Judge won’t disqualify San Diego district attorney in antifa conspiracy case, but warns of trouble ahead

A judge on Friday denied a defense motion to disqualify San Diego County District Attorney Summer Stephan and her office from prosecuting an antifa conspiracy case, ruling no conflict of interest existed. But he also urged the sides to settle the politically fraught case.

“I would seriously consider settling,” San Diego Superior Court Judge Daniel Goldstein told prosecutors and defense attorneys, warning them that it will be difficult to find jurors without political biases in a case that involves left-wing protesters clashing with supporters of former President Donald Trump during a 2021 rally in Pacific Beach.

Goldstein said the timing of the trial, which would likely go forward in March, when presidential primary elections would be under way, would likely complicate matters.

“I want you guys to think about offers and pleas,” the judge told the attorneys.

The case centers around the events of a Jan. 9, 2021, “Patriot March” in Pacific Beach, where Trump backers rallied just three days after the outgoing president’s supporters had stormed the U.S. Capitol. Several pro-Trump attendees of the Pacific Beach rally had been at the Capitol days earlier, and defense attorneys allege several pro-Trump marchers were members of documented hate groups such as the American Guard and Proud Boys.

In this Jan. 9, 2021, photo, Trump supporters stand in Mission Boulevard during a “Patriot March” in Pacific Beach.

(Nelvin C. Cepeda/The San Diego Union-Tribune)

Black-clad anti-fascists showed up to counterprotest, and both sides clashed throughout the day.

Later that year, prosecutors charged 11 of the counterprotesters with conspiracy to riot and other felonies, alleging that the violence at the rally was carried out “overwhelmingly ... by the Antifa affiliates.” At least five defendants have pleaded guilty.

Friday’s hearing stemmed from a disqualification motion filed earlier this month by defense attorney Curtis Briggs, who argued Stephan’s office could not evenhandedly prosecute his client because the district attorney and her office are politically biased against anti-fascists. Briggs cited, in part, Stephan’s campaign material from 2018 that vilified antifa as a public safety threat and linked the group to George Soros, a billionaire liberal activist and a favorite target of conservative ire who donated money to support Stephan’s opponent.

A screenshot of threattosandiego.com, a 2018 campaign website of District Attorney Summer Stephan, shows billionaire liberal activist George Soros superimposed over images of black-clad antifa protesters. Soros had donated money to a super PAC supporting Stephan’s opponent.

(San Diego Superior Court filing)

Briggs also argued that Stephan’s office failed to prosecute pro-Trump attendees of the Pacific Beach rally as part of a years-long pattern of failing or refusing to prosecute violent acts committed at political rallies by alleged members of documented right-wing hate groups.

Stephan’s office denied the existence of any bias, in part by highlighting several hate-crime cases the office has prosecuted under Stephan. Prosecutors also argued Briggs failed to meet the high legal standard to disqualify a district attorney.

During Friday’s hearing, Briggs showed the judge videos of violent actions by pro-Trump marchers, including alleged victims in the case, that he said prosecutors deliberately kept from the grand jury that later handed down indictments.

Courts

For subscribers

Lawyer alleges political bias, asks judge to throw District Attorney Stephan off antifa prosecution

The District Attorney’s Office response denies Summer Stephan and her office is biased against antifa, claims defense motion ‘riddled with fantasies’ and ignores history of hate-crime prosecutions

Nov. 11, 2023

Deputy District Attorney Martin Doyle briefly argued that Briggs had failed to identify a conflict of interest, much less one so severe that Stephan’s office should be disqualified. Deputy Attorney General Britton Lacy, whose office would have taken over the case if Stephan’s office was disqualified, made a similar argument.

Goldstein sided with Doyle and Lacy, saying Briggs’ assertions were “so far away” from the high legal standard of disqualifying conduct by prosecutors who have been disqualified in precedent-setting cases from around the state.

“As noted in our court filings, the District Attorney’s record of increased hate crime prosecutions and protecting the most vulnerable in San Diego County is clear, as well as her commitment to protecting our community from violence no matter what the source is of such crimes,” a spokesperson for Stephan’s office said in a statement after the hearing. “The District Attorney’s Office stands ready to move forward with the pursuit of fair and equal justice in this serious assault case.”

Though he denied the disqualification motion, Goldstein said at least one of Briggs’ arguments “seems like a trial issue, and a pretty good one” for the defense. The judge warned attorneys from both sides not to assume they know what he’s going to do as the case moves forward, cautioning prosecutors that even if they take the case to trial and get convictions, he could end up sentencing the trial defendants to probation instead of the prison time that prosecutors seek.

The judge also warned the attorneys about making personal attacks against each other, saying he was “not pleased with how personal” some recent motions had become.

“Both sides want to pull this into the political realm,” Goldstein said near the start of the hearing. At the end, he echoed that sentiment and repeatedly warned that the case’s political aspect could derail a potential trial.