is accepted by the Court.

That will not provide the deterrent effect to other

law enforcement officers that should know that they should

not violate the law, even if they think that their superiors

would like that to happen.

This is a case that calls for incarceration, your

Honor, and we suggest that your Honor goes with the

recommendation that we have submitted in our papers.

Thank you.

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:16:19

01:16:34

01:16:48

01:17:08

01:17:23


50


Does Defendant Leavins wish to be heard?


THE COURT: Does Defendant Smith?

MR. GENEGO: Yes, your Honor.

Your Honor, more powerful than anything I could say

are the letters that were written on behalf of Mr. Smith, but

I do want to mention a few points.

As the Court knows, the overriding principle behind

the guidelines is one of parsimony, and that is that the

Court is to impose a sentence that is sufficient but not

greater than necessary to achieve the objectives of

sentencing.

And I think that in this case that has special

significance because of the position of Mr. Smith in the

offense.

I don't think anyone can question that there's a

need to deter him further. And I also think that given the

consequences of the trial, the publicity it had, and the

attention it's gotten within the Los Angeles County Sheriff's

Department, there is not a need for imprisonment to deter

others in a deputy position.

Anybody who is in a deputy position in the Los

Angeles County Sheriff's Department has gotten the message,

and I think the Court heard that through the trial and from

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:17:47

01:17:59

01:18:13

01:18:41

01:18:55


51

all the attention that the case got.

As far as sufficient punishment for Mr. Smith, he's

not going to sit at home getting retirement. He lost his

career. As the letters show, what he always wanted to be a

law enforcement officer.

Now, I know the Government is going to say, "Well,

he should have then not committed the offense," but we're

accepting as given that there was a verdict in this case and

he did commit the offense. And as a consequences of that,

he's going to lose the career that he always wanted to

pursue, and he's going to be a felon.

And I think that in terms of punishment that is a

substantial punishment here for somebody who is in a deputy

position and someone like Mr. Smith.

Rehabilitation -- that's not something that plays

into a need for imprisonment here.

And then we come to his personal circumstances.

And, again, the letters are -- I think as the Court probably

can see from written -- from reading them are extraordinary.

I -- Mr. Smith is someone who his fellow officers would make

fun of because he cared about the inmates that he was

supposed to take care of.

And again I understand that we're not talking about

a situation where there's not a verdict. There is.

But the fact of the matter is that when you look at

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:19:10

01:19:27

01:19:44

01:20:02

01:20:11


52

those letters, he was someone who cared about the people that

he was charged with taking care of, and that's in the letters

from other deputies.

And his personal circumstances -- there's a lot of

people, when they get convicted of a crime, they'll go out

and start doing good things so they can come back to the

Court and say, "Look, what a good person I am." That's not

what Mr. Smith did. For years he's been involved in

charitable projects. He has his kids serve meals at a

homeless shelter, not because he was convicted in this case,

but because that's how he wants his kids to be raised.

He spends time with his church, not because he

wants to impress the Court, because it's important to him.

Same thing with the Boy Scouts, and the same thing with his

son.

And when you take all of those things into account,

and you figure out what is sufficient but not greater than

necessary for someone in a deputy position like Mr. Smith and

the context of this case, I think that a sentence of

probation with a term of home confinement is sufficient but

not greater than necessary.

Thank you.




KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:20:24

01:20:39

01:20:56

01:21:14

01:21:26


53

And we think that it's important for your Honor to

send a message that no matter how low you are in the

department or how high you are in the department, again, you

need to be exercising judgment and your own judgment and do

the right thing, and that's not something that Mr. Smith did

from the beginning.

Mr. Smith was aware that Mr. Brown was an FBI

informant, a federal informant, before anybody else realized

that. And he went and -- you heard the statements on tape

from August 19th about how he wanted to clean his own house,

how he didn't like the fact that the FBI was over -- all over

the place. Mr. -- Mr. Smith showed a disdain for the

investigation from the very beginning.

Mr. Genego's right that there are a lot of

mitigating circumstances with regard to Mr. Smith and the

fact that Mr. Smith is one of the lowest ranking people that

we charged. We agree that your Honor should consider that,

and that's why we believe that a sentence of 28 is

appropriate.

THE COURT: Does Mr. Smith wish to be heard?

MR. GENEGO: No.

THE COURT: Does counsel for Mr. Manzo wish to be

heard?

MR. LOMBARD: Briefly, your Honor.

Your Honor, like Mr. Smith, Mr. Manzo is a deputy,

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:21:46

01:22:03

01:22:19

01:22:38

01:22:58


54

and I join a lot of the arguments Mr. Genego made on behalf

of Mr. Smith. I think some of them apply to Mr. Manzo

regarding his role in the offense. Even though the Court has

denied the request for a mitigating role, I think the

Court -- I asked the Court to consider that under 3553(a).

The biggest difference for Mr. Manzo, amongst all

of the defendants, is his experience with the Los Angeles

County Sheriff's Department. He has been -- he was employed,

I think it was five years, I think it was, your Honor, since

the time.

And since this indictment was issued, he was

terminated with or put on leave without pay. And he won't

enjoy the years of pensions that have been earned like the

other defendants, and he's had to start over.

As the Court has read, he sold his home, moved into

his parents' garage with his wife and young child and ever

since then has been looking for jobs. And that's very

difficult, your Honor, for a man who has got to provide for

his family. His wife works as an administrative assistant

for the -- I think it's the police department of Whittier.

But, your Honor, this has huge consequences. And

if the Court will indulge me, I just recently spoke at my

son's fifth grade class on prisons and the effect of prisons,

and one of the things that we miss is the inability to

establish wealth and to grow your family and give your family

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:23:15

01:23:30

01:23:44

01:24:03

01:24:16


55

a better chance.

And prisons have really affected that, and the

primary reason is because of the felony convictions. And the

fifth graders are saying, "We're not going to hire a felony

conviction for my job." And Mr. Manzo is in that position

where he's applied and applied and applied for positions and

been denied because he tells them about his situation.

And here he is living in a garage of his parents'

garage, and he has to start over. And it's never going to be

the same track that he had. He'll never have that

opportunity that he squandered. And certainly, your Honor,

there's -- there's reasons and the Government's going to get

up and talk about that.

And -- and I will tell you his loyalty was

misplaced. Absolutely. He was an eager -- the letters will

show you he wanted to be a cop. He was a baseball player,

then wanted to be a teacher or a coach, and then found law

enforcement and was happy, very happy for five years. And

that's gone. And he can't even take the jobs being a teacher

now because of his record.

His loyalty was misplaced, and he recognizes that,

and he'll pay the price for the rest of his life for that,

your Honor.

