Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Federal Corruption Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Orange County supervisors ask DOJ to reassess plea deal for former supervisor; matter continued two weeks
Summary
After hours of public comment, the Orange County Board of Supervisors voted to continue a supplemental item asking the U.S. Department of Justice to review the plea agreement and sentencing recommendation for former supervisor Andrew Do and directed county counsel to prepare an amicus brief for the pending sentencing.
The Orange County Board of Supervisors voted on April 8 to continue for two weeks a resolution urging the U.S. Department of Justice to "review and reassess" the plea agreement and sentencing recommendation for former Supervisor Andrew Do and to consider advancing the DOJ's investigation into other people allegedly involved.
Supervisor Janet Nguyen, First District, who co-sponsored the supplemental item, said the measure was intended to protect “the integrity of our justice system” and the public’s trust. “This is not about political retribution or politics. It is about fairness and justice,” Nguyen said during the dais discussion.
The item drew more than 30 speakers, many from Orange County’s Vietnamese American community. Speakers repeatedly asked the board to push for a tougher response from federal prosecutors, saying the proposed penalties did not match the allegations in court filings. Phat Bui, identified as a former Garden Grove city councilman and chairperson of the Vietnamese American Federation of Southern California, told the board he and other community members believed “no one should be above the law” and urged a more thorough federal review.
Supervisor Katrina Foley, Fifth District, said the record of additional disclosures since the plea agreement — including revelations about emails and other documents — warranted a fresh look by prosecutors. “I feel that the Department of Justice should reconsider and reassess the plea agreement because he continued to act in an unethical, criminal‑minded manner even after signing the plea agreement,” she said.
Supervisor Don Wagner, Third District, said he would not support the resolution because he viewed asking the board to weigh in on a federal plea deal as outside the board’s institutional role. “This resolution asking our board to weigh in is, to my mind, beyond the competence, beyond the responsibility of this board,” Wagner said.
After lengthy discussion and proposed edits to the resolution language to ask the DOJ to determine “any subsequent breaches of the plea agreement,” the board ultimately voted to continue the matter to the board’s meeting on April 22, 2025, and directed county counsel to begin drafting an amicus or other court filing related to the forthcoming sentencing. The motion to continue passed on a 4–1 vote (Wagner opposed). The board instructed staff to finalize language and to provide a draft for the next meeting.
Why it matters: The resolution and the board’s follow‑up direction come amid community concern that the plea agreement in U.S. v. Andrew Do may be lenient compared with sentences in other public‑corruption cases and that additional evidence disclosed since the agreement could warrant further action by federal authorities. The board does not have authority to alter federal charges or sentences, but its request signals county officials' interest in ensuring the case is reviewed before sentencing.
Background and next steps: The prosecution’s plea agreement and related filings are in federal court; sentencing is scheduled in June. The board’s request asks federal prosecutors to reassess the plea agreement, to consider whether breaches occurred, and to advance investigation of other individuals allegedly involved. County counsel was asked to prepare a draft amicus or similar submission for the board to consider at the April 22 meeting.
Public comments and community response: More than three dozen speakers asked the board to press for stronger federal action. Many speakers tied their appeals to broader concerns about public trust and to recent community events; several veterans and Vietnamese‑American community leaders participated. Members of the board said they were listening to speakers’ concerns and sought to balance those concerns with deference to prosecutorial discretion and the federal courts.
Action at a glance: The board continued the supplemental item to April 22, 2025, and directed county counsel to prepare a draft brief or filing for the sentencing; motion passed 4–1.
