City Prosecutor Candidate Questionnaire: George Moyer

Tell us about your background and how it informs your decision to run for city prosecutor.

I was born and raised in Ann Arbor, Michigan. My parents instilled in me a love of humanity, and the importance of fighting for the dignity and liberation of all people. I spent a good chunk of my childhood standing up for bullied kids, and fighting against the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the Islamophobia that accompanied those actions.

I met my wife at Michigan State in student groups that were involved in organizing for workers’ rights and against the war in Iraq. We came to Long Beach in 2009. I attended Loyola Law School, I was drawn to their commitment to public service, trial advocacy, and social justice. I worked as a student lawyer in the Juvenile Justice Clinic representing children who were facing incarceration and separation from their families. It was challenging and rewarding work. I interned with the Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office and the Federal Public Defender, where I assisted in the appeal of death sentences.

After graduating law school, I joined The Kristy Law Firm, learning from an experienced civil litigator who fearlessly took on the most difficult cases against well-funded defendants.

I then joined the Los Angeles Public Defender’s Office. During a year practicing in the Long Beach courthouse, I tried eight jury trials against the City Prosecutor, winning all of them. That was part of what brought me to this campaign – the office was careless and sloppy when it came to filing cases, and its resistance to settling cases or finding alternative resolutions led to a lot of pointless and expensive trials that they had no hope of winning. We can achieve a higher quality of justice within the system, for all parties, without sacrificing public safety. 

After my time in Long Beach with the Public Defender’s Office, I transferred to the Los Angeles County Alternate Public Defender’s Office. I currently handle felony cases in downtown Los Angeles.

Long Beach is one of the few jurisdictions in California where misdemeanors are not prosecuted by the district attorney’s office. What advantages and/or disadvantages do you see in having a local prosecutor handling these cases.

The advantage is that we can have a prosecutor who is invested in our community and its unique needs. We can also begin bold new programs and practices that have the potential to make a real impact in addressing the root causes of crime.

A disadvantage is that the office can be more easily influenced by local politics, both in its charging decisions and how it chooses to resolve cases. A more professionalized City Prosecutor’s office, or simply having the duties of the City Prosecutor absorbed into the District Attorney’s Office, could have avoided the misconduct and conflicts of interest that have plagued it. Additionally, the attorneys in the office often lack the experience and perspective that comes from handling felony cases.

What do you believe to be the root cause of crime and what evidence do you have to support your answer?

Crime is a choice made by individuals, groups, corporations, based on their experiences, conditions, and the opportunities available to them. I would never claim to be able to solve the root causes of all crime – I believe that even in a utopian society, people will still harm one another, and we would need to respond in an appropriate way.

When I talk about the root causes of crime, one thing I mean is concentrated poverty, where you are poor and everyone you know is poor, and the ill effects that cascade from that condition. The United States is unique among the rich countries in the world for the amount of concentrated poverty that we tolerate. Put in more positive terms, other countries have created redistributive systems and economies that ensure that everyone has at least a modest piece of the pie. In the United States, we never fully created those systems on the state or federal level. When cities did attempt to create those systems, people with enough money moved out of the cities to suburbs or neighboring areas. Cities have always struggled in this country to engage in anti-poverty work because of this dynamic, which was often tied up with redlining. As a result, we have created a society where a number of people are cutoff from full participation in our economy, educational opportunities, safe and nurturing childhoods, and we have simultaneously chosen to maintain a black market economy in narcotics that is ruled by violence. Those conditions are a major root cause of crime in the United States, and can manifest in individuals in a number of ways.

If you don’t have a supportive and nurturing childhood, you might not know what a healthy relationship looks like, you might not know how to value yourself outside of fulfilling some dominant role that you think defines manhood, you might not know how to cope with stress and anxiety without using substances, you might not know what to do with anger. If you’re cut off from the economy and educational opportunities, you might get sucked into our black market economies of drug sales and sex work. And while I firmly believe that people should be free to engage in those activities if they are not harming other people, I think we can all agree that no one should be forced into sex work or drug sales by economic circumstances. If you grow up without access to healthcare or counselors or social workers, you will not have the tools to deal with mental illness, serious forms of which we often see onset in the folks early 20s.

