January 10, 2022
Dear Mike Schmidt,
Re: Letter of Resignation
Please consider this letter my official notice of resignation. After nearly 13 years as a Deputy District
Attorney, and despite loving my job, I am no longer willing to continue at the Multnomah County District
Attorney’s Office. By way of explanation and with the hope of fostering improvement for the future of
our office, I will provide my reasoning.
First, I am not leaving due to philosophical differences between your vision and my own. To thecontrary, I believe change is long overdue and had hoped I would be part of the move into a moreprogressive, equitable, just and effective criminal justice system. I was looking forward to partneringwith you to implement some of the ideas you expressed in your campaign.
However, the last 18 months have brought some aspects of your leadership and our office into clear
focus. Like all women, I have struggled to overcome gender biases my entire career. Over the years, I
have tried to make the Multnomah County DA’s Office a workable office for women and mothers. I
mentor, befriend, and advocate for women, mothers and parents. I am a role model for others in our
office and show younger DDAs that it is possible to be both a fierce trial attorney and a dedicatedmother. I am one of two trial attorneys in our office, and the only female, who has three young kids athome and a full-time working spouse. Since joining our office in 2006, MCDA has made baby steps ofprogress. Slowly, more women were recruited, retention improved, and women held an increasing
number of leadership positions. I was confident my priorities would align with yours and that gender
discrimination would be further mitigated through your administration and your stated preference fordiversity in leadership.
In the last year and a half, not only has the forward progress women made in our office ceased, but
under your leadership women have been set back decades. I’m unsure whether this failure is due tointentional gender discrimination on your part, or whether your implicit bias is running unchecked.
The attorney management in our office is comprised of only one female (17% of total management) 1,
despite the current ratio for lawyers at about 50/50 men and women. Of the lawyers in leadership
positions (management + Level 4 Supervisors), 80% are men and 20% are women (only 4 women). 2 Thevery next level down, non-supervisors (Level 3 lawyers) are nearly 70% women.3 The newly created1

Attorneys in management: DA Mike Schmidt (M), First Assistant Jeff Howes (M), Policy Director Aaron Knott (M),
Chief Don Rees (M), Chief Glen Banfield (M), Chief Kirsten Snowden (F) = 83% male and 17% female. (Highlighted= promoted/hired by DA Schmidt)
2
Attorneys in management plus attorney supervisors: DA Mike Schmidt (M), First Assistant Jeff Howes (M), Policy
Director Aaron Knott (M), Chief Don Rees (M), Chief Glen Banfield (M), Chief Kirsten Snowden (F), SDDA Tom
Cleary (M), SDDA JR Ujifusa (M), SDDA Kevin Demer (M), SDDA Nathan Vasquez (M), SDDA Betty Yada (F), SDDA
Amanda Nadell (F), SDDA John Casalino (M), SDDA Lori Fellows (M), SDDA Dave Hannon (M), SDDA Eric
Zimmerman (M), SDDA Todd Jackson (M), SDDA Adam Gibbs (M), SDDA Shawn Overstreet (M), SDDA Ernie Warren(M) (Warren position currently vacant) = 80% male and 20% female. (Highlighted = promoted/hired by DA
Schmidt)
3
Level 3 lawyers (non supervisors): DDA Judy Swanson (F), DDA Caroline Wong (F), DDA Nicole Harris (F), DDA
Amber Kinney (F), DDA Becky Freeman (F), DDA Kelley Rhoades (F), DDA Tara Gardner (F), DDA Melissa Marrero

