An organization that advocates for judges pushed back this week against Riverside County District Attorney Mike Hestrin’s assertion that a judge made an “outrageous error” in sentencing a Cabazon man to only 180 days in custody in 2023 following a child-cruelty conviction — an “error” that Hestrin said contributed to the apparent death of the man’s missing 7-month-old son, Emmanuel Haro.
“The truth is that the judge exercised his judicial discretion, which was totally appropriate,” wrote officials of the San Bernardino/Riverside chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates, which aims to promote an independent judiciary and protect the constitutional right to civil jury trials.
Emmanuel was still missing on Friday, Sept. 12. His parents, Jake Mitchell Haro, 32, and Rebecca Renee Haro, 41, have pleaded not guilty to charges of murder and filing a false police report. Authorities said she lied about Emmanuel by saying he was kidnapped and Rebecca Haro assaulted in a Yucaipa parking lot on Aug. 14. They are due back in court on Sept. 16.
In baby Emmanuel case, citizen journalists broke news but also spread misinformation
In 2023, Jake Haro admitted guilt to one count of felony child cruelty in a plea deal in Superior Court in Riverside to Judge Dwight Moore, who sentenced him to 180 days in a sheriff’s work-release program, 52 weeks of child batterer’s counseling, four years of probation and a six-year state prison term that Haro did not have to serve as long as he did not violate any laws.
Haro actually served 91 days on weekends before being freed, court records show.
The DA’s Office had argued for four years in prison.
When Hestrin announced charges against the Haros on Aug. 27, he said of the sentence: “It was an outrageous error in judgment by this judge. Mr. Haro should have been in prison at the time that this crime happened.”
But officials with the Trial Advocates local chapter defended Moore and criticized prosecutors.
In a Sept. 4 news release titled, “Facts Matter: Get the Complete and Accurate Picture,” the officials said Moore’s sentence was within legal guidelines that call for a prison sentence of two, four or six years and that prosecutors did not push hard enough for prison time or demand that Haro be held in custody after he was accused of violating probation following his arrest on suspicion of being a felon in possession of a firearm in 2024.
“It appears, from the facts, that the Riverside DA has taken a passive approach to the handling of this serious matter and now points the finger at the judge who took the plea back on 6/8/23,” the release says. “We cannot stand idly by while misinformation and blame are focused on the judicial officer. The truth is that the judge exercised his judicial discretion, which was totally appropriate.”
The release says that Moore received threats after Hestrin’s criticism.
Moore had not responded to a request for comment as of Friday, Sept. 12.
One of the key areas of disagreement is whether Moore, at the time of the sentencing, knew of the severity of the injuries to Carolina Haro, the 10-month-old victim in the cruelty case. The daughter of Haro and his second wife, Vanessa Haro, suffered permanent brain damage and is bedridden. Vanessa Haro also pleaded guilty to the court in that case.
Former San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge John M. Pacheco, who along with two attorneys signed the Trial Advocates’ news release, said in an interview that Moore was appointed to the case well after it started through the Temporary Assigned Judges Program to hold a mandatory settlement conference. Such judges, Pacheco said, receive only a copy of the charges and rely on the attorneys to provide details to guide their sentencing decisions.
“There was never any mention of the child’s permanent injuries and the fact that the child is permanently disabled and bedridden,” Pacheco said while declining to say how he knew this.
The District Attorney’s Office rejected that assertion in a written statement Thursday, Sept. 11, saying that Moore “was acutely aware of the heinous and permanent nature of this young victim’s injuries.”
Before indicating a sentence, Pacheco said, a judge would consider the nature of the alleged crime, how old the case is, the criminal record of the defendant, and the nature and the seriousness of the injuries.
Additionally, Pacheco said, the DA’s Office did not file a “great bodily injury” enhancement that would have precluded Moore from accepting a plea to the court.
At the sentencing, Deputy District Attorney Sam Taloa spoke to Moore before the judge’s final ruling and appeared to reference a previous conversation about the girl’s injuries.
“Your Honor, I would just ask for the record to reflect that the People are objecting to this, and this is based on the severity of the injuries, as we discussed, to the victim. And our offer was, in fact, prison for this case,” Taloa said, according to the court transcript.
Replied Moore: “I acknowledged that when I said it was a plea to the Court, and the People aren’t joining in it. I appreciate that. Under the circumstances, I think this is appropriate, and we have hung a very large hammer over the defendant’s head. If he violates, he’ll end up going to prison for a lot longer than if I had taken the DA’s deal. I’m giving you a chance. Don’t mess it up. Good luck.”
“Thank you,” Haro said.
Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor and now a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, described Taloa’s objection as “pro forma.”
“You didn’t see a lot of zealous, detailed advocacy,” Levenson said in an interview. “There is sort of a generic statement by the prosecutor. … A vehement argument would be to itemize all the injuries on the child and say why the defendant needed a harsher sentence. It would have been more than one line (in the transcript).”
Pacheco found Taloa’s protest to be tepid.
“There should have been a vehement objection,” Pacheco said in the interview. “There should have been a (great-bodily-injury-sentencing enhancement).”
The DA’s Office, in response to the Trial Advocates’ release, said that had the case gone to a preliminary hearing, where prosecutors would have had to show enough evidence to hold Haro for trial, it was “highly likely” the DA would have attempted to increase the seriousness of the charges.
The DA’s Office agrees that Moore had the discretion to grant probation, the statement continued, but it added that Hestrin believes accepting the plea “was an inappropriate use of that discretion.”
The Trial Advocates’ release says that the DA’s Office had another opportunity to have Haro in custody in July 2024 when he was charged with the firearms count and a violation of his probation, which could have resulted in him serving the suspended prison sentence. A defendant does not have to be convicted of the crime that violates probation to be sent to prison; prosecutors have to show a preponderance of the evidence — a lesser burden of proof — that the crime occurred.
But five probation violation hearings, the last on July 2, 2025, were postponed. Jake Haro and Rebecca Haro were then arrested on Aug. 26 in their baby’s disappearance.
“The DA did not oppose a continuance,” the release said.
The DA’s Office on Thursday offered a different version of events.
“When Jake Haro violated his probation in August 2024, he was immediately jailed but posted bail on both the new gun case and the violation of probation,” spokeswoman Amy McKenzie said. “The judge set Haro’s bail amount according to the official bail schedule issued by the Superior Court. Haro then posted the ($60,000) bail and thus was released from custody.”
McKenzie said the decisions to postpone the hearings were made by the court.
And those, she said, would be the DA’s final comments to the public on Jake Haro’s previous cases.
“It is essential that we do not lose sight of who is truly responsible for the loss of life at issue in this case and focus our time and energy on ensuring justice for baby Emmanuel,” McKenzie said.