{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreieu3hmhqyftsryoa2mdwhjkulvcze6u6nfrxkcx5u77xcbhzkmoye",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:brbfxknpinpcv53otqnq7pxe/app.bsky.feed.post/3m7fr7rmlhbe2"
  },
  "coverImage": {
    "$type": "blob",
    "ref": {
      "$link": "bafkreibpgdnbpz2avk2pjn4ggfg4ydngl3mdumnyvbri4xos5zzqk4m6dm"
    },
    "mimeType": "image/png",
    "size": 3263175
  },
  "description": "Roger Parker’s rights were violated in 2014 when the Riverside District Attorney’s Office did not disclose the recording of another man’s confession to the murder he was held on suspicion of, Parker’s attorney argued on appeal Dec. 4.",
  "path": "/held-4-years-for-murder-despite-murderers-taped-confession-roger-parker-case-sees-oral-argument/",
  "publishedAt": "2025-12-07T14:50:02.000Z",
  "site": "https://ielaw.news",
  "textContent": "Roger Parker’s rights were violated in 2014 when the Riverside District Attorney’s Office did not disclose the recording of another man’s confession to the murder he was held on suspicion of, Parker’s attorney argued on appeal Dec. 4.\n\nAll prosecutors involved in the case have since left the District Attorney’s Office. Former District Attorney Paul Zellerbach lost the 2014 election to current District Attorney Michael Hestrin. Sean Lafferty, a supervisor to the prosecution, is now a Riverside Superior Judge. Christopher Ross, the line prosecutor assigned to the case, called for it to be dropped, both before and after he found the confession. He was placed on leave for medical reasons. He alleged that he was retaliated against for arguing against Parker’s prosecution. He sued the DA’s Office and his former supervisors for medical and whistleblower retaliation, but after eight years, a jury ruled against him on a technical finding regarding his health issue. During his case, he testified that he told Lafferty about the confession.\n\nIt was only through Ross’ lawsuit that Parker found that the DA’s Office had the taped jailhouse confession of another man to the murder and decapitation he was charged with. Federal law requires the disclosure of evidence that points to a defendant’s innocence.\n\nHe was held four years on suspicion of murder, including four months after Ross found the jailhouse confession.\n\nDuring the argument, the justices asked questions about the reason for Parker never having had an initial hearing. Despite having counsel, Parker never had an initial hearing. His counsel and prosecutors both agreed to consistent delays over those four years.\n\nThe question at hand is whether the office at-large should be held liable for the evidence not being turned over.\n\nKimberly Hutchison spoke for Parker.\n\n“This was not an individual choice in Parker's case to withhold evidence. It was part of a longstanding custom and practice that this court actually called out in oral argument. Judge Kozinski noted that the Riverside District Attorney’s office was committing (evidence disclosure) violations and showing no desire to change that practice. Showing no shame in that practice and not admitting wrongdoing. That’s the problem here. Under the district court’s analysis, by deciding that this unconstitutional policy is not subject to (DA-wide liability), there is a huge gap in what is available to a criminal defendant whose rights are being violated. Someone like Mr. Parker, who never was convicted and yet spent four years in custody, would have no remedy for that violation if not for (civil rights protections). Because of what your honor recognized in terms of individual prosecutorial immunity, it is (office-wide liability) that needs to provide this kind of action for him. I say that because, absent this kind of liability, there’s no incentive for the District Attorney's Office to follow the law. They can have unconstitutional policies that they will never be liable for,” Hutchison said.\n\n“Part of the issue, also, is just poor lawyering by your clients at the trial court level, not asking for a preliminary hearing for four years, I mean, should have put the burden on the government to show what evidence they had to continue detaining him. I’m not mitigating what you said, but that’s part of the problem, at least in this cas,e for whatever reason, for four years, they never asked the government to show his cards,” said Ninth Circuit Judge Kenneth Lee.\n\n“I certainly understand the concern, your honor, but respectfully, that attorney did not have that (taped confession). So, going forward on a preliminary hearing with clearly what was only a false confession, but no alternative evidence to present, I’m not sure that that failure was really attributable to the defense attorney, rather to the county that deliberately held the (confession) that could have charged the result at the preliminary hearing,” Hutchison said.\n\n“But four years is such a long time to let defense counsel let that continue. IT seems that you’re suggesting we find an exception to the absolute immunity because these circumstances were so egregious. I don’t disagree with you, that the facts laid out are egregious, but that seems to be an argument that there should just be no immunity, which is something that we can’t decide. The Supreme Court has announced this doctrine. Not the Ninth Circuit. We’re bound by it. And then I think Judge Lee’s point is well taken. You’re saying there’s no remedy. There is. There is a malpractice claim here. That is one remedy. There are also bar complaints,” said Ninth Circuit Judge Bridget Bade.\n\nHutchison said that those methods have issues, but, more so, that there needs to be liability against unconstitutional practices.\n\n“That is only talking about, basically, bad apples inside a prosecutor’s office. What we are talking about here is a county office that has an unconstitutional policy. So immunizing individual defendants, while that may be required by the Supreme Court, it doesn’t protect an entire office from having an unconstitutional policy that harms individuals. That is what we are acting the court to address,” said Hutchison.\n\nArguing for the county, attorney Tony Sain said that the court needed to keep intact the immunity of the DA’s Office supervisors.\n\n“The absolute immunity is designed to protect the vigorous prosecution of crime. To protect society writ-large. If we chill that by allowing civil liability against individual prosecutors like the four defendant prosecutorial supervisors here, we are hurting ourselves as a society,” Sain said.\n\nHis co-counsel, Abigail McLaughlin, said that the decision to not turn over the evidence was made by Ross, regardless of a policy.\n\n“Here what they are saying is that everybody knew about this (confession) and made the decision, the active decision, to not turn over that evidence. Which is specifically a prosecutorial decision,” McLaughlin said.\n\n“But if their bosses tell them to never turn over (evidence of innocence), the prosecutors aren’t making that decision, their bosses are,” said Ninth Circuit Judge Carlos Bea,\n\n“Well, in this case, your honor, the decision by the underlying district attorney Ross, he knew about the (confession), taking the facts as true, he wanted to turn it over. He brought (the confession) to his supervisors (Lafferty) and they didn’t say, well, per our policy, turn it over. The allegation in the complaint is that they said, in this specific matter, do not turn over the (confession),” McLaughlin said.",
  "title": "Held 4 years for murder despite murderer’s taped confession: Roger Parker case sees oral argument",
  "updatedAt": "2025-12-07T14:50:02.906Z"
}