1

designation of “Lead Level 3s” – the elite squad of major felony trial attorneys, recognized for our
longevity in the office, complex caseload, and homicide call-out duty, but who are not supervisors – arealmost all women (89% are women and 11% are men).4 This is a glass ceiling.
Under your leadership, seven consecutive men were promoted or hired into leadership positions.5
Under your leadership (or in anticipation of your leadership) eight high-level career lawyers have left our
office, seven of the eight are women.6
For the first time in my career, and for the first time in decades, there is currently not a single female
attorney leading a felony trial unit. This is an embarrassing reality in an office that prides itself on being
progressive; in an office that serves and protects vulnerable victims of crime, many of whom are women
who were subjected to physical and sexual violence by men, many of whom are, understandably,frightened and intimidated by men. Our community is better served by gender diversity in government
agencies, especially prosecution. Our community and the vulnerable victims we serve deserve female
prosecutors.
Further complicating this career choice is the overwhelming amount of work our individual DDAs are
expected to carry. Being a prosecutor has always been a busy job. I am used to carrying a heavy
caseload and working evenings and weekends. However, my caseload, and all caseloads in our office,have doubled in the last two years. I handle some of the most important crimes in our community,
sexual and physical crimes against children and child homicides. To increase my caseload to double isunworkable and reckless. This crushing load has forced us all to work below our standards and for ourcommunity to receive lower quality prosecution.
To clearly illustrate my unmanageable caseload, I am attaching a copy of my trial calendar. Almost every
case on this list is over a year old, some are three plus years old. Almost every case on this list involves adefendant in pretrial custody pending very serious charges of sexual violence against a child. My trials
typically last one to two weeks. When in trial, I go days without seeing my children. I carry this load
while also being subject to homicide call-outs where I am expected to keep my cell phone on at all times
in the event I am called to the scene of a homicide, often in the middle of the night, often 10-20 straighthours of work without any notice.
Increased caseloads is not entirely your fault. The COVID pandemic has caused courts to operate at alower capacity. Crime rates are high, due in part to the complex politics surrounding law enforcement(F), DDA Kate Molina (F), DDA Nicole Hermann (F), DDA Kelly Burris (F), DDA Trista Speer (F), DDA Mariel Mota (F),DDA Adrienne Anderson (F), DDA Rachna Hajari (F), DDA Travis Sewell (M), DDA Chuck Mickley (M), DDA Jeff Lowe
(M), DDA Chris Shull (M), DDA Sean Hughey (M), DDA BJ Park (M), DDA Brad Kalbaugh (M) = 32% male and 68%
female.
4“Lead” Level 3 DDAs (non supervisors): DDA Amber Kinney (F), DDA Nicole Hermann (F), DDA Nicole Harris (F),DDA Kate Molina (F), DDA Kelley Rhoades (F), DDA Tara Gardner (F), DDA Kelly Burris (F), DDA Melissa Marrero (F),DDA Chuck Mickley (M) = 11% male and 89% female
5
Hired/Promoted into leadership by DA Schmidt: Policy Director Aaron Knott (September 2020), SDDA Todd
Jackson (March 2021), Chief Glen Banfield (June 2020), SDDA Ernie Warren (July 2020), Kevin Demer (September2021), Shawn Overstreet (September 2021), SDDA Eric Zimmerman (September 2021) = 7 consecutive men
6
Level 3 and above lawyers who have left the office: SDDA Traci Anderson (July 2020), Level 3 DDA Ashly Crockett(March 2021), SDDA Brian Davidson (August 2021), SDDA Jenna Plank (September 2021), Level 3 DDA Anna Fuller(September 2021), Level 3 DDA Susan O’Connor (September 2021), SDDA Amity Girt (October 2021), DDA Kelley
Burris (December 2021) = 7 women, 1 man

