Orange County supervisors approve victim impact statement for former supervisor after heated debate over scope and attachments

The Orange County Board of Supervisors voted to approve a victim impact statement to be submitted for the federal sentencing of former supervisor Andrew Doan, after a lengthy debate over whether to attach the board's previously approved resolution and whether to list potential charges that the plea agreement foreclosed.

The board voted 3 in favor, 1 opposed and 1 abstention on April 29, 2025. Vice Chair Sue Foley, Supervisor Shawn Winn and Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento voted yes; Supervisor Wagner voted no; Chair Chaffee abstained.

County counsel told the board the matter was time-sensitive because the federal pre-sentence report must be provided to the defendant 35 days before sentencing. "Under the federal rules, the PSR must be provided to the defendant ... 35 days before his sentencing," County Counsel Page said, and the defendant's sentencing is scheduled for June 9, which makes May 5 the practical deadline for inclusion in the PSR.

Why it matters: the board's victim impact statement is addressed to the sentencing judge and is intended to describe the emotional, physical and financial harm the county says resulted from the former supervisor's actions. Some supervisors sought to include a longer list of potential federal crimes and attach the board's earlier resolution and a letter to a federal official to underscore the county's view of the harms; others said those attachments would politicize or weaken a document whose purpose is to convey victim impact.

Supervisor Wynne, who represents the district most directly affected, argued the statement should retain references to the charges she said appear in the plea agreement and should show the "totality" of harm. "Help us. Help our community," Wynne said, urging stronger language and expressing constituents' anger.

Supervisor Wagner opposed folding the earlier resolution into the victim statement, saying the two instruments serve different functions and that attaching political material could dilute the victim statement's role. "There is no place in our system of justice for a political body to send in a resolution," Wagner said, arguing the victim statement should remain victim-focused.

Vice Chair Foley proposed adding references to the county's Vietnam War memorial and to explicit discovery and deposition findings so the statement would be grounded in evidence rather than assertion; she moved to attach the board's resolution as part of the submission package, a motion seconded by Wynne.

County counsel also described a parallel submission the office intends to prepare: a brief to accompany sentencing that would include exhibits such as contracts, checks and ledger entries to document monetary losses. "That brief will include exhibits that will include the actual monetary losses sustained by the county," Page said.

The board debated whether attaching the resolution and including a list of potential federal crimes (as had appeared in earlier drafts) would increase the chance of maximum sentencing or risk turning the victim statement into a political document that the court might discount. Supporters said the attachments and a specific recitation of harms could press the case for full restitution and the upper end of the plea agreement sentence; opponents said prosecutors and probation already have access to case details and that the victim statement should focus on the human impact.

The motion the clerk called for approval was described by county counsel as: approval of the victim impact statement as amended by Vice Chair Foley (including a reference to the Vietnam War memorial and minor drafting edits), reinsertion of a listing of potential crimes as in a prior draft, and attachment of the board's resolution as part of the board's submission package (the letter to the named federal official was discussed but not attached to the victim statement for immediate submission).

Roll call was: Vice Chair Foley —Yes; Supervisor Winn —Yes; Supervisor Sarmiento —Yes; Supervisor Wagner —No; Chair Chaffee —Abstain. County counsel later reported there was no reportable action taken during the earlier closed session.

What happens next: county counsel will send the approved victim impact statement and related materials to the designated liaison at the U.S. Attorney's office and to the Department of Justice for inclusion in the pre-sentence report and in the separate brief with exhibits; county counsel cautioned that federal officials and U.S. Probation ultimately decide what is included in the PSR.

Key factual details extracted from the meeting: the defendant's sentencing is scheduled for June 9, 2025; the PSR must reach the defendant 35 days before sentencing (May 5, 2025, per counsel's explanation); supervisors referenced alleged misappropriations including about $10,000,000 in purchases and a $1,000,000 appropriation for a Vietnam War memorial that supervisors said was not completed. The victim impact statement as approved requests that the court impose the maximum term available under the plea agreement and seeks restitution to make the county whole.

The board adjourned after county counsel reported no reportable action from closed session.