The Brief

Imagine you’re sitting on a jury, having been asked to judge a person’s guilt or innocence for a serious crime. You are supposed to base your decision solely on witness testimony and the evidence presented by prosecutors and the defense team.

But what if prosecutors have withheld evidence that could have helped prove the defendant’s innocence? What if they failed to tell the jury that some of the witnesses are actually government informants, perhaps getting money or favors in exchange for delivering the kind of testimony that secures a conviction?

That’s illegal. And that’s exactly what happened in dozens of criminal cases in Orange County over at least a decade — until an assistant public defender brought to light what’s come to be known as the “snitch scandal.”

The discovery unraveled what should have been a slam-dunk conviction in the county’s deadliest mass shooting in modern history, the 2011 Seal Beach salon shooting. The misconduct was so bad that a judge threw the entire O.C. District Attorney’s Office off the case and spared the perpetrator — who had already confessed — from the death penalty.

Sentencing was also delayed — for three, painful years for victims — while the court investigated police and prosecutor misconduct. But that’s not all.

Here’s a short list of some of the other consequences that have followed:

• The district attorney at the time was ousted from office in the next election. 
• The Department of Justice opened a civil rights investigation — which resulted, just this month, in a settlement. 
• Dozens of serious criminal convictions were lessened or overturned.  

Now, we’re awaiting a judge’s decision in one of the cases unraveled by the scandal — a decision that could raise fresh doubts about whether the O.C. justice system’s lauded reforms are sufficient to rectify past injustices.

What’s this pending case all about?

Specifically, San Diego Superior Court Judge Daniel Goldstein must decide whether O.C. law enforcement can be trusted to fairly retry a man, Paul Gentile Smith, accused of stabbing his childhood friend Robert Haugen to death in 1988 and then setting the body on fire in the victim’s Sunset Beach apartment. Or, whether prosecutors have cheated so badly that Smith should be allowed to go free.

Smith was convicted of murder in 2010. But after it came to light that jailhouse informants were illegally used in his case, a judge threw out the conviction in 2021 and ordered a new trial after sheriff's deputies refused to testify about their use of informants in the case.

Prosecutors have admitted they failed to turn over evidence that they are legally required to disclose to the defense. But they say there’s DNA evidence tying Smith to the murder, and that they won’t use any tainted evidence involving informants to try to convict Smith in the retrial.

“The victim's family and society deserve justice and the Defendant can and will receive a fair retrial,” Seton Hunt, the deputy district attorney prosecuting the case, wrote in a December court filing.

Orange County assistant public defender Scott Sanders — the one who originally uncovered the snitch scandal and is defending the accused — says prosecutors can’t be trusted to turn over all of the evidence that could help Smith prove his innocence. In court documents and at hearings over the past year, he identified dozens of pieces of evidence in the case that hadn’t previously been disclosed by prosecutors.

“They will never tell the truth,” Sanders said at a December hearing. He’s asking the judge to dismiss murder charges against Smith.

The judge has already indicated he believes prosecutors acted badly.

“At the very least, there was misconduct,” Goldstein said at a December hearing in the case. “There’s no way we’re all leaving here at the end of the day thinking there was not misconduct.”

What’s so bad about using informants?

It's not illegal for authorities to use confidential informants or “snitches” — in or out of custody — to collect information. But once someone has been charged with a crime, the Sixth Amendment guarantees them the right to have an attorney present during questioning by a law enforcement representative, including an informant secretly working for law enforcement.

This is sometimes called the "Massiah" rule after a Supreme Court case.

Prosecutors must also turn over evidence from, and about, jailhouse informants used in a defendant's criminal case because it could help the defendant question the informant's credibility. Failing to do so violates the 14th Amendment and related court decisions, which require prosecutors to share with defendants any evidence they have that could help them prove their innocence.

This is sometimes known as the "Brady" rule after another Supreme Court case.

The origin of the OC snitch scandal

More than a decade ago, Sanders, the assistant public defender, discovered that local law enforcement had been strategically putting informants in jail cells with certain defendants from whom they wanted to get information and/or confessions. For years, they hid the entire program. When questioned about the use of jailhouse informants during the Seal Beach salon mass shooting case, several sheriff’s deputies lied under oath or refused to testify.

A federal civil rights investigation followed and concluded in 2022 that O.C. law enforcement “systematically violated” criminal defendants’ constitutional rights. Since then, the scandal has unraveled dozens of criminal convictions, including 35 homicide cases.