2

response. However, our caseloads are unreasonably high due also (and in large part) tomismanagement within our office. And that is your fault. The cases I handle are almost entirelycomprised of Ballot Measure 11 (mandatory minimum) felonies, many subject to laws requiring amandatory minimum of 25 years in prison (Ballot Measure 73 and Jessica’s Law). As you are keenly
aware, you ran a campaign opposed to Ballot Measure 11 and mandatory minimum prison sentences.
However, since taking office 18 months ago, you have not provided any new policies or direction to the
DDAs about how we should handle mandatory minimum cases: whether we should resolve themdifferently, or whether we should issue them differently. We are met with frustration by judges anddefense attorneys when we attempt to resolve cases and we make recommendations that are perceived
to be inconsistent with your campaign rhetoric, yet we have received no direction to depart below ourstandard offers. In case resolution staffings with my Chief DDA and others in my unit, it has become
clear that due to your lack of policy driven direction, nobody actually knows how our cases should
resolve anymore. In a climate of uncertainty, in an office where I have watched my peers be
reprimanded for resolving cases too aggressively or too low (under your leadership), and when dealing
with people’s lives and years in prison – it is unnecessarily stressful to shoulder the burden of highprison resolution without guidance. Lack of clear policy and vague statements by you to the media hasgenerated tension between DDAs, defense attorneys, and our bench and created a climate within our
office where DDAs are unsure of the right resolution. This climate has the potential to generateinconsistent results and introduce biases. This has made it more difficult to resolve major felony cases.
Cases are languishing on our caseloads and clogging up the court dockets far longer than they should.
As a result, criminal defendants are remaining in pretrial detention far longer than they ever have in mycareer. As a result, victims are prejudiced by the delay and subjected to increased stress and anxiety.
You have undermined us, seasoned prosecutors, and deprived us of the confidence and ability to resolve
major felony cases. To be clear, I am not opposed to lower-prison resolutions on mandatory minimum
cases. If that is what you prefer, then I simply ask that you provide that guidance in the form of some
new internal policy.
Increased workloads disproportionately impact women. Women, especially those of us who are also
mothers, are often tasked with much of the domestic responsibilities in addition to our career
responsibilities. Women are far less likely to have a career and a stay-at-home partner. In fact, I do notknow of a single female attorney in our office who has a stay-at-home partner. By contrast, many male
attorneys in our office do have stay-at-home partners. So when workloads increase, it
disproportionately impacts those whose lives do not allow for continued absorption of increased work.
If retaining female prosecutors is a priority, then MCDA must acknowledge the inherent differences
between women and men. You must examine your implicit gender biases and make conscious
accommodations to correct for the unequal impact of this work on women. This, coupled with the lackof leadership opportunities for women, is why we have lost so many experienced and talented female
attorneys. Since you took office in August 2020, we have lost eight career prosecutors – seven of theeight are women. I am the ninth. And I will not be the last.
Meanwhile, you must know how your decision to hire Ernie Warren impacted women in the office.
Many of us, had you asked, could have shared with you our discomfort with that decision based on our
personal and previous experiences with him. You hired him to become the supervisor of the “JusticeIntegrity Unit” – the very unit tasked with bringing integrity back to the justice system. A unit tasked
with remedying and correcting for the biases that have caused disproportionate impacts on criminal
justice. Ironically, Mr. Warren lasted 42 days before he was forced to resign for sexually harassing afemale colleague. Your poor decision making has left women in the office feeling vulnerable and our3

