Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
20 with a large corporation and others is only one of several aspects of this case which
21 show it to be extraordinary, presenting a "serious question", and high level public policy
6 After Plaintiff and his counsels were denied access to almost any litigation records
7 from October 2005 to Aug 2007, Plaintiff got some limited access. However, in order to
8 pursue the case effectively in the Los Angeles Superior Court or higher California
9 Courts, Plaintiff must gain access to full and complete litigation records. Particular
10 records that are essential were listed in the Designation of Records on Appeal (Docket #
11 54).
12 Access to one’s own litigation records is such a basic, that Plaintiff never
13 considered that he would have to argue for such rights. But until Plaintiff filed the
14 current claims in United States Courts, Plaintiff could not even get a certified copy of the
15 Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court from the Clerk’s office. Counsel Bianco, as a special
16 gesture, provided Plaintiff with that certified copy after Plaintiff filed claims in United
17 States Court.
18 Plaintiff believes, based on his experience in recent year an a half, that he has no
19 chance of gaining access to his own litigation records, unless through protection of his
21
22 c. Electronic Court File Records in “Sustain”, which the LA Superior
Court Likes to Keep “Privileged” are at the Center of the Problem.
23
24 California Rules of Court, Chapter 2, the whole chapter is dedicated to
25 Public Access to Electronic File Data. And yet, Plaintiff finds himself in the last
26 year again and again before the Supervising Judge, Defendant Rosenberg, asking for
27 access to his own file data in Sustain, and Defendant Rosenberg repeatedly denies
28 access to such data.
-24-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
.
5
“true remedy is in filing an appeal from order for appointment of
receiver”.
6
7 But in fact one must deem the Justices of the California Court of Appeal, like the
8 Judges of the LA Superior Court, in violation of the California Code of Ethics Canon
9 3D(1).
10 They all knew of the unethical conduct and the abuse perpetrated on Plaintiff by
11 Judges of LA Superior Court, but none followed the Code which is clear cut in its
12 directive.
13 Canon 3D(1) says:
14 D. Disciplinary Responsibilities
(1) Whenever a judge has reliable information that another judge has
15
violated any provision of the Code of Judicial Ethics, the judge shall
16 take or initiate appropriate corrective action, which may include
reporting the violation to the appropriate authority.*
17
18
None of the judges involved took or initiated appropriate corrective action.
19
20
The conduct of Judge Segal deserves particular mention in this regard. All along,
21
it was clear that Judge Segal, Att Keshavarzi, and Receiver Pasternak are treating the
22
Judgment as an invalid Court document. At the same time, that did not stop them from
23
using any opportunity to blame Plaintiff for his lack of cooperation with the enforcement
24
of the judgment.
25
Even in his Dec 4, 2007 Disqualification Statement, a uniquely dishonest
26
document, Judge Segal States (Exh Vol IV p305):
27
28
-30-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
.
18 States, circumstances such as described above are extraordinary under the protections
19 extended by the Constitution. Plaintiff believes that conditions in Samaan v Zernik are
20 extraordinary, and therefore justify the unusual review by the United States District
21 Court.
22 For much of the litigation (from its onset – October 2005 to Aug 2, 2007 – over 19
23 months, access was entirely denied – see Sept 10, 2007 Judge Connor Disqualification
24 Statement , Exh Vol IV, Exh p__), a California State Court entirely denied a U.S.
25 Citizen and his counsels access to his litigation records. And the same Court is still
26 continuing to deny timely access to critical records today, including, but not limited to:
28
-37-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
.
20 Zernik filed complaints with the Commission, most recently against Judge
21 Friedman. The Commission decided to run its hearing on the complaints, including
23 the time of the hearing, the commission never received yet the full documentation of
25 Zernik was excluded from any specific and detailed knowledge of the filing
26 of judges for the hearing by the Commission, or steps taken by the Commission to
27 investigate the situation. Zernik was informed that his comlaint was found without
21 a. In September-October 2004 – Zernik was the victim of complex white collar crime
22 including mortgage and real estate fraud, without even being aware of most of it.
23 b. In 2006 – Countrywide got involved with a fraudulent subpoena production of
24 documents, and until December that year, Zernik was still oblivious.
25 c. In 2007- Zernik uncovered most of Samaan-Countrywide’s fraudulent schemes and
26 Judge Connor’s support of such, and Countrywide and the Court started severe overt
27 retaliation and abuse of Zernik’s rights.
28
-52-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
.
Mr Goldman:
Below is my attempt to put together the main characters in a big picture. In the past two years I
submitted to the FBI carefully researched, fully documented complaints of hundreds of pages, but
that seemed to be too complicated, and never got any results that I could see. The fraud went on
uninterrupted.
Most of the facts below are from at least one source. Yet, I consider a story like this a “working
hypothesis” only. I find it extremely useful in focusing and defining the questions and facts that are of
key significance and still require verification. I believe that you have most or all of the necessary
documents in this regard. If you need anything else, please let me know.
Last time we discussed it by phone, you indicated that if the fact I state are true, this case involves
large scale public corruption and is above your head. I fully agree, and I believe that the situation
requires appointment of a Special Counsel.
I will submit today a copy of this letter to a United States Judge under seal, with the request to
appoint a Special Counsel.
Joseph Zernik
c) Racketeering (RICO) claims against Los Angeles Superior Court, West District,
including: Judges – Connor, Segal, Friedman, Hart-Cole, Collins, Rosenberg; Clerks –
Jaime, Witts
Chapter 1 – Strong Start with ERISA Fraud at Skyline Funding & Morrow Becomes Lloyd
Timothy Lloyd Morrow is a black man of about 45-50, about 6’tall, athletic body type. He now
resides at 320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, 90212, formerly the residence of Joseph Zernik, that
was transferred by fraudulent conveyance to Nivie Samaan on December 17, 2007.
Morrow was active in the financial/real estate field for many years. He made some gains in assisting
clients with dubious qualifications secure government-backed residential loans, and became a
Chapter 2 – Key Relationships Established Early on - Countrywide Home Loans, San Rafael
Based on information from the field, Zernik estimates that around 2004, to obtain a totally fraudulent
mortgage of about $1.4 million, with no documentation, you needed to pay $10,000-15,000 in cash
for getting the process through. How such funds split between McLaurin and Morrow, Zernik has no
idea, but he estimates that the bigger portion went to McLaurin. Zernik believes that both McLaurin
and Morrow received their funds outside the territorial U.S., for example, through fund transfer to
Mexico, which is extremely easy from Los Angeles. McLaurin travels regularly to Mexico.
Therefore, McLaurin and Morrow, although they possibly never met in person (and it was safer for
them that way), were business partners in more ways than one.