District Attorney Todd Spitzer, who was elected in 2018 on a promise of reform, beefed up training for prosecutors and implemented strict rules for jailhouse informants, including requiring his consent before they’re used. The DA also started something called a Conviction Integrity Unit — people who think they were wrongly convicted can request that the DA reexamine their case.

Spitzer also later fired one of his top prosecutors, Ebrahim Baytieh, after an independent investigation found that Baytieh had withheld evidence about informants in the Sunset Beach murder case — the same case awaiting a retrial decision from Judge Goldstein.

Baytieh went on to win election to the O.C. Superior Court a few months later, with endorsements from dozens of current and former judges and law enforcement leaders.

About the DA’s Conviction Integrity Unit

The Conviction Integrity Unit investigates claims of factual innocence and wrongful convictions in Orange County. The bulk of the case reviews are initiated by the 12-person unit (half of them part-time).

The entity’s work resulted in the DA dropping charges in 67 cases where evidence was improperly handled by the O.C. Sheriff’s Department, according to Kimberly Edds, a spokesperson for the DA’s Office. That issue, in which some deputies were waiting weeks to book evidence or not booking it at all, came to light in 2019.

Individuals can also request to have their case reviewed. If the Conviction Integrity Unit decides the application has merit, they’ll open an investigation. If the DA determines, based on that investigation, that they’ve lost confidence that a person was fairly and lawfully convicted, they’ll notify all parties and assist the defendant in reopening their case.

The Conviction Integrity Unit has received 296 applications for conviction review since it was established in 2020, according to Edds. She declined to say how many applications resulted in an investigation, saying the office doesn’t discuss investigations.

None of the applications for case review have resulted in the DA proposing a case be reopened, Edds told LAist.

In a statement to LAist, Spitzer wrote: “We are extremely proud that over the last few years and hundreds of case reviews by our Conviction Integrity Unit we have yet to discover a single instance when a convicted defendant was either wrongly convicted or was determined to have been factually innocent.”

So is the snitch scandal over?

Earlier this month, the Department of Justice announced it had reached settlement agreements with the O.C. District Attorney’s Office and Sheriff’s Department to remedy the injustices uncovered in the federal government’s investigation. The announcements came at the last minute — a few days later, Trump took office and froze the department’s civil rights division, which was in charge of the investigation.

In a news release announcing the settlement, Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke commended the DA’s reform efforts: “The District Attorney’s proactive efforts, together with today’s agreement, will not only protect the constitutional rights of individual defendants; they will also help restore the public’s confidence in the fundamental fairness of the criminal justice system in Orange County.”

Spitzer wrote in a statement: “I am incredibly proud of the work that we as a team have done over the last six years to implement the positive, sustained reforms necessary to prevent the sins of the past administration.”

The settlement stipulates that the DA will continue implementing reforms, including:

• Reviewing cases, through the Conviction Integrity Unit, where defendants’ constitutional rights may have been violated by the use of informants. 
• Carrying out a “comprehensive historical case review” of prior investigations to determine whether informants were misused and whether action is needed in those cases to remedy any constitutional violations. The review is supposed to encompass all jailhouse informant activity at O.C. jails based on DA and Sheriff’s records. 

Edds, the DA spokesperson, wrote in an email that the office is committed to a “comprehensive, coordinated review of past investigations and prosecutions that involved custodial informants.”

It’s unclear how many cases could be subject to the kind of historical review called for in the federal settlement, but Sanders, the assistant public defender, called the work “massive in scope.”

In an email to LAist following the settlement announcements, Orange County Public Defender Martin Schwarz emphasized the need for an historical case review.

“Only once those cases have been re-evaluated, and those individuals afforded the due process guaranteed to them by our constitution, can we ever truly move past this,” he wrote.

Why the defense still has questions

Sanders is skeptical whether the measures laid out in the settlement are enough to right the wrongs of the past.

For one thing, when the Department of Justice first released its findings on the snitch scandal three years ago, it recommended the county establish an independent body to review past prosecutions involving jailhouse informants. To date, that has not happened.

It's been years since efforts first began to unearth evidence that should have been disclosed to defendants — the snitch scandal broke in 2014; the Department of Justice began its investigation in 2016; and Spitzer took office, with new reforms, in 2019.

And yet, over the past year’s worth of hearings in the Sunset Beach murder case, Sanders, in court filings, said he uncovered 23 pieces of evidence related to the use of an informant that had never been turned over to the defense.