And so I do think that Mr. Manzo -- he is a very

good person. As you can tell by the letters, and the family

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:24:37

01:24:55

01:25:08

01:25:27

01:25:44


56

that -- how he was raised. And the question of loyalty will

also resonate with him in the decisions he made, the people

he decided to follow, and he was an eager deputy to please

and to work hard and be accepted.

So, your Honor, I do think that a sentence of home

confinement or halfway house that will allow him to help

provide for his family to get back on his feet is appropriate

and not greater than necessary in this case.

With that I would submit.


be heard?

MS. RHODES: Briefly, your Honor.

The defendant in this case, Mickey Manzo, was the

closest to the line and the thing that the FBI was

investigating, which was abuse in the jails.

So it was certainly within his view that he could

have seen and probably did see what was going on in the jails

on the line, and that was exactly what the FBI was

investigating and exactly the investigation that he was a

part of obstructing.

Moreover, the Government in its papers has

indicated that his conduct, not just charged conduct but

other conduct, far extended or extended far after the

approach of Special Agent Marx. And that is into December

when he was warning his then Lieutenant Thompson about

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:26:03

01:26:23

01:26:42

01:27:14

01:27:46


57

actions that could be taken or investigations about

Lieutenant Thompson's son.

It is true his loyalty was misplaced, but he placed

that loyalty over duty, and he placed friendship and/or a

misguided sense of what should be done over justice.

And for those reasons the Government believes that

his conduct, which extended over many months, and his role in

this offense should be taken into account. And he should

receive the 30 months that the Government is requesting.

THE COURT: Does Mr. Manzo wish to be heard?


THE COURT: Does counsel for Mr. Craig wish to be

heard?


First of all, I want to mention briefly the Koon

variance factors. It is more than peace officer status. It

includes publicity, which we have had in this case. This

will be on all the TV channels, the news, the front page of

the Times. It has been for months.

But also it's connected to the abuse of prisoners.

Whenever you read about this case, if you don't really

understand what's happening, you and those readers and those

watchers connect these defendants with the abuses that do

occur in jails and prisons.

And so like the Koon case where there was an abuse

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:28:10

01:28:47

01:29:18

01:29:48

01:30:21


58

of a prisoner, these defendants are also tainted by that

publicity and by their status.

One thing that has always come to my mind in this

occasion is at least for most of these defendants and for

Mr. Craig in particular, is the randomness of how he got

involved. At his unit they're all Sergeants. It's a large

unit. He happened to be the one chosen that day to, 16 days

after the phone was found, to investigate how the phone got

into the jail. It could have been somebody else, but the

randomness of that choice fell upon him.

Now, it wasn't, "I hope I get a case today where I

can obstruct a federal investigation." This case is

unprecedented. There are no cases like it -- nothing in the

literature across the nation, state, federal, anywhere. And

because it's unprecedented, it's going to be written about.

It's going to be discussed. It's going to be analyzed.

The template of how the Los Angeles Sheriff's

Department responded to an FBI investigation into their

agency will not be followed. It will be just the opposite.

When a federal investigation is conducted by an

agency into another law enforcement agency, state, or local,

the management and officers in question because of this case

will know how to respond appropriately.

The deterrence is already there because, if you

respond as the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department did in this

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:30:45

01:31:07

01:31:29

01:31:56

01:32:20


59

case, you're going to be charged and you're going to be

convicted of a felony. You're going to lose your job. That

is the deterrence. That's sufficient because of this case.

And publicity -- that won't be sent out to the

general media, but there is going to be publicity and

discussions and articles written for law enforcement managers

because of this case.

The -- I mention deterrence because that's one of

the four factors this Court has to decide. The deterrence

does not necessarily have to be a prison sentence. Nobody --

another factor, protect the public from further crimes. No

defendant -- my client, Craig Smith -- is going to commit

another crime.

These people were all of good character. All of

exceptional character. And the other factor whether they

need care or treatment, education, medical assistance, that

doesn't apply in this case. It's -- it's what is the just

punishment, and it's our submission that a just punishment in

this case, punishment that's not greater than necessary for

these four factors is home confinement, community service, a

probation or mixed sentence. That is sufficient for this

case.

Can I be of any further assistance to this Court?

THE COURT: No, thank you.


KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:32:34

01:32:59

01:33:19

01:33:33

01:33:52


60

MS. RHODES: Yes, your Honor.

The Government's position is that while it could

have been anyone who got assigned to this case, it was Scott

Craig. And it was Scott Craig, therefore, who tampered with

Anthony Brown as a witness, who tampered with Gilbert Michel

and Deputy Courson who actually approached Special Agent Leah

Marx and who was there -- then thereafter on the phone with

his partner and the officer he was training Sergeant Long,

when Supervisory Special Agent Narro called. And he was

certainly there supporting and supervising Sergeant Long.

So the Government requests that the Court look at

the facts not of what could have been but what actually was

and what this defendant did and therefore what is just

punishment for what he did.

Additionally Mr. Rabe talked about the fact that

this case is unprecedented. It may well be that it is

unprecedented because the behavior of this defendant as well

as the others was so egregious that it has never been even

considered by others before.

And so notwithstanding your Honor's decision with

regard to whether his testimony fits the Dunnigan factors,

the Government believes that his character both on and off

the stand both during the commission of the crime and in the

courtroom merits the sentence recommended by the Government

which is 51 months.

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:34:10

01:34:32

01:34:49

01:35:04

01:35:19


61

THE COURT: Does Mr. Craig wish to be heard?

MR. RABE: Your Honor, no.

THE COURT: Does counsel for Ms. Long wish to be

heard?

MR. NAVARRO: Yes, your Honor. Thank you.

Good morning, your Honor.

Your Honor, I've been before you and many other

judges on many, many federal cases over my years here, and I

know what happens at sentencing. People come before you

convicted of numbers of crimes. Sometimes there's

limitations on what you can do in terms of a sentence because

of narcotics offenses most of the time, but many times we

have first time offenders who come before you.

It could be a postal worker, a bank teller. It

could be a judge. It could be a lawyer. It could be a

doctor. It could be a police officer.

And in our system of justice, at least I believe in

giving people an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves if

it's available.

And in this case, your Honor, it is available. You

don't have to send my client to jail. We know that. There

is no mandatory minimum. She's not engaged in any RICO

conduct, any of those kind of cases we see in these courts on

a regular basis.

We have someone who has devoted her entire adult

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:35:40

01:35:59

01:36:17

01:36:30

01:36:47


62

life to work and do the right thing, and her work took her to

law enforcement. She became with the DEA in 1996. She

joined the Sheriff's Department in 1990 first as a clerk,

became a deputy in '95, I believe.

