A California appeals court puts the brakes on the trial of Diana Teran, a former district attorney’s advisor, raising questions about privacy rights and ethical boundaries in public office.
At a Glance
- Diana Teran, ex-advisor to the district attorney, faces 11 felony charges for alleged hacking statute violations
- Trial suspended by appeals court, granting time for prosecution to justify case continuation
- Charges stem from Teran sharing court records of deputies’ disciplinary histories
- Defense argues shared records were public, not exclusive to Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
- Case highlights debates on privacy rights, data management, and ethical conduct for public officials
Trial Suspension and Charges
The California Court of Appeal has suspended the trial of Diana Teran, a former Advisor to the District Attorney, who stands accused of 11 felonies for allegedly violating California hacking statutes. The trial, initially set for January, has been delayed for at least three months, with the possibility of dismissal looming. This high-profile case centers around Teran’s alleged improper dissemination of court documentation concerning the disciplinary records of deputies, acquired through her previous role at the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD).
The appeals court has scheduled a hearing for April 2 in Los Angeles, where prosecutors must justify the continuation of the case. This unusual move by the appellate court has put the Attorney General’s office on the defensive, according to legal experts familiar with the proceedings.
Allegations and Defense
The charges against Teran stem from her time as a constitutional policing advisor in 2018, where she allegedly accessed confidential records. After joining the District Attorney’s office, Teran is accused of sending records of deputies to a subordinate for potential inclusion in internal databases tracking officer misconduct, including the Brady database.
“We are grateful the Court of Appeal agreed to evaluate this question before trial. I said this at the start of the case: The only thing she shared was public court records. Public records belong to the public, not the LASD,” James Spertus said.
Teran’s defense team argues that there is insufficient probable cause for prosecution, asserting that the records in question were public documents. They contend that Teran did not download information from the department’s system but received it through emails from co-workers. The Attorney General’s office, however, maintains that the records are LASD data, requiring permission for use by another agency.
Legal Developments and Expert Opinion
As the case has progressed, some charges have been dropped or dismissed due to lack of evidence, with six charges remaining. The judge overseeing the case suggested that Teran could have linked public records to confidential information, complicating the legal landscape.
“It’s not the sort of thing where the Court of Appeal will usually step in at this stage of the case. It now puts the A.G.’s office on the defensive,” Miriam Krinsky said.
This intervention by the appeals court at such an early stage is unusual and significant. It not only delays the proceedings but also raises important questions about the strength of the prosecution’s case and the broader implications for privacy rights and data management in public offices.