Their business partnership was largely dependant on their email relationship. That email
relationship shows that:
a. Lloyd had direct relationship with the McLaurin, Branch Manager - in the first place, an
unusual situation, when he did not even have a license as a broker to sign any loan
application.
b. Lloyd addresses McLaurin in the first person
c. Lloyd transfers to Maria documents as PDF scans-attachments to email, and they alternate
such with fax transmissions, a key feature in the fax/wire fraud on the financial institution, and
in Zernik’s claims on qui tam
d. Lloyd approaches Maria with a proposal that amounts to procurement of perjury on Nov 3,
2006, and McLaurin initially refuses, but eventually consents and becomes a major partner in
the fraudulent litigation of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) in the LASC West District under
Judges Jacqueline A Connor, John Segal, and Terry Friedman.
e. That email correspondence was known by the Legal Division of Countrywide, Headed by
Sandor Samuels. In contrast with phone communications and phone messages, which
under some circumstances have rights for privacy for employees against employer, email
communications and attachments performed on corporate employer computers have no such
protection. Nevertheless, the Legal Division of Countrywide was and is protective of
McLaurin’s email communications with Lloyd, which shows important evidence for Zernik’s
qui tam claims against Countrywide. The Legal Division of Countrywide actively engaged in
fraudulent concealment of such email correspondence between McLaurin and Lloyd, and
failed to provide it to Zernik in six (6) subpoena productions of documents that sought such
correspondence between August of 2006 and April of 2007.
f. According to McLaurin, in a phone conversation with Zernik in December 2007, the Legal
Division advised her that email correspondence was not subject to subpoeana. Therefore,
they jointly entered a fraudulent form titled “Correpondence Log, San Rafael Branch”,
empty, with no information in it, in lieu of any correspondence related to loan applications
sought by Zernik. According to Diane Frazier, former Senior Underwriter in San Rafael, such
forms were never used in San Rafael at least since 1989, the year she started working there.
Morrow was involved and was sued, probably both civil and criminal. Zernik could not get details of
that litigation (possibly expunged), but believes that figuring out the details of that litigation is key to
this whole story. Zernik believes that the litigation took place in part the West District of LASC, at
least after some point. Morrow was able to disqualify a judge claiming racial bias, and transfer or re-
assign the case, and in the process he managed to get a “good” attorney and at the end he came out
of the whole affair easy:
a. The funds were never retrieved, Morrow managed to move the funds outside the U.S. much
earlier, and is and was with minimal income and no assets at all in the U.S. Funds are said to
be in Spain, including real estate holdings.
b. Morrow probably served no time in jail
c. Morrow also avoided paying child support for 3 girls where he was somewhere between
$100,000 and $200,000 behind, even on the minimal support that he was required to pay.
d. Morrow ended up having to go under complete identity change if he wanted to continue his
employment in the financial area, and he became in 2003 Jae Arre Lloyd.
Most important – through this litigation, Lloyd got well-connected with certain elements in the LASC
West District.
Lloyd saw in Samaan more than a future wife, she was going to be also his business partner and his
cover for laundering the funds that he could never show in the U.S. At that time Lloyd was working
under the license of Victor Parks, a licensed California Mortgage Broker, who was operating
under the license of Pacific Mortgage Consultants, based in Larkspur, Northern California ,
adjacent to Countrywide Home Loans San Rafael Branch. During the boom years of the refinance
markets, PMC was advertising on the web, recruiting “loan originators” for “100% commission”.
There was no requirement for such persons to be licensed loan brokers or real estate sales persons.
Parks himself resided at the time in Washington State, but Lloyd was operating for him a loan
brokerage office in Los Angeles, without any license for a branch office, etc.
Victor Parks himself appeared well anchored in Los Angeles, although it appears that he chose to
live at a distance from Los Angeles in the last decade. Nivie Samaan claimed that he was first
cousin of Lloyd, but there is no evidence of that otherwise. Bernard Parks, former Chief off the
LAPD, shares the last name with Victor Parks, but denied any knowledge of the man.
Some months before their marriage in Hawaii in Sept 2004, Samaan also managed to pass first time
the California Real Estate license exams. That was a nice surprise, since her quantitative skills were
rather poor (she never went from high school to vocational school), and she appeared at difficulty
figuring out percentages, etc.
After their marriage, Lloyd started the Beverly Hill Lloyd Home Mortgage Center, based on
Samaan’s license and his skills.
But Lloyd also wanted to launder through Samaan some of his money and purchase real estate in
Beverly Hills.
In 2004 they noticed that the Zernik residence was for sale, at 320 South Peck Drive, down the street
from the modest apartment they lived in at that time. But the problem was that:
a. Lloyd had the money, but could not purchase the home for cash, since he could not show any
income or assets.
b. Samaan had no income or assets to show at that time
The solution was easy, with some help from Maria McLaurin and Countrywide Home Loans, or so it
appeared.
On Sept 7, 2004, Samaan submitted to Libow a pre-qualification letter, signed in the name of Victor
Parks, assuring the prequalification of Samaan for the purchase of the property at around $1.8
million. That letter was forgery, The signature on that letter does not even resemble the true Parks
signature on declarations he filed in court.
Zernik considers this one the Southern California-type Parks signature (compared to the northern
California-type Parks signature, see below), and he believes that Parks had general knowledge that
In parallel, Samaan wove some false information into letters and faxes that she sent to Libow – that
she owned stock accounts that she intended to liquidate for the purchase (later she admitted in
deposition never even owning stock accounts of anything in her life), that she as a realtor who closed
several deals a year (she later admitted in deposition that she never even assisted in any real estate
deal in her life at that time).
But when Zernik asked Beth Styne, Manager of Coldwell Banker Residential Borkerage, Beverly
Hills, South, a couple of years later, how allowed this to pass without checking any of Samaan’s
papers and qualifications, she said that she was impressed by the fact that Samaan, whenever she
saw her, was wearing extremely expensive real jewelry.
Therefore, by Sept 15, 2004, Zernik was fraudulently induced to sign a real estate contract. It was a
standard California Real Estate Purchase Agreement and Escrow Instructions form.
In Sept-Oct 2004 Samaan repeatedly defaulted on the contract: her deposit checks bounced NSF
twice, and by Oct 18, 2004 she would not remove the loan contingency, and did not have her loans
approved, with a Nov 1, 2004 escrow closing date. But she did not ask for an extension either.
Instead, in email and fax communications, Parks (or at least so Libow and Zernik believed), was
stringing them on along from day to day and from one week to the next.