Sanders and Schwarz said it would take major funding to review all the cases in which official misconduct might have led to a wrongful conviction. Sanders said that funding would likely have to come from an outside source — the public defender’s budget, set by the county, is currently a little over half the DA’s budget.

“There’s a lot of work to be done and time is running,” Sanders said.

This story was originally published by The LA Local on Feb. 9, 2026.

Long-discussed improvement projects in and around Koreatown — some first proposed more than a decade ago — are beginning to take shape as L.A. moves closer to hosting the 2028 Summer Olympics.

Among them are the Olympic Gateway at Olympic Boulevard and Normandie Avenue, pedestrian improvements near the Koreatown Senior and Community Center and a stormwater capture project connected to MacArthur Park.

Koreatown Gateway

Picture a roughly 50-foot gateway structure with LED lighting at the intersection of Olympic Boulevard and Normandie Avenue.

Construction on the Olympic Gateway, a project first proposed in 2008, is expected to begin in the fall after years of delays tied largely to funding.

Steve Kang, president of the L.A. Board of Public Works, said the project has been divided into two phases to address rising material costs. The first part was authorized late last year, which included ordering materials to erect the gateway, Kang said.

“The second phase is when all the materials arrive and are assembled, will be to break ground and complete construction,” Kang said.

The city is aiming to break ground by early fall.

“What has been the biggest challenge is, because of the tariffs, steel prices have gone up significantly,” Kang said. “That is having some impact on the overall budget and that’s why we bifurcated the project into two phases so that we keep the project momentum going.”

The project’s cost has increased to nearly $6 million, and about $2.6 million has been raised so far. Kang said funding challenges were the primary reason the project stalled for years.

“The Korean American community and the Koreatown community have been advocating for a gateway similar to that of Chinatown and other ethnic communities for a long time,” he said.

He also cited complications tied to the site, including the proximity of an elementary school.

PUB Construction CEO Chris Yi, who’s overseeing the project, said he’s excited to finally have a landmark that represents the Korean community.

Pedestrian improvements near the Koreatown Senior and Community Center

At the same intersection, the city is moving forward with a pedestrian improvement project focused on the sidewalks surrounding Dawooljeong, a traditional Korean pavilion on the northeast corner of Olympic Boulevard and Normandie Avenue.

The L.A. City Public Works Commission recently selected the contractor for the project, which is expected to cost around $285,000.

The project will add two benches, two trash receptacles, four trees and five tree uplights, which are lights aimed up at a tree. Construction is expected to take about 180 days, with completion planned within the 2026 calendar year.

“It’s really going to beautify that corner of that intersection,” said Kang.

The area was prioritized in part because of the nearby senior center and frequent foot traffic by older residents. The city plans to coordinate construction to avoid disrupting the annual L.A. Korean Festival held each fall near Normandie Avenue.

MacArthur Park stormwater capture project

Artist’s rendering for the MacArthur Lake Stormwater Capture Project, slated to be completed before the 2028 Summer Olympics.

(

Rendering courtesy Studio-MLA

)

Put an asterisk next to this project, because even if it starts tomorrow, it will be cutting it close to the completion date.

This project would change the look of MacArthur Park Lake, and the construction would likely stretch over a roughly 2 1/2-year period.

The stormwater capture and treatment project is designed to divert and treat stormwater from a roughly 200-acre drainage area before it reaches Ballona Creek.

Stormwater will flow through a pretreatment system, before arriving at a treatment unit in MacArthur Park and either diverted into the park’s lake or returned to the storm drain system. The project is intended to reduce pollutant loads entering Ballona Creek and Santa Monica Bay and to offset potable water used to refill the lake. Funding for the project will come from a $20 million Measure W allocation, along with Proposition K, and the Stormwater Pollution Abatement (SPA) Fund, according to city reports.

The final cost for the project has not been nailed down, and the project is expected to take roughly 30 months, according to the city’s latest estimates. The goal was to have the project complete before the Olympics, Kang said, but that timeline now appears unlikely, as work is anticipated to begin this summer.

Construction will take place in the southern section of MacArthur Park and along portions of 7th Street, Lake Street, Grand View Street and an adjacent alley. A pathway and access ramp along 7th Street will be temporarily removed and rebuilt to allow maintenance access. Plans also include a new pedestrian bridge along the southern edge of the park.

