When Allegations Outlive the Case

What Court Records Show — and What the System Did Not Resolve Before People v. Giselle Smiel

By Michael Phillips | CABayNews

In California’s court system, criminal allegations can persist long after criminal cases end, even when no conviction results. Arrests may be dismissed, charges dropped, or cases closed, yet unresolved allegations can continue to influence custody disputes, police narratives, and later prosecutions.

That dynamic is visible in People v. Giselle Smiel, an ongoing criminal case in which Giselle Smiel faces multiple felony charges, including child abduction and kidnapping. Smiel has pleaded not guilty. This analysis does not adjudicate the charges against her, which remain before the court. Instead, it examines whether prior allegations and court-ordered protections were ever fully reconciled or adjudicated before the current prosecution proceeded.

---

What the criminal court record shows — and what it does not

Court records reviewed by CABayNews show that domestic-violence-related criminal cases involving Jeff Smiel were dismissed or did not result in convictions. In at least one instance, prosecutors elected not to proceed. These outcomes reflect decisions made under the criminal standard of proof and do not constitute findings of guilt or innocence.

Criminal court records preserve outcomes, not experiences. When a case is dismissed, the criminal process ends without adjudicating the underlying allegations.

No court has entered findings that Jeff Smiel committed domestic violence or any of the alleged acts referenced in prior proceedings.

---

The criminal protective orders: judicial risk without adjudication

What is clearly documented in the public record is the issuance of multiple criminal protective orders against Jeff Smiel.

Court records show that:

• In August 2020, the Los Angeles County Superior Court issued a Criminal Protective Order (CLETS-CPO) against Jeff Smiel under Penal Code §136.2, invoking California’s domestic-violence statutory framework, including Penal Code §273.5.
• The order named Giselle Smiel and a minor child as protected persons.
• The order imposed no-contact provisions, stay-away requirements, and firearm prohibitions.
• In February 2023, the court extended or re-issued the criminal protective order under the same statutory authority.

Criminal protective orders are issued based on judicial risk determinations, not criminal convictions. They do not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt and do not constitute findings that a specific criminal act occurred. The inclusion of Penal Code §273.5 reflects the statutory category under which the order was issued, not a finding that corporal injury was proven or occurred.

---

Serious allegations — but no adjudicated findings

The procedural history reflected in court actions indicates that allegations were treated as serious enough to warrant judicial intervention. However, CABayNews did not identify publicly available police reports, criminal complaints, or judicial findings documenting the specific conduct alleged. No criminal conviction appears in the public record related to the protective orders.

In practical terms, the system recognized risk and imposed controls, but did not produce an adjudicated resolution of the underlying allegations.

---

Smoke, fire, and the limits of the record

The combination of repeated law-enforcement contact, multi-year criminal protective orders, and the inclusion of a protected child constitutes what many observers would describe as substantial institutional concern. Courts determined that protective measures were warranted at the time.

But criminal findings — convictions or judicial determinations after adversarial testing — do not appear in the record. Criminal law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and when that threshold is not met, cases can end without findings even when allegations are serious.

The presence of institutional concern warrants scrutiny. The absence of adjudicated findings requires restraint.

---

The unresolved gap — and why it matters now

The issue raised by this record is not the dismissal of prior cases, but whether prior allegations, protective-order findings, and dismissals were ever reconciled into a coherent, adjudicated record before later enforcement actions were taken against Giselle Smiel.

As People v. Giselle Smiel proceeds, the public record reflects a procedural asymmetry:

• Allegations resulted in years-long protective orders without adjudicated findings.
• Those unresolved matters may nonetheless form part of the context surrounding a later felony prosecution.

If prior allegations were not fully examined, documented, or resolved, the result is a system that escalates enforcement without clarity about what was previously determined and what was not.

---

Consistency, discretion, and equal protection principles

Courts have long recognized that even facially neutral laws can raise concerns if applied unevenly. In Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), the U.S. Supreme Court held that selective enforcement may violate equal-protection principles when similarly situated individuals are treated differently without a rational basis.

This article does not assert that any constitutional violation occurred. However, the contrast between unresolved allegations on one side and aggressive prosecution on the other raises questions about consistency, discretion, and institutional accountability — questions that are commonly examined in courts and legal scholarship.

---

Why this matters

People v. Giselle Smiel remains pending. The court will determine the facts and legal outcomes. Journalism’s role is to examine whether institutional processes operated transparently, consistently, and with due regard for what was previously adjudicated — and what was not.

When allegations outlive the cases meant to resolve them, and when prior context is never fully reconciled, public confidence in the justice system can erode.

---

Sidebar: Criminal Protective Orders, Penal Codes, and Outcomes

Does a criminal protective order mean abuse was proven?
No. A CPO reflects a judicial risk assessment, not a finding of guilt.

What does Penal Code §273.5 signify here?
It identifies the domestic-violence statutory framework under which the order was issued; it does not establish that corporal injury occurred.

Does dismissal or diversion mean nothing happened?
No. It means the criminal case did not result in a conviction under the applicable legal standard.

Is it unusual for serious allegations to end without convictions?
No. This occurs with some frequency due to evidentiary limitations and prosecutorial discretion.

---

Legal Notice & Reporting Standards

This article is based on publicly available court records and documents. It does not assert that any individual committed criminal acts unless such conduct has been adjudicated by a court. References to allegations, protective orders, or statutory frameworks reflect procedural history and judicial actions, not findings of guilt. People v. Giselle Smiel is an ongoing criminal matter, and all defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.