OC Judge Reassigns Case Involving Doctor and Girlfriend

August 20, 2020 Updated: August 20, 2020

SANTA ANA, Calif. (CNS)—An Orange County Superior Court judge on Aug. 20 handed off the prosecution of a Newport Beach, California, doctor and his girlfriend, who are charged with drugging and raping several women, to the Attorney General’s Office.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Gregory Jones recused the office of Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer, who had no objection to his prosecutors being removed from the case against Dr. Grant Robicheaux and Cerissa Laura Riley.

“I am confident that the state’s Attorney General’s office will resolve this case in a fair and just manner,” Spitzer said in a statement released after Jones’ ruling was handed down.

“This is a very good day for victims’ rights,” said attorney Matt Murphy, who represents four alleged victims in the case.

Mike Fell, an attorney for another alleged victim, said, “The victims are very pleased this case will be going forward and feel comfortable that a prosecutorial agency has finally been elected in order that they may obtain justice.”

Jones sparred with defense attorney Philip Cohen over case law on recusal of prosecutors. Cohen argued that Jones could not legally disqualify Spitzer’s office and that only the defense could request a recusal.

Jones, however, said he had judicial discretion to remove Spitzer’s office from the case.

“How is this any different than someone in the District Attorney’s Office referring the case to another deputy in the District Attorney’s Office?” Jones asked Cohen.

Jones said the District Attorney’s motion to dismiss the case has been denied, so “that  means the case is going to proceed. What difference does it make” who prosecutes it.

Cohen argued that “prosecutorial shopping” is “not appropriate,” according to the law.

“Let’s be candid,” Cohen said. “What the conflict is in this case is the District Attorney’s Office has said we ethically cannot proceed on this case.”

The “reason the conflict has arisen is because of this court’s action to deny the motion to dismiss and now they are in a position that if they go forward, they’re breaching their ethical obligation,” he said.

Jones countered that Cohen was arguing the wrong law. He pointed to another law that he said shows “it is my obligation to guarantee the integrity of the process.”

Cohen replied that the law Jones was citing is “an amorphous section that says the court can do whatever it wants.”

Jones said, “this can go on and on,” and invited Cohen to appeal his ruling.

The judge cited what he believed were inconsistencies in Spitzer’s public comments about the case when the DA said he ordered a review of his office’s prosecution. Jones also noted that the prosecutors assigned to the case after Spitzer was elected never met with any of the victims to discuss the allegations.

The judge added, “The victims were not contacted prior to the press conference indicating that the case would be dismissed” in February.

“All of the senior deputies in his office agree it should be dismissed, which leaves one to wonder who in the office would be left to prosecute the matter,” Jones said.

The judge said any prosecutor in Spitzer’s office who won the case would be in a position of making his boss look “foolish” for saying the case could not be prosecuted. And any prosecutor who did not “vigorously” pursue guilty pleas would leave themselves open to discipline from the State Bar, Jones said.

“I have serious questions about the District Attorney’s ability to prosecute this case at this point. I think they are hopelessly conflicted,” Jones said.

“Accordingly, I am going to order they be disqualified … and I am going to order the case referred to the Attorney General’s Office.”

Cohen complained again about how Spitzer’s predecessor, Tony Rackauckas, who filed the charges, said at a news conference that there were potentially thousands of victims and there was proof of it on video. The defense attorney said everyone agreed there is no such proof on the video seized by investigators.

“Mr. Rackauckas is not the district attorney on this case at this point,” Jones replied.

When Cohen tried to interject again, Jones said, “Stop. The issue here is who can proceed with the prosecution? We’re not going to talk about [Rackauckas]. It has no relevance.”

Jones scheduled a hearing for Aug. 27 to discuss transferring the case to the Attorney General’s Office.

Spitzer’s prosecutors in February attempted to have the case dismissed because they argued they did not have enough evidence to prove their case.

However, Jones rejected that motion in June. The defense team has a pending appeal with another Orange County Superior Court judge on Jones’ ruling to refuse to dismiss the case.

A defense motion to recuse Jones failed when a Los Angeles Superior Court judge rejected it.

Jones’ “intention and design is clear—because it disagrees with the unanimous conclusion of District Attorney Todd Spitzer; his supervisory lieutenants; and the career sex prosecutors who are assigned to this case … regarding the strength of the evidence, the court is set on recusing the Orange County District Attorney’s Office in hopes that the Attorney General’s Office, or some other prosecutorial agency, will see this case differently,” the attorneys argued in a motion filed last week.

“Despite the court’s plain desire, it simply does not have the legal authority to recuse the District Attorney’s Office under these circumstances,” the attorneys argued.

The defense attorneys further argued, “The only circumstance under which a district attorney can be recused is where there has been shown an actual likelihood of unfairness to the defense. Here, of course, there is no unfairness to the defense by Mr. Spitzer’s continued participation as prosecutor.

“Indeed, the unfairness that the defendants have suffered, and continue to suffer, in this case has been in spite of Spitzer’s efforts, not because of them.”

The defense attorneys in the past have indicated they might file a motion to dismiss the case due to outrageous governmental misconduct, owing to complaints with how Rackauckas handled the case.

Victims’ advocate attorney Murphy has alleged that the defense attorneys have been colluding with Spitzer to dump the case and argued for a recusal of Spitzer’s office from the case.

Charges were initially filed against Robicheaux and Riley in September 2018. At the time, the two were characterized by the prosecution as alleged sexual predators who used their good looks to lure unsuspecting women before drugging and raping the victims in the doctor’s Newport Beach home.