During her 23 years in law enforcement, she's done

work for federal Task Forces in this case. Probably been in

this building. May have talked to AUSA's along the way.

And one thing that are clear to me, your Honor, and

is clear from the 20 letters we submitted, there was some

from law enforcement and some from regular folks as well. My

client has always been a person with integrity, and she's

been committed to doing the right thing. She's been

convicted in this case, and I understand I have to respect

the judge -- the jury's decision in this case. But that

should not take away, your Honor, from the fact that you have

someone who is truly a first-time offender, under our

guidelines for sentencing.

And I believe person of that -- of that nature,

someone who is really the first time before a judge deserves

an opportunity. That's -- that's the way we are raised.

When the child makes a mistake in school, they might go to

the principal's office, and you give them an opportunity to

rehabilitate themselves. It happens all the time.

I'm not asking you to reinvent the wheel. I'm not

asking you to do something that is so crazy or out of the

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:36:59

01:37:09

01:37:33

01:37:48

01:38:01


63

ordinary. I'm asking you to take a look at my client and

look at the work she's done in her life, not just the month

or two months that she's been involved in this case. But

look at her entire life.

And my mom -- my mom always used to tell me, your

Honor, that I can tell a lot about you by where you've been.

And I think that's applicable to my client. We can tell a

lot about her by what she's been doing over her many years in

law enforcement.

She's worked in the community. She's painted a --

she's cleaned up graffiti. She's worked with teenage girls.

She's done everything she can to do the right thing, and she

stands convicted before you, which if we could go back in

time and if she were to have come to me when this happens,

who knows.

But we don't have that, your Honor. We have a

person who deserves an opportunity. In this Court here we

have finally some programs which are available for first-time

offenders, such as CASA 1 and CASA 2, which the Court is very

familiar with.

My client doesn't qualify for those problems

because she doesn't have a drug problem. She's not a single

mother. And those are -- those are good things. She has

grown up locally here, went to school here, and has

exceptional work over her lifetime not because she wanted to

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:38:16

01:38:34

01:38:50

01:39:04

01:39:26


64

at some point get you know letters of recommendation, because

it was the right thing to do.

Your Honor, she always -- she always felt it was

her duty as a police officer to go above and beyond just

being a police officer.

As a woman of color, as a Latina, she took that

very seriously. She -- and I think it was reflected in a

number of letters that she was a role model to many other

Latina's. And now she's convicted felon. She'll never be

able to work in law enforcement. Her future is

financially -- it's going to be very difficult, but I don't

think you have to send her to jail for one day.

You don't have to -- you don't have to deter her in

any way. You'll never see her again. If you gave her -- if

you gave her the opportunity, as you've done in the past with

other clients of mine, to do the right thing. And I think

she'll do that.

And she'll -- she'll -- she's gotten the message,

and I think the message has been loud and clear.

Now, a lot has been said about my client

obstructing, you know, Government witnesses. I received a

letter 10 days ago or so from Anthony Brown. He's at M.D.C.

He wanted to see me. He felt abandoned by the FBI, and it

was shocking to me that after all this Mr. Brown wrote to me

and wanted me -- he -- and I'll see him. I'm going to see

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:39:42

01:40:00

01:40:18

01:40:35

01:40:46


65

him because he asked me to see him.

Again, that is what it is, your Honor, but we take

our cases as they come. We know that.

But you have someone before you who has spent a

lifetime of doing good things, and I don't want you to ignore

that.

We submitted every one of those letters. And if I

submitted just one of them, it would have been enough to be

honest. And in every letter that I received, I never told

any of those people what to say. I never do that. I want to

hear from them. I want to hear what they have to say.

And it was clear to me that we have some -- that we

have an individual here -- we have a person who over her

entire life will do the right thing. And I don't think you

have to send a message to other deputies, Sergeants, or her.

She doesn't have to be an example to be put into custody. I

don't think it's really warranted under the 3553 factors,

your Honor. And I will submit, your Honor.


Does the Government wish to be heard.

MS. CARTER: Yes, your Honor.

The Government maintains that its recommended

sentence of 30 months at the midpoint of the guideline range

is the appropriate sentence here and that a probationary

sentence is willfully insufficient to account for the goals

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:41:01

01:41:23

01:41:44

01:42:01

01:42:22


66

of sentencing.

Here today you heard the same theme echoed

throughout the defendant's papers that she is a person who

does the right thing, who is not a criminal.

But in this case, she did exactly the opposite of

what she was entrusted to do. She is not a child who in

front of her mother made a mistake. She's a 23-year law

enforcement veteran who at the time of this offense was

entrusted with the very serious public trust of investigating

crimes and being in a position to be involved in the

deprivation of someone else's liberty. She knew exactly what

would happen, and she committed a crime.

But instead of fulfilling her public trust, she did

the opposite, and there's no excuse for that. There's no

misapprehension in which she could have been under that would

have justified a person entrusted with investigating crimes

by deputy obstruction -- obstructing an investigation into

crimes by deputies.

And, your Honor, in the Government's view one thing

in this case really exemplifies the problem, really

exemplifies the gravity of her conduct and also the gravity

of the suggestions in her papers now that there was nothing

wrong, the lack of appreciation for the seriousness of her

crimes, and that was her comment to the FBI soon after the

FBI supervisors hung up the phone. "They're scared" and then

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:42:38

01:42:56

01:43:29

01:43:44

01:44:07


67

laughing.

There's no world in which that was something that

she thought she should have been doing, that that was in

furtherance of any kind of legitimate investigation. She

knew exactly what she was doing. She knew that it was

exactly the opposite of what she was entrusted to be doing.

And the custodial sentence that the Government

recommends in this case is the appropriate one. The

Government further submits that it does account for the

mitigating circumstances here including her lack of prior

criminal history.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

Does the defendant wish to be heard?

MR. NAVARRO: No, your Honor. Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. I'll turn to the

calculation of the advisory guidelines.

As to Mr. Thompson, the Court adopts the factual

findings, the guideline application set forth in the

Presentence Report, finds that the advisory guidelines

establish a total offense level of 22, a criminal history

category of one, which results some in an advisory sentencing

guideline range of 41 to 51 months of incarceration.

The Court recognizes its discretion to depart in

this case based on the various factors cited by the defendant

either individually or in combination. However, the Court

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:44:25

01:44:51

01:45:14

01:45:37

01:46:04


68

elects not to exercise its discretion and depart in this

case.

As to Defendant Leavins, the Court adopts the

factual findings in the guideline application set forth in

the Presentence Report, finds that the advisory guidelines


category of one, which results in an advisory sentencing



this case based on the various factors cited by Mr. Leavins


elects not to exercise its discretion and depart.

