The prosecution of Rebecca Grossman has become one of the most controversial cases in Los Angeles County in recent memory, not only because of the tragic deaths of two young boys, but because of the tactics, timing, and motivations that defined the case. A close examination of the record reveals a disturbing pattern of political maneuvering, selective prosecution, and suppression of evidence that raises serious doubts about whether Grossman ever had a fair trial.
Charges against Grossman were not filed until December 29, 2020, three months after the accident and only weeks after George Gascón took office as District Attorney. Under fire for his progressive approach to criminal justice, Gascón faced mounting pressure to prove he was not “soft on crime.” Grossman, a wealthy woman with a high profile, offered a politically convenient target. The case fed into a pandemic-era climate of resentment toward privilege, and the DA’s office leaned into a media narrative portraying her as a socialite who would try to “buy her way out” of accountability.
Shielding Erickson, Targeting Grossman
The aggressive focus on Grossman came despite glaring questions about the role of former baseball player Scott Erickson, who was driving just ahead of her that night. Prosecutors downplayed his involvement, charging him only with misdemeanor reckless driving, a case that resulted in no jail time and little more than a YouTube public service announcement. In Erickson’s hearing, Prosecutor Ryan Gould stated unequivocally that “there was no racing.” Yet in Grossman’s trial, Gould advanced the very theory he had previously disavowed, a contradiction the defense was barred from exposing when his earlier statement was kept from the jury.
Suppressed and Excluded Evidence
Exculpatory evidence was not just minimized, it was suppressed. Investigators were ordered to remove Grossman’s front bumper for DNA testing that could have determined whether both children were struck by her car. The test was never done, leaving Erickson’s possible role unresolved.
Five critical pieces of physical evidence vanished after Deputy Rafael Mejia filed his Supplemental Report from the crash site, including a fog light cover and a license plate frame that did not match Grossman’s Mercedes. Private Investigator Don Moriarty testified at trial that when he went to the Lost Hills station to review the evidence, deputies told him those very items were “missing.” The significance was devastating: those pieces pointed to the involvement of another vehicle and were consistent with the SUV Scott Erickson was driving. Yet prosecutor Ryan Gould ignored the disappearance entirely, refusing to confront the implications. By sidestepping the missing evidence, Gould shielded the jury from the most explosive fact of the case, that the state’s narrative could not withstand scrutiny, and that reasonable doubt was not just present, it was overwhelming.
Grossman was never charged with DUI, yet prosecutors seeded insinuations of impairment through media leaks and courtroom rhetoric, bypassing the burden of proof.
During the criminal trial, Erickson’s close friend, former Major League Baseball star Royce Clayton, delivered testimony that demolished the state’s theory. Clayton testified that when Rebecca Grossman left Julio’s restaurant, she showed no signs of impairment and no difficulty driving whatsoever. His account directly contradicted the prosecution’s narrative, yet Judge Joseph Brandolino still allowed prosecutors to argue impairment, despite Grossman never being charged with driving under the influence. That ruling was pivotal: by permitting the jury to hear unsupported allegations of impairment, Brandolino effectively opened the door for prosecutors to argue implied malice, a charge that would have otherwise collapsed without the specter of intoxication.
Clayton also dropped another bombshell on the stand, revealing why his friendship with Erickson had ended, a revelation that, if prosecutor Ryan Gould had dared to probe, would have added yet another layer to the mountain of reasonable doubt already buried from the jury.
Instead, Gould sidestepped it entirely, shielding jurors from testimony that could have further unraveled the state’s case and exposed Erickson’s role in the events of that night.
The DA’s office also withheld explosive evidence that Erickson was illegally using the same license plate and registration for two different black Mercedes SUVs he owned, an act that on its face, constitutes a felony. This brazen scheme went directly to the heart of Erickson’s credibility and his willingness to deceive, yet it was kept hidden from the defense until trial.
When the truth finally surfaced, Deputy DA Jamie Castro casually dismissed it, as if a felony-level fraud was irrelevant. In doing so, the prosecution not only suppressed evidence that undermined their narrative, but actively shielded Erickson from scrutiny, protecting him while stacking the deck against Grossman.
