Judge questions legality of U.S. attorney's request to strike jury's civil rights verdict
The federal judge who presided over the three-day trial ordered prosecutors to file a brief explaining the court's authority to strike portions of a jury verdict.
A federal judge in Los Angeles on Tuesday questioned the legality of the U.S. Department of Justice’s request to strike a jury’s felony civil rights verdict against a former sheriff’s deputy.
Prosecutors must explain the legality of their requested action by May 13 in a brief no longer than 15 pages, U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson said.
Wilson’s order follows a rare “post-trial” plea agreement that reduces former Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Deputy Trevor Kirk’s conviction to a misdemeanor and recommends he be sentenced to probation only.
Four prosecutors assigned to Kirk’s case did not sign the document, and three joined at least a dozen other colleagues who’ve submitted their resignations in the month since President Donald Trump appointed Bill Essayli as interim U.S. attorney for the Central District of California in Los Angeles.
A jury on Feb. 6 convicted Kirk of felony deprivation of rights under color of law for assaulting a woman outside a Southern California grocery store in 2023.
He faces up to 10 years in prison, but the agreement Essayli authorized last week says if he pleads guilty to misdemeanor deprivation of rights under color of law, the U.S. Attorney’s Office will “move to strike the jury’s finding” that he injured his victim, which made his crime a felony.
The misdemeanor carries a maximum of one year in custody, but Essayli and Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Keenan agreed to recommend only one year of probation. They also aren’t barring Kirk, who was fired in 2023, from working in law enforcement.
The agreement specifies that Wilson “may consider the stricken jury finding in determining the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range, the propriety and extent of any departure from that range, and the sentence to be imposed.” It does not explain why
Wilson’s six-sentence order on Tuesday states, “The Plea Agreement states that Plaintiff will move to strike the jurys finding as to Question two on the Verdict Form 51. The Court has questions as to its authority to grant such a motion.”
“Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file briefing regarding the Courts authority to grant a motion by the Government to strike portions of a jury verdict,” wrote Wilson, a 1985 Ronald Reagan appointee.
The agreement was filed last Thursday with only Essayli’s and Kennan’s names.
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Eli Alcaraz, Michael Morse, Brian Faerstein and Cassie Palmer, who is chief of the Public Corruption & Civil Rights Section, withdrew from the case on Friday. Alcaraz, Faerstein and Palmer also submitted their resignations from the DOJ completely.
Several other prosecutors in Santa Ana and Los Angeles have resigned in the last few weeks and are leaving soon or are going through the Trump administration’s “fork in the road” departure program, which allows employees to resign effective Sept. 30.
Nick Wilson, president of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Professional Association, said Essayli’s agreement with Kirk “sends a powerful message — not just in Trevor’s case, but to law enforcement officers across the state and nation who too often feel abandoned or politically targeted in today’s climate.”
Essayli, who resigned from the California State Assembly on April 1 to become L.A.’s top federal prosecutor, endorsed Wilson for the Assembly in 2024 and donated $2,500 to his election campaign.
Retired U.S. District Judge Andrew J. Guilford of the Central District of California told me Kirk’s post-trial plea deal tosses away “the hard work and cost of government attorneys and law enforcement doing all the investigation and legal work necessary to get a conviction while providing due process.”
“The sacredness of a unanimous jury verdict which required only 2 hours of deliberation is diminished. The Grand Jury is diminished. A statement against police violence is diminished. The important indicting power of a U.S. Attorney is made out to be a political act. Factually inconsistent and legally irrelevant statements from the government are likely,” said Guilford, a 2006 George W. Bush appointee who retired in 2020.
Guilford knows Alcaraz, the lead prosecutor on the case, because Alcaraz clerked for him in Santa Ana. Guilford is among 20 former U.S. district and circuit judges who recently announced the Article III Coalition “to defend the rule of law” and “protect the independence of the judiciary.”
The other coalition members are:
Judge Robert J. Cindrich – Formerly of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Judge Andre M. Davis – Formerly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland & U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Judge Jeremy D. Fogel – Formerly of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Judge Royal Furgeson, Jr. – Formerly of the U.S. District Courts for the Western District of Texas & Northern District of Texas
Judge Faith S. Hochberg – Formerly of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
Judge Richard J. Holwell – Formerly of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Judge John E. Jones III – Formerly of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
Judge George H. King – Formerly of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Judge Robert B. Kugler – Formerly of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey & the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
Judge Timothy K. Lewis – Formerly of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania & U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge Beverly B. Martin – Formerly of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia & U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Judge John S. Martin – Formerly of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Chief Judge Paul R. Michel – Formerly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Judge Liam O’Grady – Formerly of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia & the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
Judge Kathleen M. O’Malley – Formerly of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio & U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Judge Stephen M. Orlofsky – Formerly of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
Judge Philip M. Pro – Formerly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
Judge David S. Tatel – Formerly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Judge Paul J. Watford – Formerly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Court documents:
Jan. 29 prosecutors’ trial memorandum
March 17 prosecutors’ opposition
April 10 stipulation to continue sentencing
April 13 victim’s objection to sentencing delay
May 1 post-trial plea agreement
Previous articles:
Thank you for supporting my independent legal affairs journalism. Your paid subscriptions make my work possible. If you’re not already a paid subscriber, please consider purchasing a subscription through Substack. You also can support me through my merchandise store and by watching my YouTube channel. Thank you!
That LASD officer is right out of central casting. He looks like a creep. Judge Wilson is not going to roll over easily.