Every DA. Every County. Graded on Accountability, Misconduct, and Justice.
Grades based on documented misconduct, court reversals, settlements, police accountability, transparency, and whistleblower treatment. Sources: court records, news reports, State Bar records, settlement data.
Find Your District Attorney
Showing all 58 DAs
| Grade ▲ | Score ▲ | County ▲ | District Attorney ▲ | In Office Since ▲ | How Seated ▲ | Summary |
|---|
Each DA's Score is a multiplier: "how many times the typical bad-conduct California DA's documented misconduct severity." A score of 1.0× = at the bar. 2.0× = twice as bad. 3.0×+ = extreme outlier.
Below the bar. Less than half the documented-misconduct severity of the typical bad-conduct CA DA. Often small-county DAs with limited public record.
Around the bar. Documented misconduct is in the range of the typical bad-conduct CA DA, but not above it.
Elevated. Up to twice the typical bad-conduct CA DA's documented misconduct severity. Above the bar.
Very high. Two-to-three times the typical bad-conduct CA DA's severity.
Extreme outlier. Three-or-more times the typical bad-conduct CA DA's severity. Iglewicz-Hoaglin–flagged outlier on the population distribution.
Per DA, we compute an accountability index R using a locked equation that weighs each documented misconduct incident by its severity (10-tier scale, T1=1 to T10=512), evidence quality (0.40–1.00), age, judicial status, and source integrity, plus a small graduated bonus for repeated patterns. To grade everyone on one scale without a fictional "100% worst possible DA" anchor, we use the Iglewicz-Hoaglin modified Z rule (1993, the published academic standard for skewed data) to identify outliers, anchor the score to the average R of the worst-conduct half of CA DAs excluding those outliers (~12% of the population), and report each DA's score as a multiplier of that anchor. No theoretical maximum, no z-score language, full population data, formula-driven outlier trim. Cumulative score — recently-elected DAs may rise as more evidence accumulates over their tenure.
M.A.D. designed the methodology and led the equation development. Claude, Tars, and Bishop contributed input and executed the math.
The majority of California DAs have never prosecuted a law enforcement officer for an on-duty killing. Only a handful have conviction integrity units. Most ran unopposed in their last election.
Large county DAs face more scrutiny and have more documented records. Many rural county DAs operate with almost zero public oversight. A low score (Grade A or B) often reflects limited public record — not a clean record — and may rise as more evidence accumulates.
DAs graded D or F collectively account for hundreds of millions in wrongful conviction settlements, retaliation lawsuits, and misconduct payouts — all paid by California taxpayers.