D.A.’s Routine Takes a Twist

The Times recently reported the case of a 27-year-old man suspected of shooting a stranded motorist in the back. One witness said he saw the suspect fleeing, another picked the suspect from police photographs and a third retracted her statement. The suspect had been described by criminal justice officials as a “community terrorist”; a “ticking time bomb” bound to kill or seriously injure someone; someone with “little self-control and a penchant for violence.” Previously, in another case, he had been booked for assault with a deadly weapon and was allowed to plead guilty to misdemeanor gun possession.

So, why was he permitted to plead guilty to simple gun possession in the shooting of the stranded motorist? Why did he receive just four days in jail and probation?

The suspect is Brian Patrick Ballou, whose father, a retired lawyer, has friends in high places. Los Angeles County Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke made a telephone call about Ballou’s case to Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti. The matter was dealt with at unusually high levels in Garcetti’s office; the original prosecutor’s recommendation to file a felony charge of assault with a firearm was overruled.

Ballou’s lawyers deny that he shot anyone. Burke and Garcetti say there was no undue influence exercised in the Ballou case.

Does a day go past in which power and influence are not wielded, for good or ill, in Los Angeles County? Of course not: That’s political reality. But when it comes to a criminal case, the public’s safety is at stake. Clearly, this case was not handled routinely. The community has a right to know why.