If you are looking for a Madera District Attorney, you have come to the right place. Located in Madera, California, the DA’s office is committed to serving the community by vigorously prosecuting those who violate the law and protecting the rights of victims. Read this article to learn about Michael LiCalsi’s relationship with Ms. Mitchell and Sally Moreno. Then, contact the Madera District Attorney’s Office for legal advice.
Sally Moreno, a former police officer, has a long list of accomplishments to back up her claim to be a District Attorney. She enrolled in the ROTC program during her undergraduate years and became an officer in the Army Military Police Corps. After being commissioned, she served in Desert Storm and the Los Angeles Police Department. After her service, she returned to the Valley to pursue a law degree from the San Joaquin School of Law. She graduated in 1995.
Moreno’s family life and desire to balance work and family led her to pursue a career in law. She began her legal career with the Los Angeles police department, serving additionally in the military. She attended night classes at SJCL and earned her law degree. Since then, she has remained in Madera County. She has been married to her husband Sergio for 24 years. During her time as Madera’s District Attorney, she has worked on criminal cases, bringing new cases to trial.
After graduating from Fresno State, Michael LiCalsi hoped to attend UCLA. His father passed away, however, and his plans had to be adjusted. Instead, he attended UC Hastings College of Law with the assistance of his mother. After graduating, LiCalsi worked in private practice and became district attorney of Madera County in 1992. He served in that position for 17 years and was elected to the Superior Court in 2009.
As the defendants’ argument, DA LiCalsi’s office failed to properly protect Mitchell from demotion, even though she did not receive a promotion. In addition to not being a policymaker, Mitchell had limited influence over the DA’s office, overseeing the clerical staff and ensuring that attorneys were trained and up to date. Furthermore, the record does not establish that Mitchell and DA LiCalsi communicated openly and flexibly.
Ms. Mitchell was hired as SDDA by DA LiCalsi because he thought she had excellent supervisory skills. She had worked with law enforcement and supervised, trained, and directed clerical staff and investigators. In her last job as SDDA, she oversaw a budget of over $500,000 and managed a staff of over 20 attorneys. In addition, Ms. Mitchell supervised and trained all DA attorneys and handled all travel requests for staff.
However, Mitchell is challenging this decision. She argues that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to strike the allegation of prior convictions. The court’s refusal to strike the allegation of prior convictions is contrary to established principles of the Three Strikes law. Her conviction, which was over thirty years old, was not a serious felony. Further, Mitchell did not harm anyone. Therefore, she does not deserve to receive a life sentence.
DA LiCalsi’s relationship with Ms. Mitchell
Amid the recent ADA scandal, the DA’s relationship with SDDA Ms. Mitchell has come under scrutiny for several reasons. She was hired by DA LiCalsi because she had excellent supervisory skills and a long history of working with law enforcement. In addition to supervising law enforcement officers, Mitchell also supervised investigators and clerical staff. In other words, the DA felt Ms. Mitchell was his “right-hand person.”
Ms. Mitchell, who had been in a similar position in San Diego before, has since left the department. DA LiCalsi recruited her to come back to his office and offered her a salary above her previous position and her new job in San Diego. She even received a five percent bonus while acting supervisor in 2002. In court, DA LiCalsi characterized her pay as “substantially higher” than her pre-departure salary, and argued that it demonstrated her “status as a policymaker.”
Ms. Mitchell’s supervisory skills
Ms. Mitchell was in charge of training all attorneys in the DA’s office. She scheduled training seminars within a limited budget and monitored the training of each deputy. She also handled travel requests for attorneys to attend seminars. Her supervisory role allowed her to improve her overall policymaking skills. Below are some examples of how Ms. Mitchell’s supervisory skills as a district attorney contributed to the success of her office.
The defendants argue that Ms. Mitchell had no authority beyond clerical duties and oversight of MCLE training. While she had little to do with case management and attorney assignments, her responsibilities reflected the management style of her predecessor, DA LiCalsi. The defendants also contend that Mitchell had extensive contact with LiCalsi and other elected officials, but Mitchell maintains that these were unrelated matters.