For understanding our misdemeanor system, I recommend that people check out the work of my old professor Alexandra Natapoff, especially her book “Punishment without Crime.” For a more systemic understanding of crime, punishment, and inequality in the States, I recommend the work of Adaner Usmani.

Fees for court mandated diversion programs/services can prevent low-income residents from accessing diversion services, with some fee-driven programs even described as predatory. How would your office ensure that diversion services don’t place an undue financial burden on low-income participants?

I would require that programs evaluate participants’ ability to pay, even better would be to make programming that is not paid for by fees. Fee-based programs punish poor people for being poor. I think we do enough of that already without doing it again in court.

The Los Angeles County Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion Program (LEAD), which Long Beach participates in, gives police officers the option to refer certain disadvantaged people to a case worker at the point of arrest instead of taking them into custody. Do you believe the sole discretion to refer people to LEAD in these situations should remain with law enforcement officers?

I don’t think the discretion should rest solely with the officers, but I think it can be a useful tool for officers to flag cases that they think would benefit more from a case worker’s involvement. As long as prosecutors can make the same referral once a report comes to their office, I don’t think the harm is too bad. One concern I have is that when individuals are referred to a case worker without being able to talk to a lawyer, they may not be able to grasp the full risks and benefits that can come from their participation in services. We should examine and experiment with what effect consulting with a defense attorney (usually a public defender) about the potential for filing a formal case down the line and the collateral consequences of that has on an individual’s compliance with social worker recommendations. I also believe that this type of programming is likely to be more successful if individuals are put through a formal evaluation, including with a medical doctor, psychologist, or psychiatrist if there are mental health issues presenting. Of course, there are costs to all of this too, but I believe we will see real value in terms of reduced recidivism if we take the time and do it right.

Are there any misdemeanors that are not currently deprioritized that you would deprioritize for prosecution?

Yes, what I would call victimless prosecutions. I would generally not prosecute crimes like the possession of drugs for personal use, driving on a suspended license, or engaging in sex work.

Given that traditional prosecution of drug-related offenses with an emphasis on incarceration has largely been ineffective at addressing addiction, do you plan to use a public health/harm reduction approach to handle these cases. If so, how?

I do support taking a public health/harm reduction approach to drug possession offenses. After 50 years and $1 trillion spent in the War on Drugs, drugs are more available and cheaper than ever, and millions of people – mostly poor, black, and brown – have had their lives irreparably harmed by our criminal legal system. As Prosecutor, I will work with our City departments, including the Long Beach Health Department and Homeless Services Bureau and coordinate with county, state, and federal officials to effectively help our neighbors struggling with substance abuse, and end the prosecution of drug possession for personal use in our city, while working to strengthen substance abuse treatment for all who need it. What we have seen is that compelled drug treatment is costly and ineffective. We should be investing less in police, lawyers, and jails to solve these problems, and investing more in schools, health services, social workers, etc.

How do you propose to stop the cycle of poverty created by traffic infraction fines?

I will generally not be pursuing traffic infraction fines as Long Beach City Prosecutor, and my approach to court fines and fees in general will be to encourage the court to waive or stay them whenever a defendant does not have the ability to pay. That’s the law for almost all fines and fees already, there are very few that are truly mandatory. What we need is a change of culture within the system. We see that change happening already in some places and with some bench officers – we need it in Long Beach too.

How would you prioritize the prosecution of landlords who repeatedly violate health and safety codes and do not properly maintain their apartment buildings?

The City Prosecutor’s office has the power and responsibility to prosecute landlords who violate tenant’s legally guaranteed right to safe and healthy housing. As prosecutor, I will make it a high priority to work with Code Enforcement to identify and prosecute landlords who endanger their tenants and blight our neighborhoods. While I believe that most landlords are doing a good job, my office will consult with tenant organizations, community groups and responsible housing providers to prioritize legal action against the small group of landlords who repeatedly violate their tenants’ rights. 

Up until the an LA County Superior Court judge ended the practice in 2016, the city prosecutor’s office under your watch of the incumbent was charging gay men with lewd conduct who had been entrapped by decoy LBPD officers. Six years later, the prosecutor’s office has yet to apologize to the LGBTQ+ community. Would you have handled this differently? How?