As to Defendant Smith, the Court adopts the factual

findings in the guideline application set forth in the





As to Mr. Smith, the Court recognizes its

discretion to depart based on various factors cited by the

defendant either individually or in combination. However,

the Court elects not to exercise its discretion and depart.

As to Defendant Manzo, the Court adopts the factual



KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:46:26

01:46:47

01:47:09

01:47:30

01:47:51


69





this case based on various factors cited by Defendant Manzo



As to Defendant Craig, the Court adopts the factual

findings and the guideline application set forth in the






this case based on various factors cited by the defendant



As to Defendant Long, the Court adopts the factual







this case based on various factors cited by the defendant

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:48:13

01:48:20

01:48:33

01:48:41

01:48:53


70



Does either counsel on behalf of Mr. Thompson wish

to be heard on the mathematical calculation of the

guidelines?

MR. McDERMOTT: No, sir.


the mathematical calculation of the guidelines as to

Mr. Thompson?

MS. CARTER: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: As to Defendant Leavins, does

counsel -- does either counsel wish to be heard on the

mathematical calculation of the guidelines?



THE COURT: As to Mr. Smith, does either counsel

wish to be heard on the mathematical calculation of the

guidelines?

MR. GENEGO: No.


THE COURT: And as to Mr. Manzo, does either

counsel wish to be heard on the mathematical calculation of

the guidelines?

MR. LOMBARD: No.

MS. RHODES: No, your Honor.

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

01:49:01

01:49:11

01:49:33

01:59:12

01:59:46


71

THE COURT: And as to Mr. Craig, does either


the guidelines?

MR. RABE: No.


THE COURT: And as to Mrs. Long, does either


the guidelines?



THE COURT: All right. We're going do take a short

recess. Let's take 10 minutes, and then I'll be back out,

and we'll pronounce sentence as to each.

THE CLERK: All rise.

(Whereupon, from 11:05 a.m. to 11:15 a.m., a break

was taken.)


This Court is again in session.

You may be seated.

THE COURT: All right. I have some comments about

the nature and circumstances of this offense that I think

will apply to all the defendants. And after making these

comments, then we'll sentence -- we'll have each of the

defendants and their counsel go to the lectern, and we'll

complete the sentencing.

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:00:08

02:00:27

02:00:45

02:01:05

02:01:24


72

Standing before me today are six sworn peace

officers who took an oath to uphold the law and to support

and defend the Constitution, to serve the public. Like

thousands of other sworn and civilian employees of the Los

Angeles County Sheriff's Department, these six defendants

have devoted their careers to the department.

Mr. Thompson spent more than 30 years with the

Sheriff's Department.

Defendant Leavins, nearly 30 years.

Defendant Smith, almost 20 years.

Mr. Manzo, almost eight years.

Mr. Craig, over 25 years.

And Mrs. Long, over 23 years.

The Court has no doubt that the vast majority of

those that devoted their lives to the defendant are dedicated

public servants. They've sworn an oath to protect our

community, and they take their enormous responsibilities very

seriously.

They face danger every day. They keep us safe.

They serve with honor.

At trial, however, we heard testimony about

significant problems within the Sheriff's Department. We

heard about corrupt deputies. We heard about the abuse of

inmates. We heard testimony that from their first days at

the academy, deputies were instructed about an "us" versus

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:01:47

02:02:06

02:02:26

02:02:46

02:03:04


73

"them" mentality and unwritten codes that taught deputies

that, when an inmate in the county jails dared to even

attempt to harm a deputy, the deputies were told to respond

with enough violence to send that inmate to the hospital.

Deputies were taught how to cover up the abuses

committed by their fellow deputies, how to look the other

way, how to shield the department from embarrassment.

Although none of these six defendants are accused

of beating inmates or taking bribes to provide inmates with

contraband, they all took actions calculated to shield those

dirty deputies from the consequences of their crimes. These

defendants fostered the corrupt culture within the Sheriff's

Department.

They conspired with each other to hide an inmate

who was cooperating with the FBI. They interviewed this

witness not with any desire to pursue a case against the

corrupt deputy who had accepted a bribe but to find out what

the FBI knew and to get the informant to stop cooperating

with the federal investigation.

They interviewed the deputy who had accepted the

bribe. Again, their goal was not to build a case against the

deputy but to convince him not to cooperate with the FBI, not

to turn on the department and provide evidence against other

deputies.

These defendants conducted surveillance on an FBI

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:03:27

02:03:52

02:04:18

02:04:41

02:05:05


74

agent that they knew was part of an authorized and legitimate

federal investigation into abuses committed by their fellow

deputies. They confronted her outside her home and

threatened to arrest her despite not having probable cause.

They did this to scare and intimidate the FBI.

They did all those things to derail the federal

investigation. They intended to obstruct justice.

Each of these defendants had a choice between right

and wrong, and they chose to join the side of wrong, not

everybody in the department joined them.

The Court heard testimony about a deputy who worked

in the IRC who refused to go along with the defendants'

scheme. When asked to violate the department policies, she

said no. When told that the Undersheriff had authorized it,

she still said no. She knew right from wrong and chose

right.

None of you showed that sort of courage. Instead

you all endeavored to obstruct justice in a misguided attempt

to protect the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.

Despite being law enforcement officers sworn to

uphold the law, each of you broke the law. In doing so, you

broke the vow you made to protect the public, to serve the

community.

You don't serve the public by using your position

to conceal wrongdoing in the jails. You don't serve the

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:05:31

02:05:58

02:06:19

02:06:39

02:06:56


75

public by hiding witnesses. You don't serve the public by

tampering with witnesses, and you don't serve the public by

threatening to arrest a FBI agent in some misguided effort to

get her to reveal the details of her investigation.

Perhaps it's a symptom of corrupt culture within

the Sheriff's Department, but one of the most striking things

aside from the brazenness of threatening to arrest an FBI

agent for a crime of simply doing her job and videotaping

yourselves doing it, is that none of you have shown even the

slightest remorse. You've all defended your actions by

claiming that you were merely following orders, but this does

not absolve you of responsibility.

At trial the only evidence of orders you received

from those above you in the chain of command were to keep

Anthony Brown safe and to investigate the smuggling of the

cell phone into the jail.

There was no evidence of the trial that any of you

were ordered to keep Brown safe in a way that hid him from

the FBI and the federal grand jury. There was no evidence at

trial that any of you were ordered to tamper with Brown or

Deputy Michel.

Instead the only evidence is that you chose to

encourage both of them to stop cooperating with the federal

investigation, not to further your -- your investigation, but

to stop the federal investigation.

