A California prison warden was going to fire six correctional officers after an investigation found they had helped a group of inmates assault convicted sex offenders.

The warden managed to get rid of four of the officers, but then California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation attorneys stepped in and prevented firing two of them, according to an Office of the Inspector General report published Friday. The report doesn’t identify the prison.

The attorneys, who aren’t identified, said that since the investigation depended on inmate testimony, they didn’t think the charges against the correctional officers would stick if brought to the State Personnel Board, according to the report.

The Office of the Inspector General, which conducted its own investigation, disagreed.

The office monitors employee misconduct at the corrections department and issues semiannual reports on the department’s progress and performance in discipline cases.

Inspector General Roy Wesley wrote that he was concerned that the case could set a precedent for dismissing officer misconduct allegations that come from inmates.

The corrections department strongly countered that concern.

“It is categorically untrue to assert that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation would not pursue legal action in staff misconduct cases where the only evidence available is the testimony of an inmate,” CDCR spokeswoman Dana Simas said in an email. “We take all allegations of staff misconduct very seriously and are committed to providing thorough and fair investigations.”

The investigation, which found correctional officers were opening cell doors to allow the group of inmates to assault sex offenders for much of 2017, started after one of the members of the group that was doing the assaults came forward.

The inmate came forward “because he was afraid that other inmates would attack him, and he knew there was a variety of weapons in the housing unit,” the report states.

The report notes that the inmate’s testimony was corroborated in several ways. He correctly identified the location of a stash of weapons in a plumbing chase — a portion of wall with a cavity behind it where plumbing pipes are located.

The chase was locked, so only correctional officers would have been able to provide access, according to the report. Four other inmates independently corroborated the testimony of the inmate who came forward, the report states. Inmates testified that the “crew” of offenders used the weapons in the attacks.

Testifying inmates told investigators the officers regularly allowed members of the crew into restricted areas to collect pieces of metal and plexiglass to make weapons. In the stash, investigators also found a can of red spray paint, which the inmates could have used to mimic the way prison workers mark missing materials, minimizing suspicion.

“The inmates also provided accurate descriptions concerning the manner in which the officers attempted to delay the entry of the Investigative Services Unit into the housing unit, allowing the inmates time and opportunity to hide their contraband weapons and drugs,” the report states.

A total of 10 officers were involved, according to the report. The warden, investigators and the OIG agreed that six officers should have been fired. The roles of the other four didn’t warrant firing, they found.

Two of the six were fired in connection with unrelated cases. One resigned over an unrelated case and one resigned before being fired over the assaults by the inmate crew, according to the report.

A senior department attorney objected to firing the remaining two, citing his concerns over a case based solely on inmate testimony, according to the report.

Simas, the corrections department spokeswoman, said that the evidence against the four fired officers warranted firing, while the evidence against the remaining two didn’t.

“The department thoroughly weighed all of the evidence in the case against the two remaining officers before the decision to not sustain misconduct allegations was made,” she said.

The Inspector General’s Office argued that since the testimony was collaborated and credible, the case against the officers was sound. Judges have dismissed cases based on inmate testimony when there were specific problems with the inmates’ credibility, not any time accusations depended on inmate testimony, the OIG argued.

Friday’s report was classified as a “sentinel report,” which the office issues for specific cases after determining “that the department’s handling of a case was unusually poor, involving serious errors, even after it has had a chance to repair the damage,” inspector general spokesman Shaun Spillane said in an email.

“The OIG is concerned that the department attorneys’ actions suggest an apparent bias and hostility against inmate testimony and evidence provided by inmates, and set a dangerous precedent in which widespread officer misconduct, which in some cases cannot be proven by any means other than evidence or testimony provided by inmates, will go undiscovered and unpunished,” the report states.

This story was originally published January 10, 2020 at 11:51 AM with the headline "California prison guards opened cells for inmate attacks. Why some kept their jobs."