By Oct 18, 2004, Zernik called Beth Styne, and she instructed him to immediately issue Notice to
Buyer to Perform. Zernik did so through Libow. Libow also tried to fax the notice to Parks, and was
using for that purpose a new digital fax machine, and on that day for the first time he figured out the
tip of the tale of the fax fraud. The number he dialed was the number in Washington State, but after
the high pitched tones, when transmission started, the number on the display was the number
identified as Nivie Samaan’s.
On Oct 18, 19, 20, 2004 Libow sent emails to Parks, asking for his explanation. Parks (or whoever
was answering in his name), answered the emails, but never answered the questions on the fax
fraud.
The loan applications were entirely fraudulent, claiming that Samaan was self employed, in a
corporation she owned, at $400,000 per year, in another document her income went up to
$4,000,000 per year.
In deposition, Samaan admitted that she never even talked with Parks about these applications, she
generated them with Lloyd alone.
Chapter 4 – Samaan and Lloyd were using Countrywide’s Fraudulent Infrastructure that is
the subject of the False Claims Act violations underlying the Sub-Prime Crisis
This system was entirely dependent on computer networks that were developed largely by
Countrywide, but also by PMC, in order to allow “Loan Originators” to file Mortgage applications
(1003) online, with minimum security precautions.
Therefore, when Samaan is asked in deposition who Lloyd and Parks work for, she states “the
network”, she does not know or does not attribute it to a specific corporation, instead, they are all
linked through computer networks.
The Wholesale Division branches of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, is the primary focus of Zernik’s
qui tam claims. Such wholesale branches are not open to the public, instead, mortgage applications
are communicated in by loan brokers only.
In situation like that, integrity of the underwriting process depended entirely on the loan broker
relative to all documents entering the wholesale branch. In turn, the integrity of the loan broker was
secured entirely by his signatures on:
a. Loan Applications (1003) and
b. form titled Broker’s and Borrower’s Certification of Documents
But as seen in the case of Samaan, none of the signatures of Parks, a licensed loan broker who was
authorized by Countrywide for direct loan applications, was his true signature. And in the complex
system of Countrywide’s underwriting, quality assurance, and verification of underwriting documents
in the Wholesale Branch there was no procedure for authentication of either:
a. Loan Broker’s signature
b. Borrower’s signature
Given that a government-backed loan for over $1.5 million was to be authorized, such procedure
appears strangely lax.
Beyond that - it is hard to imagine any serious verification/authentication procedure that could be
devised in that scenario. The traditional “wet” signature is entirely obsolete in the world of scans,
faxes, computer communications, and copy and paste programs on each and every laptop
computer. The time for digital signatures was long overdue in transactions of this type, pursuant to
the E-Sign Act of 2002.
By Oct 6, 2004 – Diane Frazier figured out that Samaan’s loan applications were entirely fraud, since
she figured out that the phone provided as the employer’s phone for Samaan was in fact her home
phone. In addition, Clues Countrywide’s computerized underwriter expert system detected other
signs on Samaan’s loan applications that were red flag for fraud – e.g., multiple residence addresses
in the previous 2 years, and discrepancies in employment data between the applications and credit
bureau/data base knowledge.
But McLaurin knew that it did not matter, since Lloyd had the cash, the loan applications were just a
way to launder Lloyd money and let him bring it back as equity in a home.
There was another strange feature to these applications – they basically came with no support
documentation – no contract, no appraisal etc. The reason was that Samaan entered in the real
estate contract a clause that is forbidden by Countrywide and other regulations – her fee as a realtor
representing herself, was to be counted as a major part of her down payment. Therefore, Samaan
could not show the Contract to the Underwriter.
In addition to the fraud in Samaan’s employment data, there was another strange feature in the
applications – they were based on 0 points or no fees at all to Countrywide, whereas, a loan such as
sought by Samaan required 0.75% in fees, amounting to over $10,000. Allowing the loans to be
funded with no fees amounted to fraud on Countrywide and its share holders.
But McLaurin supported the loan applications, while the underwriter demanded that they be fixed.
So on October 12, 2004 McLaurin scratched with black marker the stamps RECEIVED, ran the old
application a second time through the scanner, and placed on them a second RECEIVED stamp, this
time dated Oct 12, 2004.
But Frazier was stubborn, she issued an Oct 14, 2004 underwriting letter which suspended the loan
applications for 10 days, with demand for new loan applications with explanation for the
discrepancies. At the end of the 10 days, if conditions were not met – the applications were
supposed to be deemed dead.
But before the 10 days were over, Zernik canceled escrow on Oct 21, 2004. Zernik had no clue of
any of this, but realized that something was very wrong by the conduct of Samaan, and then by the
fax/wire fraud detected by Libow.
In retrospect:
- Samaan and Parks engaged in fraud on Zernik in 2004 by not disclosing any of these details
to him, instead, stringing him along, telling him and Libow that the applications would be
funded in a few days.
- Samaan and Parks and Countrywide and McLaurin engaged in fraudulent claims against
Zernik from 2005 to the present, by making false claims, blaming Zernik for the failure of
Samaan’s loan applications in 2004.
Chapter 6 – Frazier loses her job in the aftermath, but remains under Countrywide
Surveillance, and Zernik Gets a Death Threat upon Talking with her
Not long after the incident of Samaan’s loans, Frazier lost her job with Countrywide. In 2007, when
Zernik figured out that he was victim of fraud, he managed to find Frazier, against some odds.
And the Legal Division of Countrywide knew the details of this incident, as can be seen in their filings
on July 6, 2007 in Court.
But Frazier talked with Zernik of her own free will, like Maria McLaurin before her, and like Mariela
Garcia – Custodian of Records at Countrywide. From Countrywide’s perspective, the situation was
out of control. Typically – they would deal with attorneys, who would fast realize that it is a hopeless
situation and give up. But Zernik, not being a lawyer, was contacting unexpected people, and getting
them to disclose details that were never supposed to be disclosed. Countrywide needed to act more
aggressively to silence Zernik.
By Oct 25, 2005 Samaan filed claims, with Jay Stein as Counsel. Probably Lloyd told McLaurin about
it, but possibly the Legal Division of Countrywide was not aware and not consulted.
By Jan 30, 2006 first reliable records showing actions by Judge Connor include:
a. Fraudulent back-dated assignment order for Judge Connor - issued on Jan 30, 2006, back-
dated to Nov 1, 2005.
b. Fraudulent Register of Actions transactions in Sustain on Jan 30, 2006 related to:
i. Demurrer
ii. OSC re: POS
iii. Initial Status Conference
Such data are part of the core evidence for RICO against LASC.