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:07:22

02:07:38

02:08:05

02:08:25

02:08:50


76

And there was no evidence at trial that you were

ordered to confront an FBI agent at her home and threaten to

arrest her. You did that.

Your unquestioning loyalty to the Sheriff's

Department is not something to be proud of when that loyalty

is perverted to protect corrupt deputies and the inflated

reputations of those in command.

Your actions have not only embarrassed the

Sheriff's Department but every man and woman that puts on

that badge every day and puts their lives on the line. Your

actions have violated the trust put on you by the community.

None of you showed the courage to do what was right, to risk

the scorn of your fellow deputies by exposing their crimes.

In sentencing you today, the Court is mindful that

among the factors that the Court must consider are to promote

respect for the law and to afford adequate deterrence to

criminal conduct.

The Court hopes that if and when other deputies are

faced with decisions similar to those you face, they will

remember what happened here today. They will not look the

other way or obstruct an investigation; that they will

recognize that blind obedience to a corrupt culture has

serious consequences, that they will enforce the law rather

than conspire to commit crimes, that they will do what is

right rather than what is easy.

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:09:19

02:09:43

02:10:09

02:10:48

02:11:20


77

The guidelines have taken into account the nature

of this offense, the defendants' lack of criminal history,

their breach of the public trust, the alteration and

fabrication of records, of documents, and some of the

defendants' aggravating roles as a organizer or leader of

criminal activity.

What the guidelines have not captured is the

irreparable harm to the public. The public expects that

police officers will not violate the laws that they are

charged with enforcing.

It destroys the very fabric of our system of

justice and erodes a cornerstone that the rule of law applies

to everyone equally, that no person, whether he wears a badge

or not, is above the law.

And while I have very little doubt that any of you

will re-offend, probably more disturbing is the fact that you

refuse to accept responsibility for any of your conduct.

Your refusal to accept responsibility stands in sharp

contrast to the professed tenets expressed in many of the

letters that were received by the Court.

All right. I'll turn to each individual defendant

as I assess additional factors under 3553.

If Mr. Thompson and his counsel will approach the

lectern, please.

I've considered the kinds of sentences available

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:11:42

02:12:02

02:12:26

02:12:49

02:13:22


78

for this defendant. The Government seeks a sentence of

48 months while the defense seeks a probationary sentence.

In aggravation this defendant assumed a leadership role in

hiding an inmate that was cooperating with the grand jury,

looking into abuses within the jails. He was involved in

instituting new policies that would make it more difficult

for the federal government to investigate abusive deputies.

He used Sheriff's Department's personnel and to carry out

that obstruction. The defendant abused the substantial

authority that he was given.

In mitigation, I've considered the history and

characteristics of the defendant, those factors weigh in his

favor. Until these events this defendant was a decorated law

enforcement officer who had served the people of the county

of Los Angeles faithfully.

He has a loving and devoted family and the support

of many in the community. The Court has received numerous

letters from his family and friends attesting to his good

character, his dedication to his family to his community, and

his many acts of public service.

Having considered the advisory guidelines, which is

only one of many factors the Court has considered, the Court

also recognizes that it has discretion to vary from the

guidelines so long as it acts reasonably in exercising that

discretion.

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:13:42

02:14:08

02:14:23

02:14:31

02:14:51


79

The Court finds that the defense arguments for a

variance are persuasive and incorporates those into the

sentence that I'm going to impose, which is outside the

guidelines.

Under the circumstances, the Court finds that a

sentence of 37 months of imprisonment followed by a one-year

term of supervised release, a fine of $7,500, and a $200

special assessment reflects the seriousness of the offense,

provides for a just punishment, will deter others from

engaging in similar conduct, and is sufficient but not

greater than necessary to comply with the statutory goals of

sentencing.

Does either party have any objections that were not

previously addressed?

MR. McDERMOTT: Not by defense, sir.


THE COURT: Is there any legal reason why sentence

should not now be imposed?

MR. McDERMOTT: No, sir.

THE COURT: It is ordered that the defendant shall

pay the United States a special assessment of $200, which is

due immediately. Any unpaid balance shall be due during the

period of imprisonment at a rate of not less than $25 per

quarter and pursuant to the Bureau of Prisons' inmate

financial responsibility program.

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:15:13

02:15:29

02:15:46

02:16:03

02:16:21


80

It is ordered that the defendant shall pay to the

United States a total fine of $7,500 consisting of the

following: On Count On, a fine of $3,750; and Count Two a

fine of $3,750. The total fine shall bear interest as

provided for by law. The fine shall be paid in full

immediately. The defendant shall comply with General Order

01-05.

Pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act, it is the

judgment of the Court that the defendant is hereby committed

on Counts One and Two of the indictment to the custody of the

Bureau of Prisons for a term of 37 months. This term

consists of 37 months on each of Count One and Two of the

indictment to be served concurrently.

Upon release of imprisonment, the defendant shall

be placed on supervised release for a term of one year. This

term consists of one year on each of Count One and Two of the

indictment, all such terms to run concurrently under the

following terms and conditions:

The defendant shall comply with the rules and

regulations of the United States Probation Office, General

Order 05-02 and General Order 01-05 including the three

special conditions delineated in General Order 01-05.

During the period of community supervision, the

defendant shall pay the special assessment and fine in

accordance with the judgments orders pertaining to such

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:16:31

02:16:49

02:17:06

02:17:19

02:17:33


81

payment.

The defendant shall cooperate in the collection of

a DNA sample.

The defendant shall apply monies received from

income tax refunds, lottery winnings, inheritances, judgments

and any anticipated or unexpected financial gains to any

outstanding court ordered financial obligation.

The drug-testing condition mandated by statute is

suspended based upon the Court's determination that the

defendant poses a low risk of future substance abuse.

Sir, you have the right of appeal from the judgment

and sentence within 14 days from today's date. The failure

to appeal within that 14-day period will constitute a waiver

of your right to appeal.

You are also advised that you are entitled to the

assistance of counsel in taking an appeal. And if you're

unable to afford a lawyer, one will be provided to you.

If you're unable to afford filing time fee, the

clerk of the Court will be directed to accept the notice of

appeal without such a fee.

Does the defendant wish to have a self-surrender

date?

MR. McDERMOTT: Yes, sir, please.

THE COURT: Any objection to the defendant

self-surrendering?

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:17:55

02:18:09

02:18:49

02:18:58

02:19:12


82


THE COURT: What date would the defendant like?

MR. McDERMOTT: Sir, with the -- we would like to

make it consistent with designation by the Bureau of Prisons.

