U.S.

LAPD Corruption Convictions Tossed

December 23, 2000 / 6:53 AM EST / AP

A judge has overturned the convictions of three policemen in the Rampart corruption scandal, citing insufficient evidence. She also said the jurors focused on the wrong point of law.

Superior Court Judge Jacqueline Connor threw out the convictions of Los Angeles police Sgts. Edward Ortiz and Brian Liddy and Officer Michael Buchanan. They were convicted last month on conspiracy and other charges that involved framing gang members.

The officers were the first members of the now-defunct Rampart station anti-gang unit to be tried on charges based on the allegations of ex-Officer Rafael Perez, who said police beat, robbed, framed and sometimes shot innocent people in the city's tough Rampart neighborhood near downtown.

Connor said she could not respond to pressure on the courts to "fix the Rampart scandal" through a trial that was unfair.

"While recognizing the enormous pressure on the community, on the police force, on the district attorney's office, and on the courts to 'fix' the Rampart scandal, this court is only interested in evaluating the fairness of the proceedings and determining whether justice was done in this case," Connor said in her ruling.

Defense attorneys were elated. Harland Braun, who represented Buchanan, said it was "a relief to have this decision before Christmas. It had been surreal for the officers to stand there and have the jury convict them of something that didn't happen."

District attorney's spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons said prosecutors were deeply disappointed but had not yet had a chance to analyze the judge's ruling and decide on their next step.

The next court hearing is scheduled for Jan. 16, at which time a new trial could be scheduled. Braun said that in light of the ruling, "the prosecution has to re-evaluate their entire case."

The judge's 20-page ruling, faxed to attorneys, reversed the convictions on the basis of jurors discussing the wrong evidence and failing to decide a key issue in the case - whether two policemen were struck by a vehicle driven by a gang member.

Instead of discussing whether the accident occurred, Connor said, the jurors focused on whether any of the injuries rose to the level of "great bodily injury."

"This court cannot and should not consider the political ramifications of future lawsuits or future prosecutions," Connor said. "The defense in this case has presented compelling arguments to support their argument that the defendants did not receive a fair trial."

She said that prosecutors could not ask the court "to render justice impotent by elevating form over substance and standing on a restrictive, technical reading of procedural rules to preserve a verdict that was both contrary to the evidence and the law."

"The court cannot simply look the other way and ignore the improprieties, innocent or not, intentional or unintentional, that served to deny a fair trial in this case."

The judge als suggested that although jurors were under strict instructions not to pay attention to media reports, they probably had exposure to broadcasts during the trial.

"The backdrop of the entire trial rested in the intense media coverage of the case and the larger issues of police corruption," Connor said. She said the media gave the wrong impression that the key issue was planting of evidence, which she said was never alleged.