Did Zack Scrivner get special treatment during abuse investigation? Public voiced concerns over months-long process
Factors such as the length of the investigation and lack of communication from investigators begged the question — what if it were someone else?
You've heard the facts and know the story. Community members do too and they're crying out Zack Scrivner is receiving special treatment.
READ: Full complaint against Zack Scrivner
'I wouldn't be standing up here if we didn't believe something occurred,' Sheriff Donny Youngblood said during a press conference last year detailing the night in question.
Everything started April 23, 2024, when the then-county supervisor first was accused of child sex abuse.
No one called 9-1-1 or the local police. Instead, his aunt, District Attorney Cynthia Zimmer, placed an 11 p.m. call directly to the sheriff.
There was no arrest.
Scrivner simply disappeared, leaving his attorney to speak for him. Then, people started lining up at the Board of Supervisors meetings.
They all had the same concerns.
'Zack Scrivner, an elected representative who because of his political position and his different connections to law enforcement has received clear, preferential treatment over a series of extremely harmful actions,' said Alex Gonzales, with the Young Democrat Leaders during a Board of Supervisors meeting. 'Harmful to his family and harmful to the county.'
'If your child was sexually abused, how long would you like to wait for charges to be filed?' asked Dennis McLean, a concerned citizen.
Former Kern County Supervisor Zack Scrivner charged with child cruelty, weapons offenses
Another citizen said Scrivner is receiving special treatment because of white privilege.
'The tough on crime narrative his Aunt DA Zimmer uses that tends to only apply to poor, marginalized black and brown residents,' said Ucedrah Osby.
Scrivner remained gone, the supervisors' dais an empty seat along with even more angry people.
'Is he going to get to hide for 100 years. I wouldn't get to and neither would you,' said Duetta Riley, a District 2 resident.
17 News repeatedly reached out to the District Attorney's Office but Cynthia Zimmer's office declined to comment.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
3 days ago
- CBS News
San Mateo Sheriff Christina Corpus' attorneys make last-ditch attempt to halt removal hearing
At a San Mateo County Board of Supervisors meeting Tuesday, the legal team representing embattled Sheriff Christina Corpus made another attempt to halt the upcoming hearing proceedings aimed at her removal. Corpus is facing potential removal from her elected position after voters in March overwhelmingly approved Measure A, a charter amendment granting the supervisors temporary power to remove the sheriff on grounds of misconduct. Measure A was the board's way of removing Corpus, who remained defiant against calls to resign after the release of a scathing, 400-page investigation by retired judge LaDoris Cordell alleging that Corpus had an inappropriate relationship with her chief of staff and fostered a culture of intimidation and retaliation in the Sheriff's Office. As part of the removal proceedings, a Measure A hearing is set to begin Monday and last 10 days. In addition, a separate trial is scheduled for September after the county civil grand jury accused Corpus of having a conflict of interest in the hiring of her chief of staff, Victor Aenlle, with whom she has a close relationship. The civil grand jury also alleged that Corpus retaliated against three of her staff members. At Tuesday's board meeting, at least four of Corpus' attorneys showed up in a last-ditch attempt to halt next week's hearing. They requested that the supervisors pause the Measure A hearing and instead hold the civil grand jury trial first. Attorney Tom Perez, who served as the former U.S. secretary of labor during former President Barack Obama's administration and as a senior adviser to former President Joe Biden, spoke for more than 10 minutes during public comment. Perez recently joined Corpus' team of lawyers, and originally requested one hour to speak to the board at Tuesday's regular meeting, according to a letter he sent to board president David Canepa and County Attorney John Nibbelin. The board denied that request. "I sent a letter last week, and I'm here to make a specific request," Perez said to the board at Tuesday's meeting. "The request is that the civil grand jury proceeding, which would give the community a voice in this matter, proceed first, and the reason for that is so that the community can weigh in." Perez spent the next 10 minutes of his speech defending Corpus against accusations made in the Cordell report and trying to highlight her accomplishments and track record as sheriff. He mentioned Corpus' response to the 2023 Half Moon Bay shootings, and the reduction in violent crimes and property crimes seen in 2024 during Corpus' tenure. He attempted to discount allegations that Corpus and Aenlle had an intimate relationship, and also discussed the challenges she faced as the first woman of color to be elected sheriff in the county. "We are here to defend her vigorously, and we will bring the truth forward," Perez said. "We will prove the negatives." None of the board members responded directly to Perez's request during the meeting. A statement from county spokesperson Effie Milionis Verducci said San Mateo County fully intends to move forward with the Measure A hearing next week. "The county remains committed to defending the integrity of the lawful Measure A process and we look forward