Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
(SBN 170409)
Law Office of James S. Terrell
15411 Anacapa Road
Victorville, CA 92392
Tel.: (760) 951-5850 Fax: (760) 952-1085
Email: jim@talktoterrell.com
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1
MOTION TO RECUSE
LAW OFFICES OF JAMES S. TERRELL
15411 Anacapa Road, Victorville, CA 92392
(760) 951-5850
talktoterrell.com
Dated: 06/16/2015
Respectfully Submitted:
Dated: 06/16/2015
I.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On April 9, 2015, an NBC News Channel helicopter was able to document, through aerial
video footage ten (10) San Bernardino County Sheriffs Deputies, including a Seargent and a
Detective brutally beating FRANCIS PUSOK. The beating occurred after Mr. Pusok was restrained
and had submitted to the deputies. The unjustified violence and extreme force of this incident
shocked and captured the Nations interest.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2
MOTION TO RECUSE
LAW OFFICES OF JAMES S. TERRELL
15411 Anacapa Road, Victorville, CA 92392
(760) 951-5850
talktoterrell.com
The story of the beating was featured on CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, and virtually
every local news channel. The incident was written about in The Los Angeles Time, The Wall Street
Journal, and other reputable newspapers.
Mr. Pusoks family, including his long-term significant other/girlfriend spoke out in anguish,
outrage, and emotional pain after watching television coverage of the April 9, 2015 beating of their
family member.
Sheriff John McMahon was quick to address this matter in a press conference on April 10,
2015. Sheriff McMahon reported that he had launched an investigation into the beating of Mr.
Pusok. Sheriff McMahon further stated, during this news conference, that 10 deputies had been
placed on administrative leave pending an internal investigation into the beating. Sheriff McMahon
further stated that the beating appeared to be excessive.
Presuming that such an investigation does occur based upon Sheriff McMahons assertions
on April 10, 2015, it is not unreasonable to expect that such an investigation will result in finding of
police misconduct to include the commission of several criminal acts such as assault, battery, and
other felony charges. Such a finding would then lead to disciplinary action, which should include
the filing of criminal charges against the individual deputies. If it is not the policy of Sheriff
McMahon and his department to use excessive force and beat citizens who have been restrained or
who have submitted to law enforcement, then Sheriff McMahon will support and do everything
within his power to insure that criminal charges are indeed filed and pursued by the District
Attorneys office.
///
///
///
However, it is of grave concern and obvious conflict of interest in that District Attorney
Ramos has aligned himself with Sheriff McMahon as a member of his team and partner. District
Attorney Ramos made this statement, along with other statements on December 3, 2014. This
interview was very insightful for several reasons. First, the District Attorney stated that he is a
partner with Sheriff McMahon.
Presently, Sheriff McMahon and his deputies are involved in this matter as an investigation is
underway regarding the ten deputies involved in the April 9, 2015 incident. The fact that District
Attorney Ramos considers Sheriff McMahon his partner is of concern and gives the appearance of
a direct conflict. A partner supports his/her partner. A partner will defend, justify, and protect the
other partner so as to preserve the partnership. This type of partnership, as self-proclaimed by
District Attorney Ramos, means that District Attorney Ramos and his department cannot be the
entity that prosecutes Francis Pusok and Jolene Bindner.
II.
ARGUMENT
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3
MOTION TO RECUSE
LAW OFFICES OF JAMES S. TERRELL
15411 Anacapa Road, Victorville, CA 92392
(760) 951-5850
talktoterrell.com
disqualification of the entire public law office is required. In arriving at that holding, the court relied
upon People v. Lepe (1985) 164 Cal. App. 3d 685, in which the district attorney had represented the
defendant in prior cases. The court of appeal upheld the trial court's vicarious disqualification of the
entire office. Likewise, the court relied on Younger, and further articulated that the district attorney's
residual power over the office ensured that measures short of disqualification would not suffice: "As
the deputies are hired by [the head district attorney], evaluated by [him], promoted by [him] and
fired by [him], we cannot say the office can be sanitized such to assume the deputy who prosecutes
the case will not be influenced by the considerations that bar [the head district attorney] himself from
participation in the case." Lepe, supra, 164 Cal. App. 3d at 689. The court also recognized that it is
more difficult to obtain a disqualification in criminal cases than in civil, but indicated that the
distinction merely strengthened the courts holding insofar as [t}he willingness of courts to
vicariously disqualify an entire office when a higher-up or the head of the office is involved, even in
the criminal context, suggests that where the head of the office has a conflict in the civil context,
vicarious disqualification must follow. Cobra Solutions, Inc., supra, 119 Cal App 4th at
319.
In light of the legal authorities cited above, defense counsel believes that recusal of the entire
office is necessary to safeguard the public confidence and ensure a fair trial.
III.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the defendant respectfully asks this court to order that Mr. Ramos
and the San Bernardino County District Attorneys office be recused and that the Attorney General
be contacted to determine whether they will proceed as the prosecutorial agency.
Respectfully Submitted:
Dated: 06/16/2015
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5
MOTION TO RECUSE
LAW OFFICES OF JAMES S. TERRELL
15411 Anacapa Road, Victorville, CA 92392
(760) 951-5850
talktoterrell.com
Respectfully Submitted:
Dated: 06/16/2015
Declaration of Counsel
We, JAMES S. TERRELL and SHARON J. BRUNNER, declare as follows:
1. We are attorneys licensed to practice in the State of California and we are attorneys of
record for defendants herein.
2. We have investigated the facts and statements set forth in this case and in the present
motion.
We declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, except as to
matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, we believe them to be true.
Respectfully Submitted:
Dated: 06/16/2015
Respectfully Submitted:
Dated: 06/16/2015
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6
MOTION TO RECUSE
LAW OFFICES OF JAMES S. TERRELL
15411 Anacapa Road, Victorville, CA 92392
(760) 951-5850
talktoterrell.com
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7
MOTION TO RECUSE
LAW OFFICES OF JAMES S. TERRELL
15411 Anacapa Road, Victorville, CA 92392
(760) 951-5850
talktoterrell.com