By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
An appellate court this week ruled in favor of the respondents, Tianna Arata, et al, college protesters who face criminal charges for marching through the City of San Luis Obispo following the murder of George Floyd, Jr., in 2020. The court at the time took the unusual step of granting a motion to recuse District Attorney Dan Dow’s office from the case because of Dow’s well-publicized association with critics of the Black Lives Matter movement.
As the trial court stated: “[N]o defendant is entitled to a prosecutor to which they are politically or socially or ideologically aligned.”
“The men and woman charged here,” however, “are entitled to a prosecution not clouded by political or personal advantage to the prosecutor.”
The appellate court this week ruled “substantial evidence supported the trial court’s determination that Dow and his office were not likely to treat respondents fairly.” The court then affirmed the order granting the motion to recuse.
The protests in San Luis Obispo were one of many to take place throughout the country. The protest was organized by local college students in the wake of the murder of George Floyd at the hands of Derek Chauvin of the Minneapolis Police Department.
In San Luis Obispo, “Images of marchers surrounding cars on Highway 101 appeared in national media outlets. Serious injury was narrowly avoided on at least two occasions when motorists attempted to drive around them.”
Prosecutors describe Tianna Arata as the “marchers’ de facto leader” and she faced 13 misdemeanor 
counts of false imprisonment, obstruction of a thoroughfare, unlawful assembly, and disturbing the peace.
Arata moved to disqualify the entire District Attorney’s Office from prosecuting her case. The other respondents joined the motion.
The motion described DA Dow as “aligned with right-wing conservative political organizations and fundamentalist religious groups that seek to vilify the Black Lives Matter [BLM] movement.”
In addition, they “argued Dow’s antipathy toward BLM-inspired protests slanted his office’s investigation and motivated him to file charges against Arata and her codefendants.”
The trial court granted the motion and directed the Attorney General to represent the People going forward.
The trial court described four key pieces of evidence.
First, “August 11, 2020 – Mr. Dow appeared on Washington Watch with Tony Perkins. Mr. Perkins of the Family Research Council has described the Black Lives Matter movement as a ‘Marxist’ group who promote ‘cop killings, prostitution, anti-Semitism, anarchy, and the suppression of speech and religion.’”
Second, “September 4, 2020 – Mr. Dow explained his charging decision in the ‘Protect Paso’ Facebook group. Documents attached showed animosity to the Black Lives Matter group – their Constitutional right. These claim that the BLM movement is ‘domestic terrorism;’ ‘down right evil, no brains or souls,’ and posted pictures of a BLM billboard burning in flames. Members of the group have discussed their skills as hunters and claim they will use these skills to protect Dan Dow, and ‘protect our own.’”
Third, “September 4, 2020 – Mr. and Mrs. Dow sent out a campaign fundraising request via email on his birthday. This email sought financial campaign contributions and stated, ‘Dan needs to know more than ever that you support him, and he really needs your financial support so he can keep leading the fight in SLO County against the wacky defund the police movement and anarchist groups that are trying to undermine the rule of law and public safety in our community.’
“‘We had planned his kickoff re-election campaign fundraiser to be this month, but due to COVID and all the crazy protest activity, we were not able to pull it off.’ The fundraiser continues, ‘You can send Dan a Happy Birthday message in the comments section when you make a generous financial contribution TODAY to his campaign for reelection.’ ‘Your support will help to ensure that Dan will continue in spite of the ‘defund police’ and George Soros type of opposition happening against DA’s all over the state and nation.’ The exhibit shows that this was ‘Paid for by Dan Dow for District Attorney 2022 FPPC ID #1361413.’”
Fourth, “October 11, 2020, Mr. Dow appears alongside Candace Owens and spoke at a fundraiser for the ‘New California,’ a secessionist organization. At the event, Ms. Owens called BLM ‘one of the most racist movements that ever existed in this country.’ When questioned, Mr. Dow wrote a letter to the Tribune advising, ‘Candace Owens is a bright and intelligent, fearless woman and a role model for young women everywhere.’ Mr. Dow has been quoted as stating that ‘She speaks the truth.’”
Victory for people that seek to fight blatant racism and justice for all!
So the case will go forward with the California AG Bonta? Can the AG be considered unbiased when it comes to BLM and this case? Has the AG endorsed or advocated for BLM in the past?
Bonta doesn’t prosecute cases, they have Deputy AG’s who do that. The AG’s office actually fought the decision by the lower court judge.
What happened to that guy who threw a rock through the back window of a car whose driver was trying to escape, while another guy blocked his path?
I guess we’re supposed to read this article and say, “yay”?
Personally, I prefer the racist banners over Highway 113, to this. At least those can be ignored, and they’re not taking the law into their own hands, in regard to preventing escape and “punishing” those who try as they see fit. Or should I say, breaking the law – and attacking others.
When (exactly) did all of this become “o.k.”? Not to mention “celebrated” on a blog?
Not to mention the driver who was trying to get a pregnant woman to the hospital while being blocked by the protesters:
I wasn’t aware of the charges against Arata, but it sounds like the only thing that’s happened (in reference to the Vanguard article) is that the local DA won’t be prosecuting it.
I guess it remains to be seen, whether or not our attorney general’s office will. Personally, I am not confident in that office. (Also, that office might already be “too busy” in regard to their own war on California’s cities – in reference to the state’s attempt to force them to grow.)
I also recall an incident related to these types of protests, in which a big rig truck driver did not realize that protesters were blocking a freeway down the road, and was not able to stop in a manner that “pleased” the protesters. I recall that he was then assaulted, after stopping.
In another similar incident, two protesters were killed in Seattle (ironically, both of them “white”) by a black motorist.
Hopefully, the time of shutting down freeways is past (for now, at least). It’s extremely dangerous.
I think you’re right Ron, in my opinion this will quietly get swept under the rug. After all it’s not like they were semi fascist MAGA Republicans.
Why wouldn’t it be? It’s misdemeanor charges, two years old, no one is custody, what’s the overriding necessity to continue prosecuting this at this point?
David: The same reason that any crime is prosecuted. (As a side note, I never even heard of “Arata” before reading this article, and the one that Keith posted.) But, I do recall the dangerous, illegal freeway shutdown, the blocking of an escape route, and the guy smashing the car window. The same type of thing that occurred across the country (or worse).
The two-year delay appears to be directly related to the legal maneuverings initiated by the defense in the first place. As such, you can’t then point to that delay as a “reason” to not prosecute. (That argument makes no sense.)
My guess (hope I’m wrong) is that the attorney general won’t prosecute this case due to his own political views (which are probably closely aligned with the protesters).
Were the charges originally felonies? (Just asking, don’t know.)
Geez, couldn’t the same be said for many of the Jan. 6 protesters too? If a crime was committed why shouldn’t it be prosecuted.
Do you really believe it is worth government resources to prosecute every single “crime”? There is a reason why prosecutors have discretion on what and whether to charge as a crimes, and which cases to prosecute.
So David, are you saying that prosecutors should back off the Jan.6 protesters too?
I don’t see the two situations are comparable.
Who is paying for the defense, in this case? Is it BLM, itself?
Can’t imagine that they’re just using the public defender.
Those of you who don’t believe the AG’s office will pursue this should recognize that at this point they continue to fight hard to restore the DA’s office to prosecute the case. Their actions don’t square with the notion that they aren’t going to pursue this.
(Also note that at the top of the article is an interview with the attorneys)
Thanks for clarifying this. Perhaps the attorney general’s office would rather not deal with it, themselves?
Every once in a while, that office does surprise me (e.g., like the time that they took action to actually overturn an approval for a housing development in a nearby high-risk fire zone):
https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-secures-court-decision-vacating-approval-lake-county
As far as Arata is concerned, seems to me that the decision to pursue charges should be based upon crimes she allegedly committed, and the strength of the evidence. Based upon the article that Keith posted, it seems significant enough to pursue.
Again, I ask – who is paying for the defense in this case?
Five comment rule is in effect.