If at all possible, we would like to have him turn into where

the Bureau of Prisons dictates that he should be housed as

opposed to perhaps turning himself here at the Marshal's

Office. I would ask the Court for 65 days.

THE COURT: Any objection?


THE COURT: How is December 5th?

MR. McDERMOTT: Could I indulge the Court and the

Government. Can I ask for 20 more days and make it until the

2nd of January and have the holidays? Could we ask for 2

January, sir?

MS. CARTER: The Government does not object.

MR. McDERMOTT: Thank you.

THE COURT: Sorry, January 2nd?

MR. McDERMOTT: January 2nd.

THE COURT: All right. The Court finds by clear

and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to

flee or pose a danger to any person or community.

It is ordered that the defendant shall surrender

himself to the institution designated by the Bureau of

Prisons on or before noon on January 2nd, 2015.

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:19:34

02:19:56

02:20:08

02:20:32

02:20:51


83

In the absence of such a designation, the defendant

shall report on or before that date and time to the United

States Marshal's Office located in the Roybal federal

building.

What's the bond in this case?

MR. McDERMOTT: It was a $10,000 signature.

THE COURT: All right. Your bond will remain in

effect. If you violate any of the conditions of your bond,

that could result in your immediate incarceration. And the

defendant's bond will be exonerated upon his self-surrender.

Is that clear.

DEFENDANT THOMPSON: Yes, it is. Thank you very

much.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much.

DEFENDANT THOMPSON: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. McDERMOTT: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. If Defendant Leavins would

approach the lectern with counsel.

MR. JOHNSON: (Complied.)

THE COURT: The Court has considered the kinds of

sentences available. The Government is seeking a 60-month

term of imprisonment while the defendant seeks a probationary

sentence.

In aggravation the evidence showed that this

defendant was involved in all aspects of the obstruction. He

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:21:17

02:21:46

02:22:08

02:22:39

02:23:03


84

was involved in hiding witnesses, tampering with witnesses,

and ordering Craig and Long to confront Agent Marx.

The defendant abused the substantial authority he

was given, and while the Court didn't find that the defendant

perjured himself at trial, the Court finds that his testimony

was highly suspect. The defendant's conduct showed that he

believed that he was above the law.

I have considered the history and characteristics

of the defendant, and again those factors weigh in his favor.

Until these events, this defendant too was a

decorated law enforcement officer who served the people of

the county of Los Angeles with distinction. He has a devoted

family and support of many in his community.

The Court has received numerous letters from the

defendant's family and friends attesting to his character and

integrity, his complete dedication to his family and his

community, and his many acts of public service.

This defendant was charged with the responsibility

of uncovering abuse and corruptions in the jail, and instead

he used his position to obstruct the investigation into the

wrongdoing by deputies.

Having considered the -- the Court has considered

the advisory guidelines as well as the statutory sentencing

factors, the Court recognizes that it has discretion to vary

from those guidelines so long as the Court acts reasonably in

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:23:28

02:23:52

02:24:07

02:24:14

02:24:27


85

exercising that discretion.


variance are persuasive, and accordingly those arguments are

incorporated into the Court's sentence in this case.



term of supervised release, no fine, and a $200 special

assessment reflects the seriousness of the offense, provides

for a just punishment, will promote deterrence, and is

sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply with the

statutory goals of sentencing.

Does either counsel have any objections that were

not previously addressed?

MR. RAYNOR: No, your Honor.


THE COURT: Any reason why sentence should not now

be imposed?









KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:24:44

02:25:03

02:25:18

02:25:30

02:25:44


86

Pursuant to Section 5(a)1.2, all fines are waived

as the Court finds that the defendant has established that

he's unable to pay and is not likely to become able to pay

any fine.


judgment of the Court that the defendant is committed to the

custody of the Bureau of Prisons for a term of 41 months.

This term consists of 41 months on each of Counts One and

Three to be served concurrently.



term consists of one year on each of Counts One and Three,

all such terms to run concurrently under the following terms

and conditions:


regulations of the United States Probation Office and General

Order 05-02.

During the period of community supervision the

defendant shall pay the special assessment in accordance with

the judgment's orders pertaining to such payment.


a DNA sample.


suspended based on the Court's determination that the


KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:26:27

02:26:38

02:26:49

02:27:01

02:27:22


87



to appeal within that 14-day period will constitute waiver of

your right to appeal.

You are also advised that you're entitled to the


unable to afford a lawyer, one will be provided to you. If

you're unable to afford the filing fee, the clerk of the

Court will be directed to accept the notice of appeal without

such a fee.


date?

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, your Honor. January 2nd would

be fine.

MR. FOX: That's fine, your Honor.

May I ask you though, you mentioned that you found

the defendant's arguments for a variance persuasive, and it

appears that you incorporated the reasoning to have -- to

sentence him to a low-end sentence of the guidelines.

I just want to make sure that that was your intent

because I had the guidelines, as you calculated them, at 41

to 51.

THE COURT: No. What I did was I provided the

defendant with a variance, and ordinarily I would have

sentenced him. Without that variance he would have received

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:27:42

02:28:02

02:28:23

02:28:38

02:28:52


88

a sentence in excess of 41 months.

MR. FOX: Thank you, your Honor.



flee or pose a danger to any person or the community.



Prisons on or before noon on January 2nd, 2015. In the

absence of such a designation, the defendant shall report on

or before that date and time to the United States Marshal's

Office located in the Roybal federal building.

Your conditions of bond will remain in effect prior

to yourself surrender. If you violate any of those

conditions, that could result in your immediate

incarceration.

Is that clear?

DEFENDANT LEAVINS: Yes.

THE COURT: And the defendant's bond will be

exonerated upon his self-surrender.

Is there anything else?

MR. RAYNOR: Your Honor, Mr. Leavins would ask the

Court to make a recommendation for a designation in the

Central District to serve the sentence.

THE COURT: I'll make that recommendation.

MR. RAYNOR: Thank you.

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:29:12

02:29:42

02:30:06

02:30:35

02:30:57


89

THE COURT: Anything else?




All right. I've considered the history and

characteristics of Defendant Smith. These factors weigh in

his favor.

He was a deputy sheriff for nearly 20 years. He

has a loving and devoted family and the support of many in

his community. The Court has received numerous letters from

his family and friends attesting to his character. He has

complete dedication to his family and to his community and

his many acts of public service.

I've considered the kinds of sentences available.

The Government seeks a 28-month term of imprisonment while

the defendant seeks a probationary sentence. To impose a

probationary sentence as urged by the defendant in this

occasion under the circumstances would trivialize the

seriousness of the offense, the need for a just punishment,

the need to promote respect for the law, to promote

deterrence, and to avoid sentencing disparities.