Chapter 8 – Zernik was Slow to Figure it all out – but Uniquely Qualified
Zernik took some time to figure it all out. But strangely, once he got involved, Zernik believes that it
was a very unusual coincidence that brought him in contact with this material, although later he
learnt from the FBI that real estate fraud was an fast growing epidemic with an epicenter in Los
Angeles.
Zernik was somehow, without even knowing it, uniquely qualified to figure out such convoluted scam
(see biographical data at end).
By late Dec 2006 Zernik figured out that Countrywide’s subpoena production in Samaan v Zernik
was fraudulent in nature.
By Mid Jan 2007 Zernik appeared for the first time in the Court of Judge Connor.
By March-April 2007 Zernik for the first time realized that possibly Judge Connor was biased,
following a report of analysis he commissioned from a highly reputed law office, which came back
titled: Errors in Adjudication.
By March-April 2007 Zernik knew enough about Countrywide loan underwriting to conclude that
Samaan loan applications were extremely informative relative to the underlying causes of the sub-
prime crisis.
BY Jan –March 2008 Zernik got focused on Case Management Systems and Registers of Actions.
By May 2008 Zernik for the first time realized that he indeed had sufficient evidence for RICO against
the LASC West division.
Analysis of the transactions on the Register of Actions shows fraudulent data entry, meant to hide
the true transactions, and also comments indicating that Judge Connor held such proceedings “off
the record” – a concept that does not sit well with any notion of Due Process.
Chapter 10- The Scam at the LASC West District moves on, but nothing goes as planned
In the transcript of the Aug 30, 2007 Status conference, Judge Connor states to the effect that
nothing worked as anticipated, or typical in Samaan v Zernik:
a. By July 12, 2007 - Zernik served Connor with Disqualification for a cause.
Connor’s response, documented with the electronic file Minute Orders was in fact
issued July 23, 2007, or 11 days after she was served, and was back-dated to July 12,
2007. This is core data for racketeering. Connor should be deemed disqualified and
any action she did must be vacated.
b. By Aug 9, 2007 - Connor issued Summary Judgment for Specific Performance against
Zernik and for Samaan that was based on completely fraudulent finding of facts that
fail to even stand on their own, due to internal incoherence. Such facts were based on
fraudulent documents from Countrywide and fraudulent declarations by McLaurin.
c. By Aug 9, 2007 – Connor initiated the Judgment Fraud, an entirely separate set of scams
(see below), based on stating that she entered the judgment, issuing Minute Orders
saying that she entered Judgment, but never entering the judgment.
d. By Sept 10, 2007 - Zernik served Connor with disqualification for a cause for the second time.
Connor chose to step down this time around, but went one and entered on Sept 11,
Chapter 11- So what is the issue with the judgment and LASC Register of Actions?
The essence of the scam is that even today, May 30, 2007, almost a year after the summary
judgment was issued, it is still not entered as judgment, and it is supposed to be a secret.
Therefore, by law – since judgment was never entered - none of it could be executed. But Judges
Segal, Hart-Cole, Collins, and Friedman, acted in violation of the law, and engaged in taking of
property from Zernik, under pure threat of force, and fraudulently transferred the title to Samaan.
Moreover, they still keep Zernik’s equity in the home, originally more than $800,000 by the court with
no legal foundation at all. By not entering the judgment , these judges would still be able to modify it,
with the intention of robbing Zernik entirely of his equity.
In order to accomplish all of that, the pre-requisite is – secret records of litigation, and ambiguation of
the records, so that Zernik would not know if the judgment was entered or not. There are a number
of decisions of the California Supreme Court asking LA County to fix that system, and also decisions
of the Court of Appeal. The scam is an old one, going back to the early 1980’s, and Zernik suspects
that a much younger Judge Connor was standing by the crib of that scam.
At that time, the Judges of LASC decided to enter computers of a Case Management System called
Sustain. In the process, a decision was made to include in the system the Book of Judgments and
Register of Actions, and Indexes of All Cases, critical documents for the safeguard of the integrity of
court operations. Such drastic change required a thorough review and modification of the Rules of
Court. But none of that was done. Even today, more than 25 years later, the LASC Local Rules of
Court talk about Judgment being entered into the Book of Judgments. But for over 25 years there is
no book of Judgments.
Federal Law says (Rule-Making Enabling Act- 1934) that no court in the United States is allowed to
change rules of Court without having the rules written, and allowing reasonable period for public
comment and challenge.
The introduction of Sustain amounted to a huge change in Rules of Courts, but the new rules were
never written, never posted for public comment, and therefore, even today, are part mystery.
Moreover, as Supervising Judge Rosenberg explained to Zernik on several occasions, when
denying requests for due process: “Sustain Data are privileged – for the Court only”, an oral rule
of court that stands in defiance of the U.S. Code and the U.S. Constitution.
By hiding the judgments and not clarifying when judgments are entered, the judges of the LASC
brought us back to Medieval England.
Joseph Zernik
Facing eight years in prison for stealing a million dollars worth of cocaine from the
L.A.P.D. property room, L.A. police officer Rafael Perez, the man who triggered
the Rampart scandal, reached a plea agreement with prosecutors in late 1999. In
the deal, Perez would help uncover what he claimed was widespread police
misconduct in exchange for a five-year prison term and immunity from prosecution
for all charges short of murder.
Nearly 100 convictions have been overturned as a result of Perez's testimony. Most
of these cases involve arrests made by Perez; some involve wrongful convictions
identified by Perez and corroborated by investigators. The District Attorney's office
has filed 64 writs and attorneys representing defendants have filed 22 others that,
unopposed by the DA's office, have been granted by the Court.[1] Another 13
writs that have been granted involve juveniles. Meanwhile, defense attorneys
continue to review as many as 15,000 cases that may have involved misconduct by
police officers, particularly those implicated in wrongdoing by Perez. The Public
Defenders Office alone is examining more than 8000 cases.
With criminal convictions being overturned, civil suits against the L.A.P.D. and the
City of Los Angeles have followed. In its largest police misconduct settlement ever,
the City awarded $15 million to Javier Ovando last November. Twenty-nine other
defendants, represented by Gregory Yates, were awarded nearly $11 million in a
bulk-settlement. As of April, 2001, 142 Rampart cases had been filed against the
City. Two had been dismissed and 42 had been settled.[2] The L.A. City
Attorney's office has estimated that total Rampart-related settlement costs will be
$125 million.
