Opinion: Maybe We Should Be Paying More Attention to Corrupt Practices by Traditional Prosecutors

David Greenwald asks the question "why is there a double standard for "tough on crime" prosecutors who violate the law and abuse their power?

Former San Bernardino DA, CDAA President and Board Member Michael Ramos was suspended by the bar this week for unethical practices

This week I want to share a thought-provoking opinion piece by David Greenwald, the Founder, Editor, and Executive Director of the Vanguard.

Background Information

Former San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael Ramos has agreed to a six-month suspension from the practice of law after admitting to grossly negligent misconduct in connection with the high-profile Colonies corruption case. The misconduct stems from the deletion of potentially critical evidence during civil litigation that followed the failed criminal prosecution.

The Office of Chief Trial Counsel (OCTC) of the State Bar of California announced this week that the State Bar Court approved a stipulation agreement with Ramos, who served as DA from 2002 to 2018. The agreement includes an admission of culpability for an act of moral turpitude, as well as violations of multiple ethical rules governing attorney conduct.

The misconduct centers on Ramos’s use of a campaign email account and personal cellphone to communicate about the Colonies investigation, and his subsequent deletion of relevant emails and text messages after litigation began in the federal civil case, Colonies Partners L.P. v. County of San Bernardino. Those deletions occurred even after formal discovery requests were made by opposing counsel.

The Colonies case, which once led to charges against multiple county officials and developers, ultimately collapsed in court, resulting in a multimillion-dollar civil judgment against the county. The fallout from the case—widely seen as politically motivated—has reverberated across San Bernardino County politics for years, and Ramos’s conduct in the case was a flashpoint for criticism.

The proposed discipline, pending approval by the California Supreme Court, includes a two-year stayed suspension, two years of probation, and a six-month actual suspension. Ramos is also required to complete the State Bar’s Ethics School, pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE), and pay $2,494 in disciplinary costs.

Opinion - So Why the Double Standard?

In recent years, progressive prosecutors have faced a relentless barrage of criticism. Every crime spike, every botched policy rollout, every perceived failure of decarceral reform has been seized upon—by media outlets, police unions, and political opponents—as proof that the entire progressive prosecutorial movement is a dangerous experiment gone wrong.

But where is the same level of scrutiny for the so-called “traditional” prosecutors?

When I recently wrote about Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig’s rightward shift, one critic responded: “Progressive policies are demonstrable failures. When will progressives swallow their pride and admit their ideas did not work, period?”

That sentiment is echoed often—and loudly.

Anne Marie Schubert, former Sacramento DA and a staunch opponent of reform prosecutors, commented, calling Reisig “a true leader in public safety,” praising his programs to divert people from incarceration and bemoaning state legislation she claimed made California less safe.

There is certainly a debate to be had about the successes and challenges of reform-minded prosecutors. But that’s not what this piece is about. This is about the glaring double standard—the selective outrage and media attention that plagues progressive prosecutors while traditional prosecutors, even those with egregious ethical violations, largely escape sustained scrutiny.

Consider Jeff Reisig himself. In the last two years, not one but two high-profile wrongful convictions have been overturned under his watch. The 2023 exoneration of Justin Gonzalez was followed more recently by another case last month involving Ajay Dev, unraveling in court.

Yet Reisig continues to enjoy a reputation as a moderate, reform-minded prosecutor—despite his office’s documented history of prosecutorial overreach. Had a progressive DA presided over multiple wrongful convictions, it would have been national news. Editorial boards would be calling for resignations. But with Reisig, the silence is telling.

And Reisig is far from alone.

In Alameda County, newly-appointed District Attorney Ursula Jones-Dickson was appointed on a promise to depoliticize the office. What she’s done instead is reinstate the death penalty in a county that overwhelmingly opposes it and under a statewide moratorium declared by Governor Newsom. She has withdrawn petitions for resentencing in capital cases that had been filed by her reform-minded predecessor, Pamela Price—drawing swift backlash from death penalty opponents and civil rights advocates.

It’s not just a policy reversal. Jones-Dickson’s actions have real human consequences, including potentially reinstating death sentences for individuals previously deemed eligible for reduced punishment under new laws and shifting public opinion. Her moves represent a stark betrayal of the voters who were told her administration would focus on balance, justice, and transparency.

