- “The California Racial Justice Act (RJA) was designed to give public defenders a legal mechanism to confront racial bias and inequity that is deeply rooted in our criminal legal system.” – Ricardo D. Garcia, Los Angeles County Public Defender
- “Prop. 36 is straining the demand for drug treatment that is sorely needed across California and it is also tremendously increasing incarceration costs, which takes away from local governments’ ability to get the residents access to what they need.” – Claire Simonich, associate director of Vera California
- “It’s incomprehensible that D.A. Hochman is once again pursuing the death penalty in Los Angeles, the county that has sent more people to California’s now-defunct death row than any other in the state.” – Mike Farrell, president of Death Penalty Focus
A new report from the ACLU of Southern California evaluates Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman’s first year in office, concluding that despite campaign promises to pursue a centrist “hard middle,” his policies reflect a return to punitive practices that expand incarceration and erode racial justice protections.
The 11-page report, titled Los Angeles Deserves Better, outlines five areas where community groups say Hochman’s decisions have deepened public concern rather than restored trust in the criminal legal system.
Hochman campaigned on rejecting both decarceration and mass incarceration approaches that, in his words, are not “anchored in the facts and the law.”
He also described his philosophy as a “hard middle” and sought to distance himself from partisan politics. The ACLU report states that while he took some steps such as allowing exonerations to move forward, these actions are exceptions rather than indicators of broad policy direction.
One of the sharpest criticisms centers on Hochman’s decision to reinstate the death penalty in Los Angeles County, a jurisdiction with a long history of racial disparities in capital sentencing. The report cites more than 200 people exonerated from death row nationwide since 1973 and argues that the same concerns that have long driven opposition to capital punishment remain unresolved. It highlights the cost, racial bias, failure to enhance safety and risk of error as reasons the county previously moved away from seeking death sentences.
Mike Farrell, president of Death Penalty Focus, sharply condemned Hochman’s decision.
“It’s incomprehensible that D.A. Hochman is once again pursuing the death penalty in Los Angeles, the county that has sent more people to California’s now-defunct death row than any other in the state,” Farrell said.
He added, “Given Mr. Hochman’s ‘hard right’ approach to criminal justice and his apparent lack of interest in meeting and discussing the issue, it’s clear our only alternative is to work around him in support of the coalition’s efforts to reform the criminal legal system in California.”
The report argues that Hochman’s support for the death penalty stands in stark contrast to statewide and national trends.
It notes that Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen, who is not aligned with progressive prosecutors, asked courts to resentence nearly everyone on death row from his county.
Rosen said he had “trusted that as a society, we could ensure the fundamental fairness of the legal process for all people. With every exoneration, with every story of racial injustice, it becomes clear to me that this is not the world we live in.”
Another major concern outlined in the report involves the California Racial Justice Act, a statewide law prohibiting the use of racially biased language, practices or patterns in criminal prosecution and sentencing.
Hochman publicly stated he would support the law and would “not tolerate racism,” but later filed an amicus brief arguing that prosecutors comparing defendants to “Bengal tigers” does not appeal to racial bias.
The report notes that the RJA’s legislative intent specifically cites that analogy as racially coded. It also underscores that the California Attorney General conceded that Bengal tiger comparisons violate the Act.
Ricardo D. Garcia, Los Angeles County Public Defender, said, “The California Racial Justice Act (RJA) was designed to give public defenders a legal mechanism to confront racial bias and inequity that is deeply rooted in our criminal legal system.” He added, “If it costs too much to rid the system of racism, then the answer is not to slow down racial justice — it is to stop being racist.”
The ACLU report also points to Hochman’s reinstatement of sentencing and gang enhancements. It cites research showing enhancements disproportionately affect people of color and increase prison terms without improving community safety. The report connects their reinstatement to patterns of mass incarceration that California has attempted to unwind over the last decade.
The report criticizes Hochman for using what it describes as politically charged moments — including countywide protests and wildfire-related arrests — to showcase aggressive charging decisions. It documents cases in which individuals accused of low-level offenses faced potential decades-long sentences, while law enforcement officers accused of excessive force during protests faced no charges.
Francisco Villarruel, a UCLA graduate student, expressed concern about a return to earlier eras of punitive practices. “I grew up in Los Angeles during the 1990s, when California had many tough-on-crime policies and the largest prison population in the country,” he said. “Now, I’m watching L.A. County return to those backward days.”
The report cites Hochman’s continued support for Proposition 36 as another factor driving jail population increases and racial disparities. It notes that people charged under Prop. 36 are not consistently receiving treatment and that the measure has contributed to one of the deadliest years on record in L.A. County jails. It also reports that Black residents make up 28 percent of those incarcerated under Prop. 36 despite comprising only 8 percent of the county population.
Claire Simonich, associate director of Vera California, said, “Prop. 36 is straining the demand for drug treatment that is sorely needed across California and it is also tremendously increasing incarceration costs, which takes away from local governments’ ability to get the residents access to what they need.”
The report further critiques Hochman’s opposition to diversion programs and multiple bills designed to expand access to mental health treatment, victim protection and opportunities for record sealing.
One area of particular concern is AB 572, legislation created with families whose loved ones were killed or severely injured by law enforcement. Those families sought protections during interviews with investigators. According to the report, Hochman opposed the bill, arguing that the protections would make conversations “difficult” and “discourage communication.”
Deanna Sullivan, whose son David was killed by Buena Park police in 2019, said, “The opposition to AB 572 was frustrating, including D.A. Hochman’s office. Gaslighting and denial were their responses to Lexipol’s manipulative, coercive way of talking with families after a loved one has been killed or seriously injured by police.”
Advocates also described what they say is a pattern of hostile or dismissive interactions with Hochman or his office. Members of the Menendez family shared that the district attorney’s “hostile, dismissive, and patronizing tone created an intimidating and bullying atmosphere.” The report states that relatives later said they were denied access to victim services because they disagreed with Hochman’s position on resentencing.
Helen Eigenberg, an organizer with Hang Out Do Good, said her attempts to ask Hochman about youth prosecutions and conditions at Los Padrinos were met with interruptions and hostility. “It felt like he wasn’t interested in hearing from the community at all — only in shutting down the question,” she said.
The report concludes that, while Hochman has pledged to represent all Angelenos, his first year has left many community groups discouraged about their ability to work collaboratively with his office.
It argues that his policy choices, rhetoric and interactions with advocates fall short of what the county needs to build a fairer and more effective justice system.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