Within the L.A.P.D., the Internal Affairs Division is responsible for investigating and
disciplining officer misconduct. Much like a military-style court martial, evidentiary
hearings, or Boards of Rights (BOR), are called to determine allegations of officer
wrongdoing. Officers are entitled to legal representation and cases are brought by
the Advocate's Office within IA. A panel of three judges (two police captains and
one civilian) determine guilt or innocence based on "the preponderance of evidence"
and penalties can range from termination to official reprimand. Of the approximately
70 officers implicated by Rafael Perez, 58 have become subject to BOR's
proceedings. An officer may face multiple boards; Perez's partner, Nino Durden, for
example, faced 32 Boards before resigning from the department. And some Boards
may involve multiple officers involved in a specific incident. To date, of the 52
Boards that have been held, 36, or 69% have resulted in findings of not guilty; 16,
or 31%, have resulted in findings of guilt. Twelve officers have received
suspensions, ranging from 7 to 30 days in length. Seven officers have resigned and 5
have been terminated.
pbs.org/wgbh/pages/…/outcome.html 2/5
The first criminal case brought against Rampart CRASH cops came to trial in
October, 2000. The charges against four officers, from perjury and false arrest to
conspiracy to obstruct justice, involved three separate arrests identified by Perez as
"bad." In two of the alleged incidents, the charges were either dismissed or the
officers were found not guilty. In the third arrest, the "Alley incident," three officers
were found guilty.
The "Alley Incident" took place on July 19, 1996. Members of the Temple Street
gang had gathered in an alley and among them was a murder suspect named
Anthony Adams, known on the street as "Stymie." Based on an informant's tip,
Rafael Perez called the Rampart CRASH unit together to assist in sweeping the
alley and apprehending "Stymie." As the officers arrived at the scene, the gang
members dispersed, and two, Raul Munoz and Cesar Natividad, sped down the
alley in a pickup truck, passing several officers, including Perez, before running the
pickup into a curb. According to police accounts at the time, the pickup struck two
officers, Michael Buchanan and Brian Liddy, as it traveled down the alley. Munoz
and Natividad were charged with "ADW on PO w/ GBI." In police parlance, that
translates into Assault with a Deadly Weapon (the pickup) on a Peace Officer with
Great Bodily Injury. Both defendants plead guilty. Munoz, who was driving the car
and carrying a gun, was sent to prison and then deported to El Salvador.
But later, while reviewing the Rampart CRASH arrest reports, Perez told Task
Force investigators that neither Buchanan nor Liddy were ever struck by the pickup.
"None of that actually occurred," Perez alleged. "That's what we decided to come
up with after they were all taken into custody, in order to arrest them."[3] The
convictions of Munoz and Natividad were overturned. Both have sued the City of
Los Angeles.
Though Perez did not testify when the case came to trial, the jury found three of the
defendants, Buchanan, Liddy and Sgt. Edward Ortiz, the supervising officer at the
scene, guilty of perjury, filing a false report and obstructing justice. The verdicts,
however, did not represent a consensus among jurors as to whether the officers had
fabricated the arrest, as originally alleged by Perez. In fact, the jurors were divided
on the question of whether or not Buchanon and Liddy had been struck by the
pickup. The jurors reached consensus, and ultimately findings of guilt, based on their
belief that the officers had exaggerated the extent of harm caused by the pickup by
filing an arrest report which included the phrase "GBI", or "Great Bodily Injury."[4]
The jury verdict surprised many, including apparently the trial judge. On December
22, 2000, Judge Jacqueline Connor overturned the jury verdict, arguing that the
pbs.org/wgbh/pages/…/outcome.html 3/5
Since then, the District Attorney has also filed criminal charges against three other
officers for allegedly assaulting gang members and filing false police reports. Two of
the charged officers have negotiated plea agreements, including cooperation with the
prosecutors. The third officer, Ethan Cohan, who previously had been terminated by
the department for a separate assault incident, has plead not guilty and is awaiting
trial.
Rafael Perez's partner, Nino Durden, has also reached a plea agreement with
prosecutors. Charged with the most serious offense, attempted murder for the
shooting of Javier Ovando, Durden has cut his deal with both the District Attorney's
Office and the U.S. Attorney's Office - a deal that will likely send Durden to prison
for 4-5 years and may extend the prison sentence of his former partner, Rafael
Perez. In a series of eight interviews, Durden has provided Federal prosecutors with
a story markedly different than that portrayed by Ray Perez. While Durden confirms
that he and Perez did indeed plant guns, fabricate evidence and provide false
testimony, sources close to the investigation say that Durden does not corroborate
Perez's larger claims of similar unit-wide misconduct. As for the shooting of Javier
Ovando, Durden says that it was Perez, not himself, that planted the gun on Ovando
and masterminded the coverup.[5]
After serving three years of his five-year sentence, Rafael Perez was released from
prison and placed on parole on June 24, 2001. In December 2001, he pled guilty to
federal civil rights and firearms violations resulting from the shooting of Javier
Ovando. He admitted to one count of conspiracy to violate Ovando's civil rights,
and one count of possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number. He is
scheduled for sentencing on these counts in March 2002.
[1]
[2] "Rampart Current Status Chart," L.A. City Attorney's Office, April 24, 2001.
[5] Plea Agreement for Defendant Nino Floyd Durden, U.S. District Court for
Central District of California, March 29, 2001.
hom e · ram part scandal · "bad cops" · race & policing · a fte rm ath · conne cting the dots
pbs.org/wgbh/pages/…/outcome.html 4/5
pbs.org/wgbh/pages/…/outcome.html 5/5
In March 1997, long before the Rampart scandal unfolded, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge
Jacqueline A. Connor praised its central figure, corrupt-cop-turned-informant Rafael Perez, for his
“clear” and “professional” testimony during a kidnapping trial in her courtroom.
Perez was, Connor wrote in a letter of commendation, an example of “the best that law enforcement
offers its community.”
Three years later, after Perez’s confessions unleashed a police corruption investigation that continues
to turn Los Angeles’ criminal justice system upside down, Connor seemed to have forgotten
her glowing words. The disgraced cop she once had hailed as a hero was persona non grata in
her courtroom.
At least that was the impression Connor left with some of the 300 lawyers who attended a June 1
awards dinner sponsored by the Century City Bar Assn. Also honored that night was Winston Keith
McKesson, the lawyer who brokered the plea bargain that cast Perez at the center of a legal storm that
brought approximately 70 Los Angeles Police Department officers under investigation, while more than
100 tainted criminal convictions were overturned.
“I don’t know Mr. McKesson, but I don’t want to know him [pause, chuckle] until he gets some other
clients than Officer Perez,” Connor said as she accepted her award. She laughed again and continued,
“You can bring your other clients in my court, but please stay away on that one.”
Welcome or not, Perez indeed seems headed to Connor’s courtroom once again as a major
prosecution witness. He’s expected to testify against four Rampart officers accused of framing gang
members by planting evidence and lying in police reports and in court.