And yet, where is the outrage?

Meanwhile, in San Francisco, District Attorney Brooke Jenkins—elected in a heated recall campaign against Chesa Boudin—has quietly been disciplined by the State Bar of California. Jenkins is now undergoing an ethics diversion program after multiple complaints involving her handling of confidential information, a highly unusual move for an elected DA. The State Bar rarely takes action against prosecutors at all, let alone sitting district attorneys. While technically not formal discipline, this outcome is significant—and damning.

The media, however, barely covered it. There were no breathless opinion pieces. No calls from police associations demanding accountability. No television pundits questioning whether her administration was a failure. Instead, Jenkins continues to enjoy mainstream support despite ethical lapses that would’ve obliterated the careers of reformers.

And then there’s Todd Spitzer.

The Orange County District Attorney has racked up an almost encyclopedic list of controversies—each one more serious than the last.

Spitzer was found to have violated the California Racial Justice Act after making a racially charged comment during a death penalty deliberation. He faces an ongoing civil trial stemming from allegations by former Senior Assistant DA Tracey Miller, who says she was retaliated against for refusing to protect a friend of Spitzer’s who was accused of sexual harassment. That same lawsuit accuses Spitzer of mishandling two murder cases, engaging in bias, and interfering in the decision-making process for personal and political reasons.

Add to that the informant scandal that rocked Orange County, where prosecutors were accused of secretly using jailhouse informants in violation of defendants’ constitutional rights. Or the coercive DNA collection program. Or the ongoing litigation over racial bias in his charging decisions—lawsuits backed by data showing Spitzer’s office disproportionately targets Black and Latino defendants with sentencing enhancements.

Civil rights groups have called for his resignation. His own staff has described chaos and retaliation. And still, Spitzer remains in office, his political viability largely untouched.

But perhaps the most symbolic example of the lack of accountability for traditional prosecutors is Michael Ramos, the former San Bernardino County DA.

Ramos was, for years, a poster child for the tough-on-crime establishment in California. He led high-profile prosecutions and positioned himself as a crusader against corruption. And yet, this week, Ramos was suspended from the practice of law for six months after admitting to gross negligence. The misconduct stemmed from his handling of the infamous Colonies corruption case, where he deleted potentially critical evidence—after litigation had already begun.

That’s not just an ethical lapse. It’s a betrayal of basic prosecutorial responsibility.

It is hard to imagine a clearer act of misconduct. And yet, like the others, Ramos’ fall from grace barely registered in the broader media discourse.

So why the double standard?

Part of it is ideological. Progressive prosecutors are seen as disruptive. They challenge deeply entrenched norms of policing, punishment, and carceral thinking. That makes them easy targets for critics who equate decarceration with lawlessness and restorative justice with weakness. Meanwhile, traditional prosecutors—many of whom tout a “balanced” approach—are presumed competent by default, even when their records tell a different story.

Part of it is inertia. The media narrative around criminal justice reform has often focused on isolated failures rather than systemic inequities. It’s easier to report on a high-profile theft or an outlier tragedy than to dig into multi-year misconduct allegations or racial disparities buried in public records.

But we can’t let that continue.

We need to be just as aggressive in holding traditional prosecutors accountable as we are with reformers. That means demanding transparency, investigating misconduct, and following up on wrongful convictions—even when they don’t fit an easy narrative.

Because when prosecutors abuse their power—whether they wear the label “progressive” or “tough-on-crime”—the people who suffer most are those already marginalized by the system.

And that’s not justice. That’s corruption.

It’s time we paid attention.

******

David Greenwald founded the Vanguard in 2006 under the name the Davis Vanguard. He moved to Davis in 1996 to attend graduate school at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and their three children.

The Vanguard is a community-based watchdog and news reporting organization that seeks to cover community debates and other events in a full and thorough manner. It is committed to transparent journalism, driving reform, amplifying voices, and exposing systemic injustices, particularly those affecting marginalized communities. Its goals are to provide transparency, accountability and fairness to local government, while promoting social justice and democracy, and adhering to principles of accuracy and fairness in reporting. It depends on contributions. You can donate to this worthy non-profit organization here.