to the hearing taking place, beginning August 18," she wrote. It was Corpus' latest attempt to stop the removal proceedings, having filed multiple requests to halt the Measure A process through temporary restraining orders. "The Sheriff has now asked three different judges to stop the removal process and all three have refused, allowing the process to move forward," Milionis Verducci said. Monday's hearing will be open to the public after Corpus reversed her initial request to keep it closed. "Let the public see the facts," Corpus said in a statement announcing her decision in late July. "Let them hear the truth. Let justice pierce the veil of corruption and bring light where darkness has reigned for far too long." Tuesday's meeting also included an agenda item in which the board heard a presentation recommending the establishment of a full-time inspector general to oversee the Sheriff's Office with subpoena power. Kalimah Salahuddin, the chair of the county's Independent Civilian Advisory Commission on the Sheriff's Office, gave the presentation explaining the benefits of having an inspector general. The ICAC is comprised of nine appointed members who offer recommendations to the board for encouraging transparency and accountability in the Sheriff's Office. An inspector general, Salahuddin said at the meeting, would have "the ability to hold impartial investigations into allegations of misconduct, both internally and externally, to be able to review internal investigations for fairness and then support ICAC when issues are brought to our commission." For some members of the public, the addition of a full-time inspector general to oversee the Sheriff's Office has come at an important time given the current upheaval the department is facing surrounding Corpus. "Over the past year, we have witnessed the complete unraveling of the Sheriff's Office," said deacon Lauren Patton McCombs during public comment. She is a member of the Coalition for a Safer San Mateo County, a group of community organizations that support civilian oversight of the Sheriff's Office. "The time to act is now. I encourage you to follow the recommendation of ICAC and hire a permanent inspector general to prevent any future problems developing within the Sheriff's Office. Don't wait until a new interim sheriff is appointed." The board did not take a vote on whether to hire an inspector general during Tuesday's meeting.
San Francisco Chronicle
4 days ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Can San Francisco avoid Trump's ire after National Guard deployments in D.C. and L.A.?
Once again, President Donald Trump has brought his campaign of retribution against liberal jurisdictions to the streets of a major American city, ordering hundreds of National Guard troops to deploy to another Democratic stronghold. And once again, the city in question is not San Francisco, a past Trump target that has so far avoided the kind of direct clash with his administration that previously played out in Los Angeles and is now unfolding in Washington. Trump announced Monday that he was temporarily placing the D.C. police department under federal control and sending 800 National Guard troops to the nation's capital. Those extraordinary steps were necessary because of 'violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals' that have overrun the city, Trump said, even though official statistics show violent crime in Washington is down. The president put other cities on notice, warning that New York, Chicago, Baltimore and Oakland could also see National Guard deployments over crime concerns. He did not mention San Francisco, a famously liberal sanctuary city that was panned by Trump last year as 'not even livable.' It's not as if San Francisco is flying under Trump's radar entirely. He has promoted the unlikely idea of reopening Alcatraz as a federal prison, and immigration agents have detained people in the city as they've sought to carry out Trump's mass deportation plans. San Francisco has also repeatedly fought Trump administration policies in court. But when it comes to Trump sending military forces to what he views as lawless cities led astray by Democratic politicians, San Francisco and its mayor, Daniel Lurie, do not appear to be top of mind for the president — at least not for now. Some political observers say that's a testament to how well Lurie and other moderate Democrats are running the city, while others warn that Trump could easily turn his ire on the city at a moment's notice. Jay Cheng, executive director of the moderate political group Neighbors for a Better San Francisco, sees political vindication in the fact that Trump didn't invoke San Francisco when he previously sent National Guard troops to Los Angeles or when he announced the actions in Washington on Monday. Cheng said San Francisco voters have shown in electing Lurie, District Attorney Brooke Jenkins and a moderate Board of Supervisors majority that they're focused on improving police staffing, reducing crime, shutting down drug markets and making the city function more efficiently. 'In San Francisco, we're showing that Democratic leaders can successfully govern a city,' Cheng said. 'He's not mentioning us because we're not a good example for his narrative, because we have Democrats that are doing a great job around public safety.' State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, had a more blunt assessment of Trump's treatment of New York, Chicago, Baltimore, Oakland and Washington. All of those cities have Black mayors and large Black populations, Wiener noted, calling it 'straight up Donald Trump's alley and straight out of his racist playbook.' Wiener doubted that Trump was taking note of any specific political changes in San Francisco when thinking about where he wanted to send the National Guard. 