Los Angeles County prosecutors have escalated their investigation into City Councilman Curren Price, attempting to compel his wife, Del Richardson, to testify before a grand jury and serving subpoenas to several members of his City Hall staff.
Sources confirm that the grand jury was convened in March, although the details surrounding it remain largely undisclosed due to California’s laws protecting the secrecy of such proceedings.
Price’s attorney, Michael Schafler, verified the existence of the grand jury in a recent court filing, indicating that the inquiry is focused on the councilman.
This intensification follows the filing of additional charges against Price earlier this week, marking a significant development in the ongoing scrutiny from the district attorney’s office.
Initially charged in 2023, Price is accused of voting in favor of measures that allegedly financially benefited his wife, a real estate consultant. Documents released on Thursday reveal that prosecutors had even considered Richardson a suspect in the criminal investigation as recently as 2022.
Price has consistently denied any wrongdoing and entered a not guilty plea to the charges against him.
While Richardson was served a subpoena and initially expected to testify before the grand jury, she ultimately did not do so, the reasons for which remain unclear. Notably, no criminal charges have been filed against her, with her attorney expressing confidence in her innocence and belief in Price’s forthcoming vindication.
Price is currently facing 12 criminal counts that include grand theft by embezzlement, perjury, and violations of state conflict of interest laws. The allegations state that Price consistently supported measures that facilitated transactions involving his wife’s consulting firm, Del Richardson & Associates.
In addition, prosecutors allege that he misappropriated approximately $33,000 in medical premiums by incorrectly listing Richardson as a beneficiary on his city-issued healthcare plan while they were not legally married.
A summary document from the district attorney’s office, which became public this week, referred to Richardson as a suspect, suggesting she had committed perjury and played a role in Price’s alleged embezzlement through actions taken to reclaim healthcare costs from the city of Inglewood, where Price previously served.
Both Price and Richardson were not married at the time of these actions, as Price only finalized his divorce in 2018.
The grand jury proceedings have led to subpoenas being issued to several of Price’s City Hall staff and some former employees of Richardson’s firm, which she sold a few years back.
There remains ambiguity regarding the exact purpose of the grand jury as sources indicated that questions posed by prosecutors did not directly relate to the charges already filed against Price.
In response to these developments, Schafler filed a motion seeking to dismiss the charges, claiming that the grand jury proceedings seemed to be improperly aimed at gathering information and preparing for the preliminary hearing rather than focusing purely on criminal indictments.
California law classifies grand juries into two categories: investigative and indicting. The nature of the grand jury convened in Price’s case is yet to be clarified, but it is not common for prosecutors to fail in persuading a grand jury to issue an indictment.
The district attorney’s office has withheld comments on the grand jury’s proceedings, stating that further discussion would require court authorization.
In remarks regarding the grand jury’s functions, the office indicated the distinctions between the two types but provided limited insights into the ongoing case against Price.
Schafler, in his motion to dismiss charges filed in 2023, pointed out challenges for prosecutors in proving that past financial transactions involving Richardson’s company influenced Price’s voting behavior. Many of the votes under scrutiny were passed without requiring Price’s support, negating allegations of conflict of interest based on those votes.
Criminal cases in California can progress through two routes: a preliminary hearing or an indictment via a grand jury, with the preliminary hearing being more common. Price appeared in court recently to respond to the two new charges, asserting his innocence.
Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman noted that between 2019 and 2021, Price voted in favor of funding and grants for L.A. Metro and the city’s housing authority after Richardson’s firm received substantial payments from those entities.
Despite these accusations, Price’s spokeswoman defended the councilman’s office, stating they have established rigorous processes to identify and mitigate potential conflicts of interest.
Valencia emphasized that their legislative team undertakes extensive reviews of numerous Council and Committee votes every month.
Schafler has repeatedly contended that Price acted without knowledge of any conflict of interest laws, asserting that the councilman’s decisions were made in good faith, taking into account thorough conflict evaluation processes.
As this investigation unfolds, Price’s legal challenges could have significant implications for his political career and the dynamics within L.A. City Hall.
image source from：latimes