They are charged with scheming to obstruct or pervert justice. Jury selection in the case continues
this week.
It’s the first criminal case arising from the Rampart scandal, and legal analysts say that if the district
attorney’s office doesn’t obtain convictions, it’s unlikely that future prosecutions will follow.
No one is accusing the judge, a Gov. George Deukmejian appointee, of any ethical breaches. She
spoke long before she was assigned the politically charged case.
But, given that she recently has made some controversial rulings, some lawyers now question whether
Connor’s words betrayed a pro-police bias–or at least gave the appearance of one. They also
question whether Connor should have disqualified herself.
“Given her statements, I don’t think she should have accepted the case,” McKesson said. “I think it can
open some of her rulings up to question.”
“There’s no need for her to recuse herself,” said Victor E. Chavez, presiding judge of the Los Angeles
County Superior Court. He has confidence in Connor’s ability to remain fair and impartial. He
characterized her as “a progressive judge … one of our finest.”
As for Connor, she’s not talking. Saying anything about the case she’s now trying would be an
ethical breach.
Connor, a graduate of the USC Law Center and a former prosecutor, spent two years on the Municipal
Court before her Superior Court appointment in 1988. She is a member of the court’s
executive committee, and is a strong advocate of reforms to make jury service more rewarding.
She is married to Superior Court Judge James A. Bascue, who takes over in January as
presiding judge.
Legal commentator Laurie Levenson, an associate dean at Loyola Law School, said that because
neither the prosecution nor the defense in the Rampart case challenged her, it was Connor’s call to
recuse herself if she felt uncomfortable about the letter she wrote and the comments she made at the
bar dinner.
“She actually had an easy escape out of this case,” Levenson added. “Given the headaches this case
will cause her, she could have taken the easy way out.”
As for the controversy over Connor’s comments and rulings, Chavez said judges on high-profile cases
have come to expect second-guessing.
“You make one temporary friend and one permanent enemy every time you rule,” Chavez said. In
defending Connor, he used the word “diligent” four times. “She’s a very proper person,” he added.
Connor had no comment on the Perez letter. And, she said through a court spokeswoman that she was
joking at the bar dinner. It was an offhand remark said in jest, she explained.
While the district attorney’s office is not commenting, McKesson and other criminal defense lawyers
say that prosecutors made a crucial tactical error by not exercising their legal right to
challenge Connor’s appointment.
That would have allowed them to seek another judge to preside over the trial of Rampart Sgts. Edward
Ortiz and Brian Liddy and officers Paul Harper and Michael Buchanan.
“She clearly feels betrayed by Rafael Perez,” said attorney Mark J. Geragos, speaking as a neutral
observer. “The D.A. made a huge mistake keeping her on the case, thinking she was pro-
prosecution. She’s pro-cop.”
She long has had a reputation as a tough judge. Some criminal defense lawyers have griped for years
that Connor favored prosecutors.
But in recent weeks, Connor has stunned prosecutors with several rulings. Two delivered serious blows
to their case: Connor ruled that jurors can hear about five polygraph tests that Perez failed. And, she
excluded the testimony of about two dozen witnesses.
Most important among them were five women with clean records who prosecutors had hoped would
corroborate details of Perez’s story about a 1996 gun planting.
“I just think those rulings were not geared toward getting at the truth,” said Gregory W. Moreno, the civil
attorney for Javier Ovando, a man Perez says he and his partner shot, paralyzed and framed.
“I was really disappointed that she ruled to exclude key witnesses. I think those two rulings are
troublesome to a fair prosecution of this case.”
Connor excluded the witnesses because information about them had been handed over to the defense
too late. Several criminal defense attorneys said other judges have resorted to less severe sanctions.
Meanwhile, the defense lawyers for the four Rampart officers were ecstatic at the ruling. They had
refused to challenge Connor, even though they knew about the glowing letter she had written for
their clients’ chief accuser.
They think she’s been fair. “We’re shocked at getting a fair judge,” said attorney Harland W. Braun, who
represents Buchanan.
Connor also has embraced an experimental program designed to make the courts more user-friendly
for jurors. Levenson said such experiments are routine in courts in other parts of the country. “It did not
shock me,” Levenson said.
And so, as she had done often in the past, Connor allowed lawyers to give “mini opening statements”
during jury selection. Defense lawyers seized the opportunity to blast Perez as a corrupt, lying “police
monster” who may have committed three murders.
Chavez said it would have been even more inappropriate for Connor to suspend her usual practices
during a high-profile, politically charged police corruption trial. And for years, he said, she has
written letters commending witnesses and public lawyers who perform well in her courtroom. “It’s her
M.O.,” he explained.
McKesson, Perez’s lawyer, said Connor’s handling of the case “would not be as troubling if she had not
made those comments.”
“Would she take them back? Probably,” Levenson said. “Did they mean very much? Probably not.”
Levenson believes that “the defense has the bigger gripe,” with the letter of commendation. And the
defense isn’t griping.
“Any judge who got this case would be put under a microscope,” Levenson added.
Chavez said he thinks Connor is doing fine. “I think she deserves a pat on the back rather than a rap
on the knuckles,” he said.
Times staff writers Scott Glover and Matt Lait contributed to this story.
Related Articles
z Perez a ‘Police Monster,’ Prospective Jurors Told Oct 05, 2000
z Diverse Jury Is Selected for First Rampart Case Trial Oct 11, 2000
z Rampart Trial Judge Not New to Spotlight Nov 17, 2000
z Carona defense wants trial moved, citing radio show Apr 05, 2008
z Jury is picked in bribe trial of ex-senator Apr 10, 2007
California and the world. Get the Times from $1.35 a week
In the first case to go to trial in a major police corruption scandal here, three of four officers
charged with framing gang members and planting evidence were convicted today in State
Superior Court.
The guilty verdicts, on charges that included conspiracy to obstruct justice and filing false police
reports, were regarded as a resounding success for the embattled district attorney's office.
In fact, the district attorney, Gil Garcetti, was defeated last week in a bid for re-election in large
part because of a perception that he had mishandled the cases.
The verdict was also a surprise since prosecutors had lost a string of crucial rulings that had
gutted part of their case and prohibited them from introducing important evidence. Defense
lawyers had excoriated the prosecutors openly -- at one point, one lawyer, Harland W. Braun,
called them ''pond scum.''
''If they had come back with a not guilty verdict, I would have been disappointed, but I would not
have been shocked,'' Mr. Garcetti said. ''We faced enormous obstacles both in and out of the
courtroom: the police union, the culture of the L.A.P.D., the code of silence that is prevalent in the
police department.''