opinions inconsequential. We are all waiting to see who you decide to fill the vacancy left by Mr.
Warren, and whether this will be filled by yet another man.
As you know, I have worked as an MDT prosecutor handling cases involving child victims for over six
years. I have never in my career received negative feedback, criticism, or caused drama. I do not seekout conflict in the office and am not typically outspoken as an agitator. To the contrary, I have kept myhead down and worked my cases, with genuine loyalty to the victims I serve, deference to the court, andrespect for my colleagues both inside and outside of our office. I have grown to love this work. When,six years ago, the office selected me to serve as one of four attorneys on our child abuse team, I was
overwhelmed and did not think I had the emotional stamina and mental capacity to work the mostserious and highest priority cases in prosecution. I surprised myself. My cases, the victims I meet, andthe families I help are and will forever be the bright spot of my career. This work is important, and I feel
grateful to MCDA and our community for giving me the opportunity to serve in this capacity. It saddens
me deeply to think that I will leave this tremendously rewarding work. I feel intense loyalty to thevictims and families on my caseload. I am sorry to them that I cannot continue to advocate for them,walk with them into the courtroom as I had promised, and assist them through one of the most difficult
times in their lives. I hope they know that I am not leaving because of them, rather it is because of themthat I have stayed. It has been a privilege to work with each and every one of them.
I am taken aback and disappointed by your lack of emphasis and priority on family and juvenile cases.
Especially since I believe that this area of prosecution – protecting and supporting children and families– is the most essential area of criminal prosecution, with the largest potential impact on an individual’s
success as an adult. Research, practice, and my personal belief are that healthy families produce
healthy children who become healthy and successful adults. Nearly every adult who intersects with thecriminal justice system has trauma rooted in their childhood. Every child, youth, and family deserves
our support. Supporting families is (in my opinion) the most progressive form of criminal justice reform,
as it has the highest potential to divert would-be offenders before they ever offend. The State ofOregon is a party to juvenile dependency proceedings. But you decided that MCDA will no longer be
representing the state in general juvenile dependency matters. You have essentially gutted our juvenile
unit – at a critical time when the families in our community need support more than ever, during a time
when we should be doubling-down on the support we give. You chose to cut this support. Without any
recourse because you haven’t told our community. In fact, you haven’t even told us. In anotherexample of poor management, there was no internal announcement or written policy. You simply madethe decision unilaterally and told our courts that MCDA would no longer be appearing in generaldependency cases. To this day, no one within management has asked me – a lawyer entrusted with thisvery work for the last six years – whether I valued dependency work. Had someone asked, my answer
would be YES, very much so. I believe our community deserves a District Attorney who prioritizes
children’s health and safety, supports families, and values the State’s involvement in dependency cases.
Finally, I am disappointed by how I have been treated personally by management. You are aware of mycareer trajectory in this office. You and I started working together as baby lawyers in 2007 and 2008. I
trained you on misdemeanor row and at misdemeanor intake. You know that while I have never held aleadership position in this office, I have always been a leader informally. I mentor lawyers and law
students both inside and outside our office. I am creative and dynamic – always finding new ways toinspire, teach, and advocate for others.7 I carry a robust caseload and am one of the most talented trial
attorneys in our office. I was a rising star. This upward trajectory came to an abrupt halt in the last six
7

See Tiktok @knowabuse4to nine months. All of a sudden, I was passed over for promotion repeatedly by lawyers with lessdiversity and less experience than me. I don’t know why this has happened, but I suspect it has
something (or everything) to do with me becoming vocal about the mistreatment of women in our
office. I attempted to seek feedback from management. I spoke separately to First Assistant Jeff Howes
and Chief DDA Don Rees requesting feedback and recommendations for improvement, and was met
with hostility and told they would not speak to me without union representation because they feared
civil litigation. Not deterred by this hostility, I met with Jeff Howes with union reps present. Jeff told methat promotion decisions were made based on objective and subjective criteria. While I am meeting
objective criteria (as documented by every one of my annual reviews), I am perhaps not meeting
subjective criteria. Jeff Howes was unable or unwilling to provide me with any information as to what
the subjective criteria are – except to say that it is your decision, not his. Likewise, in a follow-up
meeting with Chief DDA Don Rees (my direct Chief who supervises me), he was unable to identify
anything that I needed to improve and was unable to tell me why I was being passed over for promotion– except to say that it is your decision, not his. A promotion system based on unknown, subjective
criteria is a system ripe for discrimination, implicit bias, and retaliation.
You campaigned on a promise of transparency and legitimacy in decision making impacting the criminal
justice system and internally within our office. You are not living up to this promise. There is notransparency. I don’t know whether the lack of transparency is due to your intentional desire to prevent
scrutiny, or perhaps a genuine absence of structure and coherent decision making. The result is acurrent management scheme that operates without authority, consistency, or confidence. Your lack oftransparency is felt by the staff you oversee and the public you serve. We are disappointed.
I will take one more Jessica’s Law child sexual abuse case to trial before I leave. I have a case I indicted
in 2018 set to begin trial on January 18, 2022. I expect this to be my last trial at MCDA. I am requesting
my last day be February 3, 2022.

