California Parole Agent Joshua Byrd was brutally shot and murdered in an apparent ambush attack by a parolee outside of the CDCR Parole office on July 17, 2025. Our community is reeling in shock and disbelief, and mourning for Agent Byrd’s family and friends.
In the midst of this tragedy, the new law-and-order District Attorney, appointed by the Board of Supervisors in January 2025, chose to place petty politics and posturing over truth and transparency. Predictably, in an effort to bolster her own credibility, she blamed Agent Byrd’s murder on a policy adopted in our office in April 2023 known as Special Directive 23-01.
Special Directive 23-01 applied a new standard of accountability for certain felony cases involving serious injury or harm to a victim. It did not apply to misdemeanors which comprise approximately 66% of all cases processed in the DA’s office. It did not ban the use of all sentencing enhancements. It did require charging deputies to discuss the use of an enhancement in a serious felony case with their supervisor. It did require charging deputies to document that they did have the discussion with their supervisor, and the supervisor approved the enhancement charge.
If the supervisor approved the charging of an enhancement, they were required to pass the request up the chain of command, through their supervisor to the Assistant Chief Deputy District Attorney and up to the District Attorney. If all of the lawyers agreed an enhancement was appropriate based on the facts and circumstances of that case, and in compliance with the Racial Justice Act, the enhancement was approved.
For gun cases, there was a special rule under Special Directive 23-01 that allowed the initial charging deputy to add a particular enhancement if he or she felt it was appropriate, and seek supervisory approval within a short period of time after that. Additionally, there were so many backlogged felony cases still pending from the COVID pandemic, supervisors were asked to review the cases and identify pending cases with enhancements that would require approval before proceeding to trial or plea negotiations. I note that many times during my tenure, prosecutors continued to pursue enhancements without following the procedure.
Bryan Keith Hall is accused of murdering Agent Byrd. He was arrested and charged in 2022 with attempted murder for stabbing a stranger in the neck. In January 2025, Mr. Hall accepted a plea bargain and pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of assault with a deadly weapon. Mr. Hall’s crime and the filing of charges which included a weapons enhancement took place before I was in the office and his negotiated plea deal was made after I left office.
Ninety-eight percent (98%) of all criminal cases are resolved through plea bargains. The criminal justice system could not function without plea bargains. In the Hall case, a young Deputy District Attorney (DDA), Raul Jacobson, the son of Alameda County Superior Court Judge Morris Jacobson, negotiated the plea bargain in the normal course of business. If DDA Jacobson wanted to include an enhancement in Mr. Hall’s sentence, he could have easily requested approval to do so.
In the DA’s office, there is a digital record which will show (a) whether DDA Jacobson sought approval for any enhancements; (b) if so, what was his reason; (c) whether his request was granted or denied; and (d) the reasons for the decision.
In addition to the Special Directive that we created to foster prosecutorial accountability and fairness in charging and sentencing, there are two other actors in every plea bargain: (1) the defense attorney and (2) the judge. The DA alone does not determine anyone’s sentence. The accused person’s lawyer has a say in negotiating the terms of a plea bargain. Every plea bargain must also be approved and accepted by the Court. If the Court did not believe Mr. Hall’s plea bargain was fair and just, it could and likely would have rejected the deal.
Due to the long delays in processing cases like these in the Alameda County Superior Courts, Mr. Hall had already served the maximum time of his agreed-upon sentence and he was released directly to parole.
DA Ursula Jones Dickson’s effort to lay blame for Mr. Hall’s release on the Special Directive is disingenuous and places politics above public safety. She has the duty and the opportunity to address the public’s concerns about DDA Jacobson’s decision if she so chooses to do so. She owes the public and Agent Byrd’s family a truthful explanation. It is time to stop misleading the community, take responsibility, and publicly address how and why this decision was made.
Finger-pointing and spin will not bring back Agent Joshua Byrd, but truth and transparency are the bare minimum his family—and Oakland—deserve.
