Unlawful arrest, malicious prosecution, making false statements, misleading the prosecutor.

A California Federal District Court jury ruled that Art Frank and another Glendale, California police officer unlawfully arrested and caused the malicious prosecution of Edmond Ovasapyan. The case arose out of a 2005 home invasion in which a teenage son was murdered in front of his mother. The federal jury in 2009 found that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest Ovasapyan, misled the prosecutor and withheld exculpatory evidence from her.

The case has surfaced in Jefferson County as Frank campaigns to unseat his boss and incumbent Sheriff Joe Nole. Frank serves under Nole as a detective and previously held the number two position in the Sheriff’s Office under Nole’s predecessor, Dave Stanko, another former Califiornia police officer relocated to Jefferson County. Stanko hired Frank and made him Deputy Sheriff, ousting Nole from the position he had held under Stanko’s predecessor, Sheriff Tony Hernandez. During Stanko’s years in office Nole served under Frank. When Nole defeated Stanko’s bid for re-election and was elected Sheriff, he moved Frank over to a detective position and made Andy Pernsteiner Deputy Sheriff and his #2.

Word of the case against Frank has been quietly circulating for months. On September 16, 2022, Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney James Kennedy issued a letter to criminal defense lawyers notifying them of a judicial ruling of misconduct by a law enforcement officer that could impeach the officer’s testimony. Kennedy restated the jury’s findings, but also said he believes the jury ruled incorrectly. Nonetheless, the jury verdict poses a headache for Frank’s effort to persuade voters to put him in charge of the Sheriff’s office, as well as possibly giving defense lawyers ammunition in any case where Frank is a witness for the prosecution.

Edmond Ovasapyan versus Art Frank, et al.

Frank has addressed some of the facts in the case when asked at election forums what his biggest regret is in his 43 years in law enforcement. Frank has served with distinction through those decades in many positions, from patrol officer, to working on a SWAT team, to training other officers, to accomplished detective work. He has saved lives and taken killers off the street. He saw his partner die next to him. He has seen the worst side of humanity in his years in Los Angeles County, and, let’s be honest, also here in Jefferson County. Though he is opposed in his bid for office by local first responders and all the men and women he serves with in the Sheriff’s Office, I am told by some of those same people that he is respected for his skills as a detective. But they do not think he should be Sheriff and do not want to work for him if he is elected to that position. Those feelings are strong, and account for the unprecedented support among first responders and law enforcement for the re-election of Sheriff Nole.

The Ovasapyan case was as bad as anything he had encountered. Frank has in campaign forums related how five men invaded a home and how the teenage son was shot in the chest in front of his mother. He says he regrets that Ovasapyan spent months in jail for something he didn’t do and says it was he who eventually exonerated Ovasayan.

Frank has left out of those accounts the fact that a jury found he had engaged in very serious misconduct, so serious that the trial judge deprived him of law enforcement officer “qualified immunity.” That means Frank was held personally liable for the judgment because, as the court found, no reasonable law enforcement would not have known that the conduct in which Frank engaged was illegal. This is an uncommon finding by a trial court judge.

Ovasapyan was awarded $1.16 million in compensatory damages. The jury also awarded him $75,000 in punitive damages against Frank and $75,000 against the other officer. The trial court awarded the plaintiff $271,495.57 in attorney fees and $5,543.85 in costs. Frank was ruled jointly and severally liable, meaning personally responsible, for all but the punitive damages against the other officer. The City of Glendale paid the judgment, attorney fees, and costs though it was not legally required to do so. It paid approximately $1.7 million after unsuccessful appeals.

The trial court denied Frank’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, meaning that the court found there was enough evidence to support the jury’s verdict. The judgment was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which specifically ruled that the District Court was justified in finding enough evidence to support the jury’s verdict.

Prosecuting Attorney Kennedy Says the California Jury Got it Wrong

In his letter to defense attorneys, Kennedy wrote that “it has recently been brought to my attention” that Frank was found liable for misconduct in a civil case. Kennedy stated that he conducted a public records request of the City of Glendale, spoke with a Los Angeles County Assistant District Attorney familiar with the case and obtained and reviewed the entire trial transcript.

Kennedy told defense lawyers he had concluded that the jury was wrong. He concluded that Frank had been blamed for actions taken by others. He concluded that the evidence Frank allegedly withheld was, contrary to the jury’s ruling, already in the possession of defense counsel and not of any material exculpatory value. Frank allegedly failed to investigate alibi evidence; but Kennedy concluded that alibi evidence, even if true, would not have ruled the plaintiff out as a participant in the crime. Lastly, Kennedy credited Frank with ultimately exonerating the plaintiff when DNA evidence pointed to another individual whom Frank tracked down. Frank learned from that individual that Ovasapyan did not participate in the crime and relayed this information to the DA who then dropped charges. By then, Ovasapyan had been in jail for about eight months.

