LAKE COUNTY — A judge ruled Tuesday that the county is not responsible for paying Sheriff Frank Rivero”s legal fees related to his lawsuit against the district attorney, which was thrown out last week.
Visiting Judge Richard J. Henderson clarified his original August ruling in Rivero”s suit against the Board of Supervisors (BOS), writing that at the time, he intended to provide the sheriff with county-funded legal counsel only related to District Attorney Don Anderson”s then-pending “Brady list” finding.
“The court did not intend to order (the BOS) to provide any conflict representation to (Rivero) at any point after whatever listing determination was eventually made,” Henderson wrote in his decision filed in Lake County Superior Court Tuesday.
Attorney Paul R. Coble, who represents Rivero from the Jones & Mayer law firm, offered no comment on the decision when contacted Wednesday.
“We have not yet received the court”s ruling, but understand that the clerk”s office has mailed it to us. We therefore probably won”t have the ruling until (Thursday) or Friday,” Coble wrote in an email.
Anita Grant, county counsel for Lake County, declined to comment.
Anderson formally categorized Rivero as a “Brady officer” — a law enforcement official with a documented history of untruthfulness in official matters — after determining in February that Rivero lied in the wake of a 2008 on-duty shooting.
Rivero, who like Anderson was elected to a first term in 2010, denied the untruthfulness allegation and filed a lawsuit challenging the DA”s inquiry and finding. The cost of the sheriff”s attorney fees to date remains unknown.
While the “Brady” investigation was still pending, Rivero sued the BOS in late-March 2012 after its members denied his request for county-funded outside counsel after Grant determined her office had a conflict of interest and couldn”t represent the sheriff or the DA.
The supervisors argued Grant”s department could create an “ethical wall” to allow one of the county attorneys to represent Rivero on the “Brady” matter.
Henderson, a judge out of Mendocino County, ruled in Rivero”s favor Aug. 27 and signed a judgment and writ of mandate Nov. 1.
The sheriff argued Henderson”s original decision in the BOS suit provided him with the right to have attorneys funded by the taxpayers to battle the DA in court over what he claimed was an insufficient, incorrect and politically motivated finding by Anderson.
Some county supervisors disagreed with the funding assertion while staring at a $29,600 bill from Jones & Mayer for legal services rendered as of two months ago.
The BOS deferred payment and directed the County Counsel”s Office to file a motion for clarification to figure out the extent of the county”s financial obligations March 12.
The sheriff”s lawyers contended the judge”s ruling needed no clarification and clearly provided Rivero with county-funded counsel while he challenged the DA”s determination.
Attorneys for Rivero and the county argued the issue before Henderson May 7 — about a half-hour after retired Butte County Judge William P. Lamb struck the sheriff”s entire civil complaint against the DA.
Henderson ultimately determined he needed to clarify what he intended when deciding the legal fees last year.
“The language of the (November) judgment/writ of mandate signed by the court, while not in specific conflict with the language of the ruling, was considerably more broad than the scope of the (August) ruling,” Henderson wrote in his Tuesday decision.
The judge”s decision outlined that his original intent was to provide the sheriff with legal counsel “in the consultative discussions then proposed by the District Attorney about whether or not the District Attorney would place (Rivero”s) name on the ”Brady list.””
Henderson ordered the supervisors” attorneys to file an amended judgment to include eight new lines, including the phrase, “The ordered representation shall not extend to any post-determination representation or litigation.”
The judge also denied the sheriff”s request for the county to cover attorney fees through May 7. Coble argued the legal action against the DA was made in good faith based on the sheriff”s understanding that the county was ordered to pay all attorney costs related to the “Brady” determination.
The term “Brady officer” refers to the U.S. Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland, which set the precedent requiring prosecutors to give defendants information about an investigating officer”s history of untruthfulness in official matters.
Since the DA”s “Brady” determination became public March 4, Rivero has become the target of a recall effort, received a vote of no confidence from the BOS and rejected the supervisors” request for his resignation.
Jeremy Walsh is a staff reporter for Lake County Publishing. Reach him at 263-5636, ext. 37 or jwalsh@record-bee.com. Follow his court coverage on Twitter, @JeremyDWalsh or #Rivero.