In addition, the government's informant, Rafael Perez, an admittedly corrupt officer whose
accusations that officers routinely lied and framed suspects set off the scandal a year ago, was
never put on the witness stand after a former lover first said he had killed some drug dealers,
then recanted her stories. Mr. Perez told prosecutors that before he would testify, he wanted
immunity for all crimes that he had committed as a police officer, which the government refused
to do.
Several people said the verdicts appeared to demonstrate how badly the scandal has undermined
the credibility of the Police Department. If there was a hint as to why the jurors brought in guilty
verdicts, it was evident from some of their questions about the code of silence among the police
and, specifically, about why the memories of the defendants were so much sharper than the
recollections of the officers who testified.
''I was absolutely shocked,'' said Barry Levin, the lawyer for Sgt. Edward Ortiz, who was convicted
of conspiracy and of filing a false police report. ''The jury had to imagine a conspiracy.''
Mr. Braun, who represented Officer Michael Buchanan, said he interviewed some jurors after the
verdict and believed they had been swayed more by a fear that they would be criticized if they did
not convict the officers than by the evidence.
''I think there is a new kind of juror concerned about public opinion,'' Mr. Braun said, ''and that is
a dangerous thing.''
Both lawyers said they would ask for a new trial and, failing that, would appeal.
''That jury believed a lifelong gang member over an officer who spent three years in the Marines
and had a solid record on the police department,'' Mr. Levin said. ''When all of a sudden your
whole life accounts for nothing, there's no way to defend against that.''
The convictions also underscored the depth of the corruption and mismanagement of one of the
country's largest police departments. The city recently agreed to a humiliating federal consent
decree, under which a Federal District Court judge will have the power to oversee changes.
In addition, a commission is scheduled to deliver on Thursday a report that is expected to call for
stronger civilian oversight and for numerous changes in the way the department is managed.
The police chief, Bernard C. Parks, and his principal ally, Mayor Richard J. Riordan, have resisted
some of the efforts, and only reluctantly agreed to the consent decree. Mayor Riordan offered a
partisan shot in response to today's verdicts, repeating Chief Park's assertions that the police
deserve credit for exposing the corruption rather than criticism for permitting what appears to
have been a culture of corruption to flourish.
''The judgment today validates what Chief Parks and the police department disclosed and revealed
in their own internal investigation,'' Mr. Riordan said. ''They were the ones who brought these
allegations to light.''
Other officials said the verdicts indicated that the government had still not gotten to the bottom of
the corruption. Mr. Garcetti said it was unclear how many, if any, other officers might be indicted.
Gerald Chaleff, the president of the police commission, said: ''It's too early to tell what the real
impact will be. We still have much to learn.''
In today's verdicts, Sergeant Ortiz, Sgt. Brian Liddy and Officer Buchanan were found guilty of
conspiracy to obstruct justice. In addition, Sergeants Liddy and Ortiz were convicted of filing a
false report. A fourth officer, Paul Harper, was found not guilty on all charges.
The officers were members of the Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums, or Crash, unit
of an inner-city police station, the Rampart Division. The unit was created to use aggressive
tactics against street gangs, but Mr. Perez has told investigators that it degenerated into a law
unto itself, which ruled the streets just west of downtown.
Mr. Perez agreed to cooperate after he was arrested on charges that he had stolen about $1
million in cocaine from a police locker, and he incriminated dozens of officers for being, as he put
it, ''in the loop.'' He told of how he had shot an innocent suspect, then planted a gun on him, of
how officers stole drugs from dealers and of how they fabricated evidence and lied in court.
The district attorney's office has dismissed charges in about 100 criminal cases because of the
corruption cases. The city attorney has estimated that the civil suits stemming from these
wrongful convictions are likely to cost the city more than $100 million.
The recent trial focused on three instances where the police were accused of framing gang
members.
In one instance, prosecutors said, the police planted a gun on a gang member and rubbed the
weapon against his hands to create fingerprints and justify an arrest. In another instance, officers
were found to have lied when they filed reports claiming that several gang members tried to run
them down with a truck.
The third instance involved an officer testifying about an arrest that he claimed to have witnessed,
but which took place when he was actually on vacation.
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Back to Top
News
You are here: LAT Home > Articles > 2000 > December > 23 > News
In an unusual move, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge on Friday threw out the convictions of three
Los Angeles police officers accused of framing gang members and granted them new trials.
The convictions were the first obtained by prosecutors in the sweeping yearlong city police
corruption scandal.
In tossing them out, the trial judge, Jacqueline Connor, cited insufficient evidence and juror errors.
Sgts. Edward Ortiz and Brian Liddy and Officer Michael Buchanan were found guilty Nov. 15 of
conspiring to frame gang members. They were the first officers prosecuted in an ongoing probe into
corruption in the LAPD’s Rampart Division.
“We’re all amazed when the system works,” said lawyer Harland Braun, who represents Buchanan.
“This was a mistaken verdict and it was a miscarriage of justice. I’m glad it was overturned
by Christmas.”
He added that he had not yet read the lengthy decision, which he received word of late Friday night.
“The judge’s ruling was absolutely correct and just,” said Barry Levin, attorney for Ortiz. “Given the
emotion and controversy surrounding this case, her decision was courageous.” Attorney Winston
Kevin McKesson, who represents ex-cop-turned-informant Rafael Perez, said he was disappointed by
the ruling.
“However, it’s really not surprising when you consider that what was at issue in this case went to the
very heart of the criminal justice system,” McKesson said. “I think it is very difficult for this judge, who
has spent the vast majority of her adult life in that system, to allow a jury decision that questions the
system to stand. I think she felt threatened by the jury’s verdict.”
Connor issued the opinion before leaving town for a week’s vacation.
The lengthy decision came after five weeks of filings and hearings in which defense attorneys sought
to undo the historic verdict.
The officers were convicted of conspiracy for making up a story that they were hit in 1996 by a truck
driven by gang members.
The Rampart scandal has resulted in the suspension of dozens of officers and the overturning of
about 100 tainted cases. So far, only five officers, including Liddy, Buchanan and Ortiz, have
articles.latimes.com/2000/…/mn-3971 1/3
One officer, Paul Harper, was acquitted. A fifth, Nino Durden, is awaiting trial.
Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley could not be reached for comment late Friday. But his spokeswoman, Sandi
Gibbons, said prosecutors had not yet been formally informed of the judge’s ruling.
“If indeed the news reports are true, we are very, very disappointed,” Gibbons said.
She said prosecutors would need to carefully study Connor’s ruling before deciding whether to refile
a case against any or all of the officers.
Former Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti, who oversaw the prosecution of the officers before being voted out of
office last month, said it was “extremely disappointing to hear what she’s done.”