A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked California from enforcing a new law that would have banned federal immigration agents from wearing masks during immigration sweeps.

U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder ruled that the state could not enforce the facial-covering provision of SB 627, the No Secret Police Act, while a legal challenge brought by the federal government moved forward. That lawsuit argued that SB 627 conflicted with federal authority and would improperly limit how federal agents could do their jobs.

The backstory

The law banning facial coverings took effect Jan. 1 and had already sparked confusion and backlash in Los Angeles after Los Angeles Police Department Chief Jim McDonnell said officers would not enforce the ban. McDonnell called the law bad policy and said enforcing it could put officers and the public at risk.

McDonnell’s statements drew sharp criticism from local elected officials, the authors of the laws, and immigration law attorneys and advocates.

The federal government sued California last year, arguing that SB 627 and a second law, SB 805, known as the No Vigilantes Act, unlawfully interfered with federal immigration enforcement. SB 627 sought, in part, to make it illegal for most officers, including federal agents, to conduct law enforcement operations while wearing masks. SB 805, in part, required agents to identify themselves.

About the ruling

Snyder ruled that the mask ban inconsistently applied to some law enforcement officers and not others, which is one of the reasons why the judge temporarily blocked it.

Federal attorneys had argued that agents should be allowed to wear masks for their safety against harassment and assault, such as doxxing. Snyder disagreed, writing that while federal agents and other public figures face security risks, masks were not essential for performing their duties.

“Security concerns exist for federal law enforcement officers with and without masks,” Snyder wrote. “If anything, the Court finds that the presence of masked and unidentifiable individuals, including law enforcement, is more likely to heighten the sense of insecurity for all.”

Reaction to the ruling

One of the law’s authors, Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, announced Monday afternoon that he would be introducing new legislation aimed at revising the original law to apply to state officers it previously exempted. He characterized the ruling as a win and vowed to continue efforts to unmask federal agents.

“Now that the Court has made clear that state officers must be included, I am immediately introducing new legislation to include state officers,” Wiener said in a prepared statement, adding: “We will unmask these thugs and hold them accountable. Full stop.”

What's next

Monday’s ruling still required enforcement of SB 627 and SB 805’s remaining provisions, including that officers identify themselves. It also protected the pathway for civilians to directly sue agents for misconduct.

This temporary order will remain in effect until the federal case is resolved. The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment. This story will update if it does.

A new report from L.A. County offers a closer look at the economic damage to the region caused by federal immigration enforcement — and at the neighborhoods most affected.

The analysis, compiled by the Los Angeles County Department of Economic Opportunity and Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation, identified the neighborhoods hardest hit by ICE, and found that they were more economically precarious.

Researchers determined that the most targeted ZIP code in the county is 91402, which spans Mission Hills, Panorama City and North Hills in the San Fernando Valley.

The report, which was commissioned by the county Board of Supervisors, also found that many small businesses county-wide have lost revenue and customers since ICE ramped up its presence in Los Angeles last year.

The Department of Homeland Security has detained more than 10,000 people in the L.A.-area since June, according to numbers released in December. Its aggressive deportation campaign has altered daily life in Los Angeles, where nearly one in five people is undocumented or lives with someone who is undocumented.

The report lays out the ripple effect of that campaign on communities, local businesses, and workers, and its uneven influence on the region as a whole.

Vulnerable neighborhoods

The survey created an index of most vulnerable areas.

(

Courtesy L.A. County Economic Development Corporation

)

The report lays out the economic consequences for communities repeatedly hit by ICE sweeps.

The Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation, a nonprofit research group, used census data and reports on detentions from the Los Angeles Rapid Response Network to assess how vulnerable each L.A. County ZIP code was to immigration enforcement.

Researchers looked at four other factors for each ZIP code: shares of foreign-born population from Latin America, renter households, Spanish-speaking households and non-citizen workforce.

The 10 most vulnerable ZIP codes, they determined, are primarily in working class, immigrant neighborhoods including Bell, Pico Rivera and Southeast L.A.

Researchers used employment data for the county and found that those ZIP codes were over-represented in industries, including manufacturing and retail, which have a significant number of undocumented workers. Businesses in these neighborhoods also tended to have fewer employees on average compared to the rest of the county, and employees were paid less.

"Taken together, these exhibits show that areas facing heightened immigration enforcement differ from the rest of Los Angeles County and appear more economically vulnerable," the report states.

