On Dec. 6, the City of Malibu released a copy of the report of the lawyers engaged to investigate sworn allegations of wrongdoing outgoing City Council Member Jefferson Wagner disclosed in his parting remarks as a city council member on Dec. 14, 2020. The report rejects Jefferson Wagner’s allegations and provides the city with a clean bill of health.
When I first advocated for this investigation at the city council meeting at which Jefferson Wagner disclosed his sworn allegations, I publicly stated the following:
“I want to make clear that I am not pursuing this matter in the hope of proving criminality, corruption, or other wrongdoing. I will be pleased if a proper investigation, led by experienced and independent individuals, provides a clean bill of health to the City of Malibu. That would put an end to the rumors that have been swirling around Malibu City Hall for too long.”
I said the same thing on social media, and I told this to the investigating lawyers when I was interviewed by them.
Having participated in the process by which the investigating lawyers were engaged, having served on the subcommittee of the city council that interacted with the investigating lawyers, and having been interviewed by the investigating lawyers as a potential witness, I believe the investigation was both “proper” and “led by experienced and independent individuals.” Accordingly, I am pleased that the investigation provided the city with a clean bill of health—as I said would be the case when I first advocated for the investigation to occur.
To say I am pleased with the investigation does not mean that I agree with all conclusions expressed in the report. Among other things, my review of the investigating lawyers’ interview notes revealed various items of material information I believe the investigating lawyers misunderstood and, in some instances, misstated. Because the interview notes have not yet been publicly released, I will refrain from further comment on those issues at this time.
To say I believe the investigating lawyers were experienced and independent also does not mean that I believe they were unbiased. Although one of the two investigating lawyers served as a prosecutor at an early stage of his career, it is a fact that both of the investigating lawyers are criminal defense lawyers, and the contents of the report and interview notes suggest to me that the investigating lawyers’ analyses and assessment of the evidence and witness statements was infected by a certain level of defense bias—a bias that has been identified by some residents after reading the report without the benefit of the interview notes.
It is not uncommon for reasonable people to reach different conclusions based on the same evidence. The recent trial of Kyle Rittenhouse is a prime example of this phenomenon. Many reasonable people who watched the televised trial concluded Kyle Rittenhouse was guilty of murder, and other reasonable people concluded Kyle Rittenhouse was innocent. For some, that divergence of views was based on the ambiguity of the evidence. For others, that divergence of views was influenced by personal biases and prejudices, which are an unavoidable aspect of human nature. The jury’s unanimous acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse concluded the legal inquiry into his guilt. But that does not mean that people who would have voted to convict Kyle Rittenhouse are wrong or unreasonable. It just means that they formed a different reasonable view of the evidence. Additionally, there still remains the potential for civil liability, which requires a lesser burden of proof—as occurred after O.J. Simpson was acquitted of the criminal charges that he murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.
Just as a jury verdict concludes a trial, I believe the determination of the experienced and independent investigating lawyers should conclude this matter, and I am hopeful that the residents of Malibu will reach the same conclusion after reviewing the report and interview notes.