Garcetti said he was “not entirely surprised” by the judge’s ruling, “but I’ll reserve comment
beyond that.”
The verdicts quickly came under question by the defense. The first problem involved allegations of
juror misconduct. An alternate claimed that on the first day of trial the foreman told her and
another alternate that the defendants were guilty.
The foreman and the second alternate have testified that they don’t remember any such comment.
And, the jury convicted the officers after agreeing that the three had not suffered great bodily injury.
But the officers never claimed they suffered great bodily injury–a computer-generated police
report, relied on during deliberations, incorrectly exaggerated the severity of injuries the officers said
they received.
Defense attorneys have affidavits from five jurors attesting that they were confused by the report.
The jurors said they could not agree on whether the officers were struck by gang members in the
alley, as the officers claimed.
“The jurors did not simply misunderstand great bodily injury,” Connor wrote in her decision. “In fact,
the evidence suggests that they understood … however, the definition of great bodily injury and its
existence or nonexistence was never part of the dispute in trial… . Whether they exaggerated their
injuries or lied about the extent of these injuries was never charged in any overt act, any allegation,
or any of the counts,” Connor ruled.
The judge was sharply critical of the D.A.’s handling of the case and cited media reports as
contributing to an incorrect verdict.
“This court cannot and should not consider the political ramifications of future lawsuits or future
prosecutions,” Connor added. “The defense in this case has presented compelling arguments to
support their argument that the defendants did not receive a fair trial.”
In her concluding paragraph, the judge said, “While the court cannot and will not presume to guess
whether a correction of the errors would result in any different verdict, it most certainly concludes
that the verdict in this case cannot stand.”
*
articles.latimes.com/2000/…/mn-3971 2/3
Times staff writers Matt Lait and Scott Glover contributed to this story.
Related Articles
Jurors Split on Reversal of Rampart Case Dec 25, 2000
The Judge’s Decision Dec 24, 2000
Parks Vows to Seek New Convictions of Rampart Officers Dec 24, 2000
Jurors Were Confused by Police Lingo, Lawyer Says Dec 24, 2000
Judges Rarely Admit Error, Experts Say Dec 24, 2000
California and the world. Get the Times from $1.35 a week
articles.latimes.com/2000/…/mn-3971 3/3
News
You are here: LAT Home > Articles > 2000 > December > 24 > News
Excerpts from ruling of Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Jacqueline Connor
Explanation of relevant
section of law:
Penal Code 1181 provides a number of grounds for consideration, the relevant sections being
as follows:
1181.3 Any misconduct by which a fair and due consideration of the case has been prevented;
1181.5 Whether the court has misdirected the jury in a matter of law or has erred in the discussion of
any question of law arising during the trial, or any prejudicial misconduct by the prosecution;
1181.6 and .7 The sufficiency of the evidence, whether the verdicts are contrary to the law or
the evidence.
Grounds for
overturning verdict:
In this case, the alleged impropriety is the improper reliance by the jury on an issue never proffered
by the prosecution nor articulated as a theory underlying the charges of conspiracy, false reports
or perjury.
The failure to decide whether or not there was an accident is fatal to the conviction of Mr. Buchanan
under these counts alleging perjury.
Misconduct, whether simply inadvertent, misguided or deliberate, still deprives defendants of their
right to a fair trial.
Penal Code section 1181.5 permits the granting of a new trial when the court has misdirected the jury
in a matter of law, or has erred in the decision of any question of law arising during the courts of the
trial or whether the prosecution has engaged in prejudicial misconduct.
Evidence available to the court suggests that in fact the jurors were misdirected in the law, that the
law was misapplied and that the misapplication resulted in the denial of a fair trial on the merits.
Admissibility
articles.latimes.com/2000/…/mn-4281 1/3
of affidavits:
The people correctly argue that statements made, conduct, condition or events can be considered
but evidence of the mental processes of the jurors is strictly forbidden. However, this restriction
does not, contrary to the prosecution’s argument, prohibit advocates from “piercing the veil”
of deliberations.
The key consideration in determining whether affidavits or other evidence of juror misconduct are
admissible relate to the corroborative nature of the evidence, whether the statements or evidence
are open to corroboration by sight, hearing or the other senses.
Where there are objectively verifiable portions of the statements, it is only logical that the court may
consider them while disregarding the inadmissible portions … the court is allowed to take
the declarations into consideration as a whole in order to determine whether or not jury
misconduct occurred.
The argument offered by the prosecution that they did not seek any affidavits because this would be
improper in some way is not compelling. The state of the evidence therefore leaves the
statements undisputed.
The jurors did not agree that there was or was not an accident. Why they reached this conclusion
one way or another deals with impermissible mental processes. The fact that they did not reach an
agreement is admissible.
Significance of
The trial record consistently shows that this first scenario, that no officer was hit, was the only theory
pursued by the prosecution throughout the trial.
The defense and the jury were presented with a single theory which the prosecution now claims
could have arisen from any number of different acts… . It was not contemplated by any of the parties
nor the court that there was more than one act upon which the people were relying.
The court is aware, as is any neophyte to the criminal justice system, that we have our own language
that must be learned and learned well by any practitioners… .
Certainly had the court been aware that the jury assumed there was such a charge as great bodily
injury, the rulings as well as the instructions would have been different.
The court does not suggest that the people deliberately exploited the misstatement or deliberately
deceived the jury into believing that there is such a crime as a “GBI charge” or “ADW with GBI.”
However, the fact remains that the shorthand referrals that are accepted on a daily basis in police
stations, on police reports, in district attorney offices and defense attorney offices were not corrected
in their presentation to an uninformed lay jury. The misconduct by the jury in proceeding on the
improper basis that there was such a crime is not at all unreasonable in light of the circumstances
presented to them… .
Conclusions:
The court does conclude that there was jury misconduct, though unintentional, misguided and
inadvertent, in the consideration of improper facts.
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
i l ti th f i f th
articles.latimes.com/2000/…/mn-4281 di i thi t dd t i i h th j ti d 2/3
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.
While the court cannot and will not presume to guess whether a correction of the errors would result
in any different verdict, it most certainly concludes that the verdicts in this case cannot stand.
Related Articles
Jurors Split on Reversal of Rampart Case Dec 25, 2000
Rampart Verdicts Voided Dec 23, 2000
Parks Vows to Seek New Convictions of Rampart Officers Dec 24, 2000
Jurors Were Confused by Police Lingo, Lawyer Says Dec 24, 2000
Judges Rarely Admit Error, Experts Say Dec 24, 2000
California and the world. Get the Times from $1.35 a week
articles.latimes.com/2000/…/mn-4281 3/3