Orange County supervisors continue measure urging DOJ review of former supervisor Andrew Do plea

Orange County’s Board of Supervisors on the morning’s agenda paused action on a resolution calling for the U.S. Department of Justice to review the plea agreement and sentencing recommendation in United States v. Andrew Do, the federal case involving the county’s former supervisor. The clerk read the supplemental item, S26C, which also would authorize county counsel to send a formal letter to the state attorney general requesting reassessment and the advancement of investigations into other persons allegedly involved.

The item drew a large turnout: the clerk recorded 36 requests to speak. Dozens of Vietnamese‑American community leaders and residents told the board they had been harmed by misconduct they described as the misuse of COVID‑era relief funds and urged a stronger federal response. Phat Bui, identified as a former Garden Grove councilman and a community federation leader, told the board the former supervisor “embezzled tens of millions of dollars in public fund that was targeted to help the seniors and the disadvantaged” and asked the board to seek further review and restitution.

Sponsor Supervisor Janet Nguyen (First District) said community members were outraged at what they perceived as a lenient plea package for a figure they said stole from vulnerable residents. Nguyen outlined federal charges that were not pursued in the plea, including bribery, conspiracy, fraud and money‑laundering, and argued that new information warrants review before sentencing. Nguyen said the plea “foregoes a number of charges the DOJ did not even bother to pursue” and urged colleagues to support further action to protect public integrity.

Several board members voiced support for additional scrutiny or a stronger voice at sentencing. Supervisor Katrina Foley (Fifth District), speaking from her legal experience, said prosecutors often charge what they can prove but noted newly revealed information — including emails and an apparent back‑door forwarding of county emails to a private account — that she said could be grounds to reassess the plea if it amounted to a breach of the agreement. Foley proposed language changes to narrow the resolution to ask DOJ to determine “any subsequent breaches” of the plea agreement.

Other supervisors warned about separation of powers and the board’s role. Supervisor Don Wagner (Third District) said he would not support asking the DOJ to reopen a federal plea deal and stressed that courts and prosecutors are the appropriate forums for sentencing decisions. County counsel told the board staff found no recent precedent in which the board had formally asked federal prosecutors to revisit a plea agreement, though the board has in the past passed nonbinding resolutions criticizing light sentences.

Rather than vote on the resolution as presented, the board voted to continue the matter for two weeks to allow staff and counsel to redraft language and to prepare a separate amicus or victim‑impact submission for the June sentencing. The motion to continue carried 4–1. The board also expressed a sense that county counsel should begin drafting an amicus brief or similar submission the board could use at sentencing to argue for the maximum sentence within the plea’s range or to highlight any alleged breaches.

Next steps: the board continued the item to its next meeting (two weeks) and directed county counsel to prepare a draft amicus/victim impact submission for review prior to the June sentencing date.

Votes at a glance: the procedural motion to continue S26C passed 4–1 (motion carries).