Jury Deprived of Critical Context
Judicial rulings further narrowed what jurors were allowed to see. Civil suits filed by the Iskander family, one against the City of Westlake for a hazardous crosswalk and another against Erickson for his role in the accident, were excluded.
Jurors never learned that even the victims’ family alleged multiple parties were responsible. By blocking that evidence, the prosecution ensured the case remained centered on Grossman alone. The most damning and corrosive aspect of this case is the unholy alliance between the prosecution and outside agitators hell-bent on poisoning public opinion.
Prosecutor Ryan Gould maintained direct contact with Julie Cohen, a self-styled activist and administrator of the “Justice for Mark and Jacob Iskander” Facebook page. Cohen’s crusade has devolved into a five-year digital cesspool of slander, defamation, and malicious lies.
Armed with the tacit blessing of Gould and Deputy DA Jamie Castro, Cohen has unleashed a campaign of mob justice that extends far beyond Rebecca Grossman. Her targets now include Grossman’s family, her defense team, and anyone who dares question the carefully constructed narrative designed to secure a conviction at any cost.
Cohen’s propaganda, amplified by her cult-like following, has metastasized into a smear machine intent on silencing dissent and destroying reputations. She has brazenly expanded her attacks (including on this reporter and publication), weaving blatant fabrications into a narrative intended to intimidate and discredit those who expose prosecutorial misconduct.
What the DA’s office has effectively done is outsource its dirty work to a zealot, weaponizing social media hysteria as a proxy for evidence and truth.
This reckless fusion of state power and mob outrage not only undermines the integrity of the Grossman case, it corrodes the very foundation of justice itself.
The prosecution may have thought they were strengthening their case, but in reality they have opened a Pandora’s box of legal and ethical accountability that will haunt them far beyond this trial.
Closing Arguments: The Stark Divide
That same strategy carried through into closing arguments. Castro acknowledged the disastrous sheriff’s investigation but quickly downplayed its significance, pivoting to blame Grossman. She then sharpened her attack, portraying Grossman’s daughter Alexis as dishonest and casting Rebecca as the “mastermind” orchestrating her family’s testimony.
Defense attorney Tony Buzbee, by contrast, delivered a scathing critique of law enforcement’s failures and the mountain of reasonable doubt the prosecution had tried to bury. He underscored Erickson’s disappearance, his lies about the car he was driving, and the state’s refusal to meaningfully pursue evidence pointing to a second vehicle. For Buzbee, the case was about proof, instead, it became political theater, a “house of cards” built on omissions and distortion.
In rebuttal, Gould doubled down on that distortion. He spun Erickson’s absence as a defense tactic, accusing Buzbee of inventing an “invisible villain.” What he concealed from the jury was the truth: prosecutors knew exactly where Erickson was but deliberately kept him off the stand, fearing his testimony would unravel their case.
Finally, Gould stripped away any pretense of fairness, openly branding Alexis a liar and painting her mother as a manipulative puppet master, an attack aimed not at the evidence, but at destroying credibility at all costs.
Civil testimony from both Clayton and Erickson confirmed that Erickson was at the crash scene. Clayton stated it outright, and Erickson himself admitted he was present, yet he neither identified himself nor rendered aid.
This fact could have been easily established long before the criminal trial if Castro or Gould had made even a minimal effort to question Erickson.
The DA’s office knew Erickson’s whereabouts, even subpoenaed him, but deliberately chose not to call him or disclose his location to the defense.
Why? Because they knew his testimony would undermine their case against Grossman. Instead, driven by bias, the prosecution abandoned objectivity and resorted to character assassination against Grossman and her daughter rather than pursuing the truth.
A Case Built on Politics, Not Proof
The contrast could not have been more stark. Castro downplayed the investigative failures, Gould turned Erickson’s absence into a weapon while attacking the Grossman family, and Buzbee laid bare the gaping holes in the state’s case.
The record makes one truth undeniable: prosecutors were not pursuing justice, they were pursuing a conviction at any cost, even if it meant silencing witnesses, excluding evidence, and smearing the defendant’s family.
What emerges is not a story of impartial justice, but of a prosecution driven by politics, perception, and power. The Grossman trial was never truly about justice for Mark and Jacob Iskander. It was about what the District Attorney’s office needed it to be, a political trophy for George Gascón’s embattled administration.