“In conclusion,” Kennedy wrote, “it does not appear that Det. Frank personally authored any reports or directly engaged in any aspect of the investigation that lead [sic] to the false arrest or malicious prosecution of the Plaintiff. Contrary to the findings made by the jury… it appears that Det. Frank’s actions are what actually lead [sic] to the charges being dismissed against the Plaintiff.”

Res Judicata

The matter has been decided. Res judicata is a legal principle that “a decision by a competent court in a case fully and fairly litigated is final and conclusive as to the claims and issues of the parties and cannot be relitigated.” Prosecuting Attorney Kennedy may be absolutely correct that Frank got a raw deal from a California jury. The verdict against Frank may have been as great an injustice as the wrongful imprisonment of Ovasapyan. Justice is sometimes ill-served in our judicial system. Maybe Frank’s lawyers were incompetent. Mr. Kennedy said in an e-mail that the city of Glendale chose to use its in-house lawyers instead of contracting with more skilled and experienced outside counsel, and those lawyers did “a pretty poor job.”

However wrong the Ovasapyan jury may have been, its decision was upheld by a United States Federal District Court judge and later by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The argument that there was insufficient evidence to find that Frank did the things he was accused of doing was rejected by both courts.

Kennedy’s independent review of the records may blunt the impact of the Ovasapyan verdict outside of court. The reputation Frank has built since moving here may remain intact, though bruised. Frank can point to Kennedy’s conclusions in defending himself on the campaign trail. But when Frank testifies in court, and the defense seeks to impeach him with the Ovasapyan verdict and findings, the trial judge will likely not entertain arguments that the Ovasapyan jurors and several federal judges messed up or that Frank was screwed over by his lousy lawyers. Relitigation of the facts of that case will in all likelihood not be permitted, and Mr. Kennedy’s conclusions–regardless of how well they may be reasoned–will not be allowed in a court of law.

Frank Responds

Good morning Jim,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Ovasapyan case. The civil verdict is just one part of the story and has to be viewed in the context of the original investigation in order to be properly understood.

Though it is one small event in my 43-year career and history in law enforcement it is something voters should consider. I have always been transparent about it.  I have spoken about it openly and publicly during the campaign, including at the Democratic Party forum and the League of Women Voters forum, both of which were recorded and are available online. I have answered questions about it from voters and community leaders.  Both the fact of the verdict and the underlying investigation were fully known and understood by my opponent prior to my hiring in 2016 as he was the person who hired me.  He has never raised it as an issue in the campaign because he understands the facts.

Like any career or life experience the case investigation itself did have an impact on my leadership to the extent that it reinforced that it is always important to follow the evidence no matter where it leads and that as police officers, with power comes responsibility.  In this case I had the responsibility to see the investigation through to exonerating and freeing Mr. Ovasapyan, which I did. This is a value and ethic that I live and work by and I would instill and expect from all of my staff if elected.

I did not pay any part of the judgment or costs because the investigation was part of my official responsibilities as an employee of the City of Glendale.

Regarding how the fact of the verdict reflects on credibility, the elected Prosecutor has reviewed both the civil trial as well as the facts of the underlying investigation and concluded that the allegations regarding any wrongdoing on my part are not supported.  I expect his letter re same will be released next week. The fact that I saw the investigation through to exonerating and freeing Mr. Ovasapyan proves my commitment to transparency and justice and should reassure voters that I will always do the right thing.

In my experience you have been fair and given me a full opportunity to respond.  In this case I would appreciate it if you would wait to run any story on the case until I can provide the letter from the Prosecuting Attorney.  You have a powerful voice and it is important that you have all of the information before running a story.

I will send the letter from the prosecutor as well as a more full response as soon as I have the letter, which should be early next week.

As always, thank you for your interest in the campaign and in the truth.

Art

———————————-

Mr. Frank subsequently sent a longer statement and other materials when notified we had obtained Mr. Kennedy’s letter to defense lawyers.

———————————-

Mr. Scarantino,

To best understand what happened in this case it is necessary to know some of the facts related to the crime and original investigation itself, which I have outlined below. 

There were at least six individual suspects involved.

The initial victim, a mother of two adult men, was home alone.  She heard a knock at the door and looked out to see a man who she recognized as a construction worker and associate of her older son who had done tile setting work for her at her business.