However, the Court recognizes that it has

discretion to vary from the guidelines in this case provided

it does so reasonably.


KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:31:36

02:32:02

02:32:23

02:32:31

02:32:42


90

variance are persuasive and accordingly incorporates those

arguments into its sentence in this case.

And I'll just say in this case -- in this case the

defendant, probably more than anyone else, knew of the

implications because he had worked in the jails for so long.

He knew the implications of obstructing this investigation

into the abuses within the jail.

So under the circumstances the Court finds that a



assessment reflects the seriousness of the offense provides

for a just punishment, promotes deterrence and is sufficient

but not greater than necessary to comply with the statutory

goals of sentencing.





THE COURT: Any legal reason why sentence should

not be imposed at this time?

MR. GENEGO: No.





KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:32:59

02:33:12

02:33:34

02:33:47

02:33:59


91




All fines are waived as it is found that such a

sanction would place an undue burden on the defendant's

dependents.



on Count One and Two of the indictment to the custody of the

Bureau of Prisons for a term of 21 months. This term

consists of 21 months on each of Count One and Two to be

served concurrently.



term consists of one year on each of Counts One and Two, all

such terms to run concurrently under the following terms and

conditions:



Order 05-02.





a DNA sample.

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:34:13

02:34:28

02:34:41

02:34:49

02:35:01


92

And the drug-testing condition mandated by statute

is suspended based on the Court's determination that the



and sentence within 14 days from today's date. Failure to

appeal within that 14-day period will constitute a waiver of







such a fee.


date?

MR. GENEGO: Yes, your Honor. We would request

January 2nd and would also request that the Court recommend a

facility in Southern California.



THE COURT: All right. I will make that

recommendation.

The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence

that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to

any person or the community.

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:35:17

02:35:37

02:35:53

02:36:18

02:36:38


93







The defendant will remain free on his current bond.

If you violate the conditions of your bond, that could result

in your immediate incarceration.

Is that clear?

DEFENDANT SMITH: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: The defendant's bond will be exonerated

upon his self-surrender, and the Court will make a

recommendation that he be housed in Southern California.

MR. GENEGO: Thank you, your Honor. May we be

excused?

THE COURT: Yes. Thank you very much.

I've considered the kinds of sentences available

for Mr. Manzo. The Government seeks a 30-month term of

imprisonment while the defendant seeks a probationary

sentence.

In aggravation, this defendant was involved in

hiding an inmate who was a federal informant. He helped

draft a policy that was designed to keep the FBI out of the

jails. He was involved in tampering with witnesses and, when

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:37:10

02:37:38

02:37:58

02:38:20

02:38:42


94

he was transferred to the ICIB, continued with certain

activities.

I've considered the history and characteristics of

the defendant. This defendant too has a devoted family and

the support of many in the community. The Court has received

letters from his family, colleagues and friends attesting to

his good character, his dedication to his family, to his

community, and his acts of public service.

The Court has considered the advisory guidelines

along with the statutory sentencing factors. To impose a

probationary sentence urged by the defendant under the

circumstances would trivialize the seriousness of the

offense, the need for a just punishment, the need to promote

respect for the law, to promote deterrence, and to avoid

sentencing disparities.

The Court recognizes its discretion to vary from

the guidelines provided it does so reasonably.

The Court finds that -- the defendant's arguments

to vary from the guidelines aren't persuasive, and the

defendant's arguments have been incorporated into the

sentence that will be imposed by the Court.


sentence of 24 months of incarceration followed by a one-year

term of supervised release, no fine and a $200 special

assessment reflection the seriousness of the offense,

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:38:57

02:39:04

02:39:19

02:39:36

02:39:52


95

provides for a just punishment, promotes deterrence, and is







THE COURT: Any legal reason why sentence should

not now be imposed?








Pursuant to Section 5E1.2, all fines are waived as

the Court finds that the defendant has established that he's

unable to pay and is not likely to become able to pay any

fine.



on Count One and Two to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons

for a term of 24 months. This term consists of 24 months on

each of Count One and Two to be served concurrently.

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:40:09

02:40:23

02:40:36

02:40:53

02:41:05


96



term consists of one year on each of Count One and Two, all

such terms to run concurrently under the following terms and

conditions:



Order 05-02.





a DNA sample.


suspended based on the Court's determination that the




to appeal within that 14-day period will constitute a waiver

of your right to appeal.

You are advised that you are entitled to the


unable to afford a lawyer one will be provided to you.

If you're unable to afford the filing fee, the


KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:41:15

02:41:25

02:41:43

02:41:59

02:42:11


97



date?

MR. LOMBARD: Yes, your Honor. January 2nd as

well.





flee or pose a danger to any person or the community.



Prisons on or before noon on January 2nd, 2015.

In the absence of such a designation, the defendant

shall report on or before that date and time to the United

States Marshal's Office located in the Roybal federal

building.

The defendant is to remain free on his current

bond; but, sir, if you violate any of the conditions of your

bond, that could result in your immediate incarceration.

Is that clear?

DEFENDANT MANZO: Yes, sir.


upon his self-surrender.


KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:42:18

02:42:47

02:43:06

02:43:28

02:44:00


98

MR. LOMBARD: Yes, your Honor.

If the Court would recommend placement in the

Southern California Bureau of Prisons facility.

THE COURT: I'll make that recommendation as well.

MR. LOMBARD: And may we be excused, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes, you may.

MR. LOMBARD: Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. If we could have Defendant

Craig and his counsel approach the lectern, please.

This defendant is before the Court for sentencing

after a jury trial in which he was convicted of conspiracy,

obstruction of justice, and making a false statement.


The Government seeks a 51-month term of imprisonment while

the defendant seeks a probationary sentence.

In aggravation, this defendant was involved in

tampering with witnesses, in confronting an FBI agent at her

home even though it was clear that she was conducting a

legitimate investigation into abuse of deputies and

corruption at the county jails.

The Court has considered the kind of sentences

available.

This is a defendant, who has dedicated a majority

of his adult life to public service. In addition he and his

wife have turned a personal tragedy into a viable nonprofit

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:44:24

02:44:52

02:45:14

02:45:24

02:45:37


99

organization that provides for mental health support for many

in the community.

The defendant has requested a variance based upon

his personal history and characteristics.


the guidelines. The Court finds that the arguments for a

variance are persuasive, and the Court has incorporated the

arguments for a variance into its sentence in this case.





for a just punishment, promotes deterrence, and is sufficient

but not greater than necessary to comply with the statutory

goals of sentencing.

Does either party have any objections that were not

previously addressed?


MS. RHODES: Your Honor, I believe because he was

convicted on three counts, the special assessment should be

$300.