'Donald Trump has taken many swings at San Francisco over the years — just ask Nancy Pelosi,' Wiener said. 'The other thing is, when it comes to Trump, the eye of Sauron is going to look wherever it's going to look,' Wiener said. 'If he's going after Oakland, Baltimore, Chicago, New York and L.A. today, he's going to go after other cities tomorrow.' Since he became San Francisco mayor in January, Lurie has carefully avoided even uttering Trump's name in public in an attempt to avoid drawing too much attention from a vengeful president with a reputation for being unpredictable. He's seen little evidence that his approach is unpopular: In fact, 50% of respondents in a recent Chronicle poll said the mayor was right to prioritize local issues. Lurie's office had no comment Monday. Former Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf said Monday that she has 'great compassion for the mayors who are struggling with the right thing to do in Trump's second term,' pointing to the decisive conservative control of the U.S. Supreme Court and the Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress. Schaff had a widely-publicized clash with Trump during his first term in 2018, when she as Oakland mayor issued a public warning about an imminent immigration sweep. Trump called her action a 'disgrace' and urged his attorney general to consider prosecuting Schaaf. In direct response to Schaaf, a Republican Congressman introduced unsuccessful legislation that would have imposed criminal penalties — and possible jailtime — against local officials who made similar disclosures. Schaaf said she thinks it's 'wise' for mayors to focus on what they were elected to do, unless they find themselves directly in the crosshairs of the White House, which is the situation that she thinks she faced in Oakland seven years ago. 'I really did not want to be sucked into a national debate when I was elected to run the city, to keep people safe,' Schaaf said. 'It doesn't surprise me that Mayor Lurie is focused on what he was elected to do and not allowing himself to be distracted, because Trump hasn't called out San Francisco in this way.' Barbara Lee, Oakland's current mayor, responded Monday to Trump's comments about her city by calling them inaccurate and 'an attempt to score cheap political points by tearing down communities he doesn't understand.' Schaaf told the Chronicle that she has 'a lot of respect and faith' that Lee will 'do what is right for her values and the values of Oakland.' And while Trump isn't talking much about San Francisco now, that could change under the wrong circumstances, said Jeff Cretan, who was a spokesperson for former Mayor London Breed. A high-profile violent incident during an immigration action or protest in San Francisco could quickly result in Trump setting his sights on the city, Cretan said. 'I don't want to see something horrible happen, but that could change things,' he said. 'Sometimes those moments are what galvanize people … Those bigger, symbolic things that resonate with people more often are what draw a lot of the attention.' Lurie has clearly indicated his desire to avoid such a scenario. In June, after Trump first sent National Guard troops to Los Angeles, a reporter asked Lurie if he anticipated something similar happening in San Francisco, where protests had already erupted. Lurie said he was focused on 'keeping San Franciscans safe.' 'We have this under control,' he said.
CBS News
4 days ago
- CBS News
DA Hochman says "enough is enough" on Los Angeles street takeovers, pleads for harsher penalties for attendees
Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman says he wants the Board of Supervisors to "keep ratcheting up the penalties" for participants in dangerous street takeovers. During a news conference on Monday, Hochman said that "enough is enough" when it comes to the takeovers, which he claimed is an increasingly growing problem in the county. The takeovers, as Hochman described, are when as many as hundreds of people gather at an intersection for an unofficial car show, in which drivers perform stunts like donuts and drifting while surrounded by spectators. "[These drivers] will engage in highly dangerous and often destructive and even potentially deadly actions, gearing their cars around these intersections," Hochman said. These takeovers are often organized through promoters on social media, according to the DA. He said that in some instances, promoters have two or three locations planned for takeovers on a particular night, in case their first attempts at an event are broken up by police. "If you're a promoter, don't even think for a second you can't hide anymore," Hochman said. "We're coming after you." During Monday's news conference, Hochman called for harsher penalties to be put in place against drivers, promoters and spectators. Current law in L.A. County says that spectators can be hit with $500 fines or 180 days in county jail for spectating such events, or enter a diversion program. Hochman called for the Board of Supervisors to add additional penalties for more than one offense. "I would ask the Board of Supervisors to keep ratcheting up the penalties," he said. "[The second conviction's penalty] shouldn't be $1,000, it should be $2,500 ... If we keep ratcheting up those penalties, hopefully that will finally dissuade people."
