People v. Silverado Senior Living Management CA2/2, B334247

The Los Angeles County District Attorney charged Silverado Senior Living Management, Inc., and related individuals/entities with elder abuse and labor violations following a March 2020 COVID-19 outbreak at a residential care facility for the elderly (RCFE) that resulted in multiple deaths.
The California Department of Social Services (DSS) investigated and cleared the defendants of wrongdoing, while CalOSHA conducted a separate investigation that led to the criminal prosecution.
During DSS’s investigation, the facility’s administrator, Russo, gave statements under what he believed was compulsion due to regulatory requirements for RCFEs to cooperate with DSS inquiries.
Defendants moved to exclude these statements, arguing they were compelled under the Fifth Amendment and thus could not be used against them in criminal proceedings.
The trial court found Russo’s statements were compelled, the prosecution failed to show its evidence was independent of those statements, and dismissed the case against all defendants.
On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s rulings, upholding the exclusion of Russo’s statements and the dismissal of the charges.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Whether Russo’s statements to DSS were compelled under the Fifth Amendment	Statements were not compelled; no explicit penalty for invoking the Fifth Amendment	Russo was statutorily and practically compelled to cooperate or face loss of employment and certification	Russo’s belief was objectively reasonable; statements were compelled
Whether the trial court properly credited expert testimony on DSS enforcement practices	Testimony was speculative and outside permissible expert scope	Expert testimony was based on decades of relevant experience	Trial court did not err in crediting expert testimony
Whether the prosecution proved independence of its evidence under Kastigar	Not required if statements weren’t compelled	Prosecution’s evidence relied on Russo’s statements	Prosecution failed to show evidence was wholly independent
Whether it was proper to dismiss charges against all defendants	Only Russo’s rights affected; codefendants lacked standing	Compelled statements would deny all defendants’ right to fair trial	Argument forfeited on appeal; dismissal affirmed for all defendants

Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (Fifth Amendment precludes use of compelled statements in criminal proceedings against public employees)
Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (prosecution must show evidence is wholly independent if compelled statements are excluded)
People v. Lazarus, 238 Cal.App.4th 734 (tests for subjective/objective compulsion in employment investigations)
People v. Jordan, 42 Cal.3d 308 (burden on party challenging dismissal under Penal Code § 1385)