She opened the door and a group of men – including the man who knocked at the door – forced their way into the house and tied her up. They then demanded money indicating they had some familiarity with her older son, using his name.

Minutes later, her younger son walked into the house from the rear driveway access door and confronted the home invaders. He fought with the invaders to save his mother and one of the men – though not the one who knocked on the door who she recognized as her son’s acquaintance and tile setter – shot her son in the chest. He died at the scene.

All the invaders fled the house. Typical of a case of this seriousness, several detectives were assigned to work various aspects of the case.  Some of the evidence they gathered: Mr. Ovasapyan had done tile work at the mother’s business in the past. Mr. Ovasapyan had a dispute with one of her sons over a construction project.  Witnesses identified at least two vehicles outside, including a dark colored Honda sedan. Mr. Ovasapyan was known to drive a Black Honda.  The mother was shown a photographic lineup by a detective which included Mr. Ovasapyan’s photo.  She told him it looks just like him, but younger, but maintained it was the tile setter.   While running from the scene one of the suspects (not the man who knocked at the door) dropped an item of clothing. DNA analysis of this item of clothing provided a lead that identified the possible shooter. There was no DNA evidence left by the suspect the victim believed to be Ovasapyan.

I was assigned to gather all of the various reports from the group of detectives who worked the case and to present the case to the prosecutor’s office.  The prosecutor’s decision to file charges in the case was based on an evaluation of the totality of the evidence and not solely the photo identification of Ovasapyan.  As the case moved through the court system Mr. Ovasapyan maintained his innocence.  I did not rest and I continued to investigate the case, and when the DNA results returned they provided the lead that helped me to exonerate Mr. Ovasapyan prior to any trial or conviction.

I am including a letter from Steve Dickman, a prosecutor intimately familiar with the original case as well as the civil trial that followed. His letter is in the form of an endorsement written earlier this year in which he touches on the case and from which this case can be seen in the continuum of my entire career.

I am also including a motion written by Mr. Dickman which discusses the case in detail and explains why the result of the civil trial has no impact or bearing on my credibility as an investigator or witness. Every court that heard this motion did not allow evidence of the verdict or my role in the investigation to be presented to any jury on the issue of my credibility because there was no evidence of wrongdoing. 

Art Frank 

———————————-

The letter from Mr. Dickman is available on Mr. Frank’s campaign website. The motion Mr. Frank mentions is a 27-page legal brief from one party in a criminal case, not a judicial ruling. We have not been provided the motion to which this brief was filed as a response, the reply to this brief nor the ultimate ruling by a court. We print in full all written responses to questions we pose, but publishing this full brief — without knowing anything about the surrounding case and the court’s ruling — is beyond the scope of our policy.

Sheriff Joe Nole has not responded to a request for comment on the statements made by Mr. Frank. I specifically asked Sheriff Nole about Frank’s claim that Nole hired him and was aware of the Ovasapyan verdict at the time. Frank’s account would mean that Nole, not then Sheriff Stanko, hired Frank as Stanko’s second-in-command and demoted himself from the position he had held under Sheriff Hernandez and put himself under Frank’s supervision. Nole, as Frank states, has not used the case against him in debates.

———————————-

[Update to original story] It appears that the Ovasapyan veridict was known at the time of hiring, and the information was passed along to Sheriff Dave Stanko, who made the decision to hire Mr. Frank. Sheriff Nole provided the following answers to the questions we posed last week. He just got back to us after publication of the story. We can also now provide Mr. Kennedy’s full letter to defense counsel.

Q & A with Sheriff Nole:

Q: Was the judicial ruling against Mr. Frank known at the time of his hiring?

A: Yes. Mr. Frank’s pre-hire background investigation developed information on the ruling and that information was discussed with Mr. Frank.

Q: How could he have been hired with this matter so recently in his background? (He was hired a few years after the 9th Circuit upheld the verdict).

A: The information developed in the background investigation and discussed with Mr. Frank regarding the judicial ruling was presented to then Sheriff Dave Stanko, who made the hiring decision.

Q: How does the case impact his ability to do his job?

A: At this point it does not impact his ability to do his job.

Q: Does it detract from his credibility as a witness when he must testify?

A: It could, depending on the circumstances presented at trial and a judge’s interpretation.

Q: How could this detract from his ability to lead the Sheriff’s Office and defend against charges of misconduct?

A: How it could detract would be dependent on the particular situation occurring at the time.

Here is a link to Mr. Kennedy’s letter: PID Letter Det A Frank