|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Editions | myCNN | Video | Audio | Headline News Brief | Feedback | |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |
On the scene in LAPD corruption trial
LOS ANGELES, California -- CNN correspondent Charles Feldman and producer Tony Frassrand report from Los Angeles on the corruption trial of four Los Angeles police officers accused framing gang members. CNN.com/LAW: What is the public's reaction to the trial? FRASSRAND: There isn't much public reaction at all, let alone any outrage over what is allegedly happening with the police department here. We've mulled this over a few times and we come up with different reasons for that. First of all, there's no real poster child, no real rallying person for the public to gather behind as Rodney King was 1991. And many people here feel that the people who were allegedly wronged were gang members with long litanies of criminal records. A lot of people feel, "Hey, you know what? These guys belong behind bars no matter what. Any way you can get them back there, it doesn't matter to us." So there isn't a lot of sympathy for the victims here, from what I can gather.
CNN.com/LAW: What led to the prosecutors' decision to not call former LAPD Officer Rafael Perez? FELDMAN: The ostensible reason seems to be that at the 11th hour a woman showed up from out of the shadows who purports to have been a former girlfriend of Rafael Perez, who was supposed to be the star witness. And she told a story to federal authorities and to us, as well, about having witnessed some murders that she claims Perez committed along with a former partner of his and that bodies were dumped in Tijuana, Mexico. This led Mexican authorities to dig up an area where the woman said the bodies were buried. But no bodies were found, so her story is still a big question mark. The upshot is that Perez's attorney said that if he were called to the witness stand and if defense attorneys broached that subject, Perez would be compelled to take the Fifth Amendment. Doing that would make him an all but impossible witness for the prosecution to put on the stand. If he takes the Fifth against self incrimination, it would make him an undesirable witness. So the conventional wisdom says that was the key reason the prosecution opted not to put him on the stand. Another reason, and maybe the probable reason, is that he was never a good witness to begin with. He carries a lot of baggage. He was somebody who, by his own admission, lied repeatedly on the witness stand throughout countless trials -- trials that led to wrongful convictions, many of which were overturned. So, if he were called to the witness stand, the obvious question that a defense attorney would ask is: "Are you telling the truth now, and if you are, how do we know since you've lied so many times in the past?" No matter how you diced it, Perez was a risky witness for the prosecution to call, so it opted not to call him. CNN.com/LAW: How credible have the remaining prosecution witnesses been? FRASSRAND: I think the whole case, to me, really boils down to loyalties. There were credibility problems with most of the rest of the prosecution witnesses because they were gang members themselves -- again with credibility problems to begin with, criminal histories. And I think that's really been the undoing of the prosecution. The same question that the defense lawyers would have been asking Rafael Perez they've asked of the other prosecution witnesses: "How can we believe you? Here you sit in shackles in the witness stand because you murdered someone on an unrelated charge. How are we to believe that you're telling us the truth now?" And that's really how the defense sort of mowed through some of these prosecution witnesses. It really comes down to loyalties. We saw some police officers on the stand who were reluctant to remember some of the events of the incidents in question and then we saw a lot of gang members on the stand who were reluctant to in any way, shape or form, finger any of their friends. So that's really the way the trial has gone, with credibility issues on both sides. CNN.com/LAW: Tell us about Allan Lobos, the gang member prosecutors say LAPD officers framed. FRASSRAND: The trial right now involves two incidents. Both were gang sweeps, one in a parking lot and one in an alley. The Allan Lobos incident took place in a parking lot where police sort of crept up on a gang gathering and they saw Allan Lobos running away, allegedly with a gun in his hand. When he resurfaced after ducking behind a few cars, he did not have the gun in his hand. This is according to one of the police officer defendants. They claim they found the gun on a wheel well of one of the cars, they arrested him, took him back and that's their version. Allan Lobos' version -- and he was convicted of this and later that conviction was over turned -- was that he never had a gun and that they took him into the police station and rubbed the gun on his hands to fingerprint it and framed him. That's Allan Lobos' contention. Now he has not been called to the stand either because of credibility issues.
He is in jail on an unrelated charge. That, again, is the bane of the prosecution's existence. They have these witnesses, but the actual people who were involved in these incidents cannot testify because of their own credibility issues. So it comes down to a he-said-she-said sort of case and it comes down to police officers against these gang members. And even though the evidence, to me, is not overwhelming, it would be hard to convict police officers anyway and the prosecution is having a tough time. CNN.com/LAW: What does the prosecution have to prove in the case? FRASSRAND: They've got to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to these jurors that these officers had intent to plant evidence and sort of finger any gang member by any way possible, which includes illegal means. It's complicated because it involves seven counts against these four officers and different permutations of different officers involved in different incidents. What the prosecution is trying to do is prove a network of conspiracy at one basic division, called the Rampart division at LAPD, which oversees the most densely populated part of the city, the most gang-infested part of the city. Prosecutors are trying to prove that there was a willful intent to conspire to suppress these gang members any way possible and they allege it was done many times illegally. CNN.com/LAW: How does the outcome of this case impact any future Rampart prosecutions? FELDMAN: It's almost impossible to say. If it ends in an acquittal, for example, it doesn't bode well for the prosecution because all of the cases are predicated on testimony by Perez, or at least initial evidence presented by Perez. So if the prosecution was unable or unwilling to call Perez in the first case and it should end in acquittal, it could mean that it will be less likely to try to go to trial on subsequent cases. It's been very difficult for them to get independent corroboration that would stand the test of proving beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury's satisfaction, so if this case falls it may mean that other ones are in jeopardy. Plus, there's a district attorney's race in Los Angeles and Gil Garcetti, the incumbent district attorney, is the underdog at the moment -- of course, after November 7, we'll know definitively. If he is ousted, the question of whether the new district attorney is going to want to begin his term saddled with an albatross around his neck -- namely, a bunch of trials that may be impossible to prosecute -- may lead him to conclude that it's not worth the effort. So, a conviction and a win by the prosecution would, I'm sure, embolden them to go forward, and a loss or a hung jury, I think, would make them reticent to continue. RELATED STORIES: Prosecution rests in LAPD corruption trial RELATED SITES: American Civil Liberties Union | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Back to the top |
© 2001 Cable News Network. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you. Read our privacy guidelines. |
![[CNN Money]](http://i.cnn.net/cnn/images/main/fn.logo.newsnet.gif){kind=logo}
![[SI.com]](http://i.cnn.net/cnn/images/main/si.logo.gif){kind=logo}
(