First, I would publicly apologize for the conduct of the LBPD and the city prosecutor’s office. I’m not sure if the LBPD would want to apologize, but I know there are officers there who are ashamed of the department’s conduct. Second, I would begin a kind of truth and reconciliation project, ideally partnering with local university students, to understand the full scope of the practice as it dated back to the early 20th century. We would reach out to individuals who were unjustly targeted and prosecuted, while respecting their privacy, and do everything in our power to purge their records from the concocted arrests and convictions. I would also aide individuals in applying for clemency from Governor Newsom, who recently pardoned civil rights leader Bayard Rustin who was similarly targeted. Last, I would create a culture in the office that values every person as an individual regardless of their gender identity, expression, sexuality, and so on. The law is an incredibly conservative culture and we can do a lot to move forward in this area.

The state recently ended cash bail for defendants who cannot afford it. Do you believe cash bail should be ended for all defendants?

Yes. I do believe in ending cash bail. Cash bail degrades our system of justice. An effective and ethical prosecutor’s office can win convictions without using tactics that punish people for being poor while enriching the private bail bond industry. Defendants who fight their case have to sit in jail – separated from their loved ones, and with the public paying the extraordinary costs of incarceration. Under these circumstances, many innocent people choose to plea as the fastest way out of jail. With a focus on detaining people who face a risk to public safety, I will implement alternatives to cash bail including utilizing partnerships with various LA County departments and community support for defendants.

Do you support the recall of LA County District Attorney George Gascon?

I do not support the recall. I generally support Gascon’s approach to misdemeanor offenses, which is what this office covers. I’m critical of the policies that he made without exceptions in felony prosecutions, and we see that he is changing some of those policies. A number of them were never fully implemented, it has to be said, and we need to acknowledge the anti-democratic impulse within the District Attorney’s office which has fought tooth and nail to frustrate the will of the voters. I’m critical of the failure to build consensus around criminal justice reform, but blame for that doesn’t land only on Gascon. It also lies on other leaders who I believe are preparing to sell him out to cover for their failure to deliver safe, healthy, and fair communities. 

How would you prioritize investigating and enforcing wage theft laws?

Wage theft costs our community more than all of the traditional forms of theft combined. Crooked employers get away with these thefts by hiding behind shell companies and sub-contractors, dragging litigation out, and targeting vulnerable, low-wage workers who do not have the resources to fight back on their own. California law has always allowed for the prosecution of wage theft, but prosecutors have generally tolerated these crimes. As Prosecutor, I will stand up for workers in our city who are not getting their fair share, and hold wage thieves accountable.

Do you think Proposition 47, which reclassified certain theft and drug possession offenses from felonies to misdemeanors, has led to an increase in crime?

No. It may have led to more convictions for drug possession, because you cycle the same people in and out of jail or send them to poor quality programming, basically failing to address the root causes discussed above. But I don’t view those cases as crimes. For prosecuting agencies that judge their success based on how many cases they file, it did allow them to say they were filing a number of cases.

For theft, there are some studies that have shown a rise in theft crime, and certainly for very low level thefts that may be true. But in other ways, the trends on theft have been represented in a really disingenuous way. A number of stories came out about the number of thefts that took place in 2021 as compared to 2020, without noting that retail stores were closed for a good portion of 2020. But as City Prosecutor, I will prosecute theft crimes, and I will hold offenders accountable.

Diversion programs for first time DUI offenders are currently a matter of legal debate. Do you support diversion programs for first time DUI offenders?

I do, though it would depend on the particular circumstances of the DUI. But for low-level DUIs (low blood alcohol level, no accident, etc.) I think diversion is an excellent idea. The legislature studied this issue specifically in regards to veterans, and found that when veterans are providing the opportunity for diversion, it makes them much less likely to reoffend in the future. Most prosecutors are afraid to appear “soft” on DUIs, but there’s no point in acting tough if it leads to worse outcomes, or worst of all a loss in a jury trial. Then you don’t have any court ordered treatment and you are much more likely to see further offenses.