With sincere regret and disappointment,

Amber Kinney
Level 3 Child Abuse Prosecutor
Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office5

Amber Kinney’s Trial Schedule

1/18/22 – TRIAL: Martinez Barrera, 18-CR-82841 (week 1)
 Booked 12/13/2018
Double Book: Hearon, 19-CR-69728
 Booked 12/16/2019
1/24/22 – TRIAL: Martinez Barrera, 18-CR-82841 (week 2)
 Booked 12/13/2018
Double book: Carmello, 19-CR-26932 (week 1)
 Custody 9/20/19
Teiple book: Perez Martinez, 20-CR-15737 (8 day trial) Custody since 3/10/20
1/31/22 – TRIAL Carmello, 19-CR-26932 (week 2)
 Custody 9/20/19
Double book: Perez Martinez, 20-CR-15737
2/7/22 – ITMO R.C. dependency trial (5 days)
 Complex Case: Fatality
2/14/22 – TRIAL: Oxford, 14-02-30856 (week 1)
 Full reversal on Ramos
Double book: TRIAL Benfit, 20-CR-36086 (one week)
2/21/22 – TRIAL: Oxford, 14-02-30856 (week 2)
2/28/22 – open
3/7/22 – TRIAL: Parsons, 16-CR-36224 (week 1)
 Full reversal on Ramos
Double Book: TRIAL ITMO M.S. Dependency (5 days)
 Complex case, child fatality
3/14/22 – TRIAL: Parsons, 16-CR-36224 (week 2)
3/21/22 – Spring Break
Trial: E.G. Dependency Trial
 Complex case; Abusive Head Trauma
3/28/22 – TRIAL: Rich, 18-CR-58866 (week 1)
 Out of custody; complex case
Double Book: TRIAL Howe, 21-CR-17608 (one week)
4/4/22 – TRAL: Rich, 18-CR-58866 (week 2)
 Out of custody; complex case6

Double Book: Wilkins, 19-CR-37128 (week 1)
 Out of custody
4/11/22 – TRIAL: Rich, 18-CR-58866 (week 3)
 Out of custody; complex case
Doule Book: Wilkins, 19-CR-37128 (week 2)
 Out of custody
4/18/22 – TRIAL: Perez Martinez. 20-CR-15737 (week 1)
 Custody since 3/10/20
4/25/22 – TRIAL Perez Martinez: 20-CR-15737 (week 2)
5/2/22
5/9/22 – JUDICIAL CONFERENCE
Dependency Trial: R.C. for T.G. and J.G. (5 days)
5/16/22 – TRIAL: Zamora Chona, 20-CR-63221 (week 1)
 Custody since 11/20/20
5/23/22 – TRIAL: Zamora Chona, 20-CR-63221 (week 2)
5/30/22
6/6/22 – TRIAL: Thomas, 20-CR-68325 (week 1)
 Custody since 1/26/21
6/13/22 – TRIAL: Thomas, 20-CR-68325 (week 2)
6/20/22 – Holiday Juneteenth (4 day week)
6/27/22
7/4/22 – Holiday (4 day week)
7/11/22
7/18/22
7/25/22
8/1/22
8/15/22
8/22/227

8/29/22
9/5/22
9/12/22
9/19/22 – TRIAL: Joseph, 19-CR-20311 (week 1)
 Booked 8/9/19
9/26/22 – TRIAL: Joseph, 19-CR-20311 (week 2)
 Booked 8/9/19
10/3/228