Declined revenue, less foot traffic

Researchers also distributed a survey to small businesses county-wide to assess how federal immigration enforcement has affected the communities they operate in and their bottom lines since summer.

More than 200 small businesses responded. Most reported having fewer than 10 employees, and the majority were in industries like restaurants, retail, professional or personal services and manufacturing.

The majority of respondents — 82% — reported being negatively affected by federal immigration enforcement. Around half reported lost regular customers, less foot traffic or reduced daily sales. Around a quarter reported temporary closures due to concerns from community members.

Many surveyed business owners reported a climate of fear that has led people to stay home and avoid certain places altogether.

"Businesses reported that customers expressed fear about their location, that customers asked about safety in the neighborhood, and that customers avoided shopping or dining in their neighborhood," the report states.

Undocumented workers generate 17% of county's economic activity

No corner of Los Angeles is exempt to the ongoing immigration sweeps that have become a new reality for the region. Nearly 950,000 undocumented immigrants live in L.A. County, according to recent estimates. That's more than 9% of people in the county who lack legal status.

Undocumented workers also play a huge role in many of L.A.'s key industries. Recent research from the USC Equity Research Institute estimates that 37% of cleaning and maintenance workers and 25% of food preparation and service workers in L.A. County are undocumented.

The industry with the highest percentage of undocumented workers is construction, at 40%.

The county's undocumented population together generates just under $240 billion in economic output, according to the county's report. That's around 17% of the county's total economic activity.

The Los Angeles Unified School District rescheduled a Tuesday meeting where the board was expected to vote on layoffs as part of a larger plan to cut spending.

“The district has adjusted the date of the upcoming board meeting to ensure adequate time for preparation, public engagement, and responsible deliberation on items of significant impact and interest to our workforce and community,” an LAUSD spokesperson wrote in a statement to LAist.

They wrote the proposed reduction in force would be presented at a “future meeting.” Tuesday’s meeting is currently re-scheduled for Tuesday, Feb. 17.

In a Friday letter, the unions representing LAUSD teachers, support staff and principals asked the board to delay the RIF vote until there is more information available about state funding and the public has more time to understand the proposed cuts.

“The notion that these are dark times for education requiring harmful cuts when there are record high state revenues is fearmongering,” the union letter reads.

LAUSD's financial challenges

For the last two years, the district has relied on reserves to backfill a multi-billion-dollar deficit. That deficit comes enrollment has declined steeply but expenses have not. There are more than 40% fewer students compared to the early 2000s. At the same time, as costs have increased, the district has not closed schools or significantly reduced staff. LAUSD hired more staff to support students during the pandemic, and now the federal relief dollars that initially funded those positions are gone.

The layoff vote is part of a $1.4 billion “fiscal stabilization plan.” Reductions in force are proposed for several categories including “un-funded” positions, central office staff, and at schools that support higher needs students.

LAUSD must vote on the reduction in force before March 15, the deadline for California school districts to notify staff they may be laid off.

 “It is not a foregone conclusion that people will lose jobs,” said Superintendent Alberto Carvalho at a Jan. 20 board meeting. For example, he said staff may be reassigned to vacant positions or given the opportunity to transfer to another school.

Where are the plan details?

At that same meeting, several board members pressed LAUSD staff for more details.

“When are we going to know the central office reductions? When are we going to know how many of those [there] are?” Karla Griego, a board member who represents District 5, asked, adding: “In a couple of weeks, I hope.”

“No, sooner,” responded Saman Bravo-Karimi, LAUSD's chief financial officer. Bravo-Karimi said the board would be provided with the number of positions impacted and their job classifications.

LAist requested information about the proposed layoffs last week and was told by a district spokesperson that the information would not be available until the board materials were publicly posted.

California’s Brown Act requires public agencies, including school districts, to post information about their regular meetings, including a description of each matter to be discussed, at least 72 hours in advance. Some agencies opt to publish the information even earlier.

No materials related to the Feb. 10 meeting were posted by that 72-hour deadline, and the meeting was rescheduled Sunday.

LAist reached out to Scott Schmerelson, LAUSD board president, who represents District 3, to discuss the delayed meeting. As of Monday evening Schmerelson had not responded.

Weigh in on LAUSD’s planned layoffs

The next meeting where the board could vote on the layoff proposal is Tuesday, Feb. 17. The agenda for the meeting must be publicly posted by Saturday, Feb. 14 at 10 a.m.— 72 hours before the start of the meeting. Sign up to get the agendas emailed here.