THE COURT: You are correct. The special

assessment is $300.

Any legal reason why sentence should not now be

imposed?

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:45:47

02:46:03

02:46:19

02:46:36

02:46:50


100






quarter pursuant to the Bureau of Prisons' inmate financial

responsibility program.


the Court finds that the defendant has established that he's


fine.



on Counts One, Four, and Five to the custody of the Bureau of

Prisons for a term of 33 months. This term consists of

33 months on each of Counts One, Four, and Five to be served

concurrently.

Upon release from imprisonment, the defendant shall


term consists of one year on each of Counts One, Four, and

Five, all such terms to run concurrently under the following

terms and conditions:



Order 05-02.

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:47:07

02:47:25

02:47:39

02:47:56

02:48:15


101




The defendant shall participate in mental health

treatment which may include evaluation and counselling until

discharged from treatment by the treatment provider with the

approval of the Probation Officer.

As directed by the Probation Officer, the defendant

shall pay all or a part of the costs of treating his mental

health treatment to the after-care contractor during the

period of supervision. The defendant shall provide payment

and proof of payment as directed by the Probation Officer.


a DNA sample.


suspended based upon the Court's determination that the

defendant poses a low risk of future substance abuse, and the

Court authorizes the Probation Office to disclose the

Presentence Report and/or any previous mental health

evaluations or reports to the treatment provider.

The treatment provider may provide information to

state or local service agencies for the purpose of the

defendant's rehabilitation. Further redisclosure of the

Presentence Report is prohibited without the consent of the

Court.

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:48:28

02:48:41

02:48:53

02:49:09

02:49:25


102


and sentence within 14 days from today's date the failure to




assistance in counsel in taking an appeal. And if you're




such a fee.


date?

MR. RABE: Your Honor, yes, January 2nd, 2015.



THE COURT: The Court find by clear and convincing

evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a

danger to any person or the community.







The defendant will remain free on his present bond.

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:49:38

02:49:53

02:50:31

02:50:49

02:51:11


103

If you violate any of the conditions of your present bond,

that could result in your immediate incarceration.

Is that clear?

DEFENDANT CRAIG: Yes, sir.


upon his self-surrender.

MR. RABE: Your Honor, as with the others, could

you recommend incarceration within Southern California?

THE COURT: Yes, I'll make that recommendation.

All right. Thank you very much.

Defendant Long appears before the Court for

sentencing after having been found guilty by jury on one

count of conspiracy, one count of obstruction of justice, and

one count of making false statements.


The Government seeks a 30-month term of

imprisonment while the defendant seeks a probationary

sentence.

In aggravation this defendant was involved in

tampering with witnesses, confronting an FBI agent at her

home.

I've also considered the history and

characteristics of the defendant. She too has received

letters from many in the community including many of her

colleagues. She has a loving and devoted family. Friends

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:51:35

02:51:58

02:52:19

02:52:40

02:52:52


104

have attested to her good character, her dedication to her

family, to her community, and her many acts of public

service.

Having considered the advisory guidelines as well

as the statutory sentencing factors, the Court finds that a

probationary sentence urged by this defendant under the

circumstances would trivialize the seriousness of the

offense, the need for a just punishment, the need to promote

respect for the law, to promote deterrence, and to avoid

sentencing disparities.


the guidelines provided it does so reasonably. The Court

has -- finds the arguments for a variance persuasive and has

incorporated those arguments into the fashioning of the

sentence.



term of supervised release, no fine, a $300 special


for a just punishment, will promote deterrence, and is






KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:53:03

02:53:18

02:53:35

02:53:50

02:54:07


105

MR. NAVARRO: Your Honor, not with respect to

sentence, no.

THE COURT: Is there any legal reason why the

sentence should not now be imposed?







responsibility program.


the Court finds that the defendant has established that she's


fine.



on Counts One, Four, and Six to the custody of the Bureau of

Prisons for a term of 24 months. This term consists of 24

months on each of Counts One, Four, and Six, all to be served

concurrently.



term consists of one year on each of Counts One, Four, and

Six, all such terms to run concurrently under the following

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:54:23

02:54:36

02:54:53

02:55:05

02:55:15


106

terms and conditions:


regulations United States Probation Office and General Order

05-02.





a DNA sample.

And the drug-testing condition mandated by statute

is suspended based on the Court's determination that the


You have the right of appeal from the judgment and

sentence within 14 days from today's date. The failure to


your right to appeal. You are also advised that you are

entitled to the assistance of counsel in taking an appeal.

And if you're unable to afford a lawyer, one will be provided

to you.

If you're unable to afford the filing fee, the




date?

MR. NAVARRO: Yes, your Honor, if we could have

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:55:25

02:55:48

02:56:06

02:56:18

02:56:36


107

January 2nd by 12 noon.




and convincing evidence that the defendant poses no danger to

the community or any person.

The defendant is ordered to surrender herself to

the institution designated by the Bureau of Prisons on or

before noon on January 2nd, 2015. In the absence of such a

designation, the defendant shall report on or before that

date and time to the United States Marshal's Office located

in the Roybal federal building.

The defendant shall remain free on her current bond

until her self-surrender.

If you violate any of the conditions of your bond,

that could result in your immediate incarceration.

Is that clear?

DEFENDANT LONG: Yes.


upon her self-surrender. Is there anything else?

MR. NAVARRO: Your Honor, we would ask for a

recommendation for a Southern California facility.

THE COURT: I'll make that recommendation.



KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

02:56:42

02:56:55

02:57:17


108


Anything else?


MR. McDERMOTT: Sir, one additional request.

I neglected to ask as far as a recommendation from

the Court for designation of incarceration. Would you also

make it for Lieutenant Thompson as to the Central District as

well?

THE COURT: I will make that recommendation.

MR. McDERMOTT: Thank you, sir.


I'll just say there really are no winners today.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you.


(Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m. , the proceeding

concluded.)

KABC

NEW

S

KABC

NEW

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


109

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )) ss.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

I, LEANDRA AMBER, OFFICIAL FEDERAL COURT REPORTER, REGISTERED

PROFESSIONAL REPORTER, IN AND FOR THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY

CERTIFY THAT PURSUANT TO SECTION 753, TITLE 28, UNITED STATES

CODE, THE FOREGOING IS A TRUE AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF THE

STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORTED PROCEEDINGS HELD IN THE

ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER AND THAT THE TRANSCRIPT PAGE FORMAT IS

IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS OF THE JUDICIAL

CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES.

DATE: __________________________

_____/s/_________________________

LEANDRA AMBER, CSR 12070, RPR

FEDERAL OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

Documents

Sentencing -- USA v Thompson, et al