After Jesse James Hollywood’s hearing last Thursday in Santa Barbara, I had the opportunity to speak with one of the spectators, Ed Perez, visiting professor with the University of La Verne College of Law. In speaking with Mr. Perez, he indicated he was quite offended by what has taken place with the Hollywood case, so much so that he has organized a legal symposium regarding the professional responsibility aspects of prosecutors in the Hollywood case.
Visiting law professor Ed Perez contemplates his next move outside of court.
Mr. Perez is a former prosecutor himself, having spent thirty-one years working the trenches of the Los Angeles City Attorney’s office, both on the civil and criminal sides of the law. He was a legal advisor to four Los Angeles mayors, four city attorneys, and scores of city counsel members. He’s also argued before the United States Supreme Court and considers himself familiar with Supreme Court opinions.
He now teaches criminal law and criminal procedure at the law school. He also preaches professional responsibility, which he claims a special interest in, along with state and local government law, administrative law, legal analysis and writing, among other things. In a fascinating interview, the former prosecutor tells us how he came to be involved in the Hollywood case, what he sees as the problems inherent therein, and what he’s trying to do about it.
Q: How did you first become involved with the Jesse James Hollywood case?
A: What I decided to do was take my students to hear an oral argument before the California Supreme Court. Just so happens that the Jesse James Hollywood case was on the docket. I listened to the arguments and I found it fascinating.
Q: So it was just a stroke of dumb luck that you happened to be there while they were arguing the Jesse James Hollywood case?
A: Absolutely. I had no idea. I hadn’t seen the movie (Alpha Dog), didn’t know anything about the case until I was there with about forty of my students. And the students really loved the real oral argument, not a classroom oral argument. It was fantastic.
Q: Now you’ve spun off and become involved in the real issues with the Hollywood case?
A: Well, yes. Being a former prosecutor, I was personally offended by the facts of the case – where you can see a district attorney open up his files, give it to the media in advance of a trial. Obviously it has some prejudicial effect on the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
Q: But Hollywood had been missing for over three years. He was gone. In essence the prosecution believed he’d never be found, and wanted to use the book (Stolen Boy) and film (Alpha Dog) as a sort of global wanted poster to find the FBI’s Most Wanted man. Doesn’t that make a difference?
A: I don’t think so… Especially since the movie and book were fiction. How anyone could associate that with a real live case, how anyone in Brazil might see this movie and assist Interpol or the FBI in locating Jesse James Hollywood – I just don’t see that as a viable reason for it. So I disagree.
Q: So why did you think this prosecutorial conduct was so improper?
A: Well, like I said, having been a former prosecutor, I know the duties and obligations of a prosecutor. A prosecutor is not there for convictions. The prosecutor is there to see justice is served. Justice is not served when you have a district attorney turning over his files, become a consultant on a movie, give confidential information out to the media. To me that’s not justice, and that’s prejudicial. I personally got interested in the case and decided to hold a symposium to discuss prosecutorial misconduct and the appearance of impropriety.
[...] Discussion with law professor Ed Perez of the University of La VerneAfter Jesse James Hollywood’s hearing last Thursday in Santa Barbara, I had the opportunity to speak with one of the spectators, Ed Perez, visiting professor with the University of La Verne College of Law. [...]