DEFENDANT #14: RICARDO DANIEL GARCIA #178111 (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)

 

Role in People v. Michael Taylor (XNEGA111132)
As the Head of the Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office, Ricardo D. Garcia bears ultimate supervisory responsibility for the conduct, competence, and integrity of every public defender assigned under his command — including Danielle Daroca-Bell, Michael Salmaggi, and other deputies who played direct roles in the procedural deprivation, concealment, and obstruction experienced by Mr. Taylor.

Despite multiple attempts by Mr. Taylor to contact, alert, and request accountability directly from Garcia — including in-person visits and email outreach — Garcia refused to engage, investigate, or respond. His prolonged silence amid extensive notice of misconduct renders him complicit by institutional inaction, administrative tolerance, and willful disregard.

Summary of Involvement
The Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office, under Ricardo Garcia’s leadership, presided over one of the most egregious breakdowns of indigent defense rights in recent California memory. Mr. Taylor was:

• Denied access to sealed psychiatric orders and reports;
• Abandoned through ex parte conflicts of interest;
• Misrepresented by defense counsel during active criminal proceedings;
• Deprived of meaningful Marsden hearings and Faretta advisement;
• Subjected to unconstitutional psychiatric confinement and forced medication based on legally void instruments.

Mr. Taylor visited the Public Defender’s main office and attempted to secure a meeting with Ricardo Garcia to raise these issues regarding attorney Daroca-Bell. Garcia refused to meet and never replied to written follow-ups. This was not bureaucratic oversight — Mr. Taylor had already escalated his claims in writing, copying numerous officials and referencing sealed documents, due process violations, and judicial fraud.

As head of the agency, Garcia had every opportunity — and the statutory obligation — to investigate misconduct, assign outside counsel, refer the matter for ethical review, or intervene directly. Instead, he chose silence, thereby ratifying and endorsing the obstructive actions of his subordinates.

Garcia’s inaction is not excused by rank. In California, agency heads bear legal and ethical responsibility for systemic rights violations committed under their purview. In this case, his refusal to act amid extensive evidence implicates him as a high-level participant in the County’s denial of constitutional protection to a vulnerable defendant.

Why He Is Defendant #14 in the Dossier

• Failed to act upon direct notice of attorney misconduct, sealed record fraud, and procedural sabotage.
• Refused to respond to outreach or inquiries regarding the public defenders under his leadership.
• As agency head, holds non-delegable responsibility for oversight, discipline, and protection of clients’ constitutional rights.
• Permitted systemic due process violations to continue uncorrected, despite holding the power to investigate, reassign, or escalate.

> “Ricardo Garcia wore the mantle of protector, but sat silent while the house of defense collapsed. In the Dossier, he stands not for what